Re: Freedom or death? (Was: Re [2]: Extropy in the personal sphere

den Otter (
Fri, 8 Aug 1997 20:59:22 +0200

Responding to:

In a message dated 97-08-07 21:09:23 EDT, I wrote:

> > Reason overrides free choice. Most people are a bit like dumb kids
> > with a lot of maturing to do. Restricting their freedom in order to
> > keep them from harm is imo morally perfectly acceptable.
> Bill Clinton certainly thinks did Stalin, Idi Amin, Hitler,
> Khan, Sadam Husein, Fidel Castro, ....................
Yes, but these people were/are hardly Extropians, were/are they, and their
"ideals" were some of the less "humane" ones in history. If, for example,
Hitler would have forced 6 million Jews to go into cryonic suspension after
their *natural* death, could you still call him *morally* a criminal? Is
saving a person that's drowning [in a sea of ignorance and denial] a bad

Doesn't superior knowledge almost automatically put one in charge [or do
have to "play stupid" to save the other's ego's instead of their lives]?

> Course some of us would rather be free....and will go to great
> lengths....UNREASONABLE be so.
Easy for you to say, *you*'ve made (almost certainly) the right choice. You
can be free *and* live forever. The "others" have a less glorious deal; if
stick to their beliefs (forced upon them by their peers, so they're not
even free)
they will surely perish. Now this may be fine in the case of the anonymous
masses, but not with friends and relatives. If they can't/won't understand
the life-bringing logic behind the transhuman concept, they must be deemed
disturbed, and [thus] incompetend to decide for themselves (ok, ok this
so arrogant it will knock yer socks off, but that's the way it is).

The only reason there is *not* to cryonically suspend [or otherwise save] a
reluctant person, is when you *don't really care*. Period. If you think
passively killing people you like/love is better than to "limit" their
[of decay] for awhile when they're dead anyway, so they too have the chance
live a full life in a marvellous future, you should really check your
values (IMHO).

Most things, [including the limitation of people's freedom] are neutral in
themselves, the context the're [used] in decides whether they are "good" or

Ps: are you by any chance an anarchist? :)#)

Pps: question for the audience: HOW FAR WOULD *YOU* GO TO SAVE