X-Message-Number: 32126 From: "John de Rivaz" <> References: <> Subject: Re: Self Sacrifice Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:08:25 -0000 Luke Parrish makes an argument that is certainly appealing to cryonicists. However I doubt whether most people in positions of power will read it, and even if they did whether they would agree. The sheer logistics of offering cryopreservation at the end of life to anyone who would volunteer (about a third of the population) may make the cost per person low, but nevertheless involve a huge sum of money. In the UK it would be for nearly 20 million people. I would query whether this could be done for LUK20m, never mind $US20m. If this was ever proposed, even by a billionaire who would fund it totally, there would be loads of naysayers wanting the money spent on something else. The would propose using lawyers to force it to be spent elsewhere, even if only by frittering it away on useless reports and hearings. (Such "frittering" keeps it in the economy of the living.) They would prefer potential candidates for cryopreservation to be used for investigative dissection with possible harvesting of useable organs for transplant. The remit of anyone in authority is to help as many people as possible, not put a large effort into helping single individuals. Therefore if two lives can be saved by harvesting organs at the expense of one, (and so on in proportion) this remit is better served. Of course this is only applicable if the chance of saving the one is very low indeed. The perceived (without reading learned articles) chance of cryonics is considered too low. Those in favour of self sacrifice would probably consider being an organ donor preferable to being a cryonics patient. Further comfort for this point of view is obtained from thinking that cryonics is "highly unlikely" to result in a successful reanimation into good health, whereas one or more lives may "quite likely" be saved by the use of a dissected "remains" either by transplanted organs or as a result of legal or medical research. Most people are quite happy to think this to an extent as not to bother to read the various learned papers written in favour of cryonics. Every so often there are calls for transplant donating to be compulsory, or a half way house of making them mandatory unless the person has opted out. No doubt those opting out would be made to feel uncomfortable about it, although I can see advantages in this for cryonics, particularly if it was extended to include post mortem dissection (autopsy). I am sure that even now if cryopreservation was offered to avoid the late stages of terminal ageing (or other disease) it would save money even at present prices because a lot of people would chose it to avoid suffering without deliberately making the choice of annihilation. However at the moment such an option would be shouted down as being nothing more than a scam to save money. However the further technology advances the scientific logic in favour of cryonics will also become clearer. After all, in the early 1970s a lot of big dramatic and expensive operations common today were experimental or unheard of, and pioneers were considered to be on the fringe of their professions. Many of these operations cost more than a CI cryopreservation. -- Sincerely, John de Rivaz: http://John.deRivaz.com for websites including Cryonics Europe, Longevity Report, The Venturists, Porthtowan, Alec Harley Reeves - inventor, Arthur Bowker - potter, de Rivaz genealogy, Nomad .. and more ----- Original Message ----- Message #32123 Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 09:04:39 -0800 (PST) From: Luke Parrish <> Subject: Self Sacrifice <del> Cryonics practised on a larger scale is cheaper. If everyone was a cryonicist, we could preserve people (storage wise) for under a dollar per year. Nobody would be too poor to afford cryopreservation -- a very small subsidy by richer people could render the service completely free. It is thus incredibly selfish not to be a cryonicist in my opinion. <del> Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32126