X-Message-Number: 24981
From: "John de Rivaz" <>
Subject: Election result causes someone to resign from this goup
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 11:47:34 -0000

One of the active members of this group has left it because he thinks that
the re-election of the same President of the United States reduces the
chances of cryonics to the point of being nearly impossible.

Personally I don't think it makes a lot of difference who is president.
There will always be pro death activists who get into politics whoever is in
charge. I would imagine that there is some sort of feeling "There is nothing
anyone can do about death. If we accept it rather than fight it, and if
there is a God this could earn us favour. In addition, if we oppose those
that are fighting it, we will get even more goodie marks." It is probably
the same motivation as those who helped the occupying forces in Europe in
the 1940s -- they felt that the allies had lost and the only thing to do is
to build a career with the new masters.

A vaguely similar debate exists in the UK Parliament about allowing more
lenient sentences for murderers who confess compared to those who plead "not
guilty" but are found guilty by the courts. [Totally spurious really,
because it assumes that courts always reach the correct verdict. But it does
re-inforce the idea of appeasing an implacable authority, which is what this
pro-death discussion is about.]

If the US legislature outlawed stem cell research, it will be done
elsewhere, and the only people who will suffer are the US legislature
themselves. Once stem cell treatments are available in the rest of the
world, they will not be able to refuse their own citizens the treatment
without the risk of serious civil unrest. Instead the US as a whole will
have to pay "intellectual property" fees on imported ideas, which will upset
the balance of trade and so on. This applies whoever is in charge, and I
really don't think anyone who can get to the position of President would be
so stupid to miss it. Money talks!

The outlook for authorities who outlaw cryonics is even more grim. Even if
every legislature in the world outlaws it, as technology advances it will
become known whether it could have worked. [It is less easy to prove a
negative, so it will never become known for certainly that it could not have

Imagine a discussion amongst the ancient Greeks that could have ensued of
someone had made a machine capable of recording voices -- perfectly possible
with the technology of the time. One faction would say "What a marvellous
idea, it will enable the people thousands of years in the future to hear the
voices of people like Socrates." Those that didn't like Socrates would say
"What a ghastly idea - he could spread his sedition down the ages with far
greater authority if people could actually hear him - let's ban it."
However, these debates themselves could be recorded in writing and if voice
recording machines were banned, and their secret destroyed, those
responsible would be known now as people who denied us the opportunity of
hearing such recordings. People who burned books and destroyed libraries are
villains of history. Those that outlaw cryonics could become the same, but
with interest -- they had destroyed lives as well.

Imagine how people would look at historical characters who had banned
medical procedures later discovered capable of saving thousands of lives.
Could the descendants hold their heads high? Probably not, they'd at least
change their names.

Official records may exist, but unofficial records ought to be kept as well
in time capsules.

Sincerely, John de Rivaz:  http://John.deRivaz.com for websites including
Cryonics Europe, Longevity Report, The Venturists, Porthtowan, Alec Harley
Reeves - inventor, Arthur Bowker - potter, de Rivaz genealogy,  Nomad .. and

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=24981