X-Message-Number: 8052
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 15:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Olaf Henny <>
Subject: Immortality again

On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Ben Best wrote:

>   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. 

I agree wholeheartedly.  While there is at this point realistic 
research ongoing as far as life extension and cryonics is concerned, 
which will give us as ultimate prize an indefinite life span, 
immortality and the discussion of it, is at this stage sheer 
fantasy.

I understand, that if we eliminate aging and sickness as causes 
for death, our life expectancy would be about 1600 to 1700 years,
 mainly due to accidents.  A sophisticated medical technology, 
which eliminates aging and sickness would also be superior to 
ours in post accident restoration.  So say our life expectancy
 would rise to 5000 years.  That is a long, long way from 
immortality.  If immortal, I would have to concern myself with 
the burn out of our sun.

The biggest problem to our present life span is, that it is 
geared to bearing and raising children, but it is only good 
for 1 1/2 career.  When a physicist reaches a point of 
creative exhaustion at age 50 (he suddenly realizes, that 
the young whipper-snappers by pass him in the ideas race), 
he suddenly finds himself pressed too much against the 
conventional retirement ceiling, which may fall anywhere 
between 60 and 65 to go back to university to study 6-8 
years chemistry and still have time to make a contribution 
or make up the lost (study) years in the creation of his 
retirement funds.

The way I look at it is that cryonics can give me another 
century or two, I can then decide if I want to go for more,
or I can end it, if I feel, that my will to carry on is 
exhausted. I certainly do not have to decide now, what the 
most desirable ultimate life span is for me.

(Mike C.:)
>> Let us stop calling it immortality.

The notion is at this time ridiculous anyhow.

> >( avoid waving red flags in front of bulls).

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

>> The issue Ben raises about"bulls" is possibly a serious one, but 
>> not confronting these reactionaries could be serious too.

Nobody confronted 'the reactionaries' when CPR was introduced,  
and if we do not make those ridiculous assertions of immortality, 
we may not have to confront them now.  I am not so much concerned 
about the threat from religion as I am from our secular 
governments, who, out of concern for the viability of pension 
and old age security funds, already start prohibiting (here in 
Canada) such potentially life extending hormones as DHEA.

>> 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")...

Again it is our duly elected government here I Canada, which is 
about to ram through Bill-47, which proposes to criminalize 13 
reproductive or genetic technologies (Vancouver Sun April 12, 
1997, Page A10). I understand, that would put as at par with the 
most restrictive (developed) countries, Germany and Austria.  We 
would not have our citizens live too long now, would we.  
Legislated ignorance is so much preferable.

>... 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 agree

Olaf Henny

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8052