X-Message-Number: 20173 Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 14:38:15 -0400 From: Jeffrey Soreff <> Subject: emissions etc Dr. Ettinger writes: >Tracy Simon asks how to respond to the remark below: > >The writer appears to be worrying about the cost of storing people and the >emissions and wastes associated with power usage. This is just a variation of >the theme of "We shouldn't waste money on dead people that could be used to >feed starving children," or "We shouldn't spend on luxuries when so many >don't have necessities," or "We shouldn't indulge ourselves at the expense of >the environment," etc. The answers are obvious, or ought to be. > >Robert Ettinger >Cryonics Institute >Immortalist Society >www.cryonics.org > >> "Even if cryonics had a hope in hell of working, one wonders how the >> freezers are powered and the carbon output or radioactive waste you >> would generate over a deathtime (opposite of lifetime?)." I agree with your assessment of the flavor of the original remark. One way that I find convenient in disposing of such comments in the contexts of cryonics is to note that - I have budgeted a certain amount of my income for humanitarian purposes. - My cryonics costs do not come from that budget. They are part of what I spend on medical care, personal care, pleasures and comforts and so on. - If cryonics were shown to be more more unlikely to work than I'd guess, this would _not_ affect what fraction of my income went to humanitarian purposes. That is a _separate_ decision. Most likely, a demonstration that cryonics was unworkable would lead my wife and I to take one or two more weekend trips per year. Best wishes, -Jeff Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=20173