X-Message-Number: 31202
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:03:45 -0700
From: Kitty Antonik Wakfer <>
Subject: Re: CI Merchandise suggestion [benbest]
References: <>
This posting is a response by my husband, Paul Wakfer, to a few points
in Ben's message with most of which we are both in agreement.
**Kitty Antonik Wakfer
On 11/28/2008 03:00 AM, CryoNet wrote:
> Message #31197
> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 15:36:02 -0500
> From:
> Subject: Re: CI Merchandise suggestion
>
>
>
[snipped Ben's reply to Shannon]
>
> In CryoMsg #31194 Douglas Skrecky wrote:
>
>
>> I would suggest altering the T-shirt with the logo "I will live
>> Forever or Die Trying" to be the same as the bumper sticker "Live
>> Forever or Die Trying". The later has a nicer (and less solipsistic)
>> ring to it.
>>
>
> Your short suggestion raises many issues, Doug.
>
> Your use of the word "solipsistic" is telling. Literally
> the word is inappropriate because it refers to epistemological
> isolation from the world. In an ethical context it has the
> connotation of being even more isolated from concern about
> others than the more appropriate terms "egoistic" or "egotistic".
>
> Your basic point seems to be that it is more socially
> acceptable to present radical life extension ("reaching for
> physical immortality")
Please try to refrain from use of the word "immortality" even in the
sense of "reaching" for it. What life extensionists seek (are reaching
for) is a lifespan which is both unbounded and constantly increasing in
total lifetime happiness.
> from a humanitarian than from a selfish
> point of view. That may be true, but it seems inappropriate
> to me.
It is very important for everyone to realize that merely because many
selfish, egoistical or even egotistical and solipsistic people also have
no interest in the welfare of their fellow human beings or are even
actively harmful to others, this does not mean that such negativity
necessarily follows from any highly self interested ethical philosophy.
Anyone who thinks long range, views widely and evaluates hir choices and
actions by integrating them with hir entire current and probably future
environment will not only be constantly trying to optimally increase hir
lifetime happiness (the ultimate purpose of life whether or not s/he
knows it), but will also realize that hir lifetime happiness can be
optimally promoted if and only if all others in society are also enabled
to each optimally increase hir total lifetime happiness and all are
actually doing so. In short, there is no necessary conflict between
egoism and humanitarianism.
> Aubrey de Grey has succumbed to the humanitarian
> approach -- by his own admission as the result of his marketing
> efforts and his speaking to journalists -- in his references
> to how many people die every year when describing the
> potential benefits of SENS.
>
At the beginning it was far worse than that. Aubrey was accusing
everyone who opposed research, the goal of which was the termination of
human death from aging dysfunction, of actions morally equivalent to
promoting, aiding and abetting a holocaust every 2 months. (The number
of people dying on Earth every 3 months is about equal to the number
estimated to have been killed by the Nazi perpetrated holocaust.)
"Once it is seen that opposing curing
aging equates to advocating that humanity perpetrate an entire *holocaust*
every two months, quite a few arguments against life extension seem to
fall bby[sic] the wayside."
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.life-extension/msg/77ec90823df432e5
However to his credit, I have not seen any sign of this sort of language
for the last few years after I strongly rebuked Aubrey for such
illogical and morally outrageous hype (even though he appeared to not
understand or agree with me at the time).
> One reason I think the "humanitarian" approach is
> inappropriate is because only a tiny fraction of humanity
> shows any interest in radical life extension.
Actually, they can generally be quite easily turned away from this
immediate culturally indoctrinated response, by a few simple pointed
questions starting with:
Do you want to die tomorrow?
Do you want to die next month, next year, etc?
If not, then just when do you wish to die and why?
Then one convinces them that aging dysfunction and suffering is no
longer necessary.
Of course, it would even be better if one could elect cryopreservation
immediately upon arrival at the stage of life where aged dysfunction has
caused one to reach the point where one's lifetime happiness (in the
first cycle, that is) is already at a maximum. I certainly look forward
to that day of establishment acceptance of fully reversible
cryopreservation as a standard medical stabilization process.
> The vast majority
> think that radical life extension is unnecessary for religious
> reasons. Many of those people believe that it is an evil
> attempt to thwart God -- or an expression of atheism. (The
> "medical model" of cryonics is hard to sell.) And the vast
> majority of atheists have no interest, either.
Since neither you nor I have interacted with "the vast majority of
atheists", I suggest that the above statement is at best a hypothesis
based on your limited experience.
> I have had
> extensive experience trying to promote cryonics to humanists
> and atheists with virtually no success. The main problem is
> not that they don't think that it will work -- they simply
> don't have an interest in it, and often think that it is
> socially undesirable.
To counter this, one needs an ethical philosophical basis that totally
integrates self-interest and humanitarianism. See my essay "Social
Meta-Needs
<http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html#Maslow>: A New
Basis for Optimal Interaction" at:
http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html for a basis of the
only such consistent and complete philosophy of which I am aware.
> I do not believe that it is
> humanitarian to force radical life extension on people
> who do not want it. Charles Platt has said that he thinks
> CI is unethical to allow people to cryopreserve parents who
> have expressed no opinion on the subject of cryonics. Charles
> thinks burial or cremation should be the default. I don?t
> go as far as he does in this respect. I think that a loving
> parent would be delighted to find themselves reanimated
> into the arms of their loving child, no matter what their
> current conceptions of cryonics.
>
You have not used the strongest argument against Charles' opinion (to
which I also disagree). Since the default should always be to conserve
and preserve the status quo (do no harm), rather than cremation and
burial, which are the ultimate possible harm, the default should be
cryonics, as long as the money is there to pay for it.
> I personally like to see people expressing a selfish
> interest in cryonics and life extension. Such people share
> my passions and I feel affinity with them. I also am more
> trusting in their commitment. The fact that such people want
> their loved-ones to be cryopreserved or to otherwise live
> indefinitely long is perfectly understandable to me.
>
I certainly agree with all the above.
> To me, "Live Forever or Die Trying" actually sounds less
> "nice" than "I will live forever or die trying". The
> former sounds like a command telling people to do something
> which they may not want. I do like the fact that it is
> shorter and will fit on a bumper sticker. I am not allowing
> my personal opinions to restrict what CI is offering as
> bumper stickers, shirts, etc. Although I don't like references
> to "freezing" (rather than vitrification), death or immortality
> -- as well as implied guarantees of success -- I have been
> giving CI Members the slogans on products that they have
> requested.
Good for you, to all of the last sentence.
[snip remainder of Ben's message]
--Paul Wakfer
MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=31202