X-Message-Number: 15585 From: "George Smith" <> References: <> Subject: Just three more quick points to consider. Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:50:04 -0800 (1) Paul Wakfer seems to think that my suggestion to be courageous implies one is already a coward, and if I ask someone to think clearly this implies an insult to their "character". But one can be encouraged to be courageous while they are not behaving in any way in particular. Maybe they're just sitting on their hands doing nothing at all. It is a suggestion to take action even if it requires being willing to "be wrong". Nothing more. Additionally, asking someone to please think clearly does not mean they CAN'T or DON'T do so on other issues. It is a suggestion to apply clear thinking ONCE AGAIN and assumes they CAN do it. It is not insulting at all. In fact it actually offers an implied compliment (I think you ARE capable of thinking clearly and are NOT a moron). In a nutshell, Paul, if not eating enough calories as part of your life extension efforts is making you grumpy and causing you to jump to defensive conclusions, live a little and enjoy yourself. Relax. Have a hamburger. (2) Jeff Grimes correctly noted that my argument (for choosing to sign up for cryonics now since it is relatively inexpensive and offers the POSSIBILITY of survival as opposed to the certainty of physical death) could be applied to theological arguments for accepting spiritual salvation through most Christian dogma. ("Accept Christ as your personal savior because you can't prove that doing this won't work, it's quick and easy to do so, and if you don't and are wrong you will go to hell forever"). Actually I off hand forget the theologian in centuries past who first popularized this argument (I believe it followed the Reformation) but the same argument has also been applied to Islamic dogma, so this is not an exclusively Christian issue at all. I have rejected ONLY such religious arguments which required demanding I reject all other such dogmas for this one to be accepted. After all this would again imply I KNEW who was absolutely right or wrong regarding a future that remains unknown. All such religious offers that do not demand exclusive acceptance I HAVE accepted. I see no difference in thinking regarding the choice of physical survival through cryonics. Current cryonics now available does not demand you reject other methods for either physical (or even spiritual) survival. It does, in my opinion, require accepting the possibility that current cryonics methods MIGHT work and that in turn requires a willingness to not pretend that you already know that current methods CAN'T work. And since no one CAN know now what CAN'T work later in this regard, the argument seems to make a great deal of sense to me. If it is insulting to imply that this is simple to understand, well I just don't think it is insulting at all. I just see it as being simple to understand. Period. (3) Paul was right that there have been some folks (I do not know the percentages) who have not been signed up for cryonics and who, in last minute rushes at or following their deaths, have managed to get into suspension after all. I also don't know how many folks waited too long and FAILED to get suspended as a consequence. But why put your surviving relatives through that kind of emergency experience when you obviously wanted suspension in the first place? Why risk your life needlessly when you do drive cars, ride airplanes, etc., by NOT being prepared with the back up option of cryonics in place? I mean if you KNEW it would work, and you have publicly stated you WOULD do it if no other option were available, why depend on luck alone? Why assume that everything in your particular situation will follow the statistical norm? In all this I'm just advocating the Boy Scout motto of "Be Prepared". That's how I see it. George Smith CI member Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15585