Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!iuvax!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: merkle.pa@xerox.com Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Re: Is Cryonics a Religion ??? Message-ID: Date: 9 Aug 89 02:04:38 GMT Lines: 89 Approved: nanotech@aramis.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.) 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