X-Message-Number: 16463
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 14:42:54 +0000 ()
From: Louis Epstein <>
Subject: Replies to Debra & Olaf/Supercentenarians
On June 6 Cryonet wrote:
> Message #16444 Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 07:25:07 -0400
> From: Deathist Lurker Girl <>
> Subject: On being taken seriously...
>
> At 05:00 AM 06/06/2001, David Pizer wrote:
> >
> >The very first thing to be done for one who wants to be a part of this
> >unique project is to get personally signed up, at this time. Only then,
> >should you go out and try to help others. You should not be taken
> >seriously as a supporter of biological immortality, if you are not at
> >least signed up for cryonics suspension. I would also think it was acting
> >irresponsibly if someone was advocating biological immortality and was
> >not, at the very least, signed up for suspension, since often actions
> >are counted more than words.
>
> this above-quoted statement by Mr. Pizer typifies the elitist attitude
> that permeates much of this list. Many cryonicists seem to think that if
> you don't fit *their* narrow version of what an immortalist is, you can't
> be an immortalist. Just as No True Scotsman puts Equal on his morning
> oatmeal, No True Immortalist isn't currently, personally, signed up to be
> suspended.
>
> Well, bullfeathers!
>
> I am an avid reader of this list. I am in favor of
> humanity/transhumanity/whatever-each-person's-own-term-is finding a way to
> be happily and productively immortal. However, for personal reasons of my
> own, *I* do not choose to participate in this future *myself*
>
> So that means I can't be taken seriously?
>
> I am also a member of PFLAG, even though I am a straight, married
> female. I send them money. I participate in local Pride events and use my
> role as a health care worker/provider/educator, when appropriate, to dispel
> myths about homosexuality.
>
> I'm trying to educate myself about cryonics, transhumanism, and all the
> varying denominations thereof. As a health care professional, I believe I
> can provide positive input if/when the situation arises where a terminally
> ill person in my care has plans to be suspended and no one else around
> knows Jack Diddley about cryonics. I know several people who are on my
> hospital's Ethics Committee and am in a position to advise them, if
> necessary. I also think I'm in a good position to provide a valuable
> "outsider's view" on various issues regarding the futurist/immortalist
> image as perceived by the general public. When I get in a more solvent
> financial position, I would even consider contributing financially to your
> cause(s). But hey, it sounds more and more like you don't want me to.
An interesting response from the Deathist Lurker
Girl,whose earlier post I did read in the archives.
Somewhat surprising to me,also...I got the impression
before that some guy with an unrequited crush on her
had subscribed her to Cryonet,and she was putting up
with it just to read,at the serratia'ed edge of her
patience.
But now we find that she's so dedicated to Deathist
Lurking she's registered a domain for it(website said
to be coming soon)...and subscribed here from it.
Researching on the web I see she's also connected to
a group of former LDS who have by and large opted to
leave the frying pan of Mormonism for the fires of
fundamentalism(like Ed Decker's lot) but for the cold
wastes of atheism.(I know John Grigg is a believer
in LDS,but for atheism she'll find more sympathizers
here than I will...same for my belief that PFLAG and
"Pride" exist more to spread misconceptions about
homosexuality that homosexuals want believed,than to
dispel myths about it).
I've never been LDS myself,but have studied their
pure-gerontocracy hierarchy from outside for most of
my life...the moldering Struldbruggs of Temple Square
may serve as a leading indicator of the effects of
extended lifespans on societal institutions.This is
an institution that turned to a man born in 1876 as
its leader in 1970...that is led in 2001 by a man who
remembers the day his father replaced the family
horse-wagon with a Model T.
How many LDS Apostles does it take to change a light
bulb?
Five...one to call the new bulb,one to lay hands on
it,one to screw it in,one to set it apart,and one to
give it a blessing.
(But if it's in their meeting room,then all twelve
or fifteen must unanimously vote to release the old
bulb and sustain the new one).
I watch the General Conference on satellite TV every
six months just to see who the new unanimously elected
candidates for things are and update my records.One
guy I corresponded with years ago sent me the "Triple
Combination" of LDS scriptures but I've scarcely looked
into it.
Anyway...there are certainly many different ways to seek to
end the reign of death.And while I echo Kennita's feeling
that there is no reason for not trying,I don't reject the
DLG to the point of not caring enough about her to be willing
to help grab her arms and drag her kicking and screaming to
the lifeboat under the disapproving stares of Mike Perry and
Jeffrey Soreff.
"Death,thou shalt die!"
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Message #16448 Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:00:52 -0700
> From: Olaf Henny <>
> Subject: Futile Debate Makes Me Feel Better :)
>
> Louis Epstein wrote:
>
> >> >I favor very broad limits that are very firmly enforced.
> >>
> >> Actually, the limits you advocate seem exceedingly narrow
> >> to me. I haven't seen you pick _any_ modification that
> >> you approve of, longevity excepted.
> >
> >I haven't seen a modification proposed yet that wasn't disturbingly
> >radical.I think I have mentioned some types that would be reasonable,
> >as strengthening bones,for example.
>
> So where do you draw the line? A crown over your tooth? A leg
> prosthesis? A pacemaker? An artificial heart?
>
> Rejection of any of those would be contrary to your "fanatical"
> preservation of life (???) And what about future enhancements,
> much more sophisticated and intrusive, but ultimately enhancing
> and preserving life?
The less intrusive,the more defensible.
Always biased toward efforts to improve
the biology as opposed to replacing it.
A genetic fix is better than an implant.
(Growing an artificial biological leg,
of course,is higher tech than strapping
a stick to a stump...but preferred to
either a stick or a cyborg-leg).
> >It's intrinsic to deities that whether or not we bow down to them,
> >they're still deities and we have no say in the matter!
>
> Spoken like a true religionist. From an atheist's point of view,
> the deities only exist in the mind of the deists. By not sharing
> this conviction, we have *absolute* say in this matter.
Well,like flat-earthism not reducing the curvature
of the globe,atheism is completely irrelevant to
the absolutely necessary existence of Deity,the
only possible explanation for the existence even
of atheists.
> >The assumption being that his brain could be restored from freezing
> >more easily than it could be restored from tumor damage.But when you're
> >dealing with unknown future technologies,how can you assume that??
>
> That is clearly NOT the assumption. It is certain, that
> Alzheimer's and brain tumours destroy memory. While we all
> believe, that it will eventually become possible to repair any
> part of the body (this assertion is fudamental to cryonics),
> destroyed memory will be lost. A regenerated brain without it
> is an empty one. The person it originally belonged to is DEAD
> (Isn t that what you profess to fight "fanatically"?). What is left
> is for all intents and purposes a clone: Same genetics, different
> identity. Actually worse than a clone. There will be NO identity!
Remember,where you are certain that the memory is lost
forever,lots of people are convinced that brains that
flatline are dead forever,and that flatlined brains
that then get dosed with antifreeze and cooled are
still dead.
Why pick and choose among the assumptions you regard
as likely to be overturned by future science?
> To prevent that, some of us would be willing to cut our present
> existence short, by a few weeks/ months of suffering in order to
> gain a small chance on probably thousands of years of healthy
> enjoyable LIFE! - Reasonable and life PROMOTING!!!
Like buying a lottery ticket,eh?
(I only ever do that when the jackpot
sets a record).
> >You don't escape something by inviting it.
> >Subjecting the body to insults that could
> >be postponed is not preserving your life.
> >
> >That's just it...clinical death is something
> >to be staved off at all costs,at all times.
>
> Let s recap:
> Society: No heartbeat, no brain activity = dead (clinically).
> Cryonics: No heartbeat, no brain activity = critical condition,
> probably curable by future medical procedures. So let s get him
> there (with memories intact; otherwise there is no point).
Doesn't mean making your condition more
critical than it has to be is good for
you.
> ---------------------
> *********************
Jeanne Calment was the World's Oldest Person
for six years...since then the mantle has
passed more rapidly,among younger people.
It always upsets me when the frontier falls
back.
Currently atop the leaderboard of life are:
RANKED BY AGE
Years Days Born Known Alive
Maud (Davis) Farris
Luse 114 137+ January 21,1887 ALIVE JUNE 7 2001
Kamato Hongo 113 260+ September 16,1887 ALIVE JUNE 3 2001
Amy Elizabeth
(Matthews) Hulmes 113 245+ October 5,1887 ALIVE JUNE 7 2001
Viola Zelda (Strongman)
McCague 113 25+ March 31,1888 ALIVE 4/25/2001
[date may be of baptism;other records say born 20th or 28th]
Mary Delvina (Morisette)
Dahlheimer 112 127+ December 31,1888 ALIVE MAY 7 2001
[birth registered 1889,1942 revision was attested to by mother]
Antonio Todde 112 93+ January 22,1889 ALIVE 4/25/2001
Mie Ishiguro 112 92+ June 2,1888 ALIVE SEPT 1 2000
...with a few others potentially to be inserted in the mix..
One day,such ages should unexceptional,and accompanied by vigor we
now associate with much younger ones.But when?
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16463