X-Message-Number: 9955
Subject: Re: Rest in peace
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 22:05:07 -0500
From: Will Dye <>

(Letter to the editor, New Scientist magazine)

Regarding cryonic suspension, Graeme Warren (Letters, 29 June 1998) 
raises a surprisingly commonplace concern.  He writes that the future 
"will be a pretty crowded place, as a society which can raise the dead 
must have long since achieved the lesser aim of halting the ageing 
process".  

First, I believe that it's better to avoid referring to cryonics 
patients as "the dead", because it tends to steer the conversation 
toward an unproductive argument about the definition of the word 
"dead".  I avoid the word "immortal" for similar reasons, preferring 
the term "ageria" - the absence of geriatric aging.  

Second, the whole point of cryonics is to keep the patient stable until 
conditions are right for their revival.  If the world somehow develops 
ageria long before it develops working space colonization, then the 
frozen patient will simply have to wait a little longer.  This feature 
of cryonics does not remove all the risks, to be sure, but at least 
there seems to be little need to worry about waking up in a crowded, 
dismal dystopia.   

As a proponent of cryonics, I remain puzzled at how often I encounter 
the argument that the possible drawbacks of being revived are worse than 
the certainty of being buried or burned.  As noted by Dr. Ralph Merkle 
(at http://www.merkle.com/cryo.html ), "There is little need, in the 
case of cryonics, to fear that the cure will be worse than the disease."

William L. Dye


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9955