X-Message-Number: 22064 Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 02:51:30 -0400 From: Subject: Re: Libertarians and cryonics From Steve Bridge June 24, 2003 Re: Libertarians and cryonics Thank you for all of the responses private and public on my thoughts on Libertarians and cryonics. I hate to respond back in a hasty manner, since I thought about the original for a couple of weeks; but I need to add a bit in response to David Stodolsky. >Message #22050 >Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 13:10:21 +0200 >Subject: Re: Libertarians and cryonics >From: David Stodolsky <> > >On Sunday, June 22, 2003, at 11:00 AM, Steve Bridge wrote: >> Perhaps the most basic conflict in human nature is the self vs. the >> tribe >If we speak on the evolutionary level, then we also have to acknowledge >the conflicting survival drives between the self vs. the cell >(selfish-gene type theories). Here it is more obvious that it is the >balance of conflict and cooperation that is crucial. That is, one can >have both high levels of conflict and high levels of cooperation. Yes, but it not obvious that this is 1) a *greater* conflict that individual vs. tribe; and 2) that this other conflict says something about cryonics. If you have some further ideas on #2 especially, I would be interested in hearing them. Any way in which we can better understand ourselves in relationship to cryonics would be interesting on this discussion list. That's not to say that a more general discussion of self vs. cell would be *less* interesting, but just wouldn't be as relevant here. >> As the concept of individuality grew, the conflicts within families and >> tribes no doubt grew also. > >There is no reason that individual identity and group identity can not >grow simultaneously. For example, in a negotiation you might get to >like someone on the other side as an individual, but at the same time >oppose them strongly for their group position. There may be no reason why they *can* not; but there are centuries of examples to show that they most often *have* not. That's like saying that there is no reason that Christians (or African Americans or any other group we might be interested in) cannot become cryonicists. Well, sure; but the more interesting question is, "So why haven't they done so?" >> The result is that, while cryonics organizations may be largely made of >> people who are more or less "libertarian" in personal nature, cryonics >> organizations themselves are not libertarian or even democratic. >The lack of democracy is a threat. More democratic organization could >probably have prevented the one cryonics 'meltdown' from occurring. Now there is a nearly endless debate. However, Mike Darwin once pointed out that such splits are nearly inevitable as organizations grow larger. He had read an account of a society of beekeepers that split up in a series of accusations and ill will pretty much like what happened with Alcor in 1993. My personal feeling is that more democracy in that case would simply have shifted which individual members split off into a new group. There were deep divisions in both personalities and in opinions on how a cryonics organization should be run. And with perhaps the biggest problem being that very few of the activists would have conceded that the word "opinions" applied to their ideas. >> Back to the "libertarians vs. socialists" debate: Personally, I >> believe that no "pure" form of political philosophy is likely to be >>successful with any group much larger than 100 people, because it is too >>hard to agree on one's principles and rules with larger groups. And >>"agreement" is what holds such a group together. Larger groups stay >>together partly through various forms of coercion -- legal, social pressure, or outright force -- or they split into new groups. >Not obvious. We are confusing political organization and economic >organization. Ah, but "we" didn't write the article; and perhaps *I* am confusing things a bit. However, my observations tend to be that the two things are hardly ever separate. Thinking as a "Libertarian" tends to influence one's choice of economic models and practices. Being a "capitalist" or a "Marxist" or a "collectivist" of some shade tends to make one look for political systems which can support the economic result one is looking for. >> We concede enough authority to the different tribes around us to make >>sure things get done and that we feel as safe and comfortable as >>possible, while having certain borders of personal freedom that we are unwilling to have the tribal leaders cross. > A more accurate model is that people choose which leaders to follow. Another interesting debate, which may be like the riddle of "which came first -- the chicken or egg?" One sentence isn't enough for me to consider the depths of what David means here. I would say that there is plenty of room to question it either way. Maybe sometimes we choose a group by the general feeling it gives off and the leaders don't matter very much. Or maybe most people don't "choose" at all; but simply follow what they were expected to do. How many children of Republicans or Democrats vote the same way as their parents? (That's not rhetorical; I really don't know what the answer is.) Or maybe we do follow a particular leader because we find we like what he tells us to do and we are looking for someone to make major decisions for us. And a note to Bob Ettinger, who replied with: >Message #22051 >From: >Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 07:58:52 EDT >Subject: organizations etc. >Steve Bridge notes that Alcor's Board of Directors is elected each year by >the previous Board of Directors, instead of giving the members direct >votes. He suggests that this safeguards Alcor from takeovers and possibly >other hazards. >Cryonics Institute's directors are elected (one third of them each year) by >the members, those with contracts in force. There are other safeguards >against takeovers as well in the By-Laws. So let's have details on those safeguards that CI has, please. Not to start an acrimonious debate on who is right but to examine alternative ways of doing things. I'm curious what your group chose and how well it works. >Steve also writes: >pragmatism isn't a very glorious philosophy, if it can be a philosophy >at all; and it's hard to write a book about it, >Actually, pragmatism IS recognized as a philosophy, or school of >philosophy, or collection of such schools, and many books have been written >about it. William James and John Dewey are American exemplars. I guess *I* won't be following them up with my own book. <grin> But thanks for the summary on this field of thought. I need to go out and learn more. Fortunately for me, I am happy that I can still say "the older I get, the more I learn, and the less I *know*". While it doesn't seem to effect *everyone* this way, it's easy for me to stay humble around cryonicists. Steve Bridge Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22064