X-Message-Number: 31482
References: <>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 09:19:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: 2Arcturus <>
Subject: Re: religion declining

--0-1500079525-1236961155=:25653

From: Mark Plus <>
>>>Sometimes things do fundamentally change. 



The old religions, invented in the Axial era of religion-production, have been 
dysfunctional since the rise of science and the other "modernity" shifts. But 
this hasn't made religion, highest ideals, irrelevant. People hold on to the old
religions because they don't know of any alternative. Many of the people who do
not go to church regularly in the USA still claim to be Christian and hold 
various Christian ideas, in a nebulous, hazy way. Many of the European 
secularists would never admit to being religious, but they get their babies 
christened. It's the inertia of the old religions combined with the lack of a 
quality alternative, a religion that fits with science and the modern world 
view. But the search for highest ideals is not over, and shouldn't be. 


At least two pro-cryonics religions now exist: the Society for Venturism, and 
the Society for Universal Immortalism.

>>>I don't know how you measure "anti-cryonics." 


The USA has the highest number of signups. According to the recent CI 
newsletter, secularized Italy requires bodies to be embalmed before being moved,
making cryonics practically impossible. Also,according to CI sources, a 
province of secularized Canada has criminalized marketing of cryonics, and 
secularized France has prohibited cryonics since the 1960s. It is impossible to 
consider opposition to cryonics in secularized populations without understanding
the secular ideologies that lie in the background of this opposition. Many of 
the arguments will be familiar to people in the USA - overpopulation concerns, 
fear of hubris and individualism (vs social conformity and the hegemony of the 
society), distrust of science and technology in general, etc. These sorts of 
concerns are very common in the secularized (and New Age) "left" in the USA.


>>>Assuming you could, how do you separate the religious versus secular factors 
from other considerations like egalitarian ideologies, distance from cryonics 
facilities, anti-American attitudes affecting the perception of cryonics in 
other countries and so forth? 


I don't separate them. Religions, worldviews, ideologies, are all on a spectrum.
But your point seems to be that secularism will be a panacea for cryonics, 
which is obviously not true. Certain types of secularism are completely 
compatible with opposition to cryonics. The reverse truth, that certain (new) 
types of religion can be completely compatible with cryonics, is not so obvious 
to many.


From: David Stodolsky <>
>>>The discussion about religion is crucial, because the Badger data  
clearly shows that the current marketing strategy is only effective on  
atheists. However, this doesn't mean that religion has to 'go away'  
before cryonics will be widely accepted. It means that a model has to  
be developed that provides people with the benefits of a religious  
organization. Cryonics is one component of this model, but it can't be  
effectively sold alone to most people. So, the challenge is to  
incorporate or package cryonics as part of an organization that  
provides the essential (claimed) benefits of a religious organization.


I agree that the benefits of a religious organization are important. But I 
believe they arise best in an actual religious organization.

>>>"lower income inequality correlates with lower religiosity"
"insecurity breeds religion"


Religion can provide answers when answers are wanted. If people can prosper and 
attain social respect, etc., without being religious, then they may. But that 
doesn't eliminate the fact that sometimes people can still want a "big picture" 
context, for example, when they deal with death, or when they think about the 
meaning of life. It also doesn't prove that practicing religion - i.e., having a
comprehensive world view that informs one's sense of highest meaning and value 
in life -- doesn't enrich life compared to the alternative -- not having such a 
world view, for example, simply living coarsely and brutally, which of course, 
is also compatible with 'secularism'.

From: "Robert Newport" <>
>>> We have a chance with
the youth, if we can think of a way to involve them without requiring their
money (which they don't have). 


Money, in general, is a theoretical and practical barrier. I know people will 
rush to inform that I am wrong about that, that millionaires aren't signing up, 
and so on. But my point here is that even if we could convince many people of 
our message, many of them would not be able to afford cryonic suspension. We are
already seeing the problem with the occasional person who wants to be 
cryopreserved and cannot afford it. Cryonicists have in some cases stepped 
forward and generously funded their suspensions, which is wonderful. But what if
it was not just a couple people, but thousands, who asked for help?


Inexpensive alternatives to cryonics, such as chemopresevation, must be 
researched and made available before radical life extension can even 
theoretically become widespread. Eventually, an economy of scale might make 
cryopreservation more affordable for many, but one cannot underestimate the 
difficulty of reaching that point, especially when one looks at the population 
of the entire world and their economic circumstances.



--0-1500079525-1236961155=:25653

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

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=31482