X-Message-Number: 16167 Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 11:37:23 +0000 () From: Louis Epstein <> Subject: China/Anti-Aging/Artificials/Timeship/Etc On 1 May 2001, CryoNet wrote: > Message #16158 > Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 21:35:21 +0100 > From: Philip Rhoades <> > > Oh well, until someone starts complaining that we take this discussion > private . . Frankly,I hoped this debate was over... > >From: Louis Epstein <> > > > > > The island of Taiwan is part of China - the fact that the losing side in a > > > civil war retreated there makes no difference - nor does the fact that one > > > may not like the regime of the winning side. > > > >On the contrary.Since both governments survive,the war is not really over; > >and the bad guys having the great bulk of the territory does NOT excuse > >the "one China" nonsense.The fact is that "China" is a geographic > >expression,not a country,and the pretenses of governments of entitlement > >to rule the whole thing should not be given the respect they demand. > > The Taiwanese government would last about five minutes without the support > of the west (just like the state of Israel) - that doesn't necessarily make > it right - but in history, "might makes right" Or pretends to. > and "history is written by > the winners" - face it, China is communist (whatever that means - I don't > think Karl would be happy . .) and Taiwan is part of China . . No,the FACT is that "China" is a geographic expression. Both governments have a history of claiming entitlement to control territory they never have controlled,and the claims don't matter. I suppose you think the Falklands are part of Argentina? Is Mozambique part of Madagascar,or Madagascar part of Mozambique? "It's nearby" doesn't mean "it's ours". > >At no time has the Peking government ever exercised or been entitled to > >exercise control over Taiwan,Kinmen,Matsu,or the other islands that have > >been under the ROC government's control since various dates between > >1912 and 1945. > > The Guomingdang can claim no more legitimacy on the islands than the > communists - at least the communists _fought_ the invading Japanese . . do > you think the communists got all that peasant support because they > collaborated? You don't win revolutions like that without substantial > support. Do you think the Guomingdang was a model of liberal democracy? Do I think the Kuomintang WAS a model of liberal democracy? No. Do I think it has always been more a friend of freedom than the Communists,and that the government it has freely surrendered much control of is something whose survival is much more important than the PRC's? Yes. > >(And calling Peking "Beijing" is an unseemly kowtow to the mainland's > >demands,before you ask.The European countries don't demand that we abandon > >traditional translations of their names,the Chinese Communists are > >entitled to no special privileges). > > Irrelevant. Peking's desires in the matter are indeed irrelevant. > > > How would someone in Washington feel that if, after the southern US states > > > lost the US civil war, the losers retreated to one state and set up a new > > > nation there with the help of some superior outside military force, such > > > that the situation could not be changed? - I think it would not be popular > > > in the north . . but that is exactly what you are supporting in the > > > China/Taiwan situation. > > > >No.The North is the analogue of Taiwan...the government of the whole > >country against which the other part rebelled in an indefensible effort > >to perpetuate injustice.Of course the PRC would rather be seen as the > >analogue of the United States in the 1770s...but there,we eventually got > >a deal(the Treaty of Paris in 1783) that recognized the revolution. > >The Chinese Communists have not obtained recognition and forgiveness > >from the government against which they committed the crime of revolting, > >and it still exists.And is better for its people than theirs is. > > As I mentioned above, one of the reasons the communists got support where > the Guomingdang didn't was because they fought the Japanese - if I was an > average Chinese at the time who would I support? Let me see, the > revolutionaries or the collaborators? hmm . . it's a tough one . . Of course,you're oversimplifying.The situation in China was a chaotic patchwork for decades,and the problem for much of it was too little KMT control,not too much. > I suppose you claimed that the Czar's relatives were still the legitimate > government of Russia for about 70 years as well? I am a card-carrying monarchist,since you raise the issue. > > > The US goes to war at the drop of a hat when it considers its national > > > (commercial) interest is at stake eg oil in Iraq - but won't defend small > > > countries that should be defended eg East Timor against Indonesia because > > > RealPolitiks is involved. > > > >I am not a defender of heartless pragmatism. > > Good. Well,heartless pragmatism is the only way to characterize the allegation that the PRC is entitled to take over Taiwan! > > > In the Iraq situation it was obviously more > > > complicated than just one issue though - the US led Iraq to believe it > > > was alright[sic] to invade Kuwait so then they could behave like > > > the cavalry coming > > > to the rescue . . not to mention the fact that they could test out a few > > > new weapons in a live situation, against a previously supported (but now > > > unpopular) ally . . > > > >If you respect someone,you tend to politely omit mention of such > >flaws. > > Flaws!? - a little more than flaws I suggest - you leave yourself little > credibility if you don't respond to important facts. Find out the real > story about that disaster - eg the Iraqi army was made up of lots of > conscripts that _really_ didn't want to be there (it was literally the army > or death) - these were the people that were used for target practise by the > Allies during the Iraqi retreat. Whoa!!! You are completely missing just what I was talking about with the sentence I was writing above!! I wasn't saying ANYTHING about Iraq or the Gulf War... just saying that admiration for Albert Einstein's scientific accomplishments might lead one to flatter him by not admitting his sympathies with socialism as this would tarnish his reputation!!! (As for Iraq,I think Ambassador Glaspie chose words unwisely,not deliberately). > >(I remember the Olympic TV coverage with the announcer telling us > >that if we start telling our grandchildren about the runner Michael > >Johnson one day,we'll say "There was a man with shoes of gold..."... > >on the contrary,if I feel like telling future descendants about him, > >I'll flatter him by not mentioning that silly ego trip). > > What is this about? ...um...THIS is an amplification of the point I made above about omitting mention of someone's flaws,which you just proved went straight over your head,DESPITE this clarification. Any Olympic athlete who obsesses over gold to the point of dressing funny is being foolish. > James Swayze said: > > > > What Bush said was stupid one for tipping our hand as to our resolve > > > (always keep the other side guessing) and two for not understanding the > > > Asian psyche. First of all Taiwan belongs to China. What right have we > > > to interfere? Would we appreciate China helping out Hawaii to secede? > > > Old Cold War mentalities got us involved when Taiwan rebelled in 1949. > > Louis said: > > >The government now on Taiwan is the one that the government > >controlling the mainland rebelled against in 1949.The government > >on Taiwan has controlled it since 1945,and certain other offshore > >islands since 1912. > > With no more legitimacy (perhaps less) than the communists claim now. On the contrary...no other government has any legitimate claim on those islands. (Unless you favor an Imperial pretender? I suppose not,though you're welcome to Lester D.K. "His Imperial Majesty Yao Sui" Chow if you want him). > >I believe that the Gulf War victory was virtually thrown away because > >Saddam Hussein was not humiliated.He still stands tall and pretends he > >won a great victory.Because he did not lose face,he has learned no > >lesson and neither have those around him. > > Look, the US created Hussein - he would have got nowhere without US support > in the beginning (via the CIA etc etc) - you can't very well complain about > your nasty dictators behaving like nasty dictators when you encourage them > to behave that way in the first place . . do your homework. He took power via the internal machinations of his own party. Most foreign governments preferred to work with his less ambitious predecessor.Much as the Soviets supported Noor Mohammed Taraki in taking over Afghanistan,but didn't at all like Hafizullah Amin. (So they announced in invading on December 27th that Babrak Karmal, not seen in Afghanistan until the 29th,had invited them to do the invasion for which airlift operations on the border were seen on the 24th).Hussein had been an underling for years in the same regime. > >A justly united China will see the revolution of 1949 as something to > >apologize for,not build patriotism around.It's just like the people in > >the South whining "it wasn't about slavery" and waving Confederate > >flags...wrong is still wrong no matter how many centuries it takes to > >admit.(The seceding states,in their official enactments about why they > >were seceding,made crystal clear that preserving slavery was at the > >core of their reasoning). > > Have the British apologised for creating the Chinese Opium problem and its > wars? I think so,at some point. > You can't talk about all the nasty things the communists have done > without finding out why people supported them against a long history of > pretty nasty foreigners . . Mao just didn't get up one day and say "OK, I'm > leader of the country now!" - it was a long hard fight, first against the > Japanese and then against Chinese collaborators who had no interest in the > welfare of the vast majority of Chinese. As James said, it might not suit > us, but the current mainland regime has the "Mandate of Heaven". As a monarchist,I believe that the Mandate can only be held by an individual.Republicans can never claim it. As a long-view analyst of China,I believe in waiting for the next (non-Communist) "dynasty" before accomodating them. And of course China has been divided among multiple dynasties before. The Ming never controlled Tibet.The Yuan never controlled Taiwan. > >If they want reunification,it can come on terms dictated by Taipei... > > Are you serious? Yeh, right, that'll happen . . I'm just saying that that's the only kind that should see our support. Not that it's likely,but that anything else would be wrong. (Most especially,terms dictated by Peking would be wrong). > >otherwise let it wait.(And no,it won't be the ROC government riding > >into Peking in triumph and sending the whole Central Committee to > >jail.There will be a president and prime minister,the more powerful > >one being the one from the mainland and the one from Taiwan being one > >of his otherwise-mainland deputies,the less powerful one being the one > >from Taiwan and all his deputies coming from the mainland.That's the > >Chinese-style solution and it can be seen miles off.But while the > >we-are-the-only-legitimate-government-of-the-whole-country fever > >infects either side,it won't happen,and no one should let any other > >kind of unification happen). > > That's got a big chance of success . . it will more likely be a Hong Kong > style result with the west aquiescing for some pragmatic reason . . Of course that's what Peking wants,that's acceptance of their indefensible position that they are entitled to control the ROC and not negotiate with them as an entity separate from themselves. Which is why the PRC needs to be smacked hard in the face with a shovel until they give up this idea. So "heartless pragmatism" IS what you want. > > > Lastly, readers of cryonet should keep in mind that Bush opposes > > > technologies that we need to achieve our main goal. I believe that main > > > goal is immortality whether it be through cryonics or ANY other means. > > > For this reason, to me, Shrub and his ilk ARE the enemy plain and simple > > > regardless of which ideology anyone happens to identify with. > > > >Make no mistake that I am very anti-Bush. > > At least we agree here - I don't live there but if you have someone stupid > in the White House, it needs expressing (feel free to give John Howard > [who?] a blast - but he is just very conservative not stupid). I'm not sure what issues he is conservative on, but he has never struck me as particularly so. (The Australian spectrum has I suppose gotten rather skewed.Both sides sliding leftward with few left behind defending tradition and seeing changes for the worse as what they are...and some of those embarrassing the rest). > >As efforts to banish mortality gain steam,I wonder what other > >persons and institutions will emerge as enemies. > > I think Bush is the biggest threat - he is doing all he can to cause the > Polar ice caps to melt - think about how well the US economy will work if > the oceans rise by about 8 metres - but I guess he'll be long gone as > President by then . . is Hillary still going to kick his ass in 2004? I'm sure he'll be gone in 2004,but as someone who voted for Hillary for Senator in 2000 I hope she keeps her word and serves out her Senate term. We have plenty of superior alternatives to GWB around. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message #16159 > From: "Mark Plus" <> > Subject: "Oracle's Ellison seeking Fountain of Youth" > > > Steve Jurvetson, a partner at the venture-capital firm Draper Fisher > Jurvetson, is scouting out ways to get into the field. He believes that > within 30 years, people will live 120 to 140 years. Hmmm.Anyone who'll be 140 in 30 years is already 110. I know of dozens,there may be hundreds worldwide. Anybody who'll be 120 then is already 90. Again,we are looking at a very small percentage of the people of 2031 being that old,however many reach that age many decades later. Perhaps the article's editors took out clarification that he was talking about life expectancy at some early age? > Ellison's investments into age research have slowly grown. He funded > research at the University of California on DHEA, a hormone some believe > could retard aging. Through his private venture fund, Tako Ventures, he has > made investments in several other biotech companies. > > One was Aeiveos -- named after Greek words for ``forever'' and ``young'' -- > founded by Robert Bradbury, an early employee at Oracle. Aeiveos studied the > genetic codes of centenarians, those who live to the ripe old age of 100 and > more. (I study supercentenarians,not centenarians,and from a statistical standpoint...though I'm happy to get SCs' families in touch with those who do medical studies if not already enrolled). > But soon it became clear that without a basic scientific breakthrough, > profits were elusive, observers said. Ellison installed his former employee > to run the company despite little knowledge of the field, some said. Um...is this someone who founded the company,or was installed to replace the head of the company because there were no profits?? > ``Even if the Fountain of Youth is discovered,'' Lederberg said, ``it will > be 10 years before anyone got any benefit.'' Well,with all the potential synergies out there,there could still be lots of benefits.Some have said that there could be a vaccine for Alzheimer's within three years,and if that pans out that could revolutionize future elder-care,save billions worldwide,and make many last longer and thus be around for future advances. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message #16160 > Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 11:55:51 -0400 > From: Jeffrey Soreff <> > Subject: Re: Important question for the isomorphists > > on Sun, 29 Apr 2001 11:57:08 > Louis Epstein wrote: > >Computerized entities are not persons,and wisdom rejects any definition > >of person that includes them. > > As far as I can tell, a sufficiently good simulation of a person would > have the same subjective experience and the same social interactions as > a biological person. I, for one, would include such simulations in the > same category of persons as the biological ones. Please display the > "wisdom" that persuades you to exclude them. A simulation is still a simulation.Programming a computer to argue convincingly that it is intelligent does not make it intelligent. The illusion of experience is not experience. > >Neurosuspension,as I stated,I consider a bad joke...and if no new > >organic body can be created for the severed head,there is no point > >in attaching it to a substitute. > > So there is "no point" in reviving a biological brain if it is to be > attached to a non-biological body? You do realize, don't you, that > there are a _lot_ of people walking around with partially "substitute" > bodies? Do you have any fillings in your teeth? Yes,since I was nineteen...but that doesn't mean I'd want to be the head of a robot.(My father has patents for hip and knee replacements with bearings in them,for example...but that doesn't mean patients should be turned into inorganic entities). And I hope that anti-aging solutions will make non-renewing parts of bodies renew themselves as needed,rather than replace them with artificial parts.Artificial is a stopgap. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message #16164 > From: "Bryan Hall" <> > Subject: NY Times Article on TimeShip > Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 22:26:45 -0700 > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. Would it be impossible to send plaintext? > People involved in cryonics swear they are in it not to make money but > for "the love of the idea," according to Saul Kent, a principal of the > Stasis Foundation who is prominent in the life-extension movement. Just how many organizations is he affiliated with? I guess they cite the most relevant one. > "Some young people may never die." That's certainly the hope! I didn't realize the TimeShip didn't have a site yet. Sounds like they aren't counting on the 22nd century to have the fixes for what 21st century medicine freezes, though some are clearly predicting that. I take it that most of Cryonet would take Austad's side on the publicized Olshansky-Austad bet(as would I). But Olshansky has indicated to me that if thawing is perfected by 2150,the time in stasis will not be counted. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message #16165 > From: > Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 01:30:27 EDT > > GLOBAL ISCHEMIA: A COMPREHENSIVE INTRODUCTION, PART II [snip] > Initially there was much optimism that blockade of the NMDA receptor > would provide protection against delayed neuronal death following global > cerebral ischemia [99], [100], [101]. The use of NMDA receptor blocking drugs > has shown significant promise in ameliorating focal cerebral ischemic injury. > A number of studies have demonstrated a marked reduction in the severity of > ischemic injury in focal areas (particularly the poorly perfused "penumbra" > surrounding the no-flow area) as a result of treatment with > glutamate-blocking drugs such a dextrorophan [102] or the experimental > anticonvulsant MK-801 [101]. In vitro studies with cultured neurons have > demonstrated that excitatory neurotransmitters cause neuronal injury and > death even in the absence of hypoxic or ischemic injury [ was this supposed to end here,in mid-sentence? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- No one yet has explained how the internal structure of a body is better preserved by freezing in a dewar/cryostat than by "Modern Mummification".Any takers? I'm not sure what the real variation in bodily deteriorations is. Various religious figures have been said to endure remarkably after death,from Paramhansa Yogananda to Pope John XXIII (who I believe was embalmed in some fashion,and will be displayed soon on the anniversary of his death). Just what are the theories by which some think that the not-perfectly- preserved can nonetheless be restored to life in the future? Do they come from anything resembling known science? Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16167