Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> Now, if you believe it is feasible, but are not signed up, then you
> are simply playing Russian roulette (which is fine IMO, just consider
> leaving your frozen head to me, so I can harvest meme-sets from it).
> But if you don't believe it will work, given the analysis that
> are thus far available, it seems you have some internal demons
> to wrestle with. You can't simply say you want "proof" that
> it *will* work, you have to *assert* that it can never work.
You know, the knee-jerk "Cryonics is a necessity" theme that some folks have on
this list has always annoyed me. Frankly, I think that cryonics IS is a good
last-ditch solution to terminal diseases. Now, the question is, how much should
I be willing to give up for that chance of being frozen if suddenly struck
down? Clean air? Clean water? A low crime area? Financial independance? This
is the cost that *I* look at as the cost of cryonics. In order to take
advantage of cryonics (which is almost non-existant in Canada) I would have to
move to a place where crime is an order of magnitude higher, (ie a big US
city), and where life spans are ten years or so lower, and sign a life-
insurance policy at rates which would no longer permit me to live off of
chemical-free foods. Is this statistically the best thing for me to do to
maximize my life expectancy? I think not.
For once I would like to see a Cryonics fan give an assessment of what folks
have to GIVE UP in order to join the ranks, and how it would be worth it. For
example, if in the next 10 years, a fantastically expensive immortality drug is
created, will the money spent on a Cryonics policy still seem like it was the
best bet?
--
Stirling Westrup | Use of the Internet by this poster
sti@cam.org | is not to be construed as a tacit
| endorsement of Western Technological
| Civilization or its appurtenances.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:03:36 MDT