X-Message-Number: 32435
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:22:48 -0700
From: Kitty Antonik Wakfer <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #32424 Re: Anonymity on Cryonics Plans - Disaster...
References: <>
--------------060805040109090409080109
CryoNet wrote:
>
> Message #32424
> From: David Stodolsky <>
> Subject: Re: Anonymity on Cryonics Plans - Disaster Hazard
> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:12:27 +0100
> References: <>
>
> On 25 Feb 2010, at 11:00 AM, CryoNet wrote:
>
>> Being anonymous about
>> cryonics is *not* protection for a signed-up cryonicist but rather an
>> opportunity for relatives who do not agree to wreak havoc with those
>> plans.
>
> As long as cryonics is regarded as a cult or as quackery by the
> mainstream, being associated with it can result in being banned from
> certain organizations. Therefore, such public association could have
> negative consequences for one's career.
Why should a person who is a cryonicist because s/he does *not* think it
is a cult or quackery - one who is not simply signed up because of hir
spouse's or significant other's desire for cyronics preservation -
really want to be associated with those who hold such a view? And if a
cryonicist is good in hir chosen work field and/or avocation(s), a
person whose skills and/or views are respected, then it is highly likely
that s/he will be listened to should the topic of cryonics come up in
discussion.
I am not suggesting that cryonicists go around wearing T-shirts
promoting cyronics ("Freeze your head to save your ass") or handing out
unrequested literature. However, I am suggesting that when someone is
respected for skills/views in one area s/he is highly likely to be
listened to if sh/e voices positive views towards (even having a
contract for) cryonics. Paul's experience from the early 80s is just one
of these. He had before this thought of cryonics as total bunk; he knew
the physics of low temperature storage and had even experimented with
objects in LN2. However, he was introduced to the literature from early
Alcor, when Mike Darwin was CEO, by someone whom he respected for being
a sound thinker. This made all the difference. Consequently he read what
Mike wrote and was convinced that there was a small, but still possible,
reason to think that cryonics was better than doing nothing at all upon
legal death - at least for the person who wanted to continue to live,
even if only at some time in the far future.
> It could also retard progress
> in cryonics by restricting where scientific work can be published by
> those with a public association.
I know very well that this reason has been and continues to be used, but
it is - to be very blunt - cowardly. From what I have been told by
several individuals, the Society for CryoBiology has and may continue
for some time to require that its members not have anything to do with
cryonics. However, that is actually in contradiction to the first of its
stated applications for cryobiology:
"Preservation of cells and tissues for purposes of long-term storage"
It is clear that such a philosophically non-integrated stand by the
Society for CryoBiology does, for now at least, require that a
cryonicist researcher in the field of cryobiology as applied to human
whole body/brain cryopreservation publish hir papers in the most
scientific journals that will accept them, even if that is not in the
journal, CryoBiology.
>
> The ideal solution is for a signed-up cryonicist have any public
> association to cryonics protected by a secure pseudonym.
I do not agree at all; pseudonyms simply avoid the real problems. The
best solution for all in the longterm for optimal social order is Social
Preferencing by each individual towards each other individual. Positive
Social Preferencing is the voluntary association with and to the degree
that that one agrees with another person; the closest friend(s) is the
person with whom one holds the highest values in common and decreasing
association with others accordingly. Negative Social Preferencing is the
withdrawal of voluntary association with a person who takes actions that
are in opposition to the optimization of lifetime happiness of the
evaluator, in hir evaluation of course. Encouraging others to do
likewise - positively and negatively - is the logical continuation and
extension of this practice with everyone evaluating everyone else. This
is merely the extension to the realm of human relationships, what
everyone already does with regard to products and services, and in this
time of almost instant communication, the evaluation of everyone by
everyone else is possible both in theory and practice. In fact, rulers
and their enforced rules are truly obsolete - the rulers and still most
of the ruled just haven't yet come to realize it.
[snip of pseudonym details]
>
> dss
>
> David Stodolsky
> Skype: davidstodolsky
>
>
**Kitty Antonik 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
--------------060805040109090409080109
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ]
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32435