X-Message-Number: 23857 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 05:35:28 -0700 From: James Swayze <> Subject: Cryonics IS environmentalism, comments needed for article References: <> CryoNet wrote: >CryoNet - Sun 11 Apr 2004 > > >Message #23853 >From: "Mark Plus" <> >Subject: Freeze-dried and then turned to powder: the new way to be buried >Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 21:27:39 -0700 > >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/04/11/nbury11.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/04/11/ixhome.html > >http://tinyurl.com/2wg6h > >Freeze-dried and then turned to powder: the new way to be buried >By Michael Day, Health Correspondent >(Filed: 11/04/2004) > > <snip> >A simple vibration is then used to shatter the extremely brittle body into >powder. This is then placed first in a vacuum chamber, which removes the >water, then in a metal separator, which removes toxic metal fillings and >surgical parts. > What about viruses? <snip> > >Dominic Maguire, a spokesman for the National Association of Funeral >Directors, said: "Funeral directors will carry out the wishes of the >deceased or families whatever they are, as long as they are legal and >decent, so I don't think there would be a problem with this." > I can't help wonder how cryonics figures on their "decent" meter. > >A spokesman for the Home Office said: "We can see no problem with this in >terms of burial law." > How does the home office feel about cryo _preservation_ as opposed to cryo destruction? > >The Church of England also welcomed the new technique. "We definitely >support environmentally friendly funerals and there's no reason why they >shouldn't be available to people who want them," a spokesman said. "When >firm proposals for such burials arrive, we will of course, study them >closely." > Cryonics IS extremely environmentally friendly. Rather than pollute the environment with decomposing bodies we re-use them and cause for there to be less incentive for making more and more of them. The ultimate recycling. That's real green to me! I've always favored the use of technology or products that extend the useful life of a product so that a replacement and especially continual replacement is not so often necessary. Take housing for instance. There's these wackos making return-to-earth homes that eventually melt back into the environment. Why! Don't they realize the greater amount of pollution is produced in the building of said homes? From materials production and forming to transportation of skilled building talent and materials to the job site this is going to multiply every time a new home is needed for one that decomposed back into the environment. I say it's better to make a lasting structure that needs minimal upkeep and needs replacement on the scale of thousands of years not hundreds. This wrong headed green attitude is fomented by crystal worshipping spiritualists in love with death and alleged rebirth. It has nothing to do with actual reduction of pollution and true environmentalism, nothing whatsoever! Of course the economy feeds upon planned obsolesce. That has to change. Molecular manufacturing will help, by making it easier to reshape raw materials into whatever is needed in a less pollution causing way. > >Mrs Wiigh-Masak, 48, is ready to practice what she preaches: one day she >hopes to become a white rhododendron. "There's a special variety that I love >with white flowers, which sometimes turn a little pink," she said. "That >would make me happy." > > Er, ah, WRONG! She won't be feeling anything especially not HAPPY! Stupid deathist pet tricks again. >Message #23855 >Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 00:15:15 -0700 >From: Mike Perry <> >Subject: Wishing non-oblivion > > From Kennita Watson, #23843, responding to "mike99" (Michael LaTorra): > > > >>>By the way, are you signed up for cryonics? I ask because I'm hoping >>>that >>>you're not so I won't have to see you in the future. >>> >>> >>> >>Be nice. The future will have room for everyone, and people >>will change (including you). Wishing oblivion upon anyone, no >>matter how annoying, is cruel. >> >> > >I want to second the wishing of non-oblivion to all, though of course >people do have the right to think differently and so express themselves >(verbally at least). But I think in the future, if mortality can be >overcome as we hope and other good things happen, everybody will see the >wisdom of "being nice" and, though some may resist for a long or short >time, all eventually act accordingly. > >Mike Perry > > I, of course, agree with all these sentiments of inclusion for all in physical immortality. If we do not hold the position that it is for all regardless how we personally feel about any _one_ being, then from the start the movement is corrupt and bankrupt. This means that any _one_ immortalist represents us all badly when advocating oblivion for any _one_. However, I don't think Michael really meant it. What does puzzle me though is the vehmence of his objections. Are they perhaps not so much because he feels Paul's posts have been off topic or more because he objects to the fact they are aimed primarilly at one particular political faction and entity that Michael favors? And if this is so I am truly flabbergasted. Yes, Paul has posted some links that I will agree were well off topic. However, I must question if they all were, I think perhaps not. I do not feel that the subject of "politics" is necessarilly off topic and I especially feel it is very much ON topic when it concerns a political entity and faction that could prove to be and has proven to be and currently is openly hostile to our interests. In case anyone hasn't noticed there's this fellow called Leon Kass and he is vociferous in his hostility toward life extensionism, in ANY FORM. He is likewise widely well regarded by people with the power to cause harm to our interests. And in case anyone wasn't watching closely enough Alcor was just attacked by an individual of the same persuasion as those that gave Leon Kass his current and dangerous to us lofty position. I am considering writing an article that explores this issue. I need to cover both positions pro and con. So could anyone/everyone with an opinion as to whether or not that the current administration and the party is good for cryonics and immortalism, could you please either here or to me privately, if you think it really is off topic, explain why either way? Of course I am of the opinion they aren't and never will be. I will present both sides faithfully and then present my opinion on them. This is not an invitation to argue it here on cryonet. Although if views are presented here and not in private one must expect someone might disagree. I'll save my comments for my article. I already have some private comments. James -- Member: Cryonics Institute of Michigan http://www.cryonics.org The Immortalist Society http://www.cryonics.org/info.html The Society for Venturism http://www.venturist.org Immortality Institute http://www.imminst.org Methuselah Foundation http://www.methuselahfoundation.org Methuselah Mouse Prize http://www.methuselahmouse.org [Give $$$ for life!] World Transhumanist Association http://www.transhumanism.org/ Marijuana Policy Project http://www.mpp.org American Civil Liberties Union http://www.aclu.org Nat. Resources Defense Council http://www.nrdc.org Act For Change http://www.actforchange.org People for American Way http://www.pfaw.org MY WEBSITE: http://www.davidpascal.com/swayze/ Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=23857