X-Message-Number: 6320
From:  (Thomas Donaldson)
Subject: Re: Saul's messages
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 21:53:28 -0700 (PDT)

Hi everyone!

I want to agree with Saul's "reply" to me also. We should do everything we
can to make cryonics advance, at least far enough that we can be assured of
OUR technically successful suspension. How the world in general behaves about

cryonics isn't really the critical issue: even small companies and 
organizations(small compared to the population of the world) have managed to 
persist for
a long time.

And I especially agree with Saul's attitude about optimism and/or pessimism. 
Both optimism and pessimism are attitudes of those who have no control over
the events involved. WE do have some control --- not so much over how broad
society thinks of cryonics, but much more over how well we ourselves are
suspended and preserved. It is not going to matter to US whether and when
30% of the US population decides they want to be suspended. What matters to
us is the quality of our own suspension and preservation after suspension.

I will make one point, which I doubt applies to Saul but may apply to others.
The notion of some time in which growth becomes extremely rapid and everyone
sees the light stinks far too much of chiliastic ideas from Christianity. 
And note that many Christian sects believe that the coming of that time is
not something over which they have control, it is controlled only by God...
or to put it another more "technological" way: we need only fold our hands
and Nanotechnology will save us. I brought up the point that cryonics cannot
and should not be expected to have its Coming just because I felt that such
a belief lay behind an absence of effort to bring it closer.

We most definitely should use our hands (and brains) to work towards
improved suspensions and preservations after suspension, NOW.

And yes, more cooperation among the different societies would be of much
value in that work.

			Best and long long life,

				Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6320