X-Message-Number: 8104
Date:  Fri, 18 Apr 97 00:17:43 
From: Mike Perry <>
Subject: CRYONICS Re CryoNet #8074, #8088

Olaf Henny, you wrote (#8074):
>"The notion of immortality is at this time ridiculous anyhow."

And (#8088):
>As far as my 'ridiculous' assertion goes, I would like to point 
>out, that I qualified it with 'at this time' and used it in the 
>context of calling anything we propose to do as aspiring 
>immortality.  If there is now any serious scientific research 
>under way toward immortality, I have certainly not heard about it and
>must at this time classify it as science fiction/speculation.

There was much else said in this last posting too, all of which I think 
calls for some more comments. First, while I said (#8081) "I think I 
understand where you're coming from"--I would say now that you have 
made it clearer. I suppose talk of immortality now will seem, to 
many, the way that talk of flying to the moon would have been viewed 
100 years ago. (Except that "immortality" pushes buttons that "lunar 
flight" did not, challenging religious beliefs, etc., and inviting 
more hostility.) 100 years ago there was certainly not a scientific 
research effort to achieve a lunar landing, and today there is not a 
similar effort to achieve "immortality"--though there are some 
preliminary efforts that could have that as an eventual result. But all
that was not apparent to me in your simple branding of the idea as 
"ridiculous" even if you did add the qualifier, "for now." (That 
qualifier puzzled me too--now it's also clearer.)

From time to time someone comes along to express 
(apparent) disparagement of the idea that what we are aiming for is 
immortality. Whenever I see that it definitely pushes a "wrong 
button" with me, and I have sometimes responded at length with a 
contrary view. Often, I notice the point made that we must not 
present cryonics to the general public as an attempt to gain 
immortality (though some, I think many, of us certainly see it
that way) for fear of pushing their "wrong buttons" and bringing their 
wrath upon us. This, I think, can be accepted. We must be 
careful--but I don't think we need to go so far as to claim 
that no, we don't think there's any prospect of real 
immortality through science--unless of course,
we truly feel that way. We can adopt a public stance, most of the
time, of not committing ourselves on that issue. If someone presses
me for my personal opinion, for example, I will give it, but not unless.

However, there is still a predicament, if you happen to have worked 
for years on a book that develops an immortalist philosophy, as I 
have. This book will argue that immortality is scientifically 
achievable--not as some sort of dogma, but as at least a good 
possibility; this is a major part of the philosophy that is presented.
And it also promotes cryonics. Now, when the book is 
done, I don't want to do harm to the cryonics movement in the act
of making it public. On the other hand, I hope I won't have
to hide it under lock and key either. In any case, though I try to be 
fair and considerate, I'm not adjusting the basic stance to avoid 
possible provocations. One person already, who has some
familiarity with the contents, told me not to worry, "it's a
philosophy book--nobody will read it." Maybe that's true
and there's no cause for worry. (Needless to say, I hope a few will
read it at least.) Maybe, on the other hand, benefit would follow 
if many *did* read it. Anyway, the possible public
effect is something that must be considered.

Mike Perry

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8104