mmm@cup.portal.com (08/05/89)
When I first heard about cryonics, it seemed to me an innocuous new activity or school of thought. But as I've heard more from the cryonics people, it seems more and more like a religion -- a religion with potentially dangerous overtones. (For the benefit of critics, I'm numbering my points.) 1) Is it a religion? It certainly promises the great promise of any real religion -- an afterlife. When it comes time to die, you get frozen and begin that great trek into the glorious future. If you should be so foolish as to die without a cryonic insurance policy, you are doomed to the hellfire of non-existence. (Something like the "limbo" concept unofficially promoted by the Catholics.) 2) Is it dangerous? The orthodox atheist position is that ALL religions are dangerous. As a reform atheist, I feel that religions can be a healthful drug, taken in moderation. In this regard, cryonics may be dangerous because it can attract people away from the older religions developed through generations of natural selection. An appropriate analogy would be with laetrile: people who take laetrile often use it as a substitute for drugs which really work. 3) Is it dangerous (second part)? Some people seem to see cryonics and the nanotech future as the important bit; the present problems facing Earth are a short and relatively insignificant phase in the evolution of Man. As an example, I recall a recent comment by hkhenson that nanotech will invert the "greenhouse effect" problem. Rather than facing a crisis of too much CO2 in the atmosphere, nanotech will make carbon valuable. For example, nanotech will be able to make carbon into diamond, which will be the ideal structural material for many applications. If anything, this might lead to a shortage of CO2, as nanomachines withdraw it from the atmosphere. This is a dangerous belief because it anaesthetizes people to the very real threat of global warming. [Think again. The "very real threat" is probably Chicken Little foolishness. Even if the worst scenarios are realized, all that happens is that the comfortable/arable areas shift around geographically. So what? (Personally, I would welcome seeing Washington DC underwater...) I would be interested in hearing what "older religions" do that "really works"... --JoSH]
merkle.pa@xerox.com (08/09/89)
mmm@cup.portal.com writes: >When I first heard about cryonics, it seemed to me an innocuous new activity >or school of thought. But as I've heard more from the cryonics people, it >seems more and more like a religion -- a religion with potentially >dangerous overtones. (For the benefit of critics, I'm numbering my points.) I'm afraid you've rather missed the point. Either cryonics works, or it does not work. (For convenience, I'm lumping "partially works" into the "does not work" category). To paraphrase this slightly, either the universe in which we find ourselves is such that the repair of frozen tissue is feasible or, alternatively, the repair of frozen tissue is (for some reason) not feasible. Now, if cryonics does not work, then a more careful technical investigation of the problems involved should eventually let us decide, with some reasonable degree of confidence, that it does not work. Once we can establish this conclusion with reasonable confidence, then we need not waste further effort on it. If, on the other hand, cryonics does work, then a more careful technical investigation of the problems involved should eventually let us decide, with some reasonable degree of confidence, that it does indeed work. Once we can establish this conclusion with reasonable confidence, then further action would seem appropriate. Right now, there are good arguments that support the idea that cryonics works. The technical debate is now about the magnitude of the probability that it works. (using the term "probability" about a proposition that is either true or false is philosophically dubious, but I think the reader will take my meaning. One could have had a debate in 1920 about whether or not flight to the moon was technically feasible, but the proposition was in fact true even then. No amount of debate or discussion can alter the truth or falsity of such a proposition). Given the available technical evidence, it is unreasonable to argue that cryonics has zero probability of working. Indeed, I would say anyone who defends such a position is either incompetent, grossly ignorant of the facts, or suffering from severe emotional bias. A significant number of technically competent people who have studied the proposition have concluded that cryonics has a reasonable to excellent chance of working. Several of them have made depositions to that affect in court cases. Whether or not cryonics in fact works, there are people who have a pressing need to make a decision about whether to try it. (Because the arrangements are time consuming, it is advisable to make them well in advance of need). The decision must, necessarily, be based on the presently available evidence. There are one of four possibilities: (a) cryonics works, and they pursue it. Collect the brass ring. (b) cryonics works, and they do not pursue it. Oh, well. (c) cryonics does not work, and they pursue it. Lose the payments on a $35,000 to $100,000 life insurance policy. (d) cryonics does not work, and they do not pursue it. No gain, no loss. There have been several vigorous efforts by various officials in California to prevent cryonic suspensions and to make cryonics illegal. These actions have not been based on a thoughtful analysis of the technical feasibility of the endeavor. As just one example, Longevity magazine said about David Mitchell, chief of the Office of the State Registrar, that "He adds he has no opinion about whether cryonics will ever work,..." Mitchell has said that cryonics is illegal. A court case is expected soon. If in fact cryonics works, blocking a cryonic suspension will in fact kill a person. Killing people is generally viewed as a bad idea, and by and large I try to discourage the practice. An individual who has elected to be cryonically suspended (in the event that other treatments have failed) faces the very real possibility that his desires will be blocked by officials with little knowledge or interest in the technical merits of the subject. If in fact cryonics works, then such a person faces the very real risk of unnecessary death. Whether or not cryonics is or is not a religion is beside the point. The personal beliefs about what the future might hold held by individuals who also happen to have signed up for cryonic suspension is beside the point. Whether the course of action for dealing with global warming suggested by an individual who also happens to advocate cryonics is wise or not is beside the point. The question is, will it work? I think both critics and advocates would be well served by discussions of the technical merits of cryonics. I am repelled by those who concede that it might work, but who argue that those who wish to pursue it have no right to do so. Ralph C. Merkle
alan@oz.nm.paradyne.com (Alan Lovejoy) (08/09/89)
In article <Aug.4.23.26.49.1989.20304@athos.rutgers.edu> mmm@cup.portal.com writes: >When I first heard about cryonics, it seemed to me an innocuous new activity >or school of thought. But as I've heard more from the cryonics people, it >seems more and more like a religion -- a religion with potentially >dangerous overtones. (For the benefit of critics, I'm numbering my points.) What is a religion? Is it any belief system? Or is it only found in belief systems which concern themselves with Existence, God, The Afterlife (choose any combination)? Or is it instead connected with faith (belief without proof)? Or perhaps it just means any philosophy? Or any philosophy with which you happen to disagree? Or perhaps none of the above? I will not attempt to answer this question, because I think that defining religion is NOT a proper subject for this newsgroup. I raise the question only to highlight the fact that the definition of religion (whatever it is) is at best fuzzy. People disagree. And hence people will disagree as to whether cryonics is a religion. There is the "philosophy" or "belief system" called Venturism, and an organization called the Venturists, who claim that Immortalism (the belief that individuals should seek unending physical life) is their "religion." Of course, many groups in the United States claim to be "religions" for tax and other legal purposes. The Venturists deny that that is so in their case. The Scientologists, in contrast, openly admit it. But neither claim is necessarily true--or false. But whether cryonics is a religion or not is of course NOT the question that is really being asked. The REAL question is whether cryonics is a healthy, wholesome meme worthy of being adopted and spread by right-thinking people everywhere. The reference to religion is but a sly attempt to recast the issue in terms of a loaded buzzword. To some people, "religion" is a dirty word. >1) Is it a religion? It certainly promises the great promise of any real >religion -- an afterlife. When it comes time to die, you get frozen and >begin that great trek into the glorious future. If you should be so foolish >as to die without a cryonic insurance policy, you are doomed to the hellfire >of non-existence. (Something like the "limbo" concept unofficially promoted >by the Catholics.) And yet no cryonicist WANTS to be frozen. Cryonic suspension is merely a means to an end. It is not an end in itself. A cryonicist simply does not want to die. At least not yet, and not whenever his body arbitrarily decides to quit working. A cryonicist believes that death occurs when the molecular structure of the brain becomes hopelessly scrambled. Hence, cryonicists do not conceptualize cryonic suspension as being "death." So revival is not conceived of as being an "afterlife," any more than waking up from a sleep or a coma is considered to be an "afterlife." So if you want to define a desire to live forever--or at least indefinitely-- as being "religious," that is your perogative. But I do not find such a definition to be useful--or relevant to the basic question which is at issue. Life and Death is the central issue. Of course, it always is. The reaction of people from all quarters to the knowledge that cryonicists seek to live as long as the Universe will let them is almost always the same: disbelief, disapproval and disdain. There is no absolute proof that cryonics will "work." So a cryonicist is acting partly on faith. But there is no absolute proof that cryonic suspension must fail, either. So everyone is acting partly on faith. If cryonic suspension fails, what has the cyronicist lost? Some of his money, yes--but what good is money to a dead man? Should we make a law which limits the amount of money an individual may spend to preserve his life? But let's limit the amount of money that may be left to a church while we're at it. For that matter, why not limit the amount of money spent on nonessential personnel? Especially those who are going to "retire" or "quit" soon? Utter foolishness! One wonders whether the central issue of atheism is disbelief in God--or rather rejection of life immortal? >2) Is it dangerous? The orthodox atheist position is that ALL religions >are dangerous. As a reform atheist, I feel that religions can be a >healthful drug, taken in moderation. In this regard, cryonics may be >dangerous because it can attract people away from the older religions >developed through generations of natural selection. An appropriate >analogy would be with laetrile: people who take laetrile often use it as >a substitute for drugs which really work. I like your analogy, but you misapply it: a Catholic (for instance) is "taking laetrile" by relying on The Church to provide him with eternal life. An atheist who intends to be cremated whenever he happens to die is like a man who, when told he has a probably fatal cancer, refuses all medical treatment. A cryonicist is like a man who tells his doctor to do whatever he can to cure the cancer, and hopes the doctor gets lucky. Any meme which causes anti-survival behavior in the host is very dangerous. One of the main social functions of religion is to make people willing to die either for the state or for society. Any meme which minimizes, glorifies, or spiritualizes death serves this purpose. Any society whose units are willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of all has a survival advantage over societies whose units are not so willing. The fact that martyrdom is encouraged by many religions is NOT an accident. Those who believe that death is either good or of little consequence are not only a danger to themselves--they are also a danger to others. If I don't care overmuch whether I die, why should I worry about you? The danger of immortalism is that it makes people unwilling to die for almost any reason. The danger of deathism is that it makes people willing to die for a cause. Most religionists are deathoid in that they see physical death as good (in the proper context). But they are "pro-life" (no pun intended) in that they too desire to live forever--as spirits in heaven. Most atheists are deathoid, in that they see life and death as ultimately meaningless, not truly important. Deathists usually paradoxically beleive that Murder is Wrong, but that Natural Death is Proper. Some of the world's problems and mental illnesses probably result from the tensions engendered by these contradictory positions. How many murderers justify their acts by the rationalization that their victim(s) would die eventually anyway? >3) Is it dangerous (second part)? Some people seem to see cryonics and the >nanotech future as the important bit; the present problems facing Earth >are a short and relatively insignificant phase in the evolution of Man. >As an example, I recall a recent comment by hkhenson that nanotech will >invert the "greenhouse effect" problem. Rather than facing a crisis of >too much CO2 in the atmosphere, nanotech will make carbon valuable. For >example, nanotech will be able to make carbon into diamond, which will be >the ideal structural material for many applications. If anything, this might >lead to a shortage of CO2, as nanomachines withdraw it from the atmosphere. >This is a dangerous belief because it anaesthetizes people to the very real >threat of global warming. On the contrary, those of us who think we have a reasonable chance of living through the next thousand years care very much about the future of our planet--after all, we'll have to live on it. Those of you who don't plan to be there are just short timers. I think many people don't care about the environment because they figure they won't be here when the predicted ecodisasters strike. I have found a far higher level of worry about nuclear war, biowar, gray goo and ecodisaster among immortalists than among the general population. Don't mistake hope and/or speculation that a problem may be solvable for lack of concern about the problem. Cryonicists are not the type to sit around moaning and complaining about the world's problems. They prefer to take positive, constructive action to solve their problems--or at least to research and/or think about what action can and/or should be taken. The money I spend for my cryonic suspension doesn't do a thing towards preventing ecodisaster. But the money you spend for ecological preservation doesn't do a thing towards saving the lives of those who are dying of old age. I appreciate the efforts of those who are researching ways to preserve the environment, and the efforts of those who are executing effective measures to protect the enviroment. I may not always agree with those who think they know what the soundest environmental policies are, but I appreciate their intentions. The ultimate goal of the ecology movement is to preserve life on this planet. It would seem that such a goal is very compatible with the goals of immortalism. >Josh replies: >[Think again. The "very real threat" is probably Chicken Little foolishness. > Even if the worst scenarios are realized, all that happens is that the > comfortable/arable areas shift around geographically. So what? > (Personally, I would welcome seeing Washington DC underwater...) Which is worse: to assume that the threat is a chimera--and be wrong; or to assume that the threat is real--and be wrong? > I would be interested in hearing what "older religions" do that > "really works"...] Socialization and acculturation. It is the fear that a new religion or antireligion will modify the "programming" which gets people so upset... ____"Congress shall have the power to prohibit speech offensive to Congress"____ Alan Lovejoy; alan@pdn; 813-530-2211; AT&T Paradyne: 8550 Ulmerton, Largo, FL. Disclaimer: I do not speak for AT&T Paradyne. They do not speak for me. Motto: If nanomachines will be able to reconstruct you, YOU AREN'T DEAD YET.
kqb@ho5cad.att.com (08/09/89)
mmm@cup.portal.com asked if cryonics is a religion: > 1) Is it a religion? It certainly promises the great promise of any real > religion -- an afterlife. When it comes time to die, you get frozen and > begin that great trek into the glorious future. . . . You have a good point. The traditional proposed scenario for survival through reanimation from cryonic suspension sounds a lot like heaven; when you first re-awake you will be surrounded by your friends and loved ones (who have come back before you) and these people will all be young, healthy, wise, incredibly wealthy and powerful by today's standards, and, of course, in immortal bliss. That particular scenario seems too simplistic to me, but your point about there being a relationship between cryonics and religion is, I think, well founded. For example, as hkhenson@cup.portal.com has pointed out on occasion, the cryonics meme and the religion meme do seem to occupy the same ecological niche in our minds. A better way to word your question may thus be "Is the cryonics meme a religious meme?". (Cryonics itself is a technology, not a meme or religion.) Several, but certainly not all, cryonicists have pursued the cryonics meme as a religious meme. A few years ago some solid (but not frozen solid) cryonicists created a non-theistic religion called Venturism with the goal: "the worldwide conquest of death through technological means." The Venturist organization qualifies (according to the IRS) "as an educational, religious and scientific organization" (but not as a church) and is legally nonprofit and tax-exempt. By becoming a Venturist you can fill out a Certificate of Religious Belief that says that you want to be cryonically suspended, not autopsied, when a doctor declares you dead. This cannot hurt and it may save your life. As to whether or not Venturism is really what you would call a religion, well, maybe philosphy would be a better word. (However, the practice of cryonics actually does involve some amount of faith. Cryonicists believe that life and, in particular, consciousness have a purely physical basis, yet have no proof of that.) Venturism is not just a gimmick to enable people to claim a religious objection to autopsy, though. Venturist Monthly News provides a forum for immortalist philosophy, fiction, poetry, etc. and Dave Pizer, one of the two founders of Venturism, has plans for creating a cryonicist's "retreat" on a plot of land that he owns in Arizona. Even though the Venturists have no plans for creating a cryonic suspension capability themselves, they will be happy to give you information about those organizations that do. (In fact, to be a full member of the Venturists, you need to be signed up for suspension with one of the cryonic suspension organizations.) Also, the Venturists sell several cryonics-related promotional products: cryonics T-shirts, cryonics buttons, cryonics bumper stickers, little yellow diamonds to stick in your car window (Cryonicist on Board), etc. For more information write to: The Venturists, 1355 E. Peoria Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85020. For a year subscription to Venturist Monthly News send $8.00 (made payable to The Venturists) to the address above. (For people in Canada the subscription costs $10.00 and for those overseas the cost is $15.00.) - Kevin Q. Brown ...att!ho5cad!kqb kqb@ho5cad.ATT.COM < Insert Standard Disclaimer Here >
turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (08/11/89)
In article <Aug.8.22.04.36.1989.7459@athos.rutgers.edu>, merkle.pa@xerox.com writes: The author argues that cryonics, unlike religions, hinges on a technical issue which will be resolved in the foreseeable future using techniques that are extensions of those current today. This, and some of the other points that the author makes, are quite good, but the posting underestimates the perversities common to religious discurse. The unknown future is one of the common excuses for religious faith. The common religion of our culture has always promised empirical verification Real Soon Now (before this generation passes away?) The below passage spurred me to write: > ... There are one of four possibilities: (a) cryonics works, and > they pursue it. Collect the brass ring. (b) cryonics works, and they do > not pursue it. Oh, well. (c) cryonics does not work, and they pursue it. > Lose the payments on a $35,000 to $100,000 life insurance policy. (d) > cryonics does not work, and they do not pursue it. No gain, no loss. ... There is more than a small amount of irony when a person uses Pascal's wager to argue for the practice of cryonics, and claims that this distinguishes cryonics from religion. Within the context of naturalism, this kind of argument is somewhat reasonable, since the common meaning of death is accepted. Outside such a context, Pascal's wager fallaciously opposes a religious belief to naturalism, but excludes without justification other supernatural ontologies. Pascal did not consider the possibility of a god that condemns only fideists to hell, nor does the author of the above passage consider a universe where freezing the brain holds the immortal soul in limbo. (There are science fiction stories with just this theme.) In the end, the author is right. Cryonics, unlike religious beliefs that we label supernatural, fits easily within a natural framework. This is what makes it not necessarily a religious belief, and within this framework, the above argument makes sense. But the distinction must be made at a more subtle level than arguments that promise eventual justification for one's hopes and practices. Russell