X-Message-Number: 16129 Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 19:26:04 +0000 () From: Louis Epstein <> Subject: Replies to CryoNet #16116-#16124 On 25 Apr 2001, CryoNet wrote: > Message #16116 > From: "John de Rivaz" <> > Subject: Best wishes to the new organisation Kryos > Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 11:43:04 +0100 > > Of course I join with everyone else in wishing all the best to the new > organisation Kryos. However I have this concern: > > If a cryonics patient is reanimated by non-nano technology, as is suggested > by the Kryos links posted so far, what would his expectation of life be > then? Maybe he will have no money, the same health as say a 60 year old > today and no prospect of re-employment or paying for any more advanced > medical treatment once he has been rehabilitated. In terms of maximising > lifespan, early reanimation may be a disaster. I think it's important not to make cryonics a slave to nanotech. If people can be reanimated,the quality of life is better than as a block of ice!And surely the medicine of the time in which they are reanimated will be able to keep them going as further improvements arrive...and a responsible cryonics organization will see that they are not penniless advertisements for its thoughtlessness. > Previously the "no money no job" objection could be defeated by the comment > that with nano or similar sourced indefinite lifespan someone could even > work as what will be regarded as labourer-level for decades and use compound > interest to save a little and eventually afford re-education and better > employment. Assuming that employment is needed for support in such societies. > A positive for Kryos is that if a reanimation could be achieved in 20 to > 30 years, it would be the death-knell for any legislation that hinders any > cryopreservation. If everyone wanted to be cryopreserved, there would be no > more autopsies. They would be seen in law, as well as reality, as murder. But how can we determine causes of death when they need determining? Until death is defeated,we need autopsies in certain cases. I dare say that debates on these issues will point up the fact that the Right-To-Die/Death-With-Dignity camp are the natural enemies, not allies,of immortalism...mortalism is their very cornerstone, they reject the notion of clinging to life at all costs. They are more naturally allied to the cardboard-coffin crowd (who think rotting is a civic duty). > Message #16117 > Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 06:02:57 -0700 > From: Lee Corbin <> > Subject: Re: Identity Issue ... Again > > Stasys Adiklis says of the duplication scenario > where you can choose self-annihiliation so that > your duplicate gets a big reward... > > >What if you don't know who is the original? > > Yes. Well, the whole point is that it shouldn't make > any difference. So,you'd pay fifty million dollars for an exact copy of the Mona Lisa? A copy ISN'T an original,and can NEVER constitute survival of a destroyed original. > Message #16121 > Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 00:15:07 +0100 > From: J Corbally <> > Subject: Double whammy > > > I'd like to say hello to Louis, and welcome him to the Cryonet list. > Hope you enjoy your time here on this list with many different > people, but one common denominator; Our wish to remain living. > > Regards, > > James... I expect the list join with me in wishing a happy 115th birthday today to Marie Bremont,only the 15th person on the lists I keep to have attained this milestone.Some of those listed are open to doubt,and there are an unknown number who may have made it to 115 in the past without being verifiably documented. As of now,Mme Bremont is the oldest documented person in the world, still seven-plus years short of her countrywoman Jeanne Calment's all-time record...but there are a few claims to be older under investigation.On Monday I spoke to the granddaughter,who was born in 1917,of a woman in Kansas City who may have turned 115 last year or the year before. One day turning 115 should be something anyone can reasonably expect to do.By then there will be little point to keeping lists of those who have done it.But how long will that day take to come? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message #16123 > From: > Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 23:37:47 EDT > Subject: Welcome, Louis > > Welcome, Louis Epstein, > > You must have been doing a *lot* of reading in cryonet archives. > Even a few days perusal is a lot of information. Some of it even > worthwhile:)! > > Are you related to Theodore Epstein, who is a cryonics client friend? No,nor to the cryopreserved Anatol Epstein,or his daughter Joanna whose archive post I came across a while back. (If I recall correctly,Kevin Brown's "interesting people" links include the dead page of someone who's been in suspension for years). > Message #16124 > From: > Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 00:17:20 EDT > Subject: Darwin is *BACK* > > Hello, Dear cryoneters and lurkers, > > Rudi Hoffman writing from Daytona, FL here. > > I for one am delighted to see the recent postings of Mike Darwin. > And I join with John Grigg and others who wish him and Shaun well in the new > Kryos adventure. > > There are numerous questions I have about Kryos. Mostly regarding the > financial arrangements and how they are to be funded, what there costs for > services are, do they encourage insurance, how the financial long term > stability can be assured,etc. But these questions can wait for a time. For > now, we should take a moment to rejoice. > > Anyway, what genuinely warms my heart is that Darwin is once again signed > with Alcor, and seems to have his head on straight. I recall "Mike Darwin cancels Alcor suspension membership" among the archive headlines of articles I read through,I forget how many years ago that was.(Compressed years and years into months at most as I read).Paul Wakfer did the same at the same time. When will there be a Kryos website? Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16129