X-Message-Number: 22806
From: "Graham Hipkiss" <>
References: <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #22778
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 12:33:59 -0000

> Message #22778
> From: "John de Rivaz" <>
> Subject: Pro-death letter in New Scientist -- uregent replies needed
> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 17:46:45 -0000
> The following appeared in New Scientist dated 8 November 2003, on page 32.
> The magazine is unlikely to print a single reply, but if many people write
> in, they are sure to print some of them. So please make what points you
> consider apposite and email a letter to them as soon as possible. Do not
> leave it a few days or it may lose impact.  Letters can be emailed to
>  They prefer you to include you postal address,
> this is usually truncated to something like "London UK" in the
> It is important that each letter is different and written in people's own
> words. But I have put some points at the end you may like to consider, but
> ideally find angles of your own.
> >>>>>>>>
> Cost of longevity
> From Jo Spencely
> The prospect of living alongside her children, grandchildren,
> great-grandchildren, and great-great-grandchildren might be "fantastic"
> Cynthia Kenyon, but would the rest of society and indeed the rest of the
> world share her delight her long life (18 October, p 46)?
> If food and wealth were redistributed, perhaps the planet could support
> these extra two generations who insist on hanging around. But ignoring the
> potential healthcare costs (Kenvon assures us150-year-olds will be
> has she computed the impact of super-super-super-grans in terms of the
> energy they and their cars will consume, the waste they will produce, and
> the sheer living space they will take up?
> Shouldn't we figure out an environmentally friendly way of feeding and
> housing the current world population before self obsessed westerners start
> doubling their lifespans?
> Still, people might not be so quick to pop her pills after all. As she
> society won't want to give pensions to go-year-olds who are "biologically
> just like 40-year olds". Paced with having to work for a century or more,
> those of us in the rat race might opt for three score years and ten with
> something like relief.
> London, UK
> <<<<<
> 1. Do the rest of society and indeed the whole world benefit from many of
> the other individuals that inhabit it whatever their age? If not why not
> follow Jo Spencely's argument and exterminate them. Remember that only
> 5%  of the world's workforce designs and manufactures useful articles,
> medicines etc.
> 2. Does the consumption of resources, cars etc of any given individual not
> in the 5%
> benefit the rest of the world?
> 3. Should we abandon spending resources on medicine as a profession in
> to feed the starving?
> 4. The pension industry will adjust and is already starting to adjust.
> may happen is that people will acquire wealth in their younger years that
> will able them to change to less well paid employment that is also more to
> their liking,
> and will be unwilling to be bossed about as to where to live, the hours
> work and so on. I can, of course, understand why a collectivist like
> Spencely wouldn't like this. People in jobs they enjoy and actually being
> happy
> with their lives and their health are not what such collectivists want at
> all. What
> Spencely wants is for people to be so miserable that they **want** to die
> 65
> years of age.

Thanks for spotting this John, I've kept my reply short to, hopefully,
maximise chance of publication and impact.

Reply to Jo Spencely - Letters 8th Nov.

Jo Spencely's goal in life appears to be to die, to make room for her
children to grow and die, in order for their children to grow and die, and
so on.

 I have news for Jo Spencely.  This depressing cycle is going to change and
not before time.  In the future (not too distant future) medical science
will cure all known disease, including the disease of ageing, resulting in
indefinite life spans.  If technology advances at even half the rate it has
over the last twenty years it will be able to deal with any problems as they
arise, eventually leading us to expand to other planets in the solar system
or even creating our own planets as required.

The only vehicle our generation, and the next couple of generations, have to
reach this time is cryonics.  This will obviously not appeal to Jo Spencely
who prefers extinction, but I, and fellow cryonicists, are choosing life,
for ourselves, our children and our children's chilren.

Graham Hipkiss
Cryonics Europe

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22806