X-Message-Number: 5300
From:  (Thomas Donaldson)
Subject: Re: CryoNet #5284 - #5292
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 21:34:10 -0800 (PST)

Ho hum.

Very sorry, but I must disagree with Robert Ettinger about the speed at which
cryonics will spread. I very much doubt that it will be at any rate close to
a singularity. To be quite frank, I think that the notion that it will all
happen quickly is the one major error in THE PROSPECT OF IMMORTALITY. (Not
that I don't have lots of respect for Bob because he wrote it. But so far
events have proven him (very sadly) wrong on that point. And I'll also add
that, when he wrote it at the time he did, it wasn't obvious at all just
how fast cryonics would grow. I would NOT have counted it an error at that
time --- but now we've all seen the events since then).

And every one of us, now, early in our involvement in cryonics, have seen
just how wrong it has turned out to be when we found that many friends and 
even lovers with whom we thought we shared our major aims and beliefs were
so repelled by the whole idea.

Not only that, but (for what it's worth, which may not be much) one thing
Toynbee got out of his studies of history looking for regularities was that 
groups that lasted the longest also tended to grow more slowly than others.
I presume that we want cryonics to last for a long long time.

And now to deal with the Nanopeople.

First, I was not talking abouVirtual Reality as such. It has shown itself
to be a very useful technique and probably will become more useful. Nor
was I discussing the future possibilities for computing. I was talking about
responsibility and reality.

First, the little essay on "what is reality" misses the point entirely. It's
not a matter of what people think. As I said before, we know that we are in
Reality when something happens that all our expectations and theories could
not have predicted --- whether that be good or bad. Dreams are not reality,
nor is Virtual Reality reality. And anyone who thinks that we will ever
understand reality so well that we can simply produce a virtual computer
version of it will find themselves badly mistaken. I am saying that now, in
1995, but it is one of the very few statements I feel happy about making for
the indefinite future, too. Perhaps when they waken with a shock from their
computer dream, 2000 years from now, they will remember this prediction --
just before their destruction.

Again, I'm sure that we can progressively devise stronger and stronger 
protections for ourselves. But a corollary of the point about reality which
I just made is that none of these protections will be permanently and 
forever impregnable. WE will best remain alive not by shelving off the 
watch over reality to someone else or someTHING else, but by keeping our
own watch for ourselves --- however many tools we use to help us. I became
a cryonicist not because I WANTED someone to watch over me while I waited
to be revived, but because there was no other way.

Daddy is gone now and you will not find him anywhere: not in your computers,
your robots, your metaphysics, your nanotechnology, your megatechnology. 
And Mommy went with him, too.  

And incidentally, as for the really far future: creating another universe,
finding ways to become intelligent and aware structures consisting solely of
electrons and positrons, none of that really changes this need for personal
involvement. It's very unlikely that we could, in any accurate way, map
the events of that future world into something that will feel and look like
our present world. We shall have to learn the rules of that new world ---
and it will be a big help that matter at best will vanish very slowly,
so we have lots of time to do that learning. (I am referring here to theories
which suggest that the universe will never stop expanding, but that protons
will very gradually decay).

And for those who want to argue about whether or not anyone will care or 
bother to revive us, I will point out that if anything that is a reason to
support current research, as much as we can, to improve the suspension 
process and shorten the time of our suspension. I do not know any cryonicist
who would claim that the period in suspension for an unknown length of time
at an unknown place can be characterized as "safe". It is merely that the 
only alternative is death. If we come back, the form in which we come back
will be a trivial issue --- so long as WE come back.  

Though I will also point out that just as we will NEVER find impregnable 
ways to protect ourselves, it follows that we will always have some need for
something like cryonics (probably implemented differently, but still holding
to the basic idea). And for those who want that service, it will remain an
obligation to revive their predecessors.

I will of course continue this essay on the meaning of "forever" later. 

			Long long life to all,

				Thomas Donaldson


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5300