X-Message-Number: 5865 From: Mark Muhlestein <> Newsgroups: uk.legal,sci.cryonics,sci.life-extension Subject: Re: Virtue of suffering Date: Fri, 01 Mar 1996 14:38:29 -0700 Message-ID: <> References: <4h6gu5$> <> John Sharman wrote: > >> Peter Merel wrote: > > What are the facts? If you don't think revival is possible, why do you > > think that? What's your evidence? > > "*Is* possible"? I think that statement is false because it has not been > done and if it were possible it would have been. Was the statement "Travel to the moon is possible" false in 1900? Your logic seems to argue that it was. You need to be clear about what is being claimed. Cryonicists are not asserting "Revival of people frozen to liquid nitrogen temperature is possible today." Rather the claim is that revival of such people *might be possible some time in the future*. You keep speaking of fraud, but what have the cryonicists promised that they have failed to deliver? What is the deception if everyone understands, as they do, that what is being arranged for is merely the increased probability of life in an interesting future? It appears your real objection is not that cryonics is technically impossible, but that future people will not want to revive people frozen today. That is, of course, possible, but looking at human behaviour today I tend to have a bit more confidence. Consider the lengths we will go to to try to save someone who is trapped in a mine, even when the odds of success are very remote. Since you seem to agree the technical capability is likely to exist someday, why does it seem far fetched that someone, somewhere will be interested enough to restore potentially viable people? This is especially true when you consider that advanced molecular biotechnology may arrive very soon, perhaps within the lifetime of many of us alive today. You say you have made your peace with death, fine. But say you were dying of cancer and were presented with the possibility of being cured by an untried but feasible sounding new procedure. Would you try it? Would you fault others who wanted to try it using their own resources to do so? The principal difference between that scenario and cryonics is just that you must wait longer to know if it worked. > How do you feel about time-travel? Not frozen/illusory time travel but > the real, Stephen Hawking kind. How do you feel about that? Possible? There are many things that are marginally possible, but this is a red herring. No one is proposing that speculative new physics will be required to restore cryonics patients. I will join with the others who have suggested that you inform yourself more about cryonics so that we can better discuss the subject. Ralph Merkle's home page would be a good start. Peace -- Mark Muhlestein -- Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5865