X-Message-Number: 33154
From: "Chris Manning" <>
Subject: Re: Just a thought
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 09:10:55 +1100

From and to David Stodolsky:

chris: There are many possible scenarios in which revival from cryopreservation

will be technically possible but problematic for other reasons, e.g. revival may
be outlawed due to overpopulation.

dss: This is fallacious and considering it would be a concession to our
ideological opponents.

Reply: Our ideological opponents may get into government, where they aren't
already.

chris: I am surprised that these possibilities aren't being canvassed more in
the cryonics community. Anyway, the thought I had is as follows:

dss: (blank)

Reply: I gather you have nothing to say about the thought I had (the main point
of my email).

chris: More generally, I think readers ought to be asking themselves in what
possible future circumstances they do or do not wish to be revived.


dss: This needs to be framed as improved possibilities, however, the uncertainty
involved makes this more of an exercise in fantasy than anything else.

Reply: Let's see if I've understood correctly. It's so difficult to be sure of
anything about the future that we shouldn't bother making statements such as 'I
am willing in principle to live off earth after revival (if that should prove
possible/desirable/necessary).'

How does the likelihood of revival compare with the likelihood of its being
possible to live off earth?

dss: There is a risk that restriction on revival would tie the hands of those
trying to do the best for cryonicists in the future.


Reply: I am trying to make sense of this statement. The only sense I can make of

it is that you thought I meant restriction by the cryonics movement itself. That
possibility had never occurred to me. No, I meant restriction by
repressive/hostile governments.

From and to John de Rivaz:

John: I was speaking to someone over the holidays who said that he would never
consider cryopreservation on account of the risk of a revival into a hellish
future. I countered that it is easy enough to make people. If your sole purpose
is to enjoy their suffering, why go to the trouble of reviving and rejuvenating
a cryopreserved patient. However this was insufficient in terms of a "sound
byte" to convince him.

chris: I would not be convinced by the above either - because I don't know what
you're talking about. And I've read it several times.

I assume you must mean (in some roundabout way) 'We would not be signed up for
cryonics if we thought the future was going to be unpleasant.'

John: There have been dystopic science fiction novels written about revivals
into less than satisfactory futures, but they usually have "our hero" winning
through in the end.

Reply: I am well aware of that, and could give you a list of my own.

From and to Eneasz Brodski:

Eneasz: I've always countered that even if the future is crap, it's better than
the alternative. Most people, if forced to choose between living in Dark Ages
Europe or being killed would choose living in the Dark Ages. I doubt the future
can be worse than that.

Reply: And my point, which you also seem to have missed or not seen fit to

comment on, is that we may not have to live in Dark Ages Europe. We may have the
option of living elsewhere.




 Content-Type: text/html;

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33154