X-Message-Number: 22922
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 21:10:30 -0500
From: RANDY WICKER <>
Subject: Re #22896 Ponzi Games? Bioethicists? Clones?

--Boundary_(ID_zy77ZWgCa4OXWmjPwVnBOA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT


Bioethicists? Ponzi Games? Clones?
Thomas Donaldson asks in #22896:

>Do you think any ordinary person, when faced with his dying mother,
>would listen to a bioethicist tell him about the merits of death?



This remarks reminds me of a rather lurid type of bioethicist described by Greg 
Pence 

in "Remaking Medicine".   They work in hospitals and are paid by insurance 
companies.

Their job is to save the insurer money by discouraging family members from using
heroic measures to save the lives of dying loved ones.


Then Mr. Donaldson goes on, as several others did also, implying I had called 
cryonics a "Ponzi scheme".

I went to lengths disowning that.  In fact, the lack of anyone "cashing in" 
invalidates that comparison.

What I was doing was comparing the financial structure of cryonic organizations 
to Ponzi schemes

insofar as they seemed to promise eternal care (an impossibility) for a set fee.


 In that regard, I thought Mr. Ettinger's answers were quite poignant, noting 
 that costs per patient had dropped 60% in the last few years, that no rent was 
 owed and there was room for hundreds more.

Then Thomas Donaldson became defensive and defeatist:
>If you really don't want to accept cryonics, that's fine with me. I'd
>feel sorry, but know that I was feeling sorry because of how I would
>feel in your position and not of how you feel. And if there were some
>way to convince you otherwise, which there never is, then I'd do it.


I'm 65 years old, in perfect health.  I first became interested in cryonics back
in the 1960s but decided it just wasn't practical.  Times have changed 
dramatically. For me, cloning is a serious goal and I have virtually decided to 
sign up for cryonic preservation so any type of needed cell would be saved.  
Some small chance of revival is certainly better than no chance at revival.  
Cloning a couple later-born twins would be "reanimation" enough  for me.


One thing which puzzles me about those who dream of hundreds, thousands, 
millions cryogenically preserved.

Why do they assume anyone would be interested in reviving them.  Perhaps a few 
special people would

appeal across the ages.  However, if you could go out into a country graveyard 
(even Arlington Cemetery) and bring back all those buried there, would you want 
to do it?  What about their need for housing, food and jobs?  Don't you think a 
social debate about reviving so many of the dead would lead to a social debate 
in which many would argue it was more important to take care "of our own", those
living now, instead of burdening an overpopulated with revived "additional 
people"?



Actually, should I succeed in being cloned, my later-born twins would quite 
possibly become ardent proponents of my revival.







Randolfe H. Wicker
Founder, Clone Rights United Front www.clonerights.com 
Spokesperson, Reproductive Cloning Network, www.reproductivecloning.net 
Former CEO, Human Cloning Foundation, www.humancloning.org 
212-255-1439 (3 to 9 Eastern Standard Time)
201-656-3280 (Mornings)



--Boundary_(ID_zy77ZWgCa4OXWmjPwVnBOA)

 Content-type: text/html; charset=Windows-1252

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22922