Thanks to Jim F. for his enjoyable post, as always.
But I do want to clear up some mistakes.
>It's this feeling of detachment that makes the idea of
>cryo, with its air of desperate grasping at straws, of
>being willing to pay a large monetary price for what
>seems like a pretty low probability of payoff...
Funded by life insurance, the cost of cryonics is much
less (for most people) than the cost of a daily visit
to Burger King (and a lot healthier besides).
As for the probability of revival, Ralph Merkle puts it
at seventy percent. I'd put it at fifty percent. And
most of my reservation stems from my concern that social
forces may destroy the movement eventually (although
with each passing year that becomes less likely).
>It may mean that I can contemplate, with more equanimity
>than some, the prospect of sheer nonexistence.
Yes, a number of cryonicists are just terrified of the idea.
As for me, I've already been through it. I've spent the better
part of the last few centuries not existing, and, while I have
nothing good to say about it, at least it wasn't terrifying.
Even now, I'm already dead in every state of the U.S. except
California. Non-existence is really no big deal, I can attest
from personal experience.
>Maybe that means that I'm morally underdeveloped,
Yes, at least having become a cryonicist propelled me in the
direction of higher ethics: universalist immortalism.
>and really not a very nice person.
Oh, pshaw. You know very well that that doesn't follow :-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 10:00:02 MDT