X-Message-Number: 22940 Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:28:34 -0500 From: Paul Antonik Wakfer <> Subject: Re: Cryonet # 22928 - Reiterate "old friends" References: <> > Message #22928 > From: > Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:58:56 EST > Subject: Reiterate "old friends" > > In a message dated 11/25/2003 5:01:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, > writes: > This goes out to Eugene Leitl and Paul Wakefer and Phil Rhoades. Welcome > back to cryonet guys. > > Now I'm wondering where other old friends are. If these are lurking we > miss you. Speaking for myself and Kitty, neither of us consider anyone on this list to be "friends". We think that it is important for people to be more judgmental of character and worldview when selecting friends and to only call people "friends" when they share one's *fundamental* approach to reality. We do not understand how anyone can think that a mere desire to be cryopreserved (which is little different from the simple instinct for human survival) is evidence of such a fundamental similarity. When cryonicists begin to realize that other cryonicists come with almost all the same differences which they find among people in society in general and do *not* have much philosophy in common, they will realize that they should *not* treat each other as "friends", but instead as merely other individuals with a narrow common goal. This does not, of course, mean that cryonicists should not act with courtesy and common decency of consideration toward one another. Such should be the default action even between strangers in any society which hopes to attain the long range interests of all through the medium of free exchange of values to mutual self-interest. I am stating this so strongly because I see it happening among many people on this list. I am one who in the past made this mistake twice (at least). Both when I became a Libertarian (active party member) in the mid 70s and when I became a cryonicist (end 80s), each time I stupidly thought "here I will find more people who think, approach life, and value aspects of reality like I do." Each time I was drawn in and gave up far too much of my personal resources before I realized that this was not so at all. Each time, I was thoroughly disgusted and depressed by the results and the failure. Finally, I have matured to the stage where that will not happen again. This having been said and understood, however, I still think there are many things that cryonicists can do jointly to promote their common goals even as narrow as those are and as different from one another as cryonicists are personally. > (Rudi Hoffman writing) > > I also wonder as does James whether some of his mentioned (and unmentioned) > former cryonics "activists" are lurking or simply have stop reading Cryonet. > > (The cynics among us might say "Well, perhaps they got a life!:)) Nevertheless, it is important for everyone to also have a life fully apart from cryonics, especially since as I described above, there is no basis in cryonics itself for any complete approach to life. > Especially Fred and Linda Chamberlain, people who are certainly among the > pioneers of cryonics. I like them both, and truly wish them well. It would be > nice to have an update regarding Linda's cancer. I hope she has recovered. > > Does it seem strange to anyone else that the Chamberlains just "dropped out > of sight" on the cryonics radar? Not really. It is highly characteristic of them. They did exactly this before. It seems that if they cannot be running things they have little interest. I am *not* criticizing this. In fact, it is a reasonable characteristic to have. *I* certainly would not even want to have a board of Directors telling me what to do and what not to do. That is precisely why I was self-employed for most of my formal working life, and it is why my "career" in cryonics ultimately failed - my plans were dependent on too many other people. However unfortunately, the nature of cryonics (and the optimal operation of society in general) *is* necessarily dependent on the mutual cooperation of many people toward common goals. What many of us need therefore, are clear delimitations of the extent of that necessary cooperation rather than a general kind of getting-in-bed-together "friendship". > > I know there was a certain amount of controversy and issues near the end of > their administration regarding funding glitches with "Cells for Life," and it > is certainly not my intention to bring up any old "Cryonics wars." > > But in our still abysmally miniscule cryonics "family" if people who have > been so active and dedicated can become so "burnt out" and/or ostracized that no > one even seems to mention them, we need to consider what causes this. I also don't wish to resurrect old differences. I will only make the general statements: 1) When the "differences" between the protagonists involve unethical practices in their view, then they can no longer work together, even in a normally polite and courteous manner. 2) The only way to prevent actions from becoming contentionally unethical rather than factually unethical is to always work within clear and fully stated contracts - Contracts which are written so that each party knows exactly what are his entitlements and responsibilities, which contain termination clauses (clauses delineating the method by which each party can terminate his place in the contract) and methods of amendment during the duration of the contract relationship, and which include disinterested arbitrators (whose initial job is to see that each party to the contract understands his/her place in the contract in the same way as do the other parties). Only when people begin to use such contracts to describe their complex arrangements with others will such "controversies" and the politics which surround them be greatly reduced, if not ended. > > This is still an INCREDIBLY tough business for "volunteers" and "near > volunteers" in all sorts of ways. It does not have to be so if approached as I have described above. It only becomes so when individuals donate themselves in an almost open ended, cart-blanche manner. This must stop both for the good of the individuals involved and for the good of cryonics. > > Recognizing this, it is helpful for us all to have as much compassion, > empathy, and appreciation for the visionary leadership we have as we can muster. Not quite. It helps much more if you are simply, honestly and objectively frank, direct and fully complete about what you say. The whole truth and nothing but the truth of one's thoughts and even one's feelings is what is needed in all one's human interfaces. In fact, such an approach is, by default, the most sincere exhibition of the compassion, empathy, and appreciation" which you request above. > > And perhaps mechanisms to "get away" from the fray on a temporary basis (when > you just can't stand another minute with opinionated, anti-authoritarian, > misguided fellow "volunteers" who have got it desperately wrong) and still come > back refreshed after a period of time. The difference between "being opinionated" and "having a different opinion" (with good reasons given) should be appreciated. People who cannot do that should not be "leaders". Similarly, being anti-authoritarian is *never* wrong. No one should *ever* do what another wants because of "authority" but only because what they want is correct - ie. it works in reality. The only time this does not apply is in the "heat of battle" (such as a cryopreservation team) where you have signed a contract ahead of time to follow the orders of a leader (but even there the exact nature of the orders which will be unquestionably followed must be strictly described and delimited ahead of time by the contract). However, after the "battle" is over, the contract should be such that you can fully dissent and even state that you will never follow such orders again. Given such criteria for when independent action can and cannot be taken, rest periods for psychic recovery should be able to be part of the normal activities. > We will prevail. The preservation of individual lives is a megatrend, and a > turning point in the evolution of life on earth. We are engaged at the > forefront of this epic work. Individual lives matter. First, you need to get rid of the use of this global "we". All that you can do is speak for yourself. Secondly, cryonicists will prevail much more quickly if they stop thinking that they are some kind of close family and face the reality that they come with all kinds of different and incompatible philosophical notions. *All* that they have in common is the desire to be cryopreserved instead of buried or burned, for whatever reason. In fact, once cryonicists realize this, then they will be much more open to seek other people who have an interest in cryopreservation even though that interest may not be related to human life-extension. I have described many of these groups on my website (which came out of the Prometheus Project) at http://morelife.org/lpcs/ which is still largely incomplete because it received such a poor response from cryonicists when I first started it. > > Kind Regards to all, especially the visionaries who are actually doing the > real day to day slog of making cryonics a reality in our lifetime, People working directly within cryonics need far more than mere thanks and appreciation. Most of all they need a better framework within which to enable their total happiness needs to be fulfilled. --Paul Wakfer MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org Rational freedom by self-sovereignty & social contracting Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22940