> Altho no one should ever undergo cryonic suspension *against* their
> will, in the case of a murder victim who never heard of the technique,
> I would favor suspending the victim. My reasoning is this: I suspect
> that when we freeze the piece of meat that is running one's mental
> programs, that piece of meat will never be successfully thawed.
> However, that piece of meat may eventually be raised to perhaps
> -5C and read by nanobots into some sort of machine that will
> simulate that program. It seems to me that under those circs,
> we could figure out a way to control the pain.
Well, of course this is all conjecture, so *if* any of this actually transpires,
then the ultra-compassionate SI that figures out a way to control the pain,
could also just upload the victim retro-actively by going back in time. (Hey, if
we can simulate the deceased mind, who knows, maybe we can simulate time
> Nowthen, it *is* a hell of a good question, however. There are
> certain types of pain that will be difficult or perhaps impossible to
> control. If I reanimate, I already know the very first thing I will do:
> I will sit down and weep: for all the people that I have ever loved
> and cared about, most of them will be lost forever. The heartache
> that I will feel on that day is *nearly* enough to convince me that
> I do not *want* to face it, even if I get eternal existence in return.
> But I think that it will probably be a good trade-off, and so would
> favor suspending a person whose will is unknown.
Indeed, parting with loved ones is such Sweet Achy-Breaky Heart Sorrow (tm). But
extropy requires us to be strong enough to withstand the slings and arrows of
Outrageous Eternally Recurring Fortune (tm), so... Onward! Upward! Full speed
> As it turns out, that was one of my biggest problems when I was
> still a believer in Religion Inc: that waking up in heaven would be
> the saddest experience imaginable, because of those who were
> not there.
Yeah, I know what you mean... There we'd be in heaven... Not even knowing each
other... with all these sanctimonious goody-two-shoes types... what a drag...
and forever! ...it's not like we could change the channel or anything... how
dull... but heavenly dull of course... pshaw! ...what kind of Supercilious
Ignoramus (SI) tm would dream up a scenario like that... not much imagination
...must o' been some wine-swilling bishop lush with no original ideas
> Cryonic reanimation will likely be just as bad, if not
> worse, for there are damn few cryonauts, far too few, and of
> course I think the world of you who are, I hope we will be best
> of friends, but honestly, you will never replace my grandfather,
> and he is gone forever.
Mine too. I miss him... he was such a gentle man.
> So, JR, do the murder victims get suspended against their will? No.
Good. Too expensive anyway.
> Do they get suspended if their will is unknown? Yes.
Assuming their families can pay, of course.
> Should murderers get the chance to have cryonic suspension, even
> if their victims are lost forever? I think they should, yes. I am a
> reluctant proponent of capital punishment, but I do not propose
> we deny the recipient last rites by the clergy of their choice, nor
> do I propose denying them suspension if they want it. Certainly
> I do not propose suspending the prisoner against the prisoner's will.
What about traitors? Serial rapists? Spys? Tobacco company executives?
> Furthermore, I suspect that the first successful cryonic reanimation
> would be on an executed prisoner, for there you would have a
> unique example of a corpsicle that was likely young and healthy
> when she underwent the suspension, perhaps making the brain
> configuration easier to read. What say ye? spike
I say you may be on to something there. BTW, did you know the first Visual Human
Project specimen was a convicted felon? Did you know he had only one testicle?
(Who knows... it might be a question on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:16 MDT