X-Message-Number: 16636
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 19:38:25 +0000 ()
From: Louis Epstein <>
Subject: Replies to CryoNet #16615 - #16623

On 22 Jun 2001, CryoNet wrote:

> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Messages #16615-9 From: "Trygve Bauge" <>

As far as these go,I note no one else here seems to be
responding to Bauge(who I first encountered on the web
thanks to his "Metaportal" site that soon became completely
incompatible with my browser).I recall he was the one who
froze his father in the Rockies and got into legal trouble?

It doesn't look to me,or even to him,as if Kostadinova's
father will be frozen in a reasonably preserved state.
But a cryonics facility in Norway might be the answer
to some people's hopes.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Message #16622 From: "john grigg" <>
> Subject: my Extro-5 adventure!
> I got to meet Kennita who is a bundle of energy!  A very nice and 
> energetic person who is great to discuss topics with.  I had fun arguing 
> with her about the relative merits of nuclear vrs. sun and wind power to 
> solve our national energy problems.  I took the latter position.

I'm an enthusiastic and emphatic supporter
of nuclear power myself.(Did anyone continue
Golem Press after Petr Beckmann died?)
> My deepest thanks to Max More, E. Shaun Russell, Natasha, Robert Bradbury, 
> Brent Allsop and his father, and Spike Jones and his wife Shelly who all in 
> various ways made my trip possible.  I am forever grateful!!

Congratulations on meeting your
idols...now,if they could just advance
their evolved state until they agreed
with me on everything...:)
> ------------------------------------
> Message #16623 From: 
> In the last cryonet discussion, Mr Epstein makes several assertiions:
> To Deathist Lurker Girl, Mr. Epstein asserts:
> >If you turned into something not-you deluded that it was you,
> >you/it wouldn't really be you.

That was definitely NOT to the DLG,
who has no ambitions to be "uploaded".
I think it was to Kennita,I would have
to check.
> Mike Darwin Said:
> >> I don't demand equal treatment except under the law.
> And Mr. Epstein replied to Mike Darwin:
> >Well,the interpretation of that can extend to things I think inappropriate.
> >There should,I believe,be certain advantages to one's sexual relationships 
> >being heterosexual ones because these are more useful to the species.
> I'm soooooo interested in what Mr. Epstein thinks "inappropriate" about all 
> people receiving equal treatment under the law.

I think you weren't reading carefully.
I object to certain INTEPRETATIONS of
what "equal treatment under the law"
MEANS.I am all for everyone having an
equal right to marry someone of the
opposite sex,and an equal,fixed at zero,
right to marry someone of the same sex.
Some people think that's not "equal
treatment under the law"...I say it is.
> When pressed to consider tolerance for diversity in the human genome Mr 
> Epstein asserts:
> >I'm certainly familiar with that slippery-slope attitude,which
> >equates any eugenic motivation whatsoever with a desire for
> >death camps in every town.
> >But no,my interest is clear,strictly in weeding out TRAITS.
> >And it doesn't extend to sterilizing anyone mentally competent to refuse.
> How gracious.  But sterilizing the mentally incompetent is fine?  How will 
> that be decided? 

Well,the existing system forbids the
mentally incompetent from having sex
lives.Is that more or less kind to
them than sterilizing them?And if there
is a gene that causes severe retardation,
how can you defend its being transmitted?
> Mr. Epstein doesn't understand the horrors he proposes, I am convinced. 
> And I think that is shown over and over in his posts.  When he likens his
> myopia (an eyesight deficiency) to my homosexuality (which he views as a 
> genetic/sexual deficiency) it shows the depth of his ignorance.  To further 
> the metaphor, I've decided that Mr Epstein is right about his myopia.  And I 
> think it should be weeded out.  Should we trust him to close his eyelids and 
> keep them closed, or should we surgically remove his defective eyes so they 
> don't offend us anymore?

Neither blindness nor sterility is to be 
seen as normative.I would certainly welcome
assurance that none of my children would
develop vision problems.

> Michael Donahue
> ----------------------

Carroll O'Connor and John Lee Hooker have
joined the ranks of the dead.On another 
front,scanning the Deseret News obituaries
as I periodically do to make sure Cleo
Cranney Hinckley(born October 13th 1890)
is still alive,I noted the obit for a
girl who died June 20th after being born
June 19th.

It was once optimistically said,
"If you can live to the year 2000 you
can name your own lifespan".Yet even now
someone born this month(who if she had
reached Mrs. Hinckley's age would be
alive in February 2111) can die without
a chance.I don't know what year it will
take substitution of for the above statement
to be true.

There was recent discussion with the DLG
about deathbed cryonics and practicality.
I wonder if there would ever be interest
in neonatal cryonics?("We might not be able
to save your baby now,but let us freeze her
until a way of reviving her is developed").
That would probably be a hard sell except
to cryonicists.How young a person has ever
been frozen?I gather the oldest was 99.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16636