X-Message-Number: 83
From att!utah-cs!boulder!cadnetix!cadnetix.COM!jiml Thu Apr 27 11:58:29 1989
Received: from boulder.UUCP by cs.utah.edu (5.61/utah-2.1-cs)
	id AA22651; Thu, 27 Apr 89 11:58:29 -0600
Received: by boulder.Colorado.EDU (cu-hub.022489)
Received: by cadnetix.cadnetix.COM (5.51/smail2.5/10-30-87)
	id AA23916; Thu, 27 Apr 89 11:22:01 MDT
Received: by jlew.cadnetix.COM (5.51/smail2.5/10-30-87)
	id AA00253; Thu, 27 Apr 89 11:21:54 MDT
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 89 11:21:54 MDT
From: utah-cs!boulder!cadnetix.COM!jiml (Jim Lewczyk)
Message-Id: <>
To: att!ho4cad!kqb
Subject: CRYONICS ramblings
Status: R

I have thus far sat back and enjoyed the conversation/discussion going on 
in this mailing list.  I like to think of myself as a neutral party, and
to be frank, I'm as much interested in the picture of the future which 
emerges as the concept of being there to see for myself.

One thing which seems common in fiction about the future is the extension of
some fad or current trend into an all encompassing facit of a future world.
Unfortunately, it's not in the nature of fads to have the staying power to
affect things.  One has to look at trends and make general observations,
and anything more concete is a shot in the dark (which, of course, isn't
going to prevent me from trying).

Of course, having a clear view of the possibilities helps, but it forces 
you to assign values to the options in the attempt to decide which will 
come about and which will be interesting dead-ends.

Such activities become more than of passing interest to anyone considering
a suspended form of preservation (cryonicist or neuro), because the future
world you will awaken in may not be one in which you are comfortable.

I wouldn't want to awaken in the world of William Gibson's _Neuromancer_,
at least, not if I weren't one of the rich ones.  If I were awakened, only
to be left off on my own to make a living in that world, with no relevant
skills, I'd be reduced to the existence of the simplest labor I could learn.
Granted, I could go to school and learn something new, but that presupposes
that public education exists, is of a quality which could prepare me for
a new and satisfying career as a household quantum-mechanic, or that 
private education will be inexpensive enough for the same end.

"Ah, but," you say, "computer information technology will make education
an automatic process, suitable for consumption in one's own home."  
Perhaps so, but commonly available levels of education become the minimum
acceptable for society's minimum level jobs.  On the other hand, education,
even if freely available, is still work and the level of job you have 
will likely continue to depend on the amount of work you're willing to do.

Ah, jobs.  Will there even be jobs?  Will the oft-suggested "freedom from
tedious manual labor" promised by the computer/robot revolution come about?
Will the world be filled with narcissist pleasure-seekers and couch 
potatoes, and those few who have managed to find something interesting to
work at?  Or will all wealth and production be controlled by a few, and the
rest exist in some welfare-state, and are the two about the same?

On the other hand, the same conditions could make for a society of dullards
and someone from the past may actually have a better basis to compete
than a 'native'.  Desire, the existence of a strong work-ethic, the lack
of the ingrained feeling that "the robot/computer will take care of that"
could be a big advantage.  Even without the depressing aspects of this
scenario, the future may be crying for people if it's in an expansionist
mode, either thought the local solar system or beyond.  There could be
LOTS of interesting things to do.

But consider who dies these days for the most part.  Are you going into
suspension as a mature person in your prime?  Or are you going into the
sleep after having become a curmudgeon?  Will the reanimation process, 
whatever it will be, give you a new, flexible outlook on life?  Will you 
be both able and willing to learn a new skill, new social mores, willing 
to accept new limits on behavior and expectations?  I can just imagine 
the "corporation", created to research reanimation techniques and care for 
the remains of deanimated subjects, having to open and operate an old folks 
camp to create a semblance of the 20th century for the reanimated subjects 
who have proven inadequate to the task of adjusting to the modern world.
Of course, you might be reanimated in a body of a 5 year old, or a newborn,
and have to grow up all over again.  That might solve the problem of 
reanimating people who are only going to be a burden on society.  Otherwise, 
why would a world full of immortals want to bring in more immortals?  

Unless there is significant economic or political reason, the future may
not WANT to reanimate these people except possibly as laboratory 
curiosities.  What value will YOU bring to the future?  As a living 
anacronism, of interest to archeologists and history buffs?  Boy, it would
be interesting to bring back Ghengis Khan, wouldn't it?  But what do we
do with him after he dictates his memoirs?  Can he drive a truck?

Here's another variation on the upload/download theme.  Doubtless there
will evolve, over the next several centuries, some form of machine 
intelligence.  Given the existence of the technology to upload, download
and network, there will possibly be some social or business advantage 
to being a human being vs a machine.  "Us vs. the computers" if you will.  
If these machine intelligences exhibit ambition, reanimation techniques
(especially those requiring a human 'blank' for the reanimated persona to
occupy) may provide an avenue for 'counterfeit' humans to be created by
downloading a machine intelligence into a human body.  

Anyway, I think I've rambled enough without making any reasonable attempt
to make a point, except possibly to suggest things which haven't been 
suggested yet.  Things sure seem unpredictable...

				Jim Lewczyk

[ Jim, your question about why people of the future would want to reanimate
  (and rehabilitate) suspended people brings up something new and exciting
  in the cryonics community.  Until recently, the best answer cryonicists
  had was something like "IF you come back, it will be to a world that is
  decent because otherwise you wouldn't be brought back at all."  That answer,
  besides being not too promising, relied on the good will of strangers in the
  future rather than on one's own efforts.  Linda Chamberlain recently wrote a
  proposal for an organization called LifePact, a mutual-aid organization
  of cryonicists who will each ensure that they are all reanimated and
  rehabilitated.  One way that might work is that each person commits to be
  responsible, upon reanimation, for reanimating another person.  Details will
  be presented at the May 26 - 29, 1989 CryoFest announced in message #58.
  - Kevin Q. Brown ]

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=83