X-Message-Number: 5781
From: John de Rivaz <>
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics,sci.life-extension,uk.legal
Subject: Re: Death (was Donaldson MR and Miss Hindley)
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 10:30:43 +0100
Message-ID: <>
References: <4gah32$> <4gat75$>
In article: <4gat75$> Peter Merel <>
writes:
> If I want to risk surviving death, journeying into the future on some
> grand crapshoot that might take me to the stars, that's my choice and my
> risk. Long life risks great pain. That's what I choose to do. If you
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> don't want to, then so long and it's been swell, but keep your clammy
> little "death is for your own good" paws the hell away from my dewar!
Excellent sentiments, but the risks of cryonics are slight given that it
only takes place when all else fails.
The people who are complaining are people who think that they will get a
greater inheritance as individuals, or more funds will be available to the
particular collective that they subscribe to and in which they are
successful. They are suggesting that whereas they would not actually mind
people saving their lives if it was a proven process, they do mind if there
is a risk that it will not work. They regard the inheritance as being
"theirs" and yet the are forced to risk "their" inheritance on the (as they
see it small or zero) chance of it saving the testator's life.
If they realise that this is their argument they are using they will see it
as being weak. Every surgical operation and pharmaceutical treatment is a
risk that it may not work and may kill the patient. Some more than others.
If that risk was not acceptable in law and by society, no surgeon or doctor
would be able to practise, as they would be out of a job and possibly in
prison the first time a patient dies. Indeed, similar caveats exist around
the legal profession. If lawyers had to guarantee results from each case
they would quickly go out of business (someone has to lose).
Like everything else, cryonics is not certain. It may not work with the
same level of certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow, but it does work
with more certainty than some of the claims of various religions. The
uncertainties are technological and organisational. Technological issues
depend on basic rules by which the universe operates - and although people
can speculate either way until we have actually done it no one can be
totally convinced it can or cannot be done. Hope, however tenouous, will
always remain.
Organsiational issues are rather different - they depend on complicated
chaotic flows in the society of humans. There is a strong pressure already
in humanity to save life, otherwise there'd be no medical profession, no
hospitals. There is no real economic argument in favour of medical care -
people are easy and cheap to make.
Also, however vehemently someone may argue against cryonics, there is a
small part of them that wants to survive and wants it to be true.
A few may beleive that if they carry a torch for some religion or other
collective that will *make* it true. Or they may be using their "belief" to
hids away the dark doubts in their minds. "Thoughts about death are not
nice, let's hide them with pretty images, or with "noble" images of
sacrifice and torture". These people could be dangerous for the rest of us,
and provide the true organisational uncertaintly, especially if they obtain
dictatorial powers either politically or through some powerful profession
or cartel.
--
Sincerely, ****************************************
* Publisher of Longevity Report *
John de Rivaz * Fractal Report *
* details on request *
****************************************
In the information age, sharing can increase world wealth enormously,
because giving information does not decrease your information.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JohndeR
Fast loading, very few slow pictures
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5781