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