X-Message-Number: 6088
From: Brian Wowk <>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 12:02:10 -0500
Subject: SCI.CRYONICS Immortality 2

Mike Perry <> writes on CryoNet:

>No doubt this is sound advice for presenting cryonics to strong 
>believers in the position that "immortality is the province of God 
>not man" (and there are many such people). Such people do not,
>as a rule, make good prospects for cryonics...

	A self-fulfilling prophesy.  As long as cryonics is
presented with overtones of immortality, of course people who
are turned off by technological immortality will not make
good prospects.  In terms of numbers, 99.999% of the world's
population will either be offended or incredulous at the
notion.  Why deliberately alienate (and risk the wrath!) of
such a large number of people? 
>There are others however, who view technology as the best prospect
>we have for immortality and might be offended at the 
>suggestion that cryonics is "not a path to immortality."

	I'd rather risk offending 10 people than 6 billion people.

>Incidentally, I remember a few years ago watching 
>a TV program on cryonics and feeling offended that one of the 
>advocates made the point that cryonics could not be a path to immortality, 
>that death would come eventually, however long deferred, as if this 
>could be taken as a certainty, which is by no means the case.

	Of course death is not absolutely inevitable, and I too
find such assertions irritating.  Those who claim that death is
inevitable, and those who claim that immortality is achievable are
both wrong.  WE JUST DON'T KNOW.  

>One's approach should be tailored to one's audience; however, all such
>approaches should be mutually consistent and non-contradictory.
>This calls for differing emphases on different things with different people,
>which can be done without self-contradiction or compromise. (To the
>hardbitten theist, then, don't say, cryonics *is* a path to 
>immortality--to the atheist-immortalist sympathizer, don't insist 
>that it *isn't*.)

	Cryonics (if it works) will be a way to get ourselves to the
22nd Century.  But people in the 22nd Century will not be any more
immortal than people are today.  They will just live longer.  So
obviously cryonics is not a path to immortality.  What possible
benefits can accrue from insisting this it is, when the PR detriments
of doing so are so obvious?  Would you really not have signed up for
cryonics if it wasn't advertised as "a path to immortality"?  More
to the point, do we really WANT people who will only sign up if
they believe it will lead to immortality?????

Brian Wowk          CryoCare Foundation               1-800-TOP-CARE
President           Human Cryopreservation Services   

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6088