Re: Why Cryonics

From: Michael S. Lorrey (retroman@turbont.net)
Date: Fri Feb 18 2000 - 17:16:59 MST


GBurch1@aol.com wrote:

> Before I signed up with Alcor I did some fairly thorough due dilligence and
> thought pretty hard about the relative value of the money I would spend on
> involvement with Alcor versus other uses of the money. I concluded that 1)
> the people involved with Alcor had put a lot of thought into making a small,
> non-profit organization as sustainable as possible, even if the idea never
> "catches on" and 2) that the relative value of the investment in a cryonics
> contract was, for me, a good investment.

This is all understood, however someone my age (32) with no health risks is not
likely to die anytime in the near future in a manner that is likely to leave the
brain in any condition to be worth preserving. This is IMHO the main reason why
cryonic suspension does not gain more adherents, combined with the perception by
the public that even if you are preserved and revived that you will be revived as
an old person, not as a young person. Others I have talked to have said that they
couldn't imagine being considered sane by a future society when they are revived,
due to their current attitudes as well as due to pure culture shock. I don't buy
those excuses, except for my first one, and I'm leaning toward getting a
suspension deal set up.

Mike Lorrey



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:03:55 MDT