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