X-Message-Number: 9539 Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 17:08:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Platt <> Subject: Will cryonics be applied? Bob Ettinger may be correct in his proposition that science tends to acquire all the powers that we can imagine, but in many cases throughout history the science HAS NOT BEEN APPLIED. Personal flying machines are a perfect example (previously mentioned in this thread). Bob is right; we could have them now. Why don't we? Because of noise, danger, expense, lack of space to land and store them in urban areas, lack of consumer interest, and other practical issues. Once again I go back to the car-repair analogy. Suppose a bunch of techno-dreamers in the 1930s believed there was a strong probability that robots would be able to repair cars by the 1990s. This turns out to be true: today, in theory, robots COULD be programmed to fix cars. But the task of writing generalized car-repair robot-control software would be so nightmarish, no one is going to tackle that problem. We might however imagine programming a robot to tackle specific, narrowly defined auto-repair jobs, IF all the repairs could be done the same way, and were not too complex; and IF we could sell the cars after they were repaired; and IF there were many of them (to amortize the cost of the software design). The moral, here, is obvious--right? Some may object that this argument might not apply to future science, since its powers will be unimaginable. I would reply that economics has always been a major factor in salvage operations, and excessive complexity of a task tends to discourage people from tackling it. Another objection may be that human beings are far more valuable than cars. Our friends in the future will be highly motivated to "fix us up" just because we are human. I don't think this is necessarily true. If we are to be guided by historical precedent in determining probability, our current set of values (placing a high premium on the worth of life) are an anomaly. Moreover I suggest that when cryonicists assume they will be perceived as objects of great value, they are merely projecting their psychological bias. _We_ think we're worth saving--otherwise we wouldn't want to save ourselves. Other people may not agree. Therefore, it is in our best interests to make ourselves easy to save. --Charles Platt Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9539