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