X-Message-Number: 29126
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:22:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Harold Lockworth <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #29120 - #29123

--0-1196805362-1171326128=:80041

From: Gareth Nelson <>

> >Statistical reports on the influencers which determine rationale in
>>decision-making evidence the different results than you estimate above.  In
>>fact, people considering cryonics want to know that they are in ethical
>>hands above all.  These hands are the same hands that are ensuring
>>potential patients that the technologies "hoped" to be used for reanimation
>>are doable.

>This is rather odd as my own experiences and the responses I have seen to 
>media stories revolve around technical problems or misguided criticisms such 
>as "but how can you bring back the dead?" more than the nature of the people 

>providing the service. Basically, most people just think cryonics is a 
pointless 
  >rip-off in my experience.
   

  There is a vast difference between media stories on cryonics and people 
  considering cryonics. We were discussing people considering cryonics, not 
  journalism. The first is a recordation of cryonics through the eyes of the 
  reporter.  The second is empirical study, first-hand.
   

  Anyway, no need to pick at loose threads here because you offer a new topic 
  that is substantive.  Of course journalists go for the jugular and ask 
  questions that they know the interviewee cannot prove.  Asking such a question
  about how to bring back the dead is a steal for the journalist.  But I think 
  there have been ample interviews with cryonicsts who know how to answer such 
  trying questions.  Haven't seen a problem with de Gray, Kurzweil, More, Fahy, 
  Merkle, Vita-More, Jones and Alcor's team, Rothblatt, Immortality Institute's 
  team, or back in the days of FM Esfandiary.  " ... Cryonics hopes to bring 
  back people from a state of suspension through the use of emergent 
  technologies such as     While there is no evidence that these technologies 
  can suffice, there is substantial potential for these technologies to be 
  successful based on a, b, c. ..." and so on.  Cryonicists accustomed to being 
  interviewed know how to answer these types of questions.  
   

  But I'll take you to task on your statement that "most people think cryonics 
  is a pointless rip-off."  Who are these people and do you have your research 
  available for reviewing?  
   

  Could it be that the meaning of  rip-off  has greater significance than you 
  intended in that when a person feels ripped-off, it usually refers to personal
  feeling of not getting what one expected.  If so, then it means that people 
  do not feel that they are in ethical hands, which becomes circular and we are 
  back to my statement concerning statistical influencers.
   
  HL
     
  

 


 
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
--0-1196805362-1171326128=:80041

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

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=29126