X-Message-Number: 28502 From: Subject: Cryonics and the certainty of death Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:40:52 +0000 Francois recently wrote: >> What does this have to do with cryonics and the difficulties to "convert" people to it? Well, there is a phrase in the Death in the Deep Freeze video that sums it up very well. "The foundations of society and religion are built on the certainty of death, and cryonics is a practice that strikes at the very core of this notion." In other words, to accept cryonics, one must lift the veil of faith and confront the abyss it hides, and we have hundreds of thousands, possibly even millions of years of evolution that opposes this action with incredible strength. << Cryonics has no impact whatsoever on the certainty of death, only (maybe) on the timescale. In that respect it is no different than other medical life support technologies. Or is the argument that people have difficulty accepting cryonics because they SEE it as a challenge to the certainty of death? If so, then who's fault is that? Instead of depicting the intention of cryonics as medical, cryonicists often hold up cryonics as a "solution" to the problem of death (ha!), an alternative interment method, or even as a competitor with religion. What physician explaining a new medical idea would promote it by comparing it to burial, or by saying the treatment is better than (insert religion here)? What scientist would seek to promote a new medical scientific paradigm by emulating techniques used by religions? What do cryonicists really want? Do they want evidence-based cryonics that is based on mainstream scientific and ethical principles, and that is eventually embraced by mainstream medicine? Or do they want faith-based cryonics that occupies the same psychological niche as religion, that is seen from the outside as religion, and that attracts true believers more than physicians and scientists that could actually make it work? The former purpose is not served by suggesting cryonics is a challenge to faith, or a solution to metaphysical problems of the universe. It is neither. ---Brian Wowk Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28502