X-Message-Number: 22945 Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:51:08 -0500 From: RANDY WICKER <> Subject: Individualized Cryonics --Boundary_(ID_/gn0btrwPqRNVYQDpQsECQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Individualized cryonics? That is the question. Is cryonics a fundamentalist system of thought in which one must agree to "chapter and verse" as it "is written"? Or is cryonics an expansive "big-tent" belief system which an individual can shape to his/her needs? Mike Perry, in #22933, writes (quoting me first): >Cloning a couple later-born twins would be "reanimation" enough for me. Mike Perry, who has an Alcor email address, continues and responds: "Most of us cryonicists would not consider that survival, not _our_ survival. The twins, who would grow from infancy, would have different memories and personality and not be us. We want to survive ourselves, much as we wake up each morning after sleep. It wouldn't do for someone else, even a twin who still wasn't us, to be the one who wakes up in our place." The issue which has arisen is not whether "most of us cryonicists would not consider that survival, not_our_survival". The issue is why Alcor (in particular) but not Cryonics Institute refuses to allow members the option of saving their cells for possible future cloning. I am not privy to the internal struggles and philosophical disputes in Alcor. In an article about Ted Williams (a few stories down on the opening "history of the movement" page at www.clonerights.com ) I outline my experiences with Alcor regarding this matter. Also, when I met Natasha Vita-Moore at a dinner for panelists the evening before we gave presentations at an NYU "War on Cancer" Transhumanist Forum, she reacted hostility to the idea Alcor should help people save cells for possible future human cloning by literally snapping:"Why should they?" Perhaps this issue has been colored by the personality conflicts within Alcor or which I know little. I have tried to contact Fred Chamberlain with whom I had a most friendly (and fun) relationship with but Alcor will not forward any messages. So, I will probably end up at Cryonics Institute (which seems to have very nice people and are more open minded) regardless of any decisions I might make regarding which method of suspension I might prefer. That is what I mean by individualized cryonics. If I want to be preserved so whatever cells are deemed best for cloning will be available, is that idea "too expansive" for Mike Perry and others at Alcor? If my vision of cryonics includes "survival through cloning", am I "unacceptable" because that somehow violates basic beliefs of what constitutes "survival" by some of the cryonic power elite? If the Libertarian Party and the Any Rand Institute can embrace reproductive cloning, is it really too controversial an issue for a cryonics group? I would hate to think any group liberated enough from"yuk-factor" thinking to embrace the idea of a better life tomorrow would exclude those who shared a slightly altered vision of the same dream. 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 201-656-3280 (Mornings) --Boundary_(ID_/gn0btrwPqRNVYQDpQsECQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=Windows-1252 [ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22945