X-Message-Number: 3022
Date:  Wed, 24 Aug 94 15:02:54 
From: 
Subject: CRYONICS Re: Libertarian Mindsets


In Message #3017 (Re: Libertarian Mindsets) David Stodolsky 
writes:

>Bringing in any issue irrelevant to cryonics is bound to put off 
>some prospects.

This is true, and, replacing "cryonics" with "nanotechnology", you 
have just outlined the philosophy which guides current promotional 
thinking at the Foresight Institute.  In *Engines of Creation* you 
will find an entire chapter devoted to the possibilities for repairing a 
frozen brain with future nanotechnological capabilities (and thus, 
the potential feasibility of freezing people today) but you will find 
no mention at all of cryonics in more recent literature by Drexler, et 
al.  My understanding is that they don't want the stigmas of 
cryonics associated with nanotech, so that they won't offend 
mainstreamers as easily, so that they can get funded by 
mainstreamers sooner.

Though I see the possible advantages to such an approach, I am very 
afraid of the consequences of this strategy.  If you sell such a radical 
endeavor to deathists and statists in order to get them to pay for its 
development, then they will be the ones who eventually control its 
implementation.

Am I the only who is terrified by that possibility?

The main thing about Dr. Stodolsky's statement above, though, is 
that it begs the question, "What is relevant to cryonics?"

Our common desire for more freedom (or even complete freedom) 
in choosing health care alternatives is, in my view, one of the more 
relevant issues to discuss with both long time cryonicists and new 
prospects.  Further, one could make a strong case that the legal 
(i.e., governmental) requirement for pronouncement of death prior 
to initiating cryonics procedures causes more damage to our 
patients than anything else.  I for one do not think that the 
fundamental problem is just that the laws need to be amended.

>Let's keep in mind that every political philosophy and religion 
>defines freedom in its own way. Claiming that Libertarianism 
>somehow has a patent on the idea just shows ignorance (or 
>worse).

True, but who has made this claim?

Forward in all directions!

Derek Ryan
Membership Administrator
Alcor Life Extension Foundation
Ph. # 602-922-9013
Email: 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3022