X-Message-Number: 5892
From: Mark Muhlestein <>
Newsgroups: uk.legal,sci.cryonics,sci.life-extension
Subject: Re: Virtue of suffering
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 1996 20:59:51 -0700
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>

John Sharman wrote:

> Suppose you were in a concrete condemned cell, the night before your
> execution. They bring you, as is traditional, an excellent "last meal".
> What do you do? Eat it, or spend your time trying to dig your way out
> with the spoon?

If you become better acquainted with the evidence for the feasibility
of cryonics, you will see that the odds of success are far greater
than your example suggests.  A common theme of your postings is that
you declare, in many cases quite insolently, that the feasibility of
cryonics is vanishingly remote, but at the same time contemptuously
brush off anyone who would try to get you to evaluate the available
evidence.  What would you say if you were trying to argue a point to
a judge who had already decided you are wrong, and refused to examine
the excellent evidence you were able to produce?

[...]

> > There have been studies of the damage done to the brain by normal
> > mortuary preparations, and it does not look good.  On the other hand,
> > all structure is not utterly obliterated, and since we don't know
> > how much can be recovered from the surviving structure, we can't
> > really say with full confidence what the final outlook is.  If I were to
> > survive an accident in which I lost 99% of my memories but was otherwise
> > in good health, I would not be the same person in many (perhaps most)
> > important respects, but it doesn't necessarily mean I might as well
> > immediately commit suicide, nor would my wife want me to.
> 
> "You" could not commit suicide in those circumstances. The being would
> not be "you" at all.

Really?  At all?  That is a rather sweeping statement.  There have been
such cases.  I personally know someone that happened to, and I can assure
you that in spite of the fact that he lost almost 100% of his memories,
he is very glad to be alive, and he treasures those few memories he
retains.  And don't forget the value his existence has for his family,
however thinly his memories connect him personally to his past.  Years
have now passed, and he certainly feels like himself now, in spite of
what happened.

> We are in the area in which, for me, cryonicists
> move from being gross optimists to unreasoning fanatics.

So it is unreasoning fanaticisim for me to say that I am glad my friend
is alive because of modern medical technology?  Since we don't know
how much future technology will be able to do, the conservative thing
is to try preserve the most we can and hope something can be salvaged.
If we fail, we at least have tried.

> That state on
> its own need not bother me, but when it is carried to the extent of
> advertising palpable falsehoods to the *very* vulnerable, then we are
> way past the limit of my toleration and I would start taking steps to
> prosecute under any available legislation.

Here you are again making an assertion about cryonics ("advertising
palpable falsehoods") without having done your homework.  Without
understand and weighing the evidence, is mere bluster to dogmatically
declare that laws should be invoked against what might really turn out
to be conservative medical practice from the viewpoint of future
medicine.

[...]

> > Cryonics organizations are very loath to take on very late-term
> > cases for exactly this reason.  It just isn't worth the trouble that
> > almost invariably results.
> 
> "Late term cases"? Surely not. I'm surprised you do not advocate the
> collection of the smoke from the crematorium chimney.

Farcical comments such as these, though not entirely without
comical content, also serve to demonstrate that you clearly have
little idea of the workings of cryonics organizations.  If you
want to speak with such confidence about cryonics, you must pay
the price and investigate more.

[...]

> > Forget that and check out Ralph Merkle's home page.
> 
> Some people like truffles and spend hours searching for them. Me - I
> don't like truffles.

We are talking about your future life here, not some kind of hobby
or preference.  Does it not seem cavalier to trivialize your possible
future, given that you are operating without the facts of the matter?

[greed for air]

> Ever seen a car powered by a 6-litre internal combustion engine? Or a 747 ?

I'm not too sure what you are trying to say by this, but if your point
is that there are some things the use quite a lot of air, well, yes, that
is certainly true.  I'm not clear on what relevance it has to my point.

Greed is only one example of negative human traits, and anyone would
be a fool to suppose that technology by itself will magically solve
all human problems.  But, I believe there is hope for us poor hominids,
and the only way is forward! 

> >               You're right though, that all these positive developments
> > are only potential, and many things can go wrong.  I tend to be more
> > optimistic, but I recognize that advances must be fought for and are
> > hard won.
> 
> Advances? Do you agree that as of now, the movement is still very much
> downhill?

We are not talking about a monolithic object which is moving in a certain
direction.  Sure, there are a lot of problems, and for many people, life
is getting worse and the bottom is not in sight.  You sound like someone
who empathizes with such people, and you are right to do so.  However,
there are also many areas that are getting better, and technology has
the potential to accentuate that trend, as well as reverse it.

If you are willing to say that life can be good, and worth anything, then
cryonics can be seen as a natural extension of that feeling.  You think
it is wildly improbable, based on what you know about it and your gut
feelings.  I again invite you to make some effort and see if you will
validate your first reaction, or perhaps take a little more optimistic
view of the subject.

Peace -- Mark Muhlestein -- 


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5892