From: Randy Smith (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 - 05:55:29 MST
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 21:02:17 +0100 (MET), you wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 email@example.com wrote:
>> I have felt for some time that cryonics was a lead weight dragging down
>> acceptance of Drexlerian nanotech. My theory is that people have an
>> overwhelmingly negative emotional reaction to cryonics, in part because
>> it implies that the death of their loved ones was preventable, and this
>> carries over to any technology which would seem to make cryonics
Yes, that could be the case, although in my many conversations with
people about cryonics, that has yet to come up. Benford's cryonics
novel touched upon this aspect as an impediment to cryonics'
acceptance, as well. I do see the same strong negative reaction to
cryonics everywhere I go, but I see it as some sort of reaction to a
taboo subject. Two taboos, really: messing with corpses taboo, and
the messing with the life-death cycle taboo.
>It is not that simple, but for all practical purposes you can consider
>cryonics to be cursed, and everything it touches tainted.
Gotta agree there. "Cursed" is the perfect description....
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:39 MST