X-Message-Number: 6096 Date: 19 Apr 1996 06:38:08 U From: "Norton, Brook" <> Subject: Should Immortality be Discussed? Brian Wowk writes: >Seriously, though, even if some people are >receptive to discussions about technological "immortality", >why prime them with ideas and misleading language that will >discredit cryonics in the rest of the world? I don't want to get stuck on the details of semantics. Lets just say that cryonics does not equal immortality. However, many of the technologies required for cryonics to work for today's patients will also contribute greatly toward the goal of immortality. Whether one uses cryonics and immortality in the same discussion should depend on whether the particular audience would be receptive and if immortality is mentioned, it must be in the proper context. For the right audience, with a rational presentation, there is no reason that linking cryonics and immortality should be viewed as "ideas and misleading language that will discredit cryonics". >Throwing around grandiose ideas like immortality may be fun, >but what positive educational purpose is served? For a few particle physicists, the discussions of other galaxies and black holes actually has a practical impact on their paychecks. Understanding the physics of extreme physical phenomena gives a particle physicist insight to the quantam mechanics that also govern his particular experiment. But what about the rest of us? What positive educational purpose is served by discussing other galaxies? It gives us information about reality. This gives us perspective. When you see the big picture, it can alter your personal philosophy which affects many day to day decisions. And so it is with immortality. The fact that its even a possibility gives us more information about reality. And the information is profound. Enough to alter one's personal philosophies, trickling down to how we make our day to day decisions. Brook Norton Aerodynamics, McDonnell Douglas Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6096