X-Message-Number: 26446
References: <>
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re: Reply to David S
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:13:58 +0200

On Jun 29, 2005, at 6:30 PM, David Pizer wrote:

> I HAD SAID:
>> If this situation does not seem wrong to you (a person who wants to
>> live in this world a long time), then I submit there is something
>> wrong with you!
>
> DAVID S. REPLIED
> Sure it is wrong - churches should tell the truth. However, this would
> have very little effect, since most persons are excluded from cryonic
> suspension by their economic situation.
>
> david pizer:
> I agree with you that there are many problems facing the growth of  
> cryonics.  But just because there is resistance or problems in one  
> area should not preclude us from trying to fix wrongs in another  
> area.............?
>
> Don't we have to address each area of problems.  ??

The question is whether to address them one-by-one or comprehensively.  
It is often easier to offer a comprehensive solution and it is almost  
always easer to accept a comprehensive solution.

In this case, you want religion held to the same "truth in advertising"  
as cryonics. However, you are not comparing like with like because you  
are using abstract terms and not specifying concrete organizations. The  
comparison implicit in your argument is between suspension  
organizations and theistic churches. One way to "level the playing  
field" is to form a church that includes in its offerings cryonic  
suspension. This Church could make the same kinds of claims as theistic  
churches. It could also make suspension economically feasible for many  
more people, because churches are tax advantaged organizations.

If your approach succeeded, it would create a large class of people who  
knew they were facing destruction, but without the economic resources  
to do anything about it. I can't see any good coming from that. In  
fact, according to recent research, we could expect trouble:

Does Inequality lead to Conflict? A Bargaining Theoretic Approach.

ABSTRACT
In this paper we present a simple model to show how distributional  
concerns can engender social conflict. We have a two period model,  
where the cost of conflict is endogenous in the sense that parties  
involved have full control over how much conflict they can create.  
Unlike the standard results, our model shows that it is not current  
inequality that is important for conflict, rather it is the anticipated  
future inequality that plays a crucial role. The anticipated  
inequality, however, has to be significant to result in conflict. Also,  
as a result of the conflict, total output and growth in the economy is  
lowered. Finally, in line with empirical evidence, we show that richer  
societies will have less conflict.

<http://www.wider.unu.edu/conference/conference-2004-1/ 
conference%202004-1-papers/Dutta-0503.pdf>


dss


David S. Stodolsky    SpamTo: 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26446