X-Message-Number: 28203
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 12:38:04 -0600
From: "Anthony ." <>
Subject: Re: [CSC] British Columbia Anti-Cryonics Law Update
References: <>

Content-Disposition: inline

Ben and everyone - what is our next step? Are we to wait until after the
meeting on the 19th to send more letters, or keep it up until the 19th? Is
there anything else we might do other than fire-off emails and faxes?

The B.C law itself does not seem too prohibitive - as has been noted in
other places, cryonicists mainly network online, and chances are if you hear
of cryonics, it'll be in cyberspace - so it matters less if cryonics
providers can't advertise or sell in B.C. I'm saying this b/c I doubt that
any one will take it to court to overturn it. In the meantime, we should
convince as many B.C. funeral directors as possible that cryonics is not

My recent discussion with readers of The Tyee has highlighted how utterly
obtuse some people can be, but it has also illustrated (again) the
particular concerns people have. It is a good way of gaining feedback (from
a small sample). I have undertaken this kind of debate before on other
webpages, and am mulling over creating a simple "commonly asked questions
(and some proposed answers)".

Please see:

The point of this is the question as to whether cryonics is a "human right"
came up. Clearly, rights cannot be ascribed to people who are cryopreserved
- even if one considers them potentially alive, or some other not-dead-yet
status. What matters is that they are *legally* dead, and that only the laws
the protect the wishes of the dead (wills, religious observances) can
protect cryonicists who are preserved.

My question to you all is - what are the laws that protect the dead and
their desires? Can cryonics be considered a "religious" right? To illustrate
that this could be so, I've drawn a parallel between cryonicists wanting
prompt cryopreservation compared with an Orthodox Jew who would want their
dead body to be buried on the same day they die. I don't much like the
comparison with anachronistic beliefs, but the comparison stands, and it
would benefit us all if we could make use of human rights enshrined in law.

But more than this - if cryostats/dewars were destroyed along with
cryopreserved people it would be just as bad - if not worse - than if a
grave was desecrated and the remains destroyed. (Obviously this is a matter
of perspective - desecrated graves would be a religious offense and ruined
cryostats a scientific one in which our experiment was sabotaged.) Are we
making use of the laws that protect against this kind of interference?

Finally, my interlocuters charged cryonicists with wastefulness because of
the resources it takes to initiate and maintain cryopreservation. In
comparing cryonics with typical funerals, the cost is not so different - but
can Alcor, C.I. or any other authority describe exactly what it takes to
keep cryonics going - whether there is indeed much waste? If we can show
that the costs to the environment and to others are slim (or as slim as a
typical funeral, or perhaps the kinds of resources that might be used on a
person in extremis), then there might be less resistance to the cryonics


On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:15:37 US/Eastern,  <
> wrote:


 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28203