Re: Who Should Live?

Gina Miller (
Wed, 17 Mar 1999 23:16:03 PST

I endores cryonics. Without some kind of crystal ball who is to say if the possibilities inferred to with this technique will come to pass or not. If I had the chance to chose life or death (with it's the most healthiest of attributes) I chose life. Unable to see the future, and yet humble enough not to trust in it, still gives way to the possibility that cryonics has to offer. If there is a percentage that I could return, without out betting on it, I take the chance. I lose nothing, I have only to gain.
Gina "Nanogirl" Miller

>Scott Badger wrote,
>>I think what I find most upsetting about your views on cryonics is
>>unusually callous. Perhaps this is because you keep referring to
those who
>>are cryonically preserved as being dead. Cryonicists believe that
>>people are still alive. . . very sick, but still alive. Is using CPR
or a
>>defibrillator a waste of resources because the person is obviously
>>Suspension protocols are most appropriately thought of as emergency
>>procedures designed to save someone's life. Emergency medical
>>in general, have varying probabilities of success. We don't know yet
>>that probability figure is for cryonics but we believe that it is
>>greater than zero.
>Sorry to upset you, Scott, I'll refer to them as "the cryonically
>whenever I think of it. For instance: When the going gets tough, the
>don't ask if the cryonically preserved should live.
>This follows from the fact that no one knows if the cryonically
>_can_ live.
>>Actually, I started this thread by asking those on the list to select
the 5
>>people that they most wished would enbrace the idea of cryonics
because the
>>world could ill-afford to lose their particular gifts. There weren't
>>many responses to _that_ question. The issue of whether cryonic
>>should be revived or not is one that you brought up, I believe.
>Right, and I had answered that, "I can think of half a dozen people
with a
>talent or a gift that the world
>can ill afford to lose, but they don't embrace the idea of cryonics...
>...IOW, the very people who have talents or gifts that the world can
>afford to lose, do not endorse the idea of cryonics.
>If those people don't endorse cryonics, why should extropians?"
>So, now I ask you: Why don't people with a talent or a gift that the
>can ill afford to lose (candidates so far include Stephen Hawking,
>Robinson, Doug Engelbart, Robert M. Pirsig, Neal Stephenson, Douglass
>Hofstadter, Martin Gardner, Arthur C. Clarke, Steven Jay Gould, and
>Randi) embrace the idea of cryonics? Has anyone asked _them_?
>>Well, for one thing, reviving a few geniuses and recruiting their
>>just may speed up the process of building a better human. Besides, as
>>been mentioned, the biotechnology that will lead to reversible
>>is going to progress anyway because there are a large number of
>>applications besides reviving cryonauts.
>Do any of those working on speeding up the process of building a better
>human embrace the idea of cryonics? How come their names haven't
>>>Neither you nor I, but rather posthumans shall decide
>>>ultimately. Physically and finally, we will have to die as humans in
>>>to become posthumans. So, the only thing cryonics can contribute to
>>>relates to how it might help to develop transhumans, i.e., how it can
>>>displace humans with posthumans.
>>What are you saying here? I must die in order to become a posthuman?
>>human race must die to make room for post humans? That's news to me.
>IOW, you must die as a child to become an adult, because the adult
>the child. This leads to the acknowledgment that the adult can
>the child, even though the child may not understand the adult.
>Well, I guess you could say that it means "to make room for post
>Likewise, the catepillar must die to make room for the butterfly.
>new there. Sorry you hadn't heard of it before. Biologists call it
>"metamorphosis" I think. At least they used to. Perhaps not anymore.
>>I can understand how I might compare a "posthuman version of me vs.
>>current version of me" to "the current version of me vs. a 1 year-old
>>version of me". In a sense, the 1 year-old version had to "die" to
>>room for the current version of me. I realize that my developmental
>>transitions have been pretty smooth so far, and I agree that future
>>transitions may be much more quantum-like. Any transition from one
>>another involves the "death" of the earlier state, but is that the
kind of
>>death you're referring to?
>You got it.
>>Uh-oh. The meme, "Death and birth eternally form the two sides of
>>is a particularly virulent one, and helps explain many of your views.
Am I
>>alone in considering this meme to be more Yin-Yang, dualistic,
>>polarized-thining nonsense? I also don't believe that cryonicists
>>advocate being frozen in a young and healthy state. It's true that I
>>personally resent the fact that the state can prevent me from
arranging a
>>cryonic suspension while I'm still alive, though. I would want the
>>of assisted suicide with immediate suspension if I discovered, for
>>that I had developed Alzheimer's or if I was terminally ill and in a
>>amount of pain. Why waste thousands and thousands of dollars and
>>resources on palliative care that is only briefly delaying my
>>when I plan on being suspended anyway?
>Good question. In addition, if birth and death do not form two sides of
>life, what does? Would you make life one dimentional and linear? It
>more sensible to me to take life as I find it, instead of trying to
make it
>fit some cryonic belief system. The cells in my body have all died at
>once during my lifetime, but the organism continues. Likewise, all
>humans may die during the course of the superorganism's lifetime.
>>Yes, grabbing the gusto is a good thing. I intend to grab it for a
>>long time in many different forms.
>I'll drink to that.
>--J. R.

Get Your Private, Free Email at