X-Message-Number: 27133
References: <>
From: Kennita Watson <>
Subject: Re: Cryonics & Politics
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 13:34:50 -0700

On Sep 25, 2005, Olaf Henny wrote:

> The fact, that criminals, dope pushers, child rapists, yes, even  
> terrorists are also married, does not appear to diminish the value  
> of the union I have with my wife. But enter homosexuals and the  
> storm of rejection turns suddenly fierce. It has simply captured  
> the imagination of certain groups to the point of creating hysteria  
> about an event, which does not materially affect non-gays.

The criminals et al. weren't changing the definition of marriage.
Their marriage actually helps to redeem them, because it it means
they are doing at least one thing that God wants them to do.

Marriage is defined (in the minds of most people, if not legally)
as a union between a man and a woman, ostensibly for the purpose
of creating children.  In the minds of most Americans, it started
with Adam and Eve.  It is thoroughly entangled with concepts of
both emotional and physical security (never minding that it doesn't
necessarily provide either), and provides people with power
(interestingly, often people who will get to be grandparents and
have their genes continue further if it works out) with the
twin carrots of financial advantage and of sanction for overriding
sexual taboos to dangle over the heads of couples whose
long-standing biological imperatives addle their brains to the
point where they can't see how the first two and the second two
have no essential connection beyond the whims of the hegemony.

> *Tolerance is the crown jewel of wisdom*

This may well be true, but power is the crown, conferring the
security to allow display of the jewel, and survival is the head
on which the crown sits.  the head will flinch away from anything
it sees as threatening, taking the crown and its jewel with it.
Getting away from allegory, for as long as people in power didn't
see gays as threatening their long (and I mean *long*)-standing
traditions (and even their standing with their deity of choice,
that is, their eternal survival), they could be more or less
tolerant; but once they did, tolerance went out the window.  What
matter "separation of church and state" when so much is at stake?

Cryonicists face a similar problem; as long as what we do is seen
as (or viscerally felt to be) sacrilege, desecrating the dead, or
endangering immortal souls, we will have an uphill battle.
Arguably more uphill than the gay marriage issue, because the
question "What is death?" may be seen as more fundamental than
"What is marriage?".  Looking ahead, we may need to find some
instrument other than life insurance to pay for cryonics, because
people (most notably, lawyers, actuaries, and claims adjusters)
will figure out that when we are cryopreserved, we aren't quite
dead yet, and we plan to be alive, here on earth, in the
foreseeable future.  Somebody's going to be blindsided by some
hastily-arrived-at legal precedent on one side or the other if
we don't plan carefully.

What are we going to do when the first mouse is brought back
from cryonic suspension (other than rejoice)?  I envision panic
as the life insurance companies rewrite rules to exclude payout
to people who are cryonically preserved, lest people get
preserved, have their families get the money, then get revived
and use the money.  Other scenarios come to mind, but my point
is mainly that they need to be thought about, and the
appropriate people in power mollified.

Live long and prosper,
Kennita
--
Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery;
none but ourselves can free our minds.
           -- Bob Marley, "Redemption Song"

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=27133