X-Message-Number: 8019
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 12:57:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ben Best <>
Subject: Immortality

> Message #8014
> From:  (Robin Hanson)
> Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 12:03:17 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: Scientists Want Immortality Less than in 1916
> 
> The 5Apr97 LA Times, p. B4, had an article reporting on a recent
> Nature article comparing a survy of scientists in 1916 to 1996, using
> the same questions.  The results:
>   
>                               1916   1996
     [snip]

> DESIRE FOR IMMORTALITY
> Intense                        34     10
> Moderate                       39     26
> Not at all                     27     64
> 
> The lack of interest by most scientists in cryonics may thus perhaps
> be explained by their placing a low value on the potential benefit of
> revival, rather than on their placing an especially low probability on
> this possibility (say <5%).  This low value on revival is a new thing.  

    I am an ardent life extensionist and atheist, but if someone asked
me if I believe in "Immortality" or even if I want to be "Immortal", I 
am inclined to think I would say "No". 

    Eternity is more than a LONG time -- it is FOREVER. It is sometimes 
hard to remember that FOREVER includes 10exp30 years from now, 10exp1000
years from now and 10exp10exp1000 years from now. Do I want to be alive
in 10exp10exp1000 years? I wouldn't rule out the possibility, but after
proton decay in 10exp36 years I might be something of a mess. More 
seriously, I can't get serious about such colossal time-frames. The very
nature of matter will be altered beyond recognition. Even if I survive
1,000 years -- my current ardent hope -- I am likely to be transformed 
beyond all recognition from my present self (although hopefully, this will
be "survival").

    I think it is taxing the credibility of all scientific assessment of
the nature of transformation of matter (and the increasing probability of
destruction with the increasing passage of time, even if the probability 
is diminishing -- and I DON'T believe that convergent-series diminution 
can be guaranteed) to believe in personal survival in 10exp10exp1000
years.  And I think that anyone who is passionately concerned about
survival in 10exp10exp1000 years is downright goofy.

   The most urgent problem is to survive the next 1,000 years. The
greatest step in this direction will be the elimination of aging and
the creation of true suspended animation. The achievement of these
goals are of passionately critical importance. A focus of "Immortality",
by contrast, represents air-headed distraction from practical issues
-- as if living 200 years is as much a fantasy as living "forever".

   It is also of no small practical importance that the people who could
do the most to destroy the chance of scientific life-extension & suspended
animation -- ie, religionists -- are VASTLY more infuriated about claims
that science can achieve immortality than that science can extend life.
We should stick to the medical model and leave the concern with religion
& death to the airheads (and avoid waving red flags in front of bulls).

                -- Ben Best ()

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8019