X-Message-Number: 11470 From: "Scott Badger" <> References: <> Subject: Leon Dean's Questions Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 10:19:22 -0600 Leon Dean writes: [snip] >Then, if the cyronics dream comes true, a person will be successfully revived. >What will happen to the general population when this happens? We all know that religion >is really all about fear of death. With death not an option all these religions will crumble >and people will not want to die any more, they will want to be frozen and then become >immortal. So instead of a few people being frozen each year, millions will be frozen each >year." First, it is *highly* doubtful that religion is *all* about death anxiety. Though I suspect that is part of the persuasive appeal, there are several other reasons why religion has been a part of human social systems for so long. Consequently, it is *highly* doubtful that religious systems of belief will all crumble when aging is conquered. You also wrongly assume (IMO) that death will no longer exist for anyone. (see below) >When the technology comes along that will enable these people to be revived and >become immortal, we will have millions of normal low intelligence shopkeepers, >thieves, ?muggers, killers, taxi-drivers etc, and we would have them for ever. I'm a bit dismayed to see you lump together shop-keepers, taxi-drivers, and criminals and then charaterize them all as having low intelligence. Even if this were true, what makes you think that they won't learn and grow and develop as time passes? I don't completely andorse Maslow's theories, but I pretty much accept his suggestion that people are eventually inclined to seek higher states of being if they've satisfied lower level needs and they have the means to do so. >How could we punish a killer? What's 25 years to an immortal? Should we kill them? >Would the people who read this what to deny someone something that we want so badly, >life. So what would we do? What's 25 years to an Immortal? Well, it's still 25 years of subjective time. It's not going to go by any faster just because you live longer. But would we sentence anyone to life imprisonment? Hmmm. >We would have a static population. No one would be born and no one would die. I am a >great believer of humanity and have faith in what we could become, but at the moment we >suck! We wage war, we kill each other - thousands of times each day. We rape people, >we steal, we waste the vast majority of our lives on drinking and fighting, talking about >sport and sleeping. We annihilate hundreds of other species and are doing out best to >destroy the very planet we are on. As a species we are evil....................at the moment. I don't believe the population will become static. A percentage of the population will die by accident and be irretrievable. Another percentage of the population will choose to die. They may believe it the *natural* thing to do (some religions may form or adapt to promote this view), or they may simply tire or life, or they may believe that the afterlife offers them greater growth potential than life on Earth. Besides, we will almost certainly find a way to expand into space and explore and populate the galaxy. It's too dangerous for all of us to be here on one planet. The species is too vulnerable. And as for your conclusion that we are an evil species. . . C'mon, humans do naughty things, they do nice things, they waste time, they work hard, they're clumsy, they're graceful, they stumble, they get up, they move on. Yes we're making mistakes. We'll make many more. That's how we learn. Did you imagine that there weren't supposed to be any mistakes? >I sure many of you read science-fiction. The stories of us evolving into something >greater than what we are, of turning into beings that are the essence of humanity, its >creativity, its wonder, but this will be impossible if we all live forever. We could be a static >population of imbeciles, tearing ourselves apart, dreaming of what we could have >become. Boy, you have a dark vision. You seem to be infected with a popular meme: "The cycle of birth and death is the source of human progress". This is forgivable. We see humans in their early years as idealistic, creative, and energetic - learning and contributing so much - - - then they grow old and seem to be less idealistic, creative, and energetic, and often contribute less (with notable exceptions such as Robert Ettinger). But what would happen if we remained young, and our bodies were strong and healthy? What would happen if you could continually build upon the knowledge and the skills you've developed instead of passing on just a small percentage of your knowledge to the next generation before you die? Wouldn't we proress even faster? I strongly suspect that the relationship between human progress and the cycle of birth and death may be best described currently as correlative but not causal. This correlation will fade once aging is conquered. >Of course, after writing all of this, I will probably be frozen. as I am scared of death. There really are lots of other reasons to sign up. Seek them out. Then, as R. Ettinger would say, "Choose life!". Best regards, Scott Badger Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=11470