X-Message-Number: 17341
From: "John de Rivaz" <>
Subject: Shermer
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 12:03:09 +0100

I found Shermer's article on the web
http://www.sciam.com/2001/0901issue/0901skeptic.html
and see that he has fallen into the old trap of not looking at the situation
at the point in time that cryopreservation is applied, and viewing it from
the patient's standpoint.

Of course to a bystander, it is better that the bystander should receive the
Alcor fee to do with as he wishes rather than Alcor receive it to perform a
cryopreservation. (The CI fee was not mentioned in the article - being so
much smaller it made for less sensationalist reporting.) The bystander feels
that as the chance of survival of the dying individual via cryonics is so
small compared to the bystander's chances of enjoyment of the money (or
indeed the other good works he could do with it), it is not worth spending
on cryonics. The bystander's views are understandable, however they are the
wrong perspective to use for the situation.

This viewpoint problem is not that unusual when it comes to spending money.
There is a saying "more money than sense". Some people given a windfall may
like to spend it on a "holiday of a lifetime" others may prefer to invest it
and use the income to reduce the amount of work they have to do, others to
move to a bigger home and so on. There are many choices, and whereas an
individual can seek advice, only the individual concerned can make the final
choice. Yet others often say "he was mad to do [whatever]" just because that
was not what they would have chosen.

As cryonicists, we can only educate people as to the true nature of
cryonics, and yes it is not guaranteed to work. It is up to them to make the
choice, but they should see the choice for what it is - one from only two or
three options at the point of "death" as currently defined.

1. take a chance that cryonics may work
2. take a chance that some process yet undiscovered by science exists that
the program and data that make up the individual are somehow conserved
3. accept a chance that annihilation is imminent

The last two are not really separate options, of course, they are a combined
default.

There is no harm in cryonics detractors from pointing out that it may not
work, although this is somewhat redundant as all cryonics organisations make
the same proviso. What is harmful if they use persuasion to dissuade people
for example with "you are being selfish by not bequeathing your money"
argument which really could be applied to any retirement activity if you
think about it.

--
Sincerely, John de Rivaz:      http://www.deRivaz.com
my homepage links to Longevity Report, Fractal Report, music, Inventors'
report, an autobio and various other projects:
http://www.geocities.com/longevityrpt
http://www.autopsychoice.com - http://www.cryonics-europe.org -
http://www.porthtowan.com

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17341