X-Message-Number: 16656
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 19:28:21 +0000 ()
From: Louis Epstein <>
Subject: Replies to CryoNet #16627 - #16639

On 23 Jun 2001, CryoNet wrote:

> Message #16627 From: "John de Rivaz" <>
> Subject: Getting a woman's view on cryonics
> "Deathist Lurker Girl" "Shiva" (found on sci.cryonics) and possibly "Jeff
> Grimes" are (in the case of the fist two) and, possibly could be,
> "characters" authored by someone else like characters in a book, in order
> to debate ideas about cryonics. Even a virulently pro-cryonics person could
> create people with questioning opinions in his own mind simply to explore
> how other people react. Charles Platt has sometimes been mentioned as a
> possibility for being their author, but it could well be someone none of
> us know. And, before anyone asks, Chrissie has nothing to do with it!
So you are saying that Debra-the-ex-LDS-nurse
is just a fiction through which someone else is
creating "DLG" to engage us in forensic dialogue?
I am disinclined to believe this.
Nor do I believe DLG speaks insincerely.

> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Message #16629 Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 07:12:54 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Charles Platt <>
> Subject: On being taken seriously
> Re Louis Epstein:
> Anyone familiar with the online culture will recognize the syndrome of
> compulsive posting (including excessive quotations), persistently and
> truculently expressing lunatic-fringe ideas. The existence of such
> net.kooks has undermined the credibility of the Net

I wonder just what ideas I have expressed
on Cryonet are here being described as
"lunatic-fringe".Taking exception to uncritical
acceptance of homosexual activity and relationships
is a thoroughly mainstream opinion,geographically
and historically...which can hardly be said for
the notion that freezing people's severed heads
saves their lives.
> ------------------------------------------------------------ 
> Message #16631 From: "Jan Coetzee" <>
> Subject: Mummified monk's eternal meditation
Text snipped,but an interesting account
of a lower-maintenance means of preserving
bodies.Of which more later.

> ------------------------------------
> Message #16635 From: 
> In his wonderful book about his experiences as a concentration camp inmate 
> MAN''S SEARCH FOR MEANING, Victor Frankel observes that "the best of us did 

> not survive." He notes that the most decent and caring people were weeded out
> by their own humanity. The private hateful e-mail I have received, and the 
> dehumanizing position taken by several of the people who posted here are 
> evidence that this fear is justified. 
"Faint Heart Never Won Fair Lady",
they say,but how many ladies might
have been happier with the men not
prepared for the challenge of making
their way through the ladies' more
forward admirers?

Greed and combativeness can help
one survive,but not help one deserve 
to survive. 

> In the rigorous scientific sense, I don't know which is the best group 
> survival strategy. The US, which is pretty tolerant and inclusive as
> cultures  and countries goes has done spectacularly well. 

Tolerance and inclusiveness taken to
extremes are suicidal.There is no
escape from drawing lines.They just
have to be drawn in the best places.
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Message #16638 Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 22:19:15 -0400
> From: <>
> Hi Louis,Thanks for the reply:
> > As I've indicated...it doesn't seem clear to me that cryonics offers
> > the most immortalist bang-per-buck.
> Cryonics is a lot cheaper than you think---i'll bet Rudi
> Hoffman could write you a policy for $1000/year, and CI membership
> is only a one-time $1250 (they even have a low yearly-rate
> membership, i think).

That is not their suspension fee...
the $28,000 needs to come from somewhere.
What good does one get from being a non-paid
> Now as to your second, and much more important point, what's the
> replacement for cryonics?

The overall goal is to avoid dying,
and if that proves impossible to
avoid decay afterward.Whether cryonics
is the best way to preserve a body not
capable of carrying on life processes
doesn't seem quite proven to me...see
the recent account of a naturally
desiccated mummy with internal organs
intact,without centuries of cryogenic
coolant maintenance.Whether a Modern
Mummy or some other sophisticated 
effort at room temperature (or
designed-for-permafrost) preservation
can improve on this,I'm not sure.
Obviously cryonics does not enter
the frame as a means of keeping an
active body active,it only provides
a pause(if successful) or delays
the aftereffects of death(if not).
But all stay-animated and stay-best-
able-to-be-reanimated solutions are
competing with each other.I'd be
happier with cryonics if the technology
seemed more certain to produce revivable
bodies,but once that's clear the whole
point of freezing may be obsolete for
many purposes.

> dan
> ---------------------------------------------------- 
> Message #16639 Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 20:55:18 -0500
> From: david pizer <>
> Is life a game?  How can you know?
> I would speculate that in order to win, one would have to come to know
> things that count for points before the other contestants did.  And the
> piece of knowledge that would count for the most points would be to fully
> realize that you are in a fantasy world.   

Wouldn't that be held against
the game designer,for creating
an insufficiently convincing

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16656