X-Message-Number: 1582 From: (Thomas Donaldson) Subject: Re: cryonics: #1566 - #1571 Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 20:49:12 PST Hi! This is the issue of "immortality" again, with a brief look at neurosuspension. As people who have paid attention to my opinions know, I think we should be frank about immortality and also frank and open about neurosuspension --- including with the Dreaded Media. Why? Because fundamentally we ARE seeking immortality and we DO engage in neuropreservation. Let's look at Charles' substitute for what we should say when the "immortality" question comes up: "Oh no, we're not trying for immortality, we just want to live as long as we can". Just what is the real difference between these two goals? Since there is no future time at which it is impossible to live on in some form, living as long as possible (as an aim) looks awfully close to aiming for immortality (unless, of course, we make some cosmological assumptions as yet totally unproven). And again, just what will be the result if we aim for immortality? Why, we will live as long as possible. It's not even true that immortality itself is necessarily impossible. An arithmetical exercise will show that IF we continually decrease the deathrate, then some percentage of people will actually live forever (though I know no way to find out whether or not I will be among their number). And if we decrease the deathrate fast enough, then that percentage increases. Certainly in PRACTICAL terms, given the fact that we live in a universe which over almost all its volume is hostile to us, we may not ATTAIN that immortality. But we were talking about aims, not results. And we can hardly live as long as possible without continually striving to live. The issue of neuropreservation involves another attempt to paper over a real difference. If many people are alienated from cryonics because of the fact that we cut off people's heads, then we can hardly deal with that problem by trying to ignore it. And if someone asks us about it, we can hardly refuse to answer: how are they going to react to such a refusal? Decide that we're believable and trustworthy? Nope. We've simply got to state it, even before they ask, and then come straight out and explain why and how we do neuropreservation. After all, in rational terms, it's a LOT cheaper (the good side of it). It's also actually SAFER (given the expense of storing a whole body). The aim of medicine SHOULD BE immortality, for everyone. And in pursuit of that goal, we should not limit ourselves only to methods acceptable to all. D Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1582