X-Message-Number: 31459
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re: Alex Doherty reprinted posting, refutation
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 20:06:58 +0100
References: <>

On 9 Mar 2009, at 10:00, RudiHoffman wrote:

> I realize I am not being responsive to the ridiculous statements  
> made  above.
> To complain that "Cryonics threatens ANYTHING at this moment is   
> baseless.
> Does anyone know if Alex Doherty even did his homework to the  point  
> of
> realizing how TINY we are?  What is the deal with this dude?
>
> Yet, it is helpful to have Mark Plus post this writing.  Because,  
> it  is
> smart for us to know that there are loonies on the left leaning,  
> Bill  McKibben
> quoting "Nature is all good, let's not mess with it" camp as well  
> as  loonies on
> the fundamentalist religious and political right.

At least in Denmark, the conservatives are leading the charge on  
'global warming.' A Conservative 'Climate Minister', is heading up the  
preparations for the upcoming Copenhagen Climate Conference (the  
follow up to Kyoto), as well as promoting 'green taxes', carbon  
trading, etc. These policies cause net transfers of wealth to the  
rich, so they fit well with conservative policies.

A few years back, I met a group that was trying to start a new church  
on Christian foundations. They felt that the Earth could only support  
one billion people and the rest would just have to be exterminated for  
the good of the Planet. So, Alex Doherty's opposition to cryonics can  
be seen as moderate.

Based upon the Badger data, 1/4 of people agree that cryonics is  
selfish and immoral. About 40% agree it is a bad idea, because  
"overpopulation is a problem." So, the views expressed by Alex Doherty  
are probably the same as about a third of the population or worse,  
since the Badger sample was more technologically advanced, higher  
educated, etc. compared to the population at large. This represents a  
real political threat to the cryonics movement. Failure to increase  
membership of the movement dramatically could have deadly consequences  
for both suspendees and those signed up, since a political conflict  
seems inevitable. Facilities in multiple countries would be one way to  
minimize political risk.

The fact that these kinds of views can't be supported objectively,  
seems to have little effect, so any attempt at logical argument will  
most likely fail. Even when knowledgeable people are asked to make  
these kinds of judgements, the facts play a very small role. For  
example, in the following analysis, the judgements could be reduced to  
optimism vs. pessimism:

http://dss.secureid.org/stories/storyReader$6


dss


David Stodolsky
                     Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=31459