X-Message-Number: 33394
From: 
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 04:04:06 EST
Subject: comments re Darwin

Content-Language: en

 
Bob Ettinger writes:   
"His analysis of the  reasons for slow growth are largely unsupported and   
unconvincing, and he leaves out a  moderately prominent one--viz., the 
embracing by many cryonicists of nonsense  such as uploading. econlog.econlib  
has a piece  by one writer who was turned off  cryonics by an advocate who 
embraced uploading.  I don't have all the relevant figures,  but it is clear 
(1) that many in cryonics do embrace uploading etc. and (2) that  these 
fantasies are easy bubbles to  prick. " 
MD: I'd be really  surprised if Bob agreed with me about anything ;-). 
However, I'm happy to agree  with him in general about issues like uploading. 
For myself, I have no strong  opinion about whether uploading is possible, in 
the sense that Bob suggests that  it is not (i.e., that there is a 

fundamental difference between biological and  non-biological implementations of
people, or perhaps more appropriately that  they are not equivalent, and can't 
be). What I *do* know is that the viability  of uploading is among the least 
of my worries right now. That's because I am  DYING right NOW, and my most 
pressing concerns are staying alive and  ensuring (as best I can) that I am 
recovered from cryopreservation (if I fail in  my efforts at staying alive). 
My remarks about "secrecy" have been wildly  interpreted - and that's to 
the good, if it provokes discussion. And now we have  a perfect example of 
one of the things cryonicists should learn (or be taught)  to keep to 
themselves.  
While Bob suggests  that there are "many" in cryonics who embrace 
uploading, the reality is that the  idea of uploading, and in particular of "
uploading as soon & inevitable," as  well as the idea of the Singularity, are 
preventing people who are infested  with these idea from becoming cryonicists. 
And I have indeed spoken on, and  spoken out about this phenomenon at great 
length. I call such people  "transtemporal communists," because they believe 
that a miraculous future is on  the verge of materializing, where all of 
their needs will be met by the  fantastic abilities of tomorrow's Benevolent 
Superbeings, who will be ever so  anxious to satisfy our every whim and give 
us immortality in the bargain, oh  yes, and we will have to do absolutely 
nothing but sit around and wait for all  this to happen. 
I'm not suggesting  that people should lie about themselves or their 

beliefs, but rather that they  weigh the utility of making a public issue of 
ideas 
that are off-putting *when  there is no benefit to be had from it.* Rather, 
I'm suggesting that they keep  their eye on the prize, and be mindful about 
the downside to making a  public issue about a technology which will in no 
way benefit from such  discussion, and may in fact, suffer from it! 

Ironically, I have heard more than  a few in the uploading/TH community complain
about cryonics injuring *their*  credibility! Almost everyone has interests or 
affiliations which will be  off-putting to a broad cross-section of the 

population. And virtually everyone  has the good sense to know, at least in many
situations, when to keep their  mouths shut. Very few people are truly 
globally dis-inhibited - and most of  those that are, are either 
institutionalized, or dead.  
RE: Then there is  the assertion, more or less, that all publicity is bad 
publicity and all media  coverage should be avoided. Again, what is lacking 
is supporting data. In  particular, of those who have joined, what 

precipitated their decisions? If it  wasn't reading an article or a book or a 
web 
site, what was it, and what was  behind that? 
MD: No, Bob, I didn't say  anything remotely like that. Indeed, that would 
be really ridiculous,coming from  me, since *I* heard about cryonics from a 
newspaper article about the first  anniversary of Bedford's 

cryopreservation. Rather, what I am suggesting is much  better control over 
media encounters 
so that the advantage accrues more to  cryonics, rather than to the typical 
journalist's desire to get (or make) a  juicy story. In point of fact, your 
example about uploaders is precisely the  kind of thing I'm talking about.  
I've seen the type of people that  all cryonics organizations too often 
facilitate coming into contact with the  media, and all I can say is, "Wow, 
what were you thinking?" I don't even think  that I am at all suitable to 

interface with the media, and I would not have done  so had I any other choice.
Indeed, the record shows that I got out of the media  spotlight as soon as I 
could. Just being gay and a cryonicist is a liability to  cryonics, in my 
opinion, because it is just one more "unusual" thing that people  can and 

will seize on, to keep the idea of cryonics remote from who they are.  And this
even applies to other gay people - many of whom were very angry at me  in 
the 1970s-80s, because my involvement in cryonics was perceived by them  
(correctly so) as making the cause of equality and "normalcy" for homosexuals  
just that more difficult. As it was, gay rights were never much of an issue 
for  me, so I didn't have to pick which kind of "unacceptable weird" I 
wanted to  be. I did have to weigh whether  it would be better to be in the 
closet or to be "out" and be a prominent person  in cryonics, and the best 
advice I had at the time was not to hide it (and thus  make a liability of it) 
but not to make an issue out of it, either. I think that  was good advice for 
a situation I would rather have not had to deal with at  all. 
Mike  Darwin


 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33394

Warning: This message was filtered from the daily CryoNet digest
because the poster sent too many messages per digest.
It thus may need to be rated.