LiveForever,
You've raised some good counter-points and I'm always open to the opposing point of view. I hope, in turn, you are also open to my position and the concerns I've raised.
1) On the monetary point of view, I'm still unconvinced. The only argument that you've given that I do agree with is costs, generally speaking, will drop over time *if* the technology becomes widespread and in use by the general public. That said, with other emerging forms of life extension technology in the works, forms that are much more viable, I doubt costs will drop for the entire cryonics process. I may be wrong, however. The rest of it--well, simply put, I just don't think the money Alcor has set aside for all its various costs for the entire procedure, including maintenance, will cover it. Too many places where things can go wrong. I mean, who knows what kind of brain damage or memory loss or what have you happens between time of "legal death" and cryonic freezing. Or if any of our memories/mind will be revived at all? The costs can wrack up at ridiculous rates when you consider all the different things that might be required to put you back together at even a semblence of what you once were.
2) I have never, at any point, advocated we should kill people who are backwards or less advanced. My job is in the non-profit field--if anything, I suspect I am more aware of the plight of the poor, the "have-nots" in today's society than the average forum reader. Which is why I raised the points I have raised--I know how today's society treats those without the education, money and abilities to fit into society. I can only imagine how much worse it'll be when you amplify the difference by ten-fold. If you'll look at what I am saying, you'll see I am not advocating death. I'll boil it down, however: I simply think future society will not care to revive or incorporate people in cryonic stasis into their society. We'll be an amusing curiosity at best to them...and a lot less in a worse case scenerio.
3) I can see worse things than death. Maybe we'll be used as indefinite "slave/bonded labor" to repay our debts to society upon being revived(don't think this is likely?--most of the world still uses this system, including such economic "giants" as India and China), maybe our organs will be harvested, maybe we'll be put in a zoo as an exhibit. Or being revived in a semi-zombie-like state due to damage to the brain(yes, I've read Alcor's bit about not reviving without being sure that they can "fix" you, but pardon my skepticism--I've yet to see a major, experimental medical procedure happen that hasn't failed dozens of times initially and continue to fail frequently down the road). While some of you may argue there is no fate worse than death, I'm of the school of thought that there are fates worse than death.
4) I do not think there will ever be enough cryonics patients to make this field anything more than a curiosity on the fringe.
5) I think it is important to prioritize research, energies and efforts. For instance, there are tons of different ideas being tossed around for alternate fuel sources. One of the big ones is...ethanol. Yet, just a glance at this forum and one can see why ethanol is one of the worst ideas for alternate fuels. If we pursue this line, with all the time, money, energy and effort expended upon it, we will be sacrificing much--from credibility to results to possible increased levels of starvation. We need to focus on what works, what *will* really work. There are many hypothesis on how to understand the human mind--you can choose phrenology, but it is unlikely you'll get solid results. In the same way, I am advocating focusing our efforts in the right fields of study once it becomes apparent other fields of study will not yield the results desired.
Credibility is a big issue for me. Donaldson's essay on "science-fiction" is a prime example. Beyond all the holes in logic that one could drive a truck through in that essay, one of the first things I thought was: Why? Of all the essays he could write, why take on...science-fiction writers. Why not take on the political framework, the scientific establishment, the health care system, etc as it relates to cryonics? These sorts of arguments only helps to emphasize cryonics place in the realm of pseudo-science and I suspect cryonics may eventually go the way of the dodo or, well, frankly, phrenology.
6) Clearly, we all do self-interested things. I have no issue with that. I am saying that cryonics takes it to the extreme, the height of selfishness. Your Alcor plan, as far as I know, does not go for research into the field of cryonics or the like. It is for the cryonics stasis process and maintenance(and you've said it also, somehow or the other, may cover revival). I don't really see where, in this plan, you could also allocate money for research in cryonics. Or how it could be utilized, on a wide level, for anyone but the "haves" of society. When compared to advances in things like stem-cell research or nanotechnology, which could easily have large scale application, it doesn't make much sense to me.
7) Who will be our advocates in the future? I'm not sure how many people have undergone cryonic stasis thus far? 100? 200? That is nothing in terms of population, or more importantly, political and lobbying power. Coupled with the fact that the majority of those undergoing cryonic stasis are surely giving away most of their money to undergo stasis--and not to their descendents or other possible advocates for their revival--there will be few who will care about their fate(beyond maybe historians who might be curious about first-hand accounts of the time period), etc. If we use the basic principles of self-interest, we will have few who will care about our plight.
8) It is certainly laudable to devote money to different venues. For instance, I've noticed that wing_girl (Shannon Vyff) gives to a variety of charities and causes. That is great. But here is what I am trying to say:
There will always be people and groups who will try and sell immortality. The idea is as old as society itself. When we approach this topic, however, we should do so with skepticism and with a firm idea of what we're trying to accomplish and how we will do it. There are many viable forms available to us to achieve our goals--lets concentrate on those that are the most practical and realistic. Funnel our money towards a few very specific avenues that are most likely to yield results and afford us a credible position in the debate. If new and exciting technologies come about(for instance, stuff like stem cell and nanotechology were not around when cyronics was first proposed), lets investigate them and potentially change our focus towards those avenues. Always keep an open mind to new possibilities and be prepared to dismiss the old theories, even those we were once formerly heavily attached and invested in. This is the key to true scientific inquiry, and in my mind, success in the arena of life extension.
Perhaps scientific advances can be made in the field of *cryonics research*--how it may impact cell decay, alternate applications of the technology, space travel, etc--but companies like Alcor are primarily about cryonic stasis, not research, unless I am wildly off mark(I am not saying they don't do research at all, but how many peer-reviewed scientific, as opposed to press-related, articles and journals has Alcor put out in the field of research? I've seen a few items on their webpage, but it seems to be done mostly by other researchers/labs/universities).
In the end, each will decide what they want to do with their time, money and effort. I've only raised these concerns, because of the near-fanatical support of cryonics; even if I am wrong, I think it is important to ask these questions, to make people reconsider their positions and perhaps re-prioritize their interests when it comes to life extension.
Edited by Shannon, 31 December 2007 - 04:08 AM.
added name
