From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 (gpmap@runbox.com)
Date: Thu Jul 24 2003 - 09:39:56 MDT
I think, we must absolutely win this case to protect the future of European
cryonicists, and it is not going to be easy.
The influence of religious fundamentalist thinking are much stronger in the
US than in Europe. So the most frequent objections to cryonics in the US are
of the type "it is against God's will". Now since this is a stupid objection
that goes clearly against rational thinking, I believe it is going to be
reasonably easy to defeat or ignore. Also, as more and more people see the
engineering feasibility of cryonics, they will think much less of God's will
than of their own survival. I am optimist that cryonics is going to win in
the US cultural environment.
In Europe, we care much less about God. I am very happy that in the EU
constitution under elaboration the word "God" is absent, despite pressures
from the Vatican, and I hope it will stay out in the final version. So,
whether something is or is not against "God's will" is much less of an issue
over here. Unfortunately (for what concerns cryonics) Europeans are more
sensitive than Americans to social issues. So we will see objections like
"cryonicists buy potential immortality while the majority cannot afford it",
"too many olds (even if they are in young bodies) will reduce the vitality
and innovation of society", etc. Contrary to "God's will", these objections
DO make rational sense, so it will be much more difficult to counter them. I
am sure they can be countered, but it is going to take hard thinking and
harder work.
Now: what can we do to help winning the Martinot case?
--- G. P. WEB: http://prisco.info/giulio/ WAP: http://prisco.info/wap/giulio/ Email, phone, fax, PGP: see WEB/WAP Yahoo, MSN: gpmap ----- Original Message ----- From: "JDP" <jacques@dtext.com> To: <extropians@extropy.org> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 5:04 PM Subject: Re: Precisions on the Martinot situation Brett Paatsch a écrit (24.7.2003/23:12) : > I'd not realised the restrictions on free speach went so > far in France. By "condemned" do you mean that it is > actually illegal or just politically incorrect? Actually illegal. You know, it's really like in a family. Someone says something, and the mother says: "Don't say that!" I am sure it was common in the ancestral tribe, too. See how Damien recently reacted to a suggestion by Robert :-) > If I was going to try and resolve a similar legal > problem with cryonics in Australia I'd look to the > civil libertarian organisations as natural allies. I do not know of the existence of such an organization here. I know some that supposedly care about freedom of speech, or privacy rights, or consumers rights, or minorities rights, but I don't know any that generally cares about individual liberties, in a way that might extend to cryonics. You have those that defend the liberty to have babies at all costs, that sort of things. But I don't think their charter will extend to cryonics. I will contact a few organizations who are libertarian-oriented, as they might be the most receptive. I will get them to read the article by David Nicholas about immortality (that I have translated and published at <http://dtext.com/transition/nicholas/nicholas1.html>) and see if they are interested to do something before the Conseil d'Etat gives its decision. Thanks for your input. Jacques
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 24 2003 - 09:50:57 MDT