X-Message-Number: 16205
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 12:54:04 -0700
From: Mike Perry <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #16191 - #16200

>Message #16191
>Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 11:41:01 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Charles Platt <>
>Subject: UK situation

Argh! I hope this situation resolves itself without bitterness, flame wars, 
and other miserable difficulties we don't need just now (or ever). "We had 
better hang together or we shall all hang [rot, burn] separately," comes to 
[Louis Epstein's posting:]

>This [use of cadaver brain tissue in transplants] raises the prospect of 
>mortalists dying so that immortalists
>may live.Presumably the harvesting of the neurons from the cadaver
>makes it impossible for the cadaver to be revived by means that may
>be developed.
To me it just raises the prospect of people in general dying (since their 
lives might otherwise be saved if the intact brain could be saved) so 
others might live.

>I am inclined to believe that this has *more* ethical problems than
>using foetal tissue.

Me too.
[regarding Alcor's neurovitrification project:]

>I'll say again that this focus on neuros is something that disturbs
>me about Alcor.It's one thing to offer it as a last resort,but to
>deliberately prefer the preservation of only something that,fully
>repaired,CAN NOT live on its own seems nonsensical.
You are stumbling over semantics here. To "fully repair" a severed head 
(still a person, just minus the part below the neck) would, of course, mean 
replacing the part cut away--then it could live on its own. The cloning of 
mammals gives pretty solid evidence that this should be doable, allowing 
for only relatively modest improvements in our techniques. (As a very crude 
approach, an anencephalic twin of you could be created, then receive your 
transplanted head. Hopefully we would then know how to connect spinal 
nerves, and so on. But I'm sure that better methods than this will be 
developed.) I should say too that the emphasis on neuro is not taken 
lightly but because it presently is seen as the best way to preserve what 
is really important about a person, the brain or the parts that encode 
vital information such as memories. This is what could *not* simply be 
replaced by methods related to cloning.

[on artificial intelligences as persons, and so on:]

> > I agree that we should not, at this early stage of the game,
> > make broad statements that such entities are not "persons".
>While I think that this should be accepted a priori.

To my thinking it should not be accepted a priori, though it is a moot 
point for now. But I would grant the benefit of doubt to any entity that 
met various structural and behavioral tests, regardless of whether it was 
made of meat.

> > In this case:  if we have the technological means to create
> > full-blown machine intelligence, we should also have a much
> > greater ability to provide all of the entities involved with
> > whatever resources they need in order to survive and prosper.
>But why should such entities be permitted to prosper?
>I don't see why you fail to see the prospect of AIs as a dire
>threat to the human ecological niche...and the highest obligation
>of humanity as the defense of that niche.
In the future I hope that "we" (meaning sentient beings in general) will be 
enlightened enough not to accept the grim competitive imperative that seems 
to be suggested in the above. Suppose somehow another race of beings did 
get created, call it a-humanity ("a" meaning "not"). Would the highest 
obligation of a-humanity be to defend *its* ecological niche? Would the 
highest obligation of humanity and a-humanity then be to fight it out, in 
grim Darwinian fashion, to see who would prevail? We must rise beyond that, 
and recognize value in all sentient beings irrespective of origins, meat 
content, or other such classification.

> > There's no strong need to start declaring broad categories of
> > entities to be "obviously" unfit for human respect and love.
>If there is a risk of such existence,there is a need for their
> > So please, let's give the bots a break.
>I can't see why we should be so blind.

I suspect that a bot could be designed that you would find attractive 
enough to develop a blind spot for. If it seemed just like a human but had 
non-protoplasmic stuff in it ... ? As a start you could try reading Lester 
Del Rey's 1938, short science fiction classic, "Helen O'Loy," that explores 
this very theme.

>I don't like the idea of deliberate conversion of healthy biological
>bodies to something else,and hope this never sees acceptance.

What I hope is that nobody ever tries to deny me the right to accept this 
option if I want it and it's possible to arrange it.
>If something can be made to work biologically,it should be.
>A life form that can not exist independently of civilization
>supporting it is a risky concept.
In the future I hope and think we will reach a stage where every individual 
is self-sustaining and doesn't require civilization with its potential for 
encroaching on personal freedom. This will hold not in spite of but in 
great part because of technological innovations that will affect our basic, 
physical structure (ways of getting around aging and diseases, for 
instance, with their potential for enforcing dependence). At the same time 
I see great benefits resulting from interactions with other enlightened 
individuals, and hope that all of us can form a harmonious whole in which 
we will all take part.
>I know traditional mummification deliberately destroys the brain.
>But I'm not sure what "Modern Mummification" does.
>The advantage mummification has is that it's low-maintenance.
>Preservation is a mummy's "default" state,you don't need to keep
>it in temperatures not found in nature or risk distintegration
>in the few-millennia timeframe.
>And there seems no way to combine the advantages,so that if
>cooling is lost flesh still won't decay.
I agree, and wish that chemopreservation could be better researched. The 
trouble is there is really very little interest in the whole idea of 
preserving remains of a person for future reanimation. In the small 
movement (our own) that is devoted to that concept, cryopreservation has 
assumed a dominant role and there doesn't seem to be enough interest and 
resources to give other possibilities their due. Too bad.

>Message #16193
>Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 17:05:58 EDT
>Subject: Co-opetetion

This was a very good posting, Mike. I wish the best in your endeavor.
>Message #16195
>From: "Mark Plus" <>
>Subject: RE:  HSCP -- Experiments and Accomplishments
>Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 18:36:33 -0700
>In Cryonet #16179, Ben Best wrote,
> >Message #16179
> >Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 05:30:48 -0400 (EDT)
> >From: Ben Best <>
> >Subject: HSCP -- Experiments and Accomplishments
>I've mailed the INC a check for US$100, and I hope to be able to send more

Good going, Mark. I've also been making small contributions to INC, and 
hope to send more. I hope others will contribute too.

Mike Perry

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16205