X-Message-Number: 22967
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:57:46 -0700
From: Mike Perry <>
Subject: Libertarianism, Cryonics, Religion

Recent exchanges on libertarianism inspired the following, with an 
additional boost from some remarks on religion. I begin with some issues 
that seemed to call for further, brief comment, then move on to tie in 
libertarianism with cryonics and immortalism (albeit in a somewhat limited 
way). Finally I address the subject of religion, with some thoughts on why 
a scientific version may be both feasible and desirable at this point, and 
some tentative suggestions of how I intend to proceed with such a project.

The point seems well-established that no libertarian system has been tried 
and shown itself able to stand on its own and out-compete alternatives. I 
argued that the failure of libertarianism to take firmer hold has deep 
roots in human nature, including the fact that people exist, in some 
measure, to perpetuate their genes rather than being motivated by more 
rational self-interest. (It's the genes, we could say, that motivate their 
hosts to do what is "rational" from the genes' point of view.) Some think 
of the system in place in the days of the Founding Fathers as much closer 
to a libertarian system than today's U.S. governmental apparatus and in 
certain important ways they are right, particularly as regards the federal 
government-though it was still not fully libertarian. They see the 
historical trend, though, if I understand it right, as being one of a 
steady erosion of individual freedoms and usurpation of authority, which 
may culminate in a complete totalitarian system. The federal government, it 
is true, has tremendously increased its powers and control over the past 
two centuries, and this may seem to reflect an unstoppable trend toward 
full totalitarianism. But I think that, if you consider the system as a 
whole, which means government on all its levels, there are strong 
countervailing tendencies. In 1790, for instance, women couldn't vote and 
blacks could be owned as property. These things were not mandated in the 
Constitution but were not forbidden either, and did exist as an accepted 
part of the total system.

As our history unfolded, people demanded the abolition of slavery and the 
enfranchisement of women, and these reforms took place. In some other ways 
you can see progressive reforms, such as the elimination of "blue" laws 
against working on religious holidays, outlawing of racial segregation, and 
the recent Supreme Court decision banning laws against private sexual acts 
between consenting adults. Other reforms are possible too, of course, 
depending on what the people feel is right and proper and try to see 
enacted via their power to vote. (And we have seen reforms in some other 
countries too, most notably in the collapse of communism in the Soviet 
Union and Europe and its ongoing accommodations with capitalism elsewhere.) 
This brings us to the present.

Today we have better opportunities for both good and bad than ever before. 
The bad possibilities should not be overlooked, but here I will focus on 
the good ones, from an immortalist perspective. Mainly, we could transform 
society into something that has never existed, and which bears comparison 
with some of the religious concepts of heaven. We could eliminate diseases 
and aging as well as poverty and even stupidity and the need for employment 
as we now understand it (working at a job you would not choose if 
independently wealthy).

Reforms on this level, though, would require, among other things, modifying 
the basic human organism. Some fearful pessimists realize this could really 
happen and is perhaps even starting already. They would impose legislative 
measures to bring it to a stop before it goes very far. Their fear of the 
possible downsides exceeds any appreciation of the possible benefits. It 
seems that they would recognize the present human species as a kind of 
"person" in its own right, and an entity with a right to exist surpassing 
that of the individuals who now comprise that very species but who might 
voluntarily abandon it under foreseeable circumstances. So they would 
impose restrictions on an individual's right to choose, for instance, a 
treatment to eliminate aging, and the physical means to otherwise improve 
one's body and/or mind, were such to be developed. They fear that allowing 
this sort of thing would result in something other than homo sapiens 
populating the planet after a period of time. Cryonics has attracted some, 
if limited, notice from this group too. Predictably there has been some 
negative reaction, and we can expect more, since cryonics could serve as a 
stepping stone to an existence other than human, and in any case is 
offensive in its intended purpose of permitting an escape from the normal 
attrition of aging. (So far I think cryonics is mostly dismissed on grounds 
that it has no serious chance of working anyway, but that could change if 
there were more appreciation of the scientific case for cryonics, 
particularly with some new preservation protocols.)

The fears of these people, I think, are well founded-the possibilities 
really do threaten the biological homo sapiens. The threat exists through 
the free, voluntary choices of individuals who could decide to opt out of 
what they would perceive as a biological strait-jacket. As immortalists, of 
course, we demand the right to choose, should the option present itself. 
Ultimately, that body of ours must be found wanting, if for no other 
reason, because it is running down and in time will run no more, unless 
something is done. We are not concerned about the "needs of the species" if 
said needs require our physical sacrifice. Some powerful guarantees of our 
freedom of choice would thus be in order. It is unfortunate that such 
libertarian thinking as Mill's principle was not firmly embedded in our 
legal framework; it would serve us well. All is not lost, though; as one 
ray of hope, the Declaration of Independence (not a part of U.S. law but 
still widely respected) recognizes the rights to life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness. You could use it to justify a person's right to 
choose to have his aging process reversed, with extension to other 
improvements. If such procedures were available there should be widespread 
support, which should be helped by this historic precedent. (I also think 
the respect for freedom to date in the U.S., even if it stops short of full 
libertarianism, has helped keep cryonics legal, given that the public is 
not particularly interested in it and is even somewhat repelled.) So the 
ayes would probably outshout the background noises of any holdout luddites. 
But now we have to confront the fact that the proven procedures are not in 
place, and the nay-sayers are making their bid to try to forestall the very 
possibility.

Ironically, they could win, and the consequence could be the destruction of 
the very species they are trying to save--or perhaps the lesser calamity of 
a new and lengthy, technophobic dark age. Such could be the outcome if we 
don't achieve liberation from our present  human form, as a consequence of 
the resulting stagnation and frustration. Imagine a steady-state homo 
sapiens culture, with individuals dying as usual and new ones being born 
who would have to relearn everything from square zero to keep the system 
going. Life would become more or less a zero-sum game (as it was until 
relatively recent times), with a constant struggle between haves and 
have-nots. It could, among other things, make a good breeding ground for 
terrorists of many different stripes and gripes, some of them, it may be 
presumed, having considerable brilliance along with the traditional 
fanatical hatred. Sooner or later, one misguided group or lone individual 
could wreak horrible damage, if some rogue nation didn't do it first. But 
along with that would surely be a scientific, constructivist underground 
which would be trying to topple the system in a very different and more 
hopeful way, that is to say, provide the means for individuals to escape 
the dreary birth-death cycle and become something more than human.

I doubt if matters will come to the point of a worldwide ban on good 
science, however. If it did come to that in the West, national rivalries in 
other parts of the world, Asia, and yes, the Middle East too, would kick 
in, and you'd see more of the good progress happening there. Our backward 
bailiwick might then sense it was being left in the dust, undo its 
repressive policies, and get moving again. In any case, the prospects for 
the biological homo sapiens don't look good, and we aren't likely to see 
the steady state for very long, if at all. We should be grateful that at 
least one of the alternatives, the path to something higher, is both 
possible and gaining support.

We wonder what we can and should be doing to further the good alternative, 
and particularly, make it happen for us. Cryonics is an obvious choice-the 
life-extending technologies are not here yet, and this offers our best 
chance of persisting physically until they will be. Beyond that, we can 
talk and otherwise communicate about our choice of cryonics, and try to 
support the important work with our resources allocated as seems fit. I 
will not deal with this difficult subject in any generality here. But I 
will mention one approach that is sometimes suggested and other times 
cautioned against: religion. Religion has been a powerful force in human 
society up to now, and in particular has served to legitimize and honor the 
deep wish felt by humans through the ages to be something more than human. 
True, traditional religions have proposed and promised means of achieving 
this that are not exactly the scientific and technological approach we 
transhumanists are now advocating. But we can make the point that here the 
end really is more important than the means, then try for something more: 
to meet the religionists on something approaching their own turf.

To do this, we have to think of religion in a different way from those who 
dismiss it as "fantasies about spirits" or insist it must involve belief in 
the supernatural. If you think instead of religion as a process of 
attempting to meaningfully engage with what is of transcendent or ultimate 
significance, the possibility of a rational, scientific religion gains 
plausibility, at least if we can center our attention on what is, in fact, 
of truly deep, beyond-human-level significance. But of course this is just 
what we immortalists are doing with our attempts to overcome death 
scientifically, something we know must become a never-ending quest and take 
us to rather distant reaches of knowable reality if it is to continue. 
Something along the lines of an immortalist religion has been attempted 
with Venturism, but I sense the need for something deeper. This I think 
would fit within the Venturist umbrella--and that's what Venturism is, an 
umbrella movement within which other cryonics-endorsing movements could 
find shelter without being in total agreement. What I am proposing, though, 
would not be an umbrella movement, but a religious enterprise with more 
specific content--it would, of course, not be acceptable to everyone who 
may find the "umbrella" congenial, an inevitable tradeoff.

Tentatively, I propose to name the new movement Aionism after the Greek 
_aion_, "eternal." It is to be based on my book, _Forever for All_, but to 
more directly address the special concerns of religion, and itself be 
called and considered a religion. Aionism would posit no supernatural 
entity or presence, but would recognize an Ordering Principle or Way of 
things, which is manifest in everything from mathematics to the world of 
our experience. A kind of Dao, then--and Aionism would be a scientific 
Daoism. It would provide a rather generous eschatology for humans--and 
other sentient beings too--eventual resurrection in some meaningful form, 
and eternal happiness, but no guarantee that the path thereto will be 
smooth or swift--which means that one's choices and behavior will 
definitely make a difference. (In particular, choosing cryonics will 
arguably "smooth the path," a subject explored in the book. More generally, 
though, Aionism would advocate the highest moral standards and 
consideration for all that is right and good, insofar as these things can 
be ascertained.) The path of one's existence, though, has special 
significance, progress and growth in an appropriate sense being important, 
with no final state ever being reached.

Well, I said this will not be for everyone, but we can ask if such a 
project would help our cause overall more than hurt. I think it would, even 
though it could inspire a backlash from traditional religionists who might 
be especially offended by it. But they in turn have to live with each other 
who have different persuasions. And a movement that truly advocates what is 
right and good, as Aionism is to be, must inspire some favorable response 
from the many in traditional religions who also favor these things. So my 
guess would be that with proper presentation Aionism would be accepted at 
least as another kind of religion, again, a variant of Daoism, with special 
emphasis on science on one hand, and individual salvation and immortality 
on the other, which implies that each individual is something rather 
special. I think it could, in particular, serve as a means of clarifying 
and legitimizing in some skeptical minds what it is we really want with our 
"tampering with nature." For we are seeking the loftiest and noblest goals 
imaginable, and yet they are things humans have long dreamed of and sought 
after. It's just that we think we've found a new and better way to approach 
these goals, one that is more rooted in the reality that scientific 
evidence reveals.

Looked at from the Aionist perspective, then, the human race is a great 
start but not an end-in-itself or final goal. It must be nurtured 
carefully, like a growing child, not stunted, to find a proper destiny 
beyond its present level.

Mike Perry

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22967