X-Message-Number: 8042
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 14:00:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ben Best <>
Subject: Immortality again

On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Ben Best wrote:

> Message #8031
> From:  (Mike C.)
> Subject: Re: Immortality: Avoiding Religious Persecution For Pursuing It.
> Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 23:55:56 -0400
> 
> >Message #8019
> >Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 12:57:50 -0400 (EDT)
> >From: Ben Best <>
> >Subject: Immortality

> > It is sometimes 
> >hard to remember that FOREVER includes 10exp10exp1000 years from now. 
> >Do I want to be alive in 10exp10exp1000 years? 
> 
> I do.

   The value of life, like the value of anything, is subject to
diminishing future value. I cannot put the same value on one year of
life in 10 years as one year of life in 1,000 years. One year of life
in 10exp10exp1000 is (relatively speaking) of such reduced value to be
negligible, practically speaking.

> >
> >    I think it is taxing the credibility of 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 --
> 
> If the probability is diminishing it is diminishing.
> You only die if you do a thing kills you, probable or not.

    You cut-off the most relevant part of my statement, possibly 
because you didn't understand it. I said:

>    I think it is taxing the credibility of 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
  
    In infinite time there is infinite possibility for destruction. It
is *possible* that the probability of destruction could diminish rapidly
enough to result in infinite survival, but this cannot be guaranteed.
If you are on a collision-course with a comet and lack adequate resources,
you are out of control. 

> >
> >I think that anyone who is passionately concerned about
> >survival in 10exp10exp1000 years is downright goofy.
> 
> I want to live and I'm goofy?
> What would I be if I wanted to die?

    The most significant phrases in my statement are "passionately
concerned" and "10exp10exp1000 years". I did not say that I want to 
die -- I didn't even say that I want to be dead in 10exp10exp1000
years, although I am acknowledging that the issue of whether I am
alive in that year is very low on my current list of concerns.

> >   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 greatest step, are you sure?
> First age is not our enemy, disfunction is.
> I would rather be a millenia of age with full capability
> than a challenged person with 18 years of age.
> Second I would rather be doing things other than being really still, 
> at least for a long time.

   I don't understand the significance of your statement. If you believe
that there are more important steps toward long-term survival than the
elimination of aging and true suspended animation, please tell me what 
those steps are. The elimination of diseases is certainly important, but 
would not be a comparable transformation of the terms of survival as we
currently face them.

> >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".
> >
> 
> I think there is an infinite difference between them.

   Infinite in years, but not in value. I think that in general, people 
who are passionately concerned with surviving 200 years have a better
chance of living 200 years than people who are passionately concerned with
"immortality" (even eliminating the religionists from consideration). The
former will have a more practical focus. Once I have succeeded in
surviving 200 or 1,000 years I can give more thought to the new sets of 
problems (not cryonics and aging) I will have to address in order to 
live longer. 

> >   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.
> 
> Let us stop calling it immortality.
> They are jealous of us using the meme.
> Call it indefinite longevity,
> or better yet help me think of an extremely technical term 
> in an obscure language.

   I generally take the first approach. When asked how long I want to
live, I generally say "as long as possible". A newspaper reporter recently
tried to tie me down on my religious belief -- but I simply said that 
I am capable of a sense of reverence & awe. When I then added "I admit
that I am not a very religious person", she could relate to that
statement. More people can identify with "not being very religious"
than can identify with being "an atheist".


> >( avoid waving red flags in front of bulls).
> 
> Wave a flag remotely as a distraction 
> and the rest of the arena is yours.

  A red flag is usually waved with the intention of making a bull 
charge, which would otherwise not be inclined to do so. The fact
that the flag can cover a sword is an entertaining thought, but
I think this is pushing the analogy too far. 

*********************  MIKE PERRY WROTE **************************

> Not everybody should try to do the same thing. Cryonics is not
> cosmology. Cosmology and related pursuits 
> are really the proper vehicles to approach the question of 
> immortality, as opposed to the first step--extending life beyond the
> biological limits--which is the focus of cryonics. While we greatly need
> people who are working on the technical end of cryonics, I don't think
> we would say that there should be no cosmologists or others, exploring
> whether true immortality is scientifically possible. Cryonics 
> organizations can focus on what they should--cryonics--and leave the 
> cosmological questions to those (some of them cryonicists too, like 
> myself) with special interest in this area.
> 
> The issue Ben raises about"bulls" is possibly a serious one, but 
> not confronting these reactionaries could be serious too.
> The persistence of supernatural beliefs, and institutions based 
> around them, has increasing potential for harm as we come closer to
> gaining full control over our biology, harm in the sense of retarding
> our progress and suppressing critical research. If we try too much to
> soft-pedal our intentions (to try to become more than human and free
> of aging and diseases) or our approach (science, not belief in "higher
> powers") I can see it backfiring and losing us support and 
> converts that we need, as well as prolonging the domination of our 
> opponents through the lack of opposition. I don't think cryonics
> organizations should be at the forefront in confronting the reactionary
> religionists either, but someone should, and not just the 
> "expendable" noncryonicist. 

    The cosmological issue I am raising is not so much whether
"immortality" is possible, as whether it is of any relevance or 
importance. My bottom line is that (1) a focus on the far-future
is counterproductive to a focus on the near-future. A failure to 
survive in the near future -- due to too much attention to the far
future -- guarantees there will be no survival in either. And there
is nothing practical that can be done to assist far-future survival
(ie, beyond 1,000 years) that we can do now -- and (2) A focus on
immortalism is the traditional turf of religion -- one which religionists 
will fight bitterly over. Since I expect that there will be hardly any
religionists in 1,000 years, I can wait until then to take-on the more
cosmic issues, assuming that they will have any practical value then.

    I attempt to combat religion, but not in my role as a cryonicist. I am
webmaster for the Humanist Association of Toronto website -- I donated the
money for the site, in fact. It is possible to concentrate on the
scientific and materialist substrates of our beliefs without being 
confrontational. I can't imagine losing many "converts" by not taking 
an anti-religious stance. People looking for a materialist means of
survival will accept that means if it is of value to them, independently
of the ideological postures of those offering the services. This works
both ways, because for all I know my current physician may believe in 
God (my last one did).

                -- Ben Best ()

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8042