X-Message-Number: 16595
From: 
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 17:00:28 EDT
Subject: Heterosexuals, cryonics and the meaning of life

In a message dated 6/19/01 Louis Epstein writes in 14 point bold print 
(please stop doing this):

>  Kipling:
>  "There are nine and sixty ways
>  of constructing tribal lays,
>  and every single one of them
>  is right!"
>  
>  I'll say again that I read through
>  years of Cryonet archives...I am
>  aware of Mgdarwin's homosexuality
>  and of his status as the tortured
>  genius of the field,there at the
>  edge of cryopreservations for more
>  of his life than probably anyone.

Tortured genius? Hmm that's a new one. It used to be Evil Genius. Well, at 
least the genius part is sticking ;-). On a more serious note, I don't think 
labels such as these do anything but make the person applying them seem ad 
hominem.
>  
>  But the nihilist worldview of
>  biology here expressed is part of
>  the same despair that led him to
>  abjure "freezing corpses" a few
>  years ago.We need a more hopeful
>  vision of being able to create a
>  best order where there was none,
>  to drive immortalism.

This doesn't express my position at all. The two words quoted above were 
taken out of context. If you've read Cryonics: Reaching for Tomorrow or "Why 
We Are Cryonicists" (both published by Alcor; the former written in part by 
me and the latter in toto) you have a pretty good idea of how much of a 
"nihilist" I am. "Why We Are Cryonicists" is short enough to reprint here and 
if Mike Perry is willing to do so, and Alcor consents, I think it sums up my 
position pretty well.

There is a big difference between nihilism and frustration and despair over 
specific deficient practices and deep problems with a discipline. (More on 
nihilism below.)

>  If we're going to make ourselves
>  last indefinitely,its being impossible
>  before can't be seen as making it
>  impossible for the future.

I don't think many people here have said that is impossible, and I certainly 
have not. If you are asking for a Panglossian philosophy that says "we are 
all living the best of all possible worlds" let's be happy, then I'd suggest 
you read Voltaire's CANDIDE. This is an easily accessible little book and 
people shouldn't be put off by its author's reputation as a "great 
philosopher." 

I started out in cryonics with a Panglossian world view and ended up 
following Candide's advice to "work in the garden." Insanity or hurtful 
ideological zealotry are the usual consequences of enforced "hopeful 
visions." Visions are religious experiences, working optimism is something 
else altogether, and is a state of mind very cognizant of the problems and 
the possibilities for failure as well as success. 
  
>  > The "best" strategy is the one that "works" for a given environment.
>  > Sickle cell trait is no advantage in a world without malaria and 
>  > is considered a genetic defect, unless of course you live in a malaria 
>  > infested area. Having seen the swath malaria is cutting through 
> contemporary 
>  > India I have great respect for the utility of the sickle cell "defect."
>  
>  Surely our biology can be improved
>  (not replaced) to combine the best
>  of traits.

Of course it can. Why confuse what is with what could be, and then accuse me 
of doing that? Nature "created" human beings capable of altering not only 
their external environment but also themselves. They are doing both at a 
ferocious rate compared to evolution. But, be careful what arguments you 
invoke because you may not like the results. 

>  (I wonder what can be done with skin.
>  Certainly a case can be made that
>  being "white" is a defect,such skin
>  burns easily...but I understand there
>  are some allied efficiencies in vitamin
>  processing).
>   
>  > Nature just doesn't give a damn, to be blunt. The dice of genetic and 
thus 
> 
>  > phenotypic variation are constantly being rolled and the outcomes tested 
>  > against an equally dynamic and changing environment. It doesn't take 
great 
> 
>  > brains to realize that we have the wild bestiary of extinct animals in 
the 
> 
>  > fossil record because the environment changed.
>  
>  But as a creature capable of
>  changing the environment to an
>  unprecedented extent,we humans
>  make adapting to changed environments
>  obsolete!

White skin and dark skin are currently cost effective adaptations to the 
environment trading off UV injury versus the need for vitamin D the synthesis 
of which is UV light driven in humans. Now, you can argue that you can just 
make up a gene for synthesizing vitamin D de novo and put in people and make 
their skins any color you want. This can no doubt be done. It may even be the 
most efficient thing to do. However, there is a deep fallacy in your argument 
that "we humans make adapting to changed environments obsolete!" This can 
only be so if there is total escape from environmental pressure. 

As we currently understand the universe we are not in possession of unlimited 
resources or unlimited insight. What's more, when we make a change like 
synthesizing our own vitamin D we pay a price for it and we are reacting to 
our environment. We are reacting with planned, modeled change to ourselves as 
opposed to the "blind" or random change of natural selection. Both cost 
energy and resources. If we decide to make our own vitamin D we will, if we 
are very prudent, carefully evaluate the cost-benefit ratio of this change. 
We will also periodically recheck our premise to make sure our choice was a 
wise one. Nature does this through selection, but it is "messy" and not very 
efficient (in the physics sense) compared to the use of reason and planning. 
However, keep in mind that natural selection produced us with our values and 
our preference for efficiency over vast, random misery. 

The point is that you never get to escape the pressure of selection. You can 
and create your models and make your choices but you can't escape the 
ultimate reckoning with reality. (At least not as we currently understand the 
Universe, but this may change.) You may make the process more efficient and 
reason driven, but you can't escape it.

There is the notion prevalent amongst utopians and idealists of all eras that 
we will someday reach a happy singularity where there is more than enough for 
everybody and all conflict ends. This may be so. But, even now, I have plans 
that call for my having complete control of, and personal use of, all the 
output from all the stars within a 100 light year radius of our sun, within 
the next 500 years, just in order to survive :-). This may put me in conflict 
with others ;-0! If this seems incredible, it is no more so than the idea 
that having access to a thousand horses to meet your daily needs would seem 
to a typical Middle Age peasant -- or potentate for that matter! I can fly 
through the air at 50,000 feet, cross the world in hours, get information at 
near the speed of light from half a world away, explain the basics of how the 
sun and stars and work; and still I am poor. Go figure.   

I am in this sorry state because we are creatures of unlimited desires in a 
limited world. As fast as we expand our limits we want more. In fact, the 
ultimate desire of many on this list is, to quote Bob Ettinger: "We want it 
all!" Maybe the laws of physics that create temporal constraints on this 
desire will ultimately be circumvented, but until they are we are faced with 
(selection) pressure from the world we live in. That is currently inescapable 
and the notion that because we can change ourselves or our environment 
without cost is not valid. 

>  > Right now, wings have the edge: birds live longer, better lives than
>  > mammals, including man, although we are closing the gap, albeit at
>  > enormous destabilizing impact on the rest of the biosphere.
>  
>  What longevity records for birds
>  are you aware of?
>  (The human record remains 122,
>  on a proven basis,though the
>  110+ age category continues to
>  grow).

Lifespan can be looked at in absolute terms or in relative terms. 
Metabolically birds beat us hollow. A canary has well over the metabolic rate 
of a mouse and can live for 15 years (mice live for 2) . The largest raptors 
such as the Eagles appear to have lifespans of 120 years or greater. Whales 
(which occupy an oceanic ecological niche similar to raptors) seem to 
routinely have maximum lifespans of 200 years or more. Birds are also well 
maintained throughout their lifespan and usually die by "going light" and 
losing organ and muscle mass precipitously before dying. They don't 
experience the horror of senescence the way mammals typically do. If a canary 
or a rainforest parrot were a mammal it would have the metabolic equivalent 
lifespan of 500 or more years. As it is, many larger birds live as long or 
longer than wild type humans. 

Humans may well close the life span and life quality gap, and I would agree 
we are getting close now, but not with as much finesse as animals like whales 
or birds. Yes, we are surviving till 115 or so, but not in youth or even good 
health. And yes, I obviously think we have the possibility of changing this. 
But, until it is done we can't be sure. 

Incidentally, just because we can't be sure doesn't make us nihilists or 
despairing Angels of Darkness. Ideals can be tempered with realism -- and in 
fact are at their best when they are. The architects of the American 
Revolution are probably the best example of this and are the people you 
should look to if you want to understand my psychology. These people believed 
in ideals like the "right of pursuit of happiness" and that "all men are 
created equal." They also believed in lots of brass tacks, real world 
mechanisms to try to approach these ideals as closely as possible. These 
mechanisms like the separation of church and state, the Bill of Rights and 
the like, were took cognizance of the inherent limitations and imperfections 
that the real world presents as obstacles to the ideal. 
 
>  I don't see why these things can
>  not be done by celibate persons.
>  Certainly if genetic components
>  leading to homosexuality are tied
>  in the genome to genes for useful
>  things,one would not want to get
>  rid of those useful things in the
>  process of an effort to get rid of
>  homosexuality.

>  It seems to me intellectually
>  bankrupt to have sexual relationships
>  between persons of the same sex.
>  This turns reasonable relaxation of
>  strictly-reproductive use of sexuality
>  into sheer absurdity.The pleasure 
>  aspect is a bribe built in to ensure
>  reproduction;this should be acknowledged
>  whether or not procreation is the goal
>  of the relationship.It is not where
>  the insertions take place that puts a
>  sex act beyond the pale of rationality
>  to my thinking,but the sex of the 
>  persons being the same,per se.That
>  represents a step from knowing you're
>  falling short of the design purpose
>  of sexuality,to spitting in its face.

Who cares and why should they? It is in the nature of nature and especially 
of human nature to change the rules of the game within the constraints of 
physical law. With literally one or two exceptions almost all heterosexuals 
in key positions in cryonics today (and in the past) have been childless or 
single. In cases where they did reproduce it was usually after their period 
of activism or after their children were grown and this was and is the 
exception rather than the rule. 

The percentage of single or childless heterosexuals in activist positions in 
cryonics was and probably still is truly staggering. Let me assure you these 
people were not celibate!  I wonder how many people even on this list are 
married let alone have children? Normally, I wouldn't even address arguments 
like yours, but in this case it raises an interesting point I've thought 
about for a long time: most people heavily involved in cryonics are not only 
childless, they are actively childless; they don't want children.

Furthermore, they view sex as an activity that can be used (or if you prefer 
transmuted) into a useful behavior disconnected from reproduction. This isn't 
unreasonable. We use our eyes to view art and to read recreational 
literature. In fact, most of what we use our eyes for has nothing to do with 
their original purpose. Given the degree of myopia in reading and artistic 
cultures it could be argued that we are damaging our eyes by this maneuver. I 
don't see eyeglasses on bears or dogs and far more to the point I rarely see 
myopia in primitive cultures. Reading and close work seem to be major 
contributors to this damage. The take home message would seem to be that 
masturbating won't ruin your eyes but reading will!

And, speaking of masturbation: WHAT A WASTE! What a terrible, miscreant and 
illogical use of sex and sexual organs! I wonder why most primates spend so 
much of their time doing it? And not just in zoos, either. 

The point is the same point you are making. Sex is there: gay straight or 
otherwise. I would certainly agree it is important to acknowledge its 
dominant historical function: make babies and doing so at a rate far in 
excess of the current population because mortality will wipe out most of 
them. This is valuable and useful information. It is as useful as 
understanding why it is logical, natural and necessary for aging and death to 
occur in the historical setting. The point is, we are trying to change that 
context. No, we can't escape the costs of any action, but we can change how 
efficiently we pay as well as when and how we pay, as long as we don't break 
the rules of physics.

My personal best guess is that in the long run sex as we know it will fade 
away because the reasons for it will be gone. From that it does not follow 
that we should all become celibate or that sex should be carefully allocated 
to result only in the projected required rate of reproduction. Nor does it 
follow that masturbation or homosexuality are somehow irrational. They just 
exist and it is up to us as individuals and groups to decide on the tolerable 
limits of their expression, frequency, utility and the like. The utility 
doesn't have to be the "utility" of our ancestors. Nor does it have to be 
driven by the cruelty of the random selection process that created these 
behaviors and people capable of understanding them in a larger context. 

In a world in desperate need of people due to high death rates homosexuality 
and masturbation aren't going to be seen as positive behaviors or very 
"logical" if the goal is survival of the species. In a world of 10 billion 
undereducated and malnourished people such behavior may be seen as a boon of 
a variation or mutation, and may come to be encouraged! You need to travel 
more! You'd be surprised at how plastic cultures are about all kinds of 
behavior (exclusive of sex) and even more interesting WHY they are differ so. 

>  It seems to me vital to the successful
>  operation of a military unit that any
>  sexual interaction between its members
>  be definitively unthinkable.If the idea
>  is even floating in the air there can
>  be trouble.If the unit is composed of
>  persons whose only possible sex partners
>  are not in it...QED.

I generally agree. Bonding and deep affection are necessary if people are to 
risk or give their lives for their comrades in battle which is currently a 
necessary requisite of warfare. Sexual attachments in this environment lead 
to jealousy, rancor, and factionalism in excess of that already present. With 
the proper structuring it may be possible to have openly homosexual soldiers 
and this has certainly been done historically. But, it is difficult and 
exacts an extra burden that can outweigh the advantages. Full discussion of 
this point is beyond the scope and the purpose of Cryonet. Just remember that 
the nature of warfare may change too! Few people in control rooms guiding 
smart weapons, or in nanotechnology labs designing minature horrors for 
warfare will care about their colleagues' sexual orientation. Nor will it 
matter much to the task at hand. In fact, in some cases it may make it more 
efficiently executed. The military has long used people with sadistic 
sexualities to great advantage. Enough said.
  
>  > Homosexuality is no more or less aberrant than the first feathers or the 
>  > first wings or the first human born without a brain or one born with a 
> tail. 
>  > It's all the same to the universe. It's a blind crapshoot and whatever 
> works, 
>  > works.
>  
>  Again...my view of the universe
>  is more idealistic than that...I
>  believe in the possibility of
>  perfectability,and see that as
>  part of immortalism.

You are mistaken in assuming the two points of view expressed above are 
mutually exclusive. Up until the evolution of humans the only way for life to 
progress has been through blind selection. It can be argued that the general 
direction life has proceeded in, culminating in humans capable of reason and 
thoughtful (planned and reasoned) control of their internal and external 
environments, is teleological. It can just as easily be argued the other way. 
In any case, here we are, and while the Universe may not have intended it, we 
get to accelerate the design and validation process enormously. 

Note I said accelerate; no matter how good your engineering you are always 
faced with the constraint of limited insight. We are not omniscient and our 
models will always be just that, models that ultimately need to be tested. We 
can have high or low confidence in the outcome of our models based on what we 
know, or think we know. But, ultimately we pays our money and we takes our 
chances. Short of complete knowledge of physical law and all the 
ramifications thereof, we can't be certain any given action will work.

This means we face uncertainty and most people and especially a lot of 
cryonicists don't like that! In fact, they confuse it with nihilism. So, I'm 
here to set the record straight and tell you what I think a reasonable 
operating philosophy is:

1) As long as we are creatures of limited insight certainty is not possible.

2) Given the constraint of #1 above, being alive provides the best 
opportunity for staying alive based on our current rational understanding of 
the Universe.

3) The reason for living is that it can feel very good and offers the 
possibility of being made to be a progressively more pleasant experience. 
(This is a tautology on one level but ultimately may not prove to be one.)

4) Beyond "feeling good" there are other possible reasons for surviving and 
coming to as complete an understanding of the Universe as possible. The 
reality or utility of these other possible meanings for existence does not 
seem feasible to explore if we are dead since our current understanding is 
that death (not the kind most physicians pronounce) is irreversible. Indeed, 
that is the most rigorous definition of death: irreversible loss of life.

5) Irreversible decisions are generally not conducive to life. Rather, a high 
degree of flexibility is. We call this freedom and we generally choose 
scenarios with more options rather than those with few or none. If the 
starting premise is that our lives are valuable and good to us, then we 
should choose courses of action which maximize the chances of their 
continuing. Generally, such courses of action will be in the direction of 
more freedom rather than less.

If this makes me a nihilist or an anti idealist, well so be it. I've had 
enough of the all-certain banner waving kind: be it religious or political. 


>  From my perspective,it seems that
>  those who demand homosexuality be
>  treated as if equal to heterosexuality
>  are using it to define people with
>  the condition,regardless of attributes
>  I would consider more important.

I don't demand equal treatment except under the law. Where law comes from is 
determined by the fundamental philosophical principles of a society. The 
civilization I live in has core principles which don't demand any position on 
homosexuality other than that those who are homosexuals don't use force or 
fraud on their neighbors. I find heterosexual behavior as meaningless as 
homosexual behavior and pretty dangerous to the individuals who practice it. 
It spreads disease, it creates disease, it is the leading cause of accidents, 
homicides and suicides and it results in overpopulation of the world and 
creation of a large number of people I don't like. 

Reproduction can be accomplished with far greater efficiency using modern 
technology than by having sex. It could also be regulated better: a lot of 
the reproduction I see going on is deeply offensive to me :-). In short, it 
simply is not logical and is a messy, inefficient behavior which is a legacy 
of our animal past. If it were up to me, I'd completely ban all sexual 
activity and move reproduction into the rational sphere of modern technology. 

Of course, it goes without saying that I would be the exception to this rule. 
And equally obviously, for me to be the exception there would have to some 
carefully chosen others who would be exempted as well. Why? Because not 
having sex anymore is depressing and bad for my survival. With the risk of 
disease and violence eliminated by eliminating sex for almost everyone else, 
this seems a perfectly rational choice for me...

Don't you agree Mr. Epstein?

Mike Darwin

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16595