X-Message-Number: 32439 From: David Stodolsky <> Subject: Re: Anonymity on Cryonics Plans - Disaster Hazard Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 17:33:52 +0100 References: <> On 28 Feb 2010, at 11:00 AM, CryoNet wrote: > > 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. There is a saying in politics: "The Best is the enemy of the Good". For example, in the 2000 presidential election in Florida, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421 votes, which led to claims that he was responsible for Gore's defeat. The discussion here is not about an ideal state of the World, but a practical political problem. A person is less likely to get to publish their work and be someone who's views are respected, if they suffer what we see as unjust discrimination. That, unfortunately, is the current state of the World. Given the current attention paid to questions of public opinion and political risk by the Movement, it is likely to remain so for a long time. You propose "Social Preferencing" as the solution to this problem and a study could be conducted to test whether this is actually a workable approach to improving the situation. Until such a study is done, Social Preferencing remains an untested hypothesis along with a vast number of other utopian schemes to solve the World's problems. The practical problem that started this discussion is how to avoid interference with suspension protocols. Someone who is not in a position to risk their livelihood or reputation for the cryonics ideal can start signing their public messages with a secure pseudonym right now. If the key is on deposit with a cryonics organization, then their true views can be proven in any court. Since this proof would also be available to the family and the public, it is likely that a court case would be discouraged. So, there is no reason for this not to be used at the moment. In fact, if you read my paper, Consensus Journals, you would be aware that this type of identity protection is actually a necessary feature of a scientific communication system, if it is to avoid the many problems seen today, including the problem of unfair discrimination that we are concerned with here. dss David Stodolsky Skype: davidstodolsky Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32439