X-Message-Number: 31429
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re: A Robert Ettinger quote for our times.
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 19:21:41 +0100
References: <>

On 2 Mar 2009, at 11:00, Mark Plus wrote:

>> We know that a key variable in the acceptance of cryonics is  
>> religiosity.
>
> But "religion" acts as a catch-all term for a lot of disparate  
> beliefs in different cultures. Many religions lack beliefs  
> considered essential in the Abrahamic traditions, including an  
> eternal afterlife or even eternal gods.

Religion is defined operationally as checking any box on the Badger  
Survey but 'atheist' (or to a lesser extent 'agnostic').


>
>
> Some scholars argue that "religion" at its most basic level starts  
> with only one idea: The (mistaken) attribution of agency to nonhuman  
> phenomena. That in itself doesn't imply any reason to oppose radical  
> life extension through technological means.

No, but the mistake opens the possibility for irrational actions.  
There is then a tendency to 'lock in' traditional actions.


>
>
> Jews seem over-represented in cryonics, for example, and I think  
> someone from an Orthodox Jewish background sits on CI's board of  
> directors. The libertarian bioethics writer Ronald Bailey has also  
> noted that Jewish theologians and bioethicists have spoken and  
> written much more positively about radical life extension than the  
> conservative Christian ones (especially Catholics) at the  
> conferences he's attended.
>
> Could modern Judaism's lack of emphasis on the afterlife, despite  
> many Jews' "religiosity," make Jews more accepting of the idea of  
> living extra-long lives through technological means?

This appears to be the case. Also, belief is less important in  
Judaism. As long as someone follows the rules, they can say/believe  
whatever they want, including rejecting 'god' (they could check  
'atheist' on the survey, even though they are culturally Jewish).


>
>
> In Cryonet #31423, Mr. Stodolsky writes, in reponse to Mr. Ettinger:
>>> For the umpteenth time, it is CLEAR that money is a very minor  
>>> factor in the slow growth of cryonics.
>
>> Tell that to the billion people who's income is less than a dollar  
>> a day.
>
> I know this will sound snarky, but for the past generation  
> environmentalists have propagandized affluent Westerners to "live  
> lightly upon the earth." Shouldn't we celebrate and admire these  
> extremely frugal billion individuals for doing just that?

They are too poor to "live lightly." Poverty is typically associated  
with environmental degradation. For example, they often have no choice  
but to use wood for fuel, leading to loss of forest, followed by loss  
of top soil, etc.

This propaganda can be best understood in the context of the economic  
standing of the participants (within an economic system that  
undervalues human resources). 'Green' taxes are typically highly  
regressive, resulting in a transfer of wealth from the poor to the  
rich. This is a vast topic and there are many other approaches to  
understanding, for example, the current 'global warming' panic.  
However, the actual physical factors play a very minor role in these  
arguments, even though that is what they seem to be about.


Environmental concerns (and devaluation of human capitol) are  
associated with moral opposition to cryonics/life extension.

 From Badger (1998), these are the questions:

Cryonics is a bad idea because it would lead to an overpopulation  
problem.

Extending one's life span through Cryonics is unnatural, selfish, and  
immoral.


dss

David Stodolsky
                     Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=31429