X-Message-Number: 16503 Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 22:05:43 +0000 () From: Louis Epstein <> Subject: Low-Friction Inclined Terrain,And Much More On 9 Jun 2001, CryoNet wrote: > ---------------------------------------------------- > Message #16470 Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 21:21:45 -0500 > From: "david pizer" <> > Subject: An argument for preserving frozen persons. > > Looking for a way to get your friends and loved ones signed up? > > The main argument in the abortion debate now is not whether it is good or > bad to kill a baby human (fetus, zygote or embryo?), most people agree that > it is bad to kill a baby human, but they argue about what is a baby human. > > Many of our fellow humans (non-immortalists) think that frozen bodies are > probably just dead bodies and not really persons. You can't get them to > agree that frozen bodies are persons, but you might be able to get them to > agree that frozen bodies might be people. Being myself extremely hostile to anti-abortionism,I'm not about to ape the tactics of that movement. But as far as getting sympathy from others for one's own being frozen, it is not even necessary to persuade them that you are possibly still alive when frozen,just that it is a very good means of preserving your body, live or dead.If they respect your belief that you might still be alive, they don't have to share it. > Or in case of potential efforts to get them unfrozen, (should that even > happen again), we might think about not trying to convince them that these > frozen bodies are persons, (it might be too big a leap for having any > chance of persuading them), but just to agree that these frozen people > might be persons. > > Even agreeing that a zygote-embryo-fetus might be a person often is enough > to convince a person not to have an abortion. This might be a position > that those of you who are trying to convince friends and loved ones to get > signed up will want to experiment with. Just as I am very annoyed by efforts to say acknowledging abortion rights leads to condoning euthanasia,I am very reluctant to follow reasoning that says cryonics leads to denying abortion rights. I think that more progress in getting others to sign up may be found in persuading them that WHETHER OR NOT they are ever revived(which they may well believe impossible),a frozen body is better than a rotted or burned one. (The logical opposites here are the cardboard-coffin crowd who believe in a duty to rot). > ----------------------------------------------------- > Message #16471 Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 10:00:10 -0700 > From: Mike Perry <> > Subject: Swayze; Rights and what's "right"; Alzheimer's > > >From: > > > >Surely you can (and should, if necessary) coerce your child not to harm or > >endanger herself. And if you once admit that, how can you draw a clear line > >between a child and someone who is child-like in certain respects, stupid > >or ignorant or weak? > > Good points to raise. I thought about this briefly when I was writing my > post the other night, knowing I didn't have time to do it justice (and time > is so often in short supply, at least for me). I said, "Mill's principle, > reasonably understood, is something I and probably many if not most others > on this list accept." I hoped that "reasonably understood" would suggest > that indeed one does not always advocate letting someone do what they want, > as when a little child wants to drink a bottle of bleach. Louis Epstein > in #16343 also touches on this issue (once again!) when he refers to the > Deathist Lurker Girl: "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." I want the DLG to live too, very much, but hesitate at > the idea of forcing someone against their will. It's a moral dilemma, and > I agree that one must be careful in applying Mill's principle if one is to > uphold it. (And Louis, *you* aren't in the lifeboat either, yet. Shall I > drag you, "kicking and screaming"?) I wouldn't need dragging,I just don't have a reserved seat.If someone made suspension arrangements for me,I doubt very much I'd turn them down. DLG,however,WANTS to "irreversibly deanimate".I certainly don't. I want a world where one can't. Don't expect me to RUSH to the lifeboat while helping the ship sink,though. > >In the cryonics context, a question is whether you should freeze a relative > >who had not wanted it, if you have that option around the time of his death. > >Certainly a case can be made for disregarding the decedent's wishes. > > Yes, I have to concede that too. In my book I wrestle with this issue. Some > relevant material is quoted: > > "An interesting moral conundrum would then arise in the case of people who > insist on their tissues and DNA not being preserved in the event of death. > To shorten a possibly long argument, I think such people have a right to > arrange for cremation at death and/or other destruction of effects, > possibly including all copies of the genome. (By the same token, a person > who so wishes has the right not to be frozen or preserved in some other > manner.) Though I do not think self-destruction is the best course, the > right-respecting stance:: must be considered carefully. I think it can be > justified on the principle of there being at least some significant > uncertainty that the denial of rights would be better, while the person in > question is still alive and considers the exercise of those rights > important. Such denial is, in particular, a slippery slope that can easily > lead to a worse situation if not very carefully limited. Here we come to the "Low-Friction Inclined Terrain" of my subject line. From your point of view,departing from the a priori requirement of volition,even if that volition is used to hasten death,sets one on a slippery slope to danger. From mine,departing from the a priori prohibition of acting to hasten death,even in the name of volition,sets one on a slippery slope to danger. If we can't agree on what the problem is and what the solution is,progress seems difficult. > I and others have used Alzheimer's disease as an example of a condition > we'd want to opt out of early, by a premortem cryonic suspension. That this > would be the right choice to make seems clear beyond a reasonable doubt, > *if* we can assume indeed that Alzheimer's will rob you of your identity if > it is unchecked. But of course, we really don't know that either. However, > I still feel that a person should be allowed to choose a premortem > suspension under such an apparently grave threat. However unfounded their perception of the gravity of the threat? Again we return to the child drinking bleach. > ---------------------------------------------------- > Message #16475 Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 15:20:46 -0700 > From: Olaf Henny <> > Subject: Alzheimer's Reversible? > > In Message #16459 Max More <> wrote: > >Subject: Alzheimer's and memory loss > > >You say it is "certain" that Alzheimer's destroys memory. Is that really > >true? > > Okay, you caught me, actually it appears not to be. Researchers > on several intitutions have had recently great success in > prevention of formation of the plaque, which causes Alzheimer's > as well as in clearing this plaque in mice with Alzheimer's Yes,I noticed that. Not sure if it's related to the vaccine trials now beginning in Britain. > If the removal of the plaque also restores the "lost" memories > remains to be seen. Human trials will probably tell that. > I was, maybe a bit unethically, trying to come up with an example, > where euthanasia or suicide was indicated to preserve identity rather > than just to relieve suffering, the latter being something that Louis > would never accept. In retrospect Mike Perry s use of a brain tumour > seemed to be the more suitable example. I doubt that tumor treatment is immune to advances.Remember: without developing means of eradicating the ills that bring people to the point of suspension, there will never be a reason to get people out of suspension. > ---------------------------------------------------- > Message #16476 Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 17:42:45 -0700 > Subject: PiffleFLAG Acronyms > > It is different, nevertheless, when we are using off topic > acronyms such as PFLAG, LDS and DLG it would be helpful to > write out the full title, at least at first occurrence. Deathist Lurker Girl did write it out before bestowing the acronym on herself.I think John Grigg introduced the list to Latter-Day Saint. > I can sort of figure out that the last 3 letters of PFLAG mean > 'lesbian and gay'. However this is a site with international > participants, for many of whom English is a foreign language, > difficult to communicate with in the first place. The PF are for Parents and Friends; the group is dedicated to confusing affection for those with the condition with the condition being in no way deplorable. > ---------------------------------------------------- > Message #16477 Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 18:10:26 -0700 > From: Olaf Henny <> > Subject: It's only a gamble if you risk value > > > 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). > > I never buy lottery tickets, because for every $ I pay, I stand to > get only 50 cents or so in return. The better odds at records jackpots > only apply to - just the jackpot. The odds are tens of millions > to one against you being that winner. - Baaad investment The odds of being the jackpot winner are the same no matter what the size of the jackpot. Same risk....bigger potential return.I only ever do the minimum play($1 or $2)...and with the records as they are,I will only bet on a New York Lotto jackpot of $73 million or more(they start at $3 million), a New York one-shot of $131 million or more(they start at $50 million), a Powerball of $296 million or more (they start at $10 million),or a Big Game of $364 million or more(they start at 5 million).The odds range from 18 to 80 million to one. I have gotten lottery tickets on the average of less than once a year, and don't know that I ever will again. (If I do,and win,I may well sign up for cryonics). > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message #16480 Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 22:05:31 -0400 > From: Deathist Lurker Girl <> > Subject: And your point, Detective Epstein, *is*...? > > >Louis Epstein wrote: > > > >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. > > > Yes, all of that is true (except you have the crush thing sort of backwards > but no matter...). OK,I thought the person you were encouraging to go "directly to cryostasis" was a disdained admirer. > I own a lot of domains. Domains can be had, for a year's time, for less > than the price of a pair of movie tickets. So I wouldn't say that I was > "so dedicated," just that it seemed like a cool idea at the time, and I > went with it. I own one domain.I got it just before they started charging for them.I believe that a domain is the internet equivalent of an incorporated city,and that namespace should mirror Net infrastructure; every domain should imply a dedicated leased line and a batch of users. Having said that,being in the ISP business,I'll host domains for those who'll pay me to. > What's with the dossier, Louis? You've proven that you know how to do a > "whois" and how to use a search engine. And even how to type in the implied correct URL on a link page at xlds.org where the slashes are backwards and the links don't work. > It might be germane if you had unearthed evidence that I was somehow > secretly thwarting the cause of cryonics, but my past experience with the > LDS church has nothing to do with the point I was making regarding being > considered a legitimate supporter of the immortalist community. "Cold > wastes of atheism" sounds suspiciously pejorative, and your comments > regarding homosexuality appear both pejorative, *and* poorly informed, > but those are separate discussions and are clearly off-topic here. Naturally,I believe that my views on these matters are the wiser ones,or they would not be my views. And that point of view is clearly mutual,and expected. > It is, of course, necessary to prevent actions that would harm others- but > everywhere else, governmental authority should be considered a necessary > evil, administered with the lightest of touches; and an individual human > being's autonomy should be considered the most sacred of rights. > > People will always make choices that other people consider foolish. As noted above,I consider it critical that those who wish to die be protected from their folly.There are no rights for the dead,or to be dead. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16503