X-Message-Number: 24943
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 21:13:05 -0400
From: Randolfe Wicker <>
Subject: Life without romance?

Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

"Till death do us part" would certainly seem an unlikely vow in a future 
immortalist marriage ceremony.  Thomas Donaldson (POSTING #24935)  touches on 
some interesting issues.


He is certainly more than optimistic about an immortal lifespan making a person 
less likely to hurt others of do evil to them.  I know some people who have 
indeed become more decent as they aged.  However, I know others that have turned
into uglier and more hateful beings each day they lived.


His idea that immortalists would lose interest in history because they would 
increasingly have been part of it does not withstand close scrunity.  Look at 
how passionately people today argue over the Vietnam War that they all 
experienced.  I think history would be even more interesting to most people 
because each would have his/her own interpretation of those events, which 
overlapped their own lives.


Reproduction is a difficult issue for immortalists.  Donaldson is right when he 
points out that two people in a romantic union share their lives, then continue 
sharing or slowly grow apart as they change with time.


However, Donaldson clings to the idea that two people (or a larger group) would 
produce a child "not just from their genes but their ideas about what a new 
human being should be like".  And "These groups would occur independently of any
pairing for sex".


One of the most unappealing characteristics of immortalists is their willingness
to forsake the human body and the pleasures involved with inhabiting it.  
Cryonicists, especially those who don't opt for head-only suspension, are much 
better than most immortalists in this regard.  They want to "suspend" their 
bodies and ultimately be able to enjoy an extended life in them.


Personally, I don't see life inside of cyborg devoid of bodily cravings, joys 
and satisfactions as being such a promised land.


Immortalists should consider "eternally youthful healthy bodies" as the capsules
in which to spend countless years.  Reproduction?  Why does reproduction take 
two or more.  One can simply reproduce a later-born twin (a perfect social 
companion and family member) through cloning.


For that matter, romance, aided by technology, might help solve the population 
problem by enabling "two people in love" to literally become one.  If we can 
turn back the clock, why couldn't we find a way to merge and solidify instead of
constantly dividing and multiplying?


All this is far out for Cryonet.  However, would anyone want to spend an 
eternity as a prisoner in a paralyzed body like Christopher Reeve did for years?
Would one want to live on forever with terrible arthritis pain or irritable 
bowel syndrome?  No, the quality of life is just as important as its duration.

Cryonicists should simply want to be brought out of suspension, have their 
illnesses corrected, the aging process reversed and to live on in the body they 
know with all its capacities for pleasure restored.


Cloningly yours,


Randolfe Wicker 



Randolfe H. Wicker
Founder, Clone Rights United Front www.clonerights.com 
Spokesperson, Reproductive Cloning Network, www.reproductivecloning.net 
Correspondent, Stem Cells Club, www.stemcellsclub.com
Advisor, The Immortality Institute, www.imminst.org 
201-656-3280 (Mornings)

 Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=24943