>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
>To: extropians@extropy.org
>Subject: Re: New large cryonics facility/theme park planned
>Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 19:03:00 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Randy Smith wrote:
>
> >Although the Timeship would not be as good for cryonics as $100 M pumped
> >into research, it might do the trick anyway. These people are very much
> >interested in making cryonics work, and one way is as good as another. So if
> >we can get the funding, I say let's build the temple, and develop a pseudo
> >religion, if need be; and the money from dues will come in, and we can spend
> >that on research.
>
>I think there is a fundamental difference in viewpoints here. First of all,
>let me say that I don't think that TimeShip is doing this. That said, the
>notion of "one way is as good as another" is quite contemptable to me.
>There is, and should be, a certain level of integrity which should be
>maintained when dealing with the issue of cryonics. While it is true that
>making it a "religious temple" would popularize the field as well as bring
>in more money, it would sacrifice far more in the capital of integrity and
>morality than it would gain in monetary returns. In any business dealing I
>have had so far I have found it immensely important to maintain a level of
>integrity and credibility. In my current venture, that remains true.
>
>Though I cannot truly emphasize in words how deeply the concept of "selling
>out for the sake of progress" bothers me (and this isn't a condemnation of
>anyone, but a notion I have observed countless times in the past and
>present), suffice it to say that I would rather see all cryonics
>organizations go belly-up (and the same is true of any technology) than see
>them compromise their integrity and credibility for the sake of gaining new
>members or even furthering the science itself. The idea is to market
>cryonics effectively *without* trying to make it something it isn't.
>
>What it is is a possible alternative to death; one which presents a chance
>for extended life that is by no means certain. The only faith involved is
>the faith (or rather, hope) that technology will advance to such a point as
>to molecularly reconstruct damaged neural (and in some cases, visceral)
>matter. To put it across as anything else would be deceitful, and though
>"morality" is a subjective concept, it would generally be immoral as well.
>
>If we can't present something for what it is, then why should we pretend it
>is something it isn't?
Umm, because you're try to get a bunch of superstitious primates to buy into an idea, an idea that might save our lives. And yes, the end does justify the means.
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30
: Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:51 MDT