X-Message-Number: 15356
From: 
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:59:06 EST
Subject: Fahy ethics

Three things should be made perfectly clear about Fahy's continuing decision 
to remain (partly) in the closet concerning his cryonics connections.

1. He is under no moral or ethical obligation to come out of the closet.

In partial analogy, if someone (you or I) has a relatively comfortable 
living, we are still under no moral or ethical obligation to increase our 
charitable donations, even though that might save a dying child in Africa. 
(Some will disagree, of course, but this is the standard position.)

2. Other people (you or I) are under no moral or ethical obligation to 
respect Fahy's desire to remain in the closet. 

Lives are at stake. It seems likely that, if even one high-profile 
cryobiologist had come out strongly and publicly in favor of cryonics, the 
cryonics movement could have made considerably more progress in years past, 
saving lives.

3. As usual, there are speculative elements that blur the picture. 
Conceivably, one might argue that staying in the closet helps his career, 
helping his career improves the chance of earlier advances in cryobiology, 
and this in turn in the long run helps cryonics. 

That particular speculation is very thin, in my opinion. Fahy's career in 
cryobiology has been solid, but not spectacular. The 1998 21CM work with 
glycol ethers was not due to Fahy. 

And I repeat: That closet door has been partly open, for anyone who cared to 
look, and especially Meryman and his clique, for many years.

My conclusion is that further exposure is unlikely to produce substantial 
damage to him, while full-fledged public endorsement of cryonics on his part 
might yield significant gains for everyone and save many lives.

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society
http://www.cryonics.org

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15356