X-Message-Number: 5538 Date: Wed, 03 Jan 96 14:14:54 From: John de Rivaz <> Subject: Deterrent In article: <> writes: > First, I am shocked by Rob Michels' death. I only met him a > couple of times, but I really liked him. He didn't live far from me. > And I am *really* upset by the Chapel Hill police, if that's who disposed > of his brain. > > Steve, are you looking for suggestions for what to do with the insurance > money? 1) Spend it trying to get hold of whatever bit of his brain is > in Chapel Hill. If there's anything left over, then 2) exhume his body > in California and collect whatever is left in the skull. And then, 3), > (or else number 1), SUE THE SOCKS OFF WHOEVER DISPOSED OF HIS BRAIN! > Whereas revenge is often seen as destructive, a deterrent can be highly contructive. If we can make anyone who interferes with a suspension, whether acting on his own behalf or for someone else, afraid that they may lose their assets or liberty or their life or even their life plus that of their families, then many of them will back off. On the other hand, we don't want to be seen as terrorists, so threatening people lives and that of their families is an obviously unproductive excess. However we could legitimately put people in fear of their jobs and homes and assets. I suggest that the case against the French government officials responsible for ignoring AIDS information and letting contaminated blood into their country's transfusion services may give a pointer. I may be wrong, but it seems that there, it was sufficient to show that information was available at the time that is was unwise to use unscreened blood. This applied even though the court was viewing the offence with hindsight. With foresight, could we possibly convince officials that there is a finite chance that information we have about the chances of revival will get authenticated within their lifetimes, or even the lifetime of their governmental system (in the wider sense, not just a particular term of office). If the bona fides of cryonics was authenticated within such a time frame, then similar litigation could be very damaging to individuals, professions or institutions found guilty of preventing a suspension. Damages for loss of life are (again as far as I know) based on the probable length of that life should it have not been terminated by the act in question. In the case of a thwarted suspension, the length of life remaining is indeterminate, it could be infinite, it will certainly be of the order of six hundred years or more. (The average time before a fatal accident). If a government lost a case and this set precedent for several hundred people whose representatives argued that they could have lived thousands of years each, then the damages could be very substantial. An individual could be bankrupted for life with just one such case. I am sure that there are some flaws in my suggestions - it is difficult to avoid being emotive over such issues. However further discussion on this list could generate some positive and constructive forms of "revenge" that are actually insurance designed to ensure that the maximum number of people who want to be, are suspended. -- Sincerely, **************************************** * Publisher of Longevity Report * John de Rivaz * Fractal Report * * details on request * **************************************** **** What is the point of life if it ends in death? **** Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5538