X-Message-Number: 5586 From: (Dave Sill) Newsgroups: sci.cryonics Subject: Re: Neuro vs. Full Body Date: 12 Jan 1996 15:33:40 GMT Message-ID: <> References: <4ch85p$> <4cvua6$> In article <> (Brad Templeton) writes: > 1) Revival technology is impossible or so improbable it's not > worth it. Merkle's chart handles this pretty well. You have no chance of being revived if you're not preserved (barring time travel or some unforeseeable new technology), but you have at least a small chance of being revived if your are preserved. > 2) Who wants to live forever? Death is the natural end of life, > don't fight it. Your're not committing yourself to eternal life, though you might have the option. Many people who reject the notion of immortality won't have any problem with life extension by a couple hundred years or so. Another tact is to challenge the notion that "natural" is always "good", or "right". Are these people willing to shun other "unnatural" life extension technologies such as antibiotics, surgery, CPR, etc.? > 3) Who wants to wake up in a strange new world, broke and knowing > nobody? I would rather stay dead. People who feel that way are probably not good cryonics candidates. It's not for everyone. > 4) These people are kooks, I mean freezing just your head? We'll see who gets the last laugh... The logic behind neurosuspension is sound, it just takes a little getting used to. > 5) I believe the mind/soul lies outside the body, and has a > destination after death Another group not well suited to cryonics and not likely to be convinced otherwise. > 6) I fear the revival may be botched, trapping me in a living hell Sure, it could happen, but I don't think "production" revivals will occur until it's very safe, so the biggest risk will be to the first few experimental revivals. -- Dave Sill () <URL:http://sacam.oren.ortn.edu/~dave> Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Oak Ridge National Lab, Workstation Support Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5586