X-Message-Number: 6100 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 96 16:22:09 From: Mike Perry <> Subject: Immortality This is a response to Brian Wowk's CryoNet message #6088, which in turn responds to an earlier message of mine. >>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. I'd like to be proved wrong--sure looks otherwise, though. Could this attitude itself be the reason why I've never convinced any theist to sign up? Are they really convince- able if you only use the right approach? I do think, in talking to a theist, that you should keep things that would offend them or challenge their beliefs to a reasonable minimum. But the obstacles still seem great. It seems to me that theistic people have several strong reasons why they would not want to sign up. One is that "heaven is better than this"--which means, the sooner you die "legitimately" (i.e. "saved," without committing suicide or other major sins) the better. Such people are clearly un- happy with this life, and I don't know what to propose as a remedy. Another reason is simply that God, in their view, has already provided the right and proper solution to the prob- lem of death. It's tough to maintain that cryonics is simply another kind of medical procedure and is "not addressing the problem of death." Cryonics patients are legally dead, and treating them as if they were alive, as we do, flies in the face of customs and medical practices of which outsiders will be well aware. Normally they will accept these more conventional approaches--otherwise it suggests that sanc- tioned mass killing is going on. Would God allow such a thing? And this problem exists whatever your views on the immortality question--so long as you view cryonics as a possible way to extend people's lives, i.e. to *save* lives. One possible rejoinder is, Yes, there is a problem, but why compound it further by raising the immortality issue? But I really don't think it "compounds it further" very much if the issue of immortality is simply left open, which I think also has offsetting advantages. Surely the issue of mass killing would be seen as the overriding concern, in the eyes of most people. A third obstacle for the theist is that "unbelievers go to hell," and some see opting for cryonics as an act of unbe- lief. In this case there would clearly be a *great* advantage if you could present cryonics so as not to challenge a belief in God-engineered immortality. In general, I don't favor coming across immediately with the idea that cryonics is a possible route to immortality, despite thinking so myself. When people from the outside ask the question, "why do people choose cryonics" I usually answer something like "they see it as a way to extend their life in good health" and leave it at that. However, I don't think that inspires many theists. >As long as cryonics is >is presented with overtones of immortality, of course >people who are turned off by technological immortality >will not make good prospects. No argument there, yet it is hard to see how you could go very far in presenting cryonics without *some* overtones of this sort. Unless, that is, you issue some clear *denial* that cryonics might be a path to immortality. And to me this denial is unconvincing, because it's clear that proof is lacking. The issue then arises of why such a denial is being made, etc. I imagine that intelligent, thoughtful people generally will have these concerns. Once I gave a talk on the approximate theme of "beam me up Scotty," i.e. the possibility of being transported pho- tonically as a "message," along with other possible future marvels. The audience consisted mainly of senior citizens, and on advice given beforehand I carefully refrained from any mention of immortality. After the talk, someone asked me why I hadn't mentioned this too, though he seemed generally approving. This suggests that perhaps the immor- tality message isn't as offensive as it may seem, and that omitting it even to general audiences may not be such an advantage. In presenting cryonics to such audiences, I don't think we should lean heavily on this topic. But can't the question just be left open? This would, it is true, introduce the "overtones" by not denying them, but would leave room for other points of view too. If pressed, you could simply note that there are varying points of view and briefly sum- marize them. >In terms of numbers, 99.999% of the world'spopulation >will either be offended or incredulous at the notion. >Why deliberately alienate (and risk the wrath!) of such a >large number of people? So again I ask if just leaving the question of immortality open is not the best stance to take, at least with the vast majority. Interestingly, 99.999% would leave 1 part in 100,000 who are *not* offended or incredulous at the notion of technological immortality--about 2,500 people in the U.S. alone, many more than are now signed up for cryonics. All right, I know you weren't trying to give an exact estimate here--however, this illustrates the difficulty we have with gauging how large our receptive audience might be and how best to target this audience. It might be best, for instance, to take a small risk of offending a large majority if a still-significant minority would be swayed more to our position thereby. In general, I don't see how an immortalist stance would be *more* offensive to the ma- jority, than say, a religion to which they did not subscribe. I don't think Christians are normally much offended by advocates of Islam or Hinduism, for instance. >> 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. Here it looks as if your percentages have shifted. Not 99.999% but more like 99.99999998%. If the odds are that bad, I don't see how we could now have several hundred cryonicists. >>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. It's not good to be dogmatic either way. About the only certainty is that "we don't know" with certainty. Given that, once again it seems best, as a general rule, to leave the immortality question open and acknowledge and present different points of view if asked about the issue. >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. Not necessarily. By the 22nd century, we hopefully will not experience the terminal illness of aging, which is now universal. Death, again hopefully, will be an increasingly unlikely event. Some nonzero probability of dying must persist indefinitely, based on our best understanding of physics. But the possibility of *reducing* this probability over time, in such a way as to provide a nonzero probabil- ity of infinite survival, is also not ruled out. As an example, if in 2100 you had a 99% chance of surviving to 2200, i.e. a 1% chance of dying, and every century thereafter the chance of dying could be cut in half due to improvements in technology, memory backups, etc., your chance of living forever would not be 0 but 98%. >So obviously cryonics is not a path to immortality. This is not obvious. >What possible benefits can accrue from insisting this it >is, when the PR detriments of doing so are so obvious? I don't advocate insisting in a dogmatic manner that cryon- ics *is*, with certainty, a path to immortality. But I advo- cate leaving the question open and also making it clear, if someone wants my personal opinion, that it *may well be* a path to immortality. >Would you really not have signed up for cryonics if it >wasn't advertised as "a path to immortality"? No, but that's not the same as saying "it's not 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????? Certainly not. But I hope we don't have to go so far as to make assertions that are offensive and contrary to our own position, in an effort to woo and placate the anti- immortalists. Hopefully they can appreciate the existence of differing points of view. Hopefully they will not be of- fended that some may differ somewhat from them, so long as their own opinions are respected in return. Mike Perry Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6100