From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Thu Jul 24 2003 - 14:32:58 MDT
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, JDP wrote:
> Yes. With the following, which is a variant:
>
> "If cryonics actually makes sense, then everyone will want it, and it
> will cost too much to the community. We better spend this money on
> living people during their normal life."
This is easily defused -- if cryonic suspension were "mass produced"
the cost would be *much* lower (someone with cryonet connections should
post a comment over there to see how low the costs could be driven).
It seems the cost of supporting an individual in a cryonics stasis
state ought to be cheaper than supporting an individual in retirement
collecting a pension from the state (no need for food, only a
much smaller "apartment" required, etc.)
[I know -- this leads to the argument that states should support
"retiring" people into cryonic suspension until such time as we
have robust and the cost issues are diminished.)
It would appear that states with significantly declining young
populations and increasing elderly populations (e.g. esp. Europe
and Japan) ought to be seriously supporting cryonics as a way out
of the problem.
> The idea that cryonics may make sense, but that people will still have
> to pay for it individually, is relatively alien, as all differentiated
> access to medicine has been abolished in France [snip]
Again, this ignores the cost reductions that would be present
with the "mass production" of cryonics stasis. Someone (spike?)
should calculate what the LN2 costs would be to keep a body
frozen in a dewar on an annual basis assuming everything were
automated. The costs should be even lower in France since they
have all those nuclear reactors to produce the required energy.
[And we all know that Russia and the U.S. are not exactly short
on fuel for those reactors...]
> So people instantly visualize "cryonics for all", and see freezers
> everywhere, and think it's crazy.
Actually this agument falls on its own sword -- *why* don't we see
cemeteries everywhere? How are "freezers" and different from
"grave plots"? And its obvious that freezers can be stacked
in 3 dimensions while people prefer to have "grave plots" in
2 dimensions. One could make the argument that the turning
of cemetaries into freezeriums would free up land for agriculture,
solar power collection, apartment buildings, etc.
With respect to writing -- I think a key point to stress might be
that the medical definition of "death" has evolved over the decades
or centuries (e.g. heart death, brain death, disassembly death).
Should the courts condemn individuals to one type of death when
they may not meet the criteria of another type?
In addition can the courts assert that the individuals are *really*
dead? We revive people with hearts that do not beat every day.
There was a recent case in the U.S. of an individual recovering
from a coma (a form of brain death) after something like 30 years.
Given something as simple as stem cell research -- how can a court
assert that the people are indeed dead? (assuming then that it has
jurisdiction over dead people).
> The single most important step, in my opinion, would be for a French
> lawyer who "gets it" to contact Rémy's Lawyer, Alain Fouquet from
> Angers (ask for contact info). If you know a non-French lawyer who
> "gets it", maybe HE knows a French lawyer who gets it. (Maybe Greg
> Burch?) FInd out.
I would suspect that there may be a greater probability that someone
in the World Transhumanist Association, which has a particularly
strong foundation in Toronto might have connections in Montreal
which in turn might be leveraged into discussions with people
in France.
Suggestions coming out of Canada might be much better received
in Europe than suggestions coming out of the U.S.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 24 2003 - 14:41:30 MDT