Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!iuvax!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: alan@oz.nm.paradyne.com (Alan Lovejoy) Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Re: Is Cryonics a Religion ??? Message-ID: Date: 9 Aug 89 02:17:21 GMT Organization: AT&T Paradyne, Largo, Florida Lines: 167 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu In article 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.