X-Message-Number: 32482
References: <>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 12:01:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Luke Parrish <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #32479 - #32481

I've been a bit curious as to what agenda whoever negatively rates my
posts has. Is it someone from the Cold Filter holding a grudge? Is
there a bot that automatically flags as abusive anyone who mentions
Melody's name? Or did I actually step on some toes?

Whatever the case, I find it more humorous than worrisome. The post
was clearly not abusive, much thanks to Kitty and Melody for standing
up for me on this. However, I actually think the system is functioning
well, in that people *are* reacting against negative agenda-driven
ratings, and combating them with positive ones. The possibility of
negative ratings is an important incentive to good behavior, in my
opinion. Hopefully the recent modifications won't lead to problems in
this regard.

I would like to see more expert discussion of neuro-isolation
procedures that do not involve severing the body. Charles has
mentioned some important advantages of corpse-removal in terms of
mobility, but as the number of people in storage grows these seem less
relevant -- thousands of patients will tend to be difficult to move
regardless of if they are heads or bodies.

Further, I think Dave Pizer makes a good point that legal fees
incurred due to public misunderstandings are actually more expensive
than the difference in preservation costs. Perhaps at some point in
the future, there will be a more literate public to deal with, but for
now, I can see how an internal ban on neuroseparation might be the
most rational course of action.

From a pragmatic, self-centered, survivalist point of view, we should
consider how much less likely acts of terrorism are to be towards a
"legitimate" graveyard full of intactly "resting" bodies as opposed to
the cult-like compound that certain extremists (i.e. potential
terrorists) currently view Alcor as. In fact, I believe there was a
recent book which culminated in the "hero" crashing an airplane into
Alcor, exactly like a 9/11 terrorist.

More ethically sensitive cryonicists (obviously not everyone, but
certainly a significant faction) will want to consider what will lead
to the most people accepting cryonics. There are 100,000 people who
could possibly be saved every day if cryonics was practiced globally
and universally. Neuro may not be a realistic option for reaching
anywhere near a sizable fraction of those -- full body might.

From the suspension optimization (i.e. medical) point of view, we
should obviously consider whether there is any truth to Melody's
statement that this reduces the danger of clots, implying that it
might result in a better information-theoretic (or measurable
viability) preservation.

I don't always appreciate what Melody has to say, but this is one of
the things she's said that I do consider in need of serious reply. Is
the notion that neuroseparation is better actually obsolete?

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32482