X-Message-Number: 4360
Date: 06 May 95 13:25:18 EDT
From: Jim Davidson <>
Subject: Government-owned hospitals, etc.

Robin Helweg-Larsen posts optimistically about the role of government,

especially in a land as diversely populated with striations of government as the
US.  His post arrives succinctly at one of the key points in favor of limited
political discussions on Cryonet.

Like it or not, the government has decided that cryonics is a subject for its
involvement.  Because our interest area deals with a) death, b) euthanasia, c)
sovereignty over ones body, d) preference to avoid autopsy, e) a non-mainstream
"religious" belief in the possibility of post-life resurrection, and (at least)
f) the practice of non-traditional medicine regardless of government sanction
for such treatments, we stand four-square in the midst of the argument about
what constitutes good government, what constitutes sufficient government, and
what is the appropriate response to surplus order.

Make no mistake, I did not start life as a politicized, polarized,
anti-government propagandist.  _If_ I have become one, it is only because my

natural tendency toward liberty has met with direct government oppression.  I've
been arrested for offering Americans a trip into space on a Soviet rocket.  And
I've met many who have been arrested, even indicted, for practicing cryonics or
offering alternative medicines.  It is not my choice that the government oppose
our efforts, but it seems clear that at various levels the governments of the
several states and the Federal government are prepared to battle us.


Helweg-Larsen suggests that a pro-cryonics government is a consummation devoutly
to be wished.  I agree.  As I've stated in my book _The Atlantis Papers_, I
believe the development of sea-based city states on artificial islands may be
one of the most awesome opportunities for cryonics.  A constitution written for
a proposed sea-city, Oceania, includes language deliberately favorable to
cryonics, not only as it is practiced in the US, but as it would better be
practiced in a nation where an individual could choose to be frozen without
having that act interpreted as suicide.

If we are to succeed at developing extended life spans for ourselves and our
posterity, we must recognize that what we are doing _is_ a political act.  As
well, we should understand the history of the struggle against invasive
government in the US.

In 1848, Henry David Thoreau wrote his brilliant essay, "Civil Disobedience."
In it, he said words which I echo, "But to speak practically and as a citizen,
unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no
government, but _at once_ a better government.  Let every man make known what
kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward
obtaining it."

Helweg-Larsen also says, "Governments are (almost always) interested in
providing good health care..." but fails to notice that they do not.  Health
care is not provided by governments.  It is provided by doctors, pharmacists,
chiropractors, acupuncturists, vitamin vendors, fitness service providers, and
individuals who seek such services.

Again, Thoreau speaks brilliantly to this point:

"This American government -- what is it but a tradition, though a recent one,
endeavoring to transmit itself uimpaired to posterity, but each instant losing
some of its integrity?  It has not the vitality and force of a single living
man; for a single man can bend it to his will.  It is a sort of wooden gun to
the people themselves; and, if ever they should use it in earnest as a real one
against each other, it will surely split.  But it is not the less necessary for

this; for the people must have some complicated machinery or other, and hear its
din, to satisfy that idea of government which they have.  Governments show thus

how successfully men can be imposed on, even impose on themselves, for their own
advantage.  It is excellent, we must all allow; yet this government never of
itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of
its way.  _It_ does not keep the country free.  _It_ does not settle the West.
_It_ does not educate.  The character inherent in the American people has done
all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more if the
government had not sometimes got in its way.  For government is an expedient by
which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been
said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it.  Trade
and commerce, if they were not made of India rubber, would never manage to
bounce over the obstacles which legislators are continually putting in their

way; and, if one were to judge these men wholly by the effects of their actions,
and not partly by their intentions, they would deserve to be classed and
punished with those mischievous persons who put obstructions on the railroads."

So, if we are to have cryonics, if we are to extend our lives indefinitely, the

government will chiefly help by the extent to which it gets out of our way.  The
behavior of the FDA, the behavior of the Riverside County coroner, and the
behavior of sundry other branches of government do not suggest that will happen
all by itself.  Therefore, it is essential that those of us who seek to extend
our lives through cryonics and other means, "take arms against a sea of
troubles, and by opposing, end them."  We must be the agents of change in our
world, and to do that we must evaluate precisely what we want in terms of
government.


It  is therefore entirely appropriate to discuss politics on cryonet, especially
as they apply to the freedom to practice cryonics.  Since that freedom is
inextricably tied to a variety of civil rights, any situation which directly
affects civil liberties is appropriate for discussion here.


If we do not evaluate what sort of government would command our respect, we have
not taken Thoreau's first step.  If we do not also discuss what mechanisms we
are willing to utilize to implement superior government, we are remiss in our
duty to make cryonics a reality.  Such discussions, if they are not to take
place here, on Cryonet, have no home at all.  That would be indeed unfortunate.

So, while I wish the solution to our problems were entirely in the realm of
science and engineering, I fear that we must understand the lessons of history
and agree that it is not.


Martin R. Olah says he is waiting for objections to my highly political messages
of recent vintage.  While it doesn't seem to have been posted for general
viewing, I received the following message from Paul Wakfer on 3 May 1995:

>It's a great letter, I agree with it completely, I know that its important,
>and that you may not even regard it as a political issue. But it *is* a
>political issue. It is at the very core of liberal, socialist, collectivist
>social philosophy and as such it should *not* have been sent to CryoNet.
>There is more than enough philisophical debate, with little relation to
>cryonics, taking place there, let's, at least try to keep political
>discussions out.

Perhaps what he says is correct, and the other objections to my posts are
reasonable.  Certainly, I will admit that my motivation in posting my response

to the Quayle jokes and my short essay was more practical than anything else.  I
had initially made a list of those to whom I would send each post, and when I
realized that most of them were Cryonet readers, it seemed expedient to post
here.

However, it seems clear to me that cryonics is an activity that is only
meaningful if it takes place in the real world.  Theoretical discussions of
cryonics, uploading, the mathematics of the mind, Goedel's and Turing's
theories, the engineering of large cryostats, the preferred rate of temperature
decrease, the physical chemistry of cryoprotectants, and the possibilities of
nanotechnology for revival are all obviously appropriate for this list service.

Practical discussions, too, are appropriate.  These include the financial
implications of signing up, the finances of membership organizations, the size
and demographics of cryonics groups, the response of the media to cryonics, and
the political aspects of the situation.  If we choose not to discuss the
political environment in which cryonics must operate, then we, by default,
accept the political situation which is given.  That is not acceptable to me.
The political situation today is not favorable for anyone seeking a long, long
life.

Ultimately, the preference not to discuss any aspect of life is inappropriate.
Socrates summed it up well.  "An unexamined life is not worth living."

Jim


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4360