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
>>  "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,

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=20173