• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Alcor & AZ Cryonics Regulation


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 13 March 2004 - 01:33 AM


Posted Image

ImmInst's Alcor Chat - Mar 14 @ 8 PM Eastern
ImmInst members discuss HB 2637
- Chat Room

Reference:
- Mar 11, 2004 - House Session
45 min. Audio - Worth a Listen:

- Alcor Alert (Mar 10) Discussion
Member Emails and Reps Feedback

- Alcor Alert (Feb 21) Discussion
Member emails and Reps scorecard

Recording of the Mar 11 HB 2637 AZ House Session:
Excellent 45 Min Overview on the situation - well worth the listen. Also available is the Feb 26 Health Committee Meeting
- Audio: http://www.l5news.org/alcor/
- Transcript: http://www.alcor.org...bate031104.html

#2 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 13 March 2004 - 05:22 AM

Time Line - Source: http://www.alcor.org...egislation.html

Pending Cryonics Legislation in Arizona

On February 6, 2004, a bill providing for regulatory oversight of cryonics (HB 2637) was introduced in the Arizona State Legislature. Alcor expressed strong opposition to the initial form of the bill. The sponsor of the bill, Representative Bob Stump (R-District 9) responded with amendments partly addressing Alcor's concerns, although many serious issues remain unresolved.

February 6, 2004: The original version of HB 2637 is introduced (PDF).


February 19, 2004: HB 2637 is scheduled for hearing in the Health Committee on February 26.


February 20, 2004: Legislative alert from Alcor asking members and supporters to contact members of the Health Committee.


February 22, 2004: Open Letter on Cryonics Regulation released, written by an organ preservation specialist.


February 26, 2004: Compromise reached at Health Committee hearing. Testifying for Alcor at the hearing were Barry Aarons (Alcor lobbyist), Joseph Waynick (Alcor CEO), Steve Rude (Funeral Director contracting with Alcor), Dr. Aubrey de Grey (Research Associate at the University of Cambridge), and a prominent cryobiologist. A 55-minute recording of the hearing in MP3 format is available here (to download the 13 megabyte file, right click on the file name and choose Save Target As). There are about 5 minutes missing due to a transmission problem with the internet broadcast during the hearing.


March 8, 2004: Amendments to HB 2637 made available on Arizona Legislature website; bill as amended passes Rules Committee.


March 10, 2004: HB 2637 is scheduled for vote on the House Floor on March 11, even though promised negotiations for further amendment were not completed. Alcor issues another legislative alert.


March 11, 2004: HB 2637 passed the house floor vote after an additional amendment was offered by Mr. Stump which also passed. A copy of this amendment is not currently available but an announcement from Alcor is expected tomorrow. A 45-minute recording of the entire floor debate in MP3 format is available here (to download the 10 megabyte file, right click on the file name and choose Save Target As).

#3 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 13 March 2004 - 08:33 AM

Alcor's legislation summary page now contains a link to a transcript of the March 11 House session at

http://www.alcor.org...bate031104.html

Fascinating reading.

Alcor HQ still seems to be huddled deciding on the next play, and have issued no public statements as of Friday night.

Since claims of "mutilation" were used as a lever to get the bill passed, and since at least one Representative made clear that he regards neuropreservation as intrinsic mutilation, protecting Alcor's autonomy in determining cryonics procedures would seem to be a key concern.

---BrianW

#4 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 13 March 2004 - 12:19 PM

Good point Brian. Also, as Aubrey de Grey made clear at the Heaht Committee meeting Feb 26, the term "remains" is another key term to which we see was a clear intent in the House floor discussion Mar 11:

Chair: The chair recognizes Representative Farnsworth.

Farnsworth: Madam Chair, I rise in support of this bill. I think that if we really think about it, from the inception of this country and even back in the old country, the Mother Country, we recognize that it was important for the regulation of disposing of human remains. And that has been a tradition in public policy because we understand the importance of making sure that that's done in an appropriate way. The only thing that Mr. Stump is doing is making sure that that continues and is applied to everybody. So, I think that this bill is limited in scope, it's reasonable, it's fair, it has a positive application, and I don't think it stops anybody from engaging in this business, it just says you are going to have to do it in a way that is reasonable and that is applied in all cases when we deal with those who are deceased. So I rise in support.
REF



#5 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 13 March 2004 - 12:25 PM

A rough idea of positions on HB 2637, thus far:
[will be updated]

? - Amanda Aguirre
? - John M. Allen
? - Manuel V. "Manny" Alvarez
? - Bill Arnold
? - Ray Barnes
? - Andy Biggs
? - Tom Boone
? - David T. Bradley
? - Jennifer J. Burns
? - Meg Burton Cahill
? - Ernest Bustamante
? - Olivia Cajero Bedford
? - Ted Carpenter
? - James R. Carruthers
? - Cheryl Chase
? - Ken Clark
Y - Ted Downing
Y - Eddie Farnsworth
? - Jake Flake
? - Steve Gallardo
? - Randy Graf
? - Chuck Gray
? - Linda Gray
Y - Deb Gullett
N - Philip J. Hanson - thinks Alcor customers are knowledgeable
? - Joe Hart
? - Pete Hershberger
? - Carole Hubbs
? - Steve Huffman
? - John Huppenthal
? - Jack C. Jackson, Jr.
? - Clancy Jayne
? - Karen S. Johnson
? - Bill Konopnicki
? - Leah Landrum Taylor
? - Sylvia Laughter
? - Phil Lopes
N - Linda Lopez - strong Alcor support
? - John A. Loredo
? - Lucy Mason
? - Marian A. McClure
? - Debbie McCune Davis
? - Robert Meza
? - Ben R. Miranda
N - John B. Nelson - thinks should be resolve by individual parties
? - Warde Nichols
? - Tom O'Halleran
? - Russell K. Pearce
? - Gary L. Pierce
? - Tom Prezelski
? - Doug Quelland
N - Michele Reagan
Y - Bob Robson
? - Colette Rosati
Y - Wally Straughn
Y - Bob Stump - 2637 sponsor
Y - Mark Thompson
? - Stephen Tully
? - Bill Wagner III
? - Steven B. Yarbrough

Rep. List and contact info:
http://www.azleg.sta...Body=H&SortBy=1

#6 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 14 March 2004 - 03:22 AM

Source:
http://www.alcor.org...on20040313.html


Cryonics Legislation Takes Another Step Forward
by Joseph Waynick - Alcor Pres/CEO

March 13, 2004

To All Alcor Members,

We are one step closer to legitimizing the science of cryonics in the state of Arizona. On March 8, 2004, HB2637 passed the Rules Committee. This unexpected development came much sooner than we anticipated, due to deadlines for bill consideration that the Speaker decided to enforce. We had participated in a stakeholder meeting attended by Representative Linda Lopez (D-Tucson), legislative staff, the Funeral Board president and Executive Director and the organ donor community representatives. All issues surfaced again including what Representative Lopez and our representatives clearly heard as a willingness by the Funeral Board to address the issues administratively without legislation – just as they did the following Saturday at our Board meeting. At a hastily arranged meeting with Representative Stump on Tuesday, March 9th we presented several alternatives to the current legislation which included:

1) Holding the bill to allow the completion of discussions between Alcor and the Funeral Board over the scope of oversight as Representative Stump said at the Health Committee hearing that he wanted us to do;

2) Let the bill die and work on legislation for the next session to avoid rushing through;

3) Attaching the bill to a striker in the Senate to allow for ongoing negotiations with the Funeral Board;

4) Implementing an administrative solution between Alcor and the Funeral Board based on a Memorandum of Understanding, and negate the need for legislation.

Representative Stump said he would consider our proposals and get back to us that same day. At approximately 4pm Barry Aarons received a call from Representative Stump during which he indicated that he needed more time to consider our proposals. We reiterated to him that we could not support this bill unless the definitions we requested to define cryonics were included. In addition, we asked that more statutory limitations be placed on the authority of the Funeral Board assuring us that we would be able to continue our work in the manner we have developed with our Advisory Boards. Representative Stump replied that he needed more time to consider our position and that he would get back with us in the morning (Wednesday).

It wasn’t until after noon Wednesday that Mr. Stump told Barry that he still needed until the end of the day to make his mind up on what he was going to do. Barry then discovered that HB2637 was scheduled for a floor debate on Thursday and that Representative Stump and Health Committee Chair Deb Gullett ware lobbying individual members in support of the bill. Calls to Representative Stump by Barry were not returned. At that point, not knowing Representative Stump's intentions we felt that we had no other alternative but to oppose the bill on the floor. We began contacting our members via e-mail and phone, requesting that they contact members of the House of Representatives and urge them to vote NO on HB2637. Although I specifically requested our membership to be respectful in their tone when contacting members of the legislature, a few members decided not to heed that advice.

I cannot over-emphasize how much the negative communication to legislators hurt our cause on Thursday. It is simply unacceptable to impugn the integrity of a member of the legislature no matter how passionate you may feel about an issue. Our responsibility as citizens is to respectfully and briefly state our position, explain why the proposed legislation should be defeated, and thank the legislators for considering our interests. Personal attacks against a respected member of the legislature are a sure way to quickly lose support, as we saw on Thursday. If you don’t feel you can calmly and respectfully state your case, then you should not contact members of the legislature at all. Alcor once again owes Representative Stump an apology for the unwarranted actions of a few.

Once the House floor debate began, Barry and I were summoned by Alcor supporter Representative Lopez to the members lounge off the floor where the debate was taking place. Several members of the House requested additional information from us and at this time we were afforded by Ms. Lopez our first glance at the new amendments to the proposed bill. Representative Downing asked me to supply him with references to research reports published in mainstream scientific journals on the topic of the cryopreservation of human bodies. I contacted some our scientific advisors and asked them to fax the relevant information to the representative.

With the proposed amendment to HB2637 in our possession we determined that it contained a number of damaging provisions that would prove problematic for our unfettered access to the UAGA. We met with several members of staff to articulate our concerns. They immediately retired to rewrite the amendments. Over the course of about an hour there were several rewrites done that secured our access to the UAGA and met the concerns of the organ donor community. In addition, very important changes were included in the amendment as follows:

1. All impediments to Alcor’s access to the UAGA were removed throughout the amendment;

2. The following language is now part of the bill:

C. THE BOARD SHALL ADOPT RULES FOR THE LICENSURE AND REGULATION OF A PERSON OR ENTITY DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTIONS. THE RULES SHALL NOT (emphasis added):

1. DISCLOSE THE IDENTITY OF PERSONS BEING STORED, UNLESS A COURT ORDER REQUIRES IT.

2. REQUIRE AN ENTITY TO OPEN STORAGE CONTAINERS, OR TO REMOVE THE CONTENTS OF THE STORAGE CONTAINERS UNLESS A COURT ORDER REQUIRES IT.

3. PROHIBIT CERTAIN MATERIALS FROM BEING USED PROVIDED THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN USED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT.

4. CHANGE METHODS OF STORING A DEAD HUMAN BODY OR REMAINS UNLESS A COURT ORDER REQUIRES IT.

There are other provisions contained in the amendment that specifically excludes Alcor from being considered an “organ procurement agency or organ procurement organization” which Tanya, Barry and the organ donor lobbyist believe has no affect on us. The entire text of the amendment is available here.

Lastly, as we requested and as Mr. Stump committed, the effective date was extended to September 1, 2005, allowing us another full legislative session to make further modifications that may become necessary.

Once again, we have made major gains in our struggle to achieve appropriate legislation over our facility and practices. We intend to seek amendments in the Senate to point three (3) above to remove the ambiguity over our ability to change our procedures and practices in the future without the need to obtain Funeral Board approval, as we improve the quality of the preservation of our patients.

In addition, the bill still lacks a statutory definition of cryonics, cryopreservation, and cryonics establishment, as well as independent licensing authority. We will seek to have those changes made to the bill in the Senate action committee. This is significant incremental gain. Is this bill perfect? No, it isn’t. Is the struggle over? Again, it’s not. We will continue to fight to protect the rights of our members and patients. I remain convinced that the time for appropriate limited oversight has come and that we were right to embrace that effort from the beginning with open arms because it holds the potential for great opportunity for Alcor.

There was a great deal of misinformation spoken on the floor of the House Thursday. Clearly, we must do a better job at educating members of the Senate to receive fairer representation in that body. We will protect our gains and strive for enactment of those additional necessary changes we have been advocating as the legislative process continues.


Posted Image

Joe Waynick
CEO/President
Alcor Life Extension Foundation

#7 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 14 March 2004 - 05:01 AM

I disagree that this legislation could be a good thing for Alcor, except in the narrow sense of possibly blocking something worse that might have come along. Having said that, these newly-disclosed amendments that were added on Thursday move the bill closer to something that Alcor could actually live with. The wording is sloppy (e.g. "methods of storing" should be "methods of preparing and storing"), but these provisions would seem to provide grounds for going to court if the Funeral Board ever tried to control Alcor technical procedures. Does the Imminst Legal Team agree?

There is also the question of whether the mention of a "court order" gives the regulating board special power to get court orders. I interpret the "court order" provisions to simply mean that the statutes do not exempt Alcor from complying with court orders that they would have had to comply with anyway. Right?

A trend seems to be emerging wherein Alcor objects to the bill, gathers enough or almost enough support to kill it, and in the 11th hour the sponsor makes concessions. Is this how all laws are made? It seems like it would be a lot easier if people would just sit at a table and iron out their differences before pushing incomplete bills through the system with all kinds of acrimony involved.

---BrianW

#8 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 14 March 2004 - 05:42 AM

I suspect most contested bills undergo a similar predictable, nail bitting, pattern. I hope someone with prior experience would enlighten me though.

but these provisions would seem to provide grounds for going to court if the Funeral Board ever tried to control Alcor technical procedures. Does the Imminst Legal Team agree?


I think so. All provisions require Court action before any potentially damaging action to the patients. As you suggest, there could be a potential for more advantageous language in some areas.

#9 thefirstimmortal

  • Life Member The First Immortal
  • 6,912 posts
  • 31

Posted 14 March 2004 - 03:43 PM

I disagree that this legislation could be a good thing for Alcor,

I agree, nothing about this is going to be good.

The wording is sloppy (e.g. "methods of storing" should be "methods of preparing and storing"), but these provisions would seem to provide grounds for going to court if the Funeral Board ever tried to control Alcor technical procedures.  Does the Imminst Legal Team agree?

I'll answer this after the sun goes down.

There is also the question of whether the mention of a "court order" gives the regulating board special power to get court orders.  I interpret the "court order" provisions to simply mean that the statutes do not exempt Alcor from complying with court orders that they would have had to comply with anyway.  Right?

I think you'll find that those provisions are there because I suspect that "someone" intends on doing "something" with those provisions. I think you'll find this law is a general springboard to gain and exercise more power over Alcor, and that Alcor will live to regret not fighting it tooth and nail.

more tonight.....

#10 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 14 March 2004 - 05:01 PM

The reason I have come out advocating getting in front of this process rather than constantly reacting to it is because I think you are seeing only a hint of the magnitude of legislative attention to come.

If you don't lead then you will follow, and do not expect politicians to get out of the way. They won't. This is the area that allows them to justify their social rank and privilege. Discussing whether this should or shouldn't be the case is simply not pragmatic.

Brian asks:
A trend seems to be emerging wherein Alcor objects to the bill, gathers enough or almost enough support to kill it, and in the 11th hour the sponsor makes concessions. Is this how all laws are made?

It seems like it would be a lot easier if people would just sit at a table and iron out their differences before pushing incomplete bills through the system with all kinds of acrimony involved.


As for padding and marking up bills during the process that is SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) they can do this to kill a bill as well by inserting " poison pills" or slice off their pounds of flesh for their own constituency's as 'pork.' Welcome to the real and arcane world of politics. If you continue to allow the opposition to control the framing of the debate, to keep your industry on the ropes constantly defending its legitimacy; you will lose. Those that oppose you and that are familiar with the political process know this. I am suggesting you preempt them by charting your own course and getting in front of the battle.

Acrimony is the nature of the beast and adversarial competition for power is the history of Social Darwinism. We may not approve but first we must survive the process in order to advocate and contribute to constructive change. The legislative process is the forum for "negotiation" even more so than the courts. It is ironic to have to remind Libertarians of the power of self interest especially when magnified by religious, economic, and social fervor.

Your industry was better off when very few knew you existed but now you cannot hide.

Bill says:

I think you'll find that those provisions are there because I suspect that "someone" intends on doing "something" with those provisions. I think you'll find this law is a general springboard to gain and exercise more power over Alcor, and that Alcor will live to regret not fighting it tooth and nail.


Well first it should be noted that this is obvious and what surprises me is that any serious student of law thinks they would be any other way, and second from the very beginning of the debate over the ability of Cryo I have argued the social vulnerability for the industry, far more than the technical, and now you are seeing only the first glimpse of that profound shortcoming. Don't compound this by naiveté and fear. You can run but you can't hide from these forces, sooner or later you will return to the arena and better that you are well prepared then constantly responding to the attacks of others.

Your weakness is your libertarianism as it blindsides many of you to the fact that the legitimacy of the system is its power. Yes, might makes their right to do this and I am not excusing; I am simply being pragmatic. I am saying we can argue the morality and ethics of this interminably but if "they" are out to get you then time is on their side. You can argue the ethical legitimacy of this till you are all ready for cryo and an industry that is but a dream never realized, or you can fight back in every constructive way possible. Legislation is the primary theater of engagement and the Courts are the second. Everything else is "guerrilla theater".

You may not be comfortable drafting, lobbying, and negotiating your own bill. You may not enjoy the process of winning some and losing some, but if you don't you will be overwhelmed by a process that inevitably consumes.

Your industry is already under assault on multiple fronts and it will get worse before better. You are under assault in the media, at the local, State, Federal and if you don't pay attention then soon enough the International level, you are under assault by cultural groups that take you as a competing threat to their ritual prerogatives. I can think of more and I haven't even addressed the arcane aspects of market competition for resources and bizarre areas of law like taxation and property concerns. If you continue to passively ignore the concerns of the groups the larger groups that make the laws in this respect they will bury you in their myopic fears, petty restriction, and interminable legal assaults.

I suggest that if you want to get ahead of this trend you should divide the country up and prepare at minimum a two pronged response while anticipating a need to address others. Analyze the country and find the dozen most favorable State legislatures and the dozen most antagonistic. Initiate a series of mirrored test bills in the States most favorable that address the long and short term interests and bury as many of the aspects as possible within larger language that is not focused specifically to your businesses and not perhaps specific to the industry even.

Some regulation is as inevitable as rain, so you may as well make it the kinds of regulation that you can not only live with but can point to later as actually making things better for everyone.

You should also prepare IMO a defensive action team for the States where you are most likely to fail and get ahead of the legislation that will come out of these legislatures and prepare to fight them tooth and nail. Everywhere learn and adapt. Learn form opponents and learn from your failures, but most of all learn to capitalize your successes.

You should also be aware that you must attempt to work this into Federal regs as well. Interstate controls are also inevitable and will overlap your industry because of bio-hazard as well as social concerns. Again it will be better for you all to get ahead of this or you could find yourselves under siege. If you succeed at building a first stage of legitimacy then you will also need to prepare a legal staff to address International Issues of transport, facility development, and storage requirements. But if you make it that far then you have a good chance of achieving your goals.

I am not a libertarian and that is why I am pointing out that you cannot ignore the power and collective legitimacy of the process. They will not go away and your depends is interdependent on theirs. They control the grid, the access to materials, they can regulate safety, they can regulate controlled substance, they can regulate your facility's construction and land use, they can regulate staff labor, they can regulate health concerns, they can regulate you out of business and they will; if you don't craft the legislation first.

Again I return to the tech, revive a 'subject.' Revive a dog or cat or better yet a primate and this whole discussion is dramatically altered. This is the real strength of your assault and if you squander your resources and allow the legal process to bury you before achieving this your cylinders will be less viable than pyramids.

Lead, because if you try to only follow you will be buried out of the way.

I am curious; do any of you have a clear idea of who and what are the opposition?

You cannot win if you do not know and understand your enemies before engaging them. If this battle was not a wake up call then what will it take?

#11 thefirstimmortal

  • Life Member The First Immortal
  • 6,912 posts
  • 31

Posted 15 March 2004 - 01:07 AM

The wording is sloppy (e.g. "methods of storing" should be "methods of preparing and storing"), but these provisions would seem to provide grounds for going to court if the Funeral Board ever tried to control Alcor technical procedures.  Does the Imminst Legal Team agree?


The question may be whether or not the bill is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to provide an ascertainable standard for conduct and or is so vague and indefinite as to be repugnant to the guaranty of liberty contained in the Fourteenth Amendment thus VIOLATING THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

The United States Supreme Court has established that "a law fails to meet the requirements of the Due Process Clause if it is vague and standardless or it leaves the public uncertain as to the conduct it prohibits or leaves judges and jurors free to decide, without any legally fixed standards, what is prohibited and what is not in each particular case." Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399, 402-403 (1966). See also, e.g., Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 551 (1965).

See, The United States Supreme Court in Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09, 33 L. Ed. 2d 222, 92 S. Ct. 2294 (1972), "It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning. Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them.

A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application.

chats going to begin, finish later

#12 reason

  • Guardian Reason
  • 1,101 posts
  • 241
  • Location:US

Posted 15 March 2004 - 01:34 AM

None of which prevents vague laws from existing. Just look at the SEC. Vague laws are good from the point of view of enforcing power politics, as they allow selective prosecution and can be used to harass and remove those who oppose the political elite.

The constitution of the US is selectively enforced, and has been selectively enforced for a long time. Appealing to the constitution only works if it suits those partisan folks in positions of power.

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme
reason@longevitymeme.org
http://www.longevitymeme.org

#13 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 15 March 2004 - 03:54 AM

CHAT ARCHIVE:

<BJKlein> TOPIC: What's up with HB 2637
<BJKlein> i just have to say though, Rep. Lopez is my hero
<BJKlein> if anyone has a chance, listen to her house floor debate..
<BJKlein> just magical in her impassionment and intelligence

<Randolfe> I agree. And give her some financial support.
* BJKlein nods
<BJKlein> Lopez reelection info:
<BJKlein> http://www.imminst.o...=ST&f=69&t=3262

<FutureQ> I say Dump Stump!
<Randolfe> Have most of those here heard the floor debate? It was frightening in many ways.
<TimFreeman> Is Stump up for reelection right now?
<BJKlein> well.. i think he's not really trying to kill cryonics more then he's trying to elevate his stature
<BJKlein> Tim, good question - i've been unable to find it
<TimFreeman> Right. So we have to illustrate the direct connection between opposing cryonics and one's opponents getting campaign funding.
<Randolfe> If you believe his words, Stump says he wants to protect all those grieving families that might buy into cryonics and get ripped off.
<Utnapishtim> Who exactly is that?
<FutureQ> Imagine elevating our stature by getting him ousted
<Utnapishtim> what would constitute gettign ripped off?
<Utnapishtim> does Stump claim that he wants to ensure that Alcor patients have high quality cryopreservations?
<FutureQ> Rather subjective, eh Upna?
<TimFreeman> Utnapishtim: The question only makes sense if one believe's Stumps words, which I do not. I have no answer.
*** Joins: Lazlo (~Lazlo@ool-182c9f9d.dyn.optonline.net)
<Randolfe> In Stump's own words: "There are other ways to come back from the dead besides being frozen." Guess what he is talking about? Jesus Christ, of course.
<Jonesey> jeez
<Jonesey> us
<thefirstimmortal> Yeah Randy, I caught that
<FutureQ> Not Stumps words Randy
<FutureQ> Downings
<thefirstimmortal> and what a legal gift that was
<Randolfe> I wrote them down. Correct any tiny error.
<thefirstimmortal> we need the other transcripts also
<FutureQ> I thought they were d0wning's words
<thefirstimmortal> and thank you charles Platt for that effort
<Randolfe> I thought they were Stumps. You might be right but Stump talked the most.
<thefirstimmortal> yeah, they were Downings
<BJKlein> agree
<Randolfe> I stand corrected. Doesn't matter, it shows where the opposition was coming from.
<sjvan> i'm back
<thefirstimmortal> That was legal stupidity on Downings part
<FutureQ> too right
*** Joins: Ocsrazor (~Ocsrazor@ece-237-209.ece.gatech.edu)
<Utnapishtim> HE couldn't help himself
<thefirstimmortal> thank GOD, praise Jesus
*** Joins: Guest (~Guest@c-67-171-36-123.client.comcast.net)
<thefirstimmortal> ;)
<BJKlein> welcome peter.. any more emails from reps?
<Ocsrazor> nope
<Utnapishtim> pretending to respect these peoples civil liberties was tearing him apart.. he just had to let that slip
<TimFreeman> What's the remaining gap between the bill that passed Friday's vote and what Alcor wants?
<BJKlein> define cryonics.. i think
<thefirstimmortal> Do you all understand why that slip was inportant?
<BJKlein> and a number of other amendments to take to court before action
<BJKlein> to remove patients
<FutureQ> We could use it as a discrimination pleaq
<Randolfe> By subjecting Alcor's "Patients" to "standard procedures for handling dead bodies" constitutes a neutral law that overly impacts those practicing cryonics.
<FutureQ> I was thinking along th lines of religious discrimination
<BJKlein> . We intend to seek amendments in the Senate to point three (3) above to remove the ambiguity over our ability to change our procedures and practices in the future without the need to obtain Funeral Board approval, as we improve the quality of the preservation of our patients.
<BJKlein> - jw
<Jonesey> stump has degrees from harvard and berkeley
<Jonesey> what a waste
<BJKlein> 3 is about materials used
<thefirstimmortal> Yes, FutureQ, your in the ballpark
<FutureQ> I almsot sent stump my photo and a question,w would he like seeing my image in the local paper accusing him of denying my religious freedom s.
*** Joins: John_McC (~John@modemcable135.5-202-24.mc.videotron.ca)
<BJKlein> In addition, the bill still lacks a statutory definition of cryonics, cryopreservation, and cryonics establishment, as well as independent licensing authority.
<Utnapishtim> Does this legislation in any way endanger Alcor's standard operating procedure? Will it create bureaucratic hassle that could potentially slow down the speed with which suspensions are conducted upon legal death?
<Randolfe> He's a very smart operator. You wouldn't know what he was up to when you listen to him. That is what makes it all so disgusting. The issues aren't really joined in the debate.
<Jonesey> affirmative action for rich, stupid people really must end at the finest universities in the US. bush, stump, where is this gonna end...
<TimFreeman> Arizona is in the middle of redistricting. See http://azredistricting.org/.
<Randolfe> Stupid voters elect stupid Representatives.
<TimFreeman> Stump is in district 9.
*** Joins: planetp (~psiphius@24-205-216-227.cs-cres.charterpipeline.net)
<TimFreeman> Before the redistricting, that is.
<Randolfe> Where is the Alcor spokesperson????
<FutureQ> Is the redistricting a Repub move to gran more districts like they try all the ime in TX?
<Jonesey> each party always try to redistrict in their favour FutureQ
<Jonesey> gop has no monopoly on that game
<FutureQ> I'maskinng about this example though
<BJKlein> Joe W and Tanya Jones are designated Alcor spokespersons..
<BJKlein> but sjvan in this chat room is an Alcor Director
<BJKlein> he should return
<FutureQ> It could mtter. The GOP seems less friendly toward anything percieved as not chiristian.
<BJKlein> Stephen Van Sickle
<Randolfe> Why hasn't sjvan said anything?
<BJKlein> he's away now
<BJKlein> should be back
<BJKlein> we had a long chat last night
<BJKlein> interested to know alcor's law firm http://cplawfirm.lawoffice.com/
<Randolfe> Maybe, you can answer some questions, BJ, like would a move put Alcor out of business and have they considered any alternative locations?
<BJKlein> they have a good long-term relationship
<BJKlein> i really don't know for sure
<Jonesey> george bush's dad said once that atheists cannot be patriots and should not be us citizens
<BJKlein> as this may be a little to sensative for alcor's sake
<BJKlein> but i'm personally confident they could survive a move if needed
<Randolfe> I've always felt Alcor's people were "establishmentarian" and overly shy and cautious. Tonight is reenforcing my opinion.
<Jonesey> what do u mean Randolfe?
<BJKlein> one reason it's sensative is that we wouldn't want to mess up any potential new move location by leaking that a cryonics facilty is coming
<Ocsrazor> I just wanted to stop by and say hi gang - need to go finish studying for a midterm - night all
<BJKlein> case in point = FL
<Ocsrazor> keep me informed of any additional leter writing that might be necessary
<BJKlein> Suspended Animation is a no go there because of such problems
<thefirstimmortal> I've requested from members of Alcor, that they get me a copy of the complete legisative transcripts for every debate, how about getting me those transcripts
<Randolfe> Alcor makes reporters sign a pledge not to use terms like "corpse-sickle" before granting interviews.
<BJKlein> thanks Peter, will do
<Utnapishtim> night peter
<planetp> I suggest they move to Las Vegas, they already have legalized gambling, prosititution, etc. Vegas is basically liberal and eccentric
<BJKlein> didn't know this Randy..
<planetp> and only a few hours from Scottsdale
<Jonesey> planetp:vegas is also very close to the designated federal dumping site for all nuclear waste, yucca mountain
<Jonesey> legalizing gambling and prostitution isn't eccentric
<FutureQ> Prediction: If Bush wins re-election, things willget progressively worse for all forms of Immortalism. Any disagree?
<planetp> True, but I'm not sure how that would impact people on ice in a warehouse 150 miles away.
<Jonesey> i work in a much bigger casino than vegas, namely wall st.
<Jonesey> planetp:after a few centuries, who knows. or some turmoil related to the nuke wastes
<BJKlein> not all forms FutureQ
<FutureQ> Move to laughlin NV
<BJKlein> AI is largly overlooked
<BJKlein> and IA
<Utnapishtim> jonesy: Well Wall Steet is a positive sum game essentially. All the gamers on the vegas strip are negative sum
<thefirstimmortal> Yeah, so how about that legislative record.
<FutureQ> all rational forms then
<planetp> I doubt a few centuries is necessary, my prediction - re-animation will be feasible by 2030, tops.
<Randolfe> As a last resort, they could take to the seas. An ice-breaker in Anartica would be nice visually.
<Jonesey> true ut
<Lazlo> Bush is consolidating his fundamentalist base and trying to use a number of wedge issues on the general public but this is a Damosclean sword
<Jonesey> planetp:u optimist u
<planetp> I've been accused of that - yes. lol
<planetp> In regards to Bush: I can't see how he can win, unless they magically "catch" bin laden, or another terrorist strike happens
<Randolfe> Stump declared he wanted parallel experiments and implied once they brought someone back who had been frozen, he'd become a believer.
<FutureQ> they sure tryin
<Jonesey> planetp: you underestimate the bigotry factor, anger at gay marriages etc could propel him
<Jonesey> and anger at cryonix. most people think we're pretty weird.
<planetp> i don't think its enough of a wedge issue to make it happen. jobs, jobs, jobs, is what it always falls back on
<BJKlein> randy, that wasnt' stump
<sjvan> the "bring back someone" misses the whole point of cryonics
<Jonesey> not so planetp, nixon stomped mcgovern due to using wedge issues like busing, human rights etc
<Randolfe> Stump made a b ig thing equating Alcor and cryonics with some fellow who put his dead wife in a deep freeze on their back porch. He said they were the same thing. Didn't know the difference!
<BJKlein> who talked about the double blind?
<FutureQ> maybe we should not make cryonics a Bush re-electio issue
<BJKlein> there sjvan, welcome
<sjvan> The point is no that we can do it, but that *we don't know*
<Jonesey> the avg person does not know the diff bet cryonix and that yep, and stump will win in appeals to that type of person.
<planetp> Ah yes, even tho the majority is against gay marriage, a greater majority is against an ammendment.
<Lazlo> Bush hasn't been creating jobs in the areas of the country that do not support him but he has been shifting defense spending to the States that do and there propping up employment
<Utnapishtim> The Double blind study/Positive prrof required thinbg is a perfect example of applying entirely wrong model of thinking for evaluating cryonics
<BJKlein> sjvan, how openly can you discuss alcor's contingency plans for if this leg. passes against alcor and we have to move?
<TimFreeman> sjvan: Is there anything in the present bill that's different from Alcor wants beyond ambiguity?
<Randolfe> Stump said that in science, you conducted double blind studies and asked why they hadn't done wo with cryonics to prove that they could bring frozen people back to life. Not his words but that was his idea.
<thefirstimmortal> OK, let me put this another way, we culd overturn the law, based on the LEGISLATIVE TRANSCRIPTS, anyone want to talk about, how we can kill the law????????????
<Utnapishtim> this points to a larger problem with thinking about health issues in general
<thefirstimmortal> could
<sjvan> double blind is only useful in limited types of experiments
*** Joins: Ge (~Ge@ACA74981.ipt.aol.com)
<sjvan> I done science for years, and never double blinded an experiment
<Randolfe> Yes, kill the law by charging it for what it is: Religious Discrimination!!
<BJKlein> it was Downing who said double-blind - just to be clear
<Lazlo> Bill I do nt think that is admissable, except under extreme circumstances to prove a general bias. These folks say all kinds of nonsense in debate
<John_McC> Just for the purpose of redundancy, it might not be a bad idea for Alcor to have a secondary storage site. (out of state, naturally)
<Utnapishtim> People apply a scientific proofs model when actually game theory is a better tool to understand cryonics
<Jonesey> sjvan:just put on a double blindfold
<planetp> religious discrimination might work, a good possible strategy is to get it on an appeals track.
<sjvan> Ok, how do you kill the law based on the transcripts?
<Jonesey> scientific proof? whats that?
<thefirstimmortal> It's admissable, CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. v. CITY OF HIALEAH
<sjvan> I tried, but then all the glassware smashed on the ground
<Jonesey> WUPS
<planetp> in the meantime, I would highly recomment Alcor start a second storage facility - redunancy is always good.
<TimFreeman> sjvan: Any ideas about how to support Stump's opposition at his next reelection? And when is that?
<Randolfe> Alcor should at least lay the basis for challenging this law on the grounds of religious discrimination even if they don't intend to do so themselves at this time.
<Lazlo> that is the extreme example of bias, the counter point is they can say naything they want they consider germane as protected speech too
<sjvan> I think his election must be this nov, but I'm not sure
<Jonesey> isn't az very right wing in general? wasn't it the last state to pass the MLK holiday, long after the south?
<Lazlo> You have to prove complicity and premeditated bias
<sjvan> The best thing to do is if you are local, work for his opponent
<TimFreeman> sjvan: Who does know? We should find his opponents and publish how to support them.
<thefirstimmortal> Under the Free Exercise Clause, a law that burdens religious practice need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest if it is neutral and of general applicability. Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 . However, where such a law is not neutral or not of general application, it must undergo the most rigorous of scrutiny: it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest,
<TimFreeman> sjvan: I'm not local, but I can send a check.
<planetp> actually, phoenix is very right wing. Tucson on the other hand is very liberal.
<Jonesey> i guess being so much closer to the border and overrun by mexicans helps
<FutureQ> My dad lives in AZ, he brought the conservative level up by a magnitude order when he moved there.
<planetp> I honestly think Nevada is one of the most promising states to have a cryonics facility.
<Jonesey> mexico is yet to reconquer phoenix i guess
<Lazlo> the public record is just that a public record, what religious free exercise is being restricted? Is this filed now as an objection or being raised ex post facto?
<sjvan> next best to working for the opponent is send a check
<sjvan> the limit is $300
<sjvan> but the total budget that lopez had for her last election was only 10k, so 300 helps a lot
<Jonesey> alcor also could pool $ and just buy stump bashing negative tv ads all day long.
<Randolfe> Here is a great url http://www.law.harva...rent/gunn.shtml
<Jonesey> "stump is a gay al queda sympathizer, that kind of thing"
<thefirstimmortal> A laws text and operation may demonstrate that they are not neutral, but have as their object the suppression of a central element of a Religion
<sjvan> can't first, against rules for 501c3
<sjvan> second, pooling funds like that you have to be very careful of since the "campaign reform act"
<Randolfe> Reading the article on International Definitions of Religions and Religious Discrimination on the above URL is very interesting.
<Lazlo> the law is not written to restrict any specific groups practice, it is by doing so by general restriction. And they can do this, just as they restrict Kosher slaughter practice and Santaria sacrifice.
<thefirstimmortal> ... in our case Immortality is clearly a Religious Practice
<planetp> I think that it could easily be justified that Alcor's current rates for suspension need to be raised to pay not only for storage and materials but against legislative entropy as well.
<sjvan> people have gone to jail for stupid things because of it alreeady
<FutureQ> All that a neg ad toward stump need bring up is his ties to funeral industrry conflict of interest
<Utnapishtim> Jonesy: The gays are al quaida sympathisers now? They used to be commies.. my how times change... ;)
<Jonesey> hehehe Utnapishtim
<Lazlo> you are fighting a retreat, thiw is will repeat anagin and again, write a law that you can support and get ahead of the process
<Randolfe> If you read the article I posted, you will see that "neutral laws" that overly impact a religious practice can be considered to be religious discrimination. this law impacts cryonic preservation as a burial rite.
<Lazlo> and as in the case of Native American claims over archeological sites can be fought for decades all the way to split and unsatisaftory decision
*** Joins: Ge (~Ge@ACA74981.ipt.aol.com)
<Randolfe> A "split decision" is better than losing totally!
<Lazlo> that was just last month, you are not in a very suporting Federal Court system let alone getting near the Supremes anytime soon
<Jonesey> the fed judiciary is packed with right wingers and getting worse right up to the supremes yup.
<Lazlo> how much fiscal resources and staff time do you want to devote to this effort?
<Guest> In a neurosuspension, are the remains in a viable condition? And how are they usually disposed or processed?
<Lazlo> you are gambling
<sjvan> fighting in the courts is a last resort, that I don't think will be needed
<Randolfe> SJVAN, What do you think of proposals for a cryonics group or one of the cryonic religious groups to set up a table at “Frozen Grand Pa Day” in Colorado?
<sjvan> but I've been wrong before
<FutureQ> Guest, are you from the AZ legislature?
<John_McC> I could get into a colorado location... I could find work there.
<Lazlo> It will be if you don't attempt postive legislative alternatives first, sjvan
<planetp> I agree, the more you can keep it out of the courts and the legislators the better. I find it amazing that it would be legal to burn a body, but not freeze one. On what possible grounds could this be justified consitutionally?
<Guest> No. Just looking for a win-win, as you all are.
<sjvan> Very silly...nedeland does not take cryonics seriously. In fact, it is illegal there...granpa was "grandfathered" in
<sjvan> But if you want to be part of the sideshow, go ahead
<FutureQ> Thank you, guest, for answering my querie. I'll let our Alcor reps answer your question. I'm with CI and they don't do neuro's yet.
<Randolfe> Why not? What willo Alcor say if some group claiming to be a Cryonics or Transhumanist Religion starts making news. Believe me, I know how to do that.
<sjvan> We are attempting positive legislative alternatives now...more I can't say
<Lazlo> sometimes the best defense is a good offense, thisis the time to engage the process forthwwith and ggarner the support of possible coalitions that only happen in the season of the withc, whent the political madness of these times makes devilish pacts mutually beneficial
<Lazlo> good, I am glad to hear that sjvan
<thefirstimmortal> <Lazlo> the law is not written to restrict any specific groups practice, it is by doing so by general restriction. And they can do this, just as they restrict Kosher slaughter practice and Santaria sacrifice. Sorry, your wrong, I just reread the case on Santaria
<FutureQ> Perhaops a multi front approach is best at this point?
<Randolfe> SJVAN: Has Alcor done anything to disassociate itself from the man who put his wife in the deep freeze on the back porch? Do you take a pro-active approach when such stories appear?
<sjvan> people have already tried cryonics "religion"
<thefirstimmortal> Our review confirms that the laws in question were enacted by officials who did not understand, failed to perceive, or chose to ignore the fact that their official actions violated the Nation's essential commitment to religious freedom. The challenged laws had an impermissible object; and in all events, the principle of general applicability was violated because the secular ends asserted in defense of the laws were pursued onl
<FutureQ> Not keeping all eggs in one baset, like?
*** Joins: John_Ventureville (~John_Vent@24.117.207.248)
<sjvan> and I believe the argument has been used successfully to avoid autopsy
<John_Ventureville> howdy, everyone
<Randolfe> Then why shouldn't that argument be used to prevent thawing??
<Utnapishtim> Jey John
<John_Ventureville> hi
<sjvan> yes, when the freezer guy was found, a lot of press called alcor, and we basically said we had nothing to do with it
<sjvan> that it was sad, but nothing like what we do
<Jonesey> do people in the US in general have any right to designate how their bodies will be disposed of?
<Randolfe> SJVAN: You should have taken that opportunity to say how different cryonics was from having a body in the freezer.
<Jonesey> or do property rights over one's body end at death in american jurisprudence?
<thefirstimmortal> From Writ of Cert....The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which has been applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, see Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940), provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . ." (Emphasis added.) The city does not argue that Santeria is not a "religion" within the meaning of the
<sjvan> a number of reports subsequently said "he shoulda gone to Alcor, they are the the pros" or things to that effect
<FutureQ> Not in NY, Jonesy
<Jonesey> unclear response futureq
<sjvan> property rights over ones body end at death in the US
<Randolfe> SJVAN: Stump made a big deal about the lack of any connection to an academic and/or scientific institution. Have you considered trying to make such connections?
<Jonesey> oh dear sjvan
<Jonesey> so one's body can in fact be looted for organs, say?
<FutureQ> Ask Dave Pizer about 19th cent law re: right of individual to choose disposal of bady.
<thefirstimmortal> That would be irrelvant Randy, if we were wise enough to incorporate a religious argument
<sjvan> yes, we have been, and were very close to one when publicity scared them off
<John_McC> I agree with the academic link idea. Having a genuine university researcher on side would add a ton of credibility.
<John_Ventureville> Dave Pizer seriously considered taking the religious approach to avoid autopsy
<thefirstimmortal> Ask Dave, hell ask me, I got that in my legal data base
<sjvan> and being associated with UCLA wouldn't be a good thing right now
<FutureQ> TFI, the NY law?
<John_McC> Ok, if no university sponsor, then pull out the big guns. Get a Darpa grant. Hell, they fund everything else these days.
<Randolfe> What is wrong with UCLA? I think that is where Dr. Gregory Stock is with the School of Medicine.
<sjvan> The problem with academic connections (which we do have) is that they want to stay quiet, and run like rabbits when the publicity starts
<John_Ventureville> I think cryonics is too way out there for even Darpa
<sjvan> UCLA willed body program big scandle
<John_Ventureville> sjvan, exactly!
<John_McC> Darpa has been already implicated in a number of transhuman type stuff (ie. futures on terrorist events, lifelog, grand challenge, etc.)
<John_Ventureville> our academic connections are more with individuals rather than whole institutions
<Randolfe> A bigger scandal than the false accusations that Alcor polluted the Scottsdale sewerage system?? (ha)
<sjvan> the worst lies anyone has made for u are paled by what actually happend at UCLA
<sjvan> but we got smeared by that tar brush, too
<FutureQ> I wondered about that sjvan
<sjvan> http://www.cnn.com/2.../ucla.cadavers/
<Randolfe> What do you say to the "multilating corpses" charges like Stump kept making?
<planetp> That Darpa is the only one getting serious financing for
<planetp> "transhumaninst" advances is a bit disconcerting, do you think?
<John_Ventureville> sj, are you talking about UCLA in regards to Jerry Leaf?
<sjvan> unless he wants to write that in law, it is just noise
<FutureQ> No, John, recent scandal obver selling body parts at YUCLA
<sjvan> no not jerry leaf, see the url
<Jonesey> neuro sounds quite grisly to the avg joe
<Jonesey> i consistently get that reaction when i describe it.
<sjvan> I'd like to take stump to a autopsy sometime, and see what he has to say about "mutilation"
<Jonesey> whole body just seems weird to em.
<Jonesey> not as scandalous
<FutureQ> Because the ave. Joe still thinks there's a soul that is non corporeal!
<Randolfe> The argument that neuro-surgeons worked at Alcor was one of the strongest parts in the debate on Alcor's behalf.
<John_McC> Stump's dad is a mortician. I think he's seen a few cadavers already.
<Jonesey> well that doesn't account for the grisly part
<sjvan> guess, what, neuro happens all the time, preparing specimens for training and education
<Jonesey> ppl think it's grisly there too.
<Jonesey> puts off a lot of ppl from med careers
<FutureQ> But peopole aren't made aware of that sjvan
<sjvan> not at alcor, but at med schools and suppliers
<sjvan> part of why ppl are all upset at UCLA...we are in the same backlash
<Randolfe> The NYT made a big thing about the terrible things that get done to your body after it is donated to medical research.
<Jonesey> yep sjvan, but people see those as essential while they see cryo as a bizarre innovation. problematic for us.
<sjvan> difference is, with cryo, it is a choice
<Jonesey> yep sjvan

#14 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 15 March 2004 - 03:55 AM

<John_McC> sjvan, I've got a question for you about Alcor practices... What's the position on storage of side information?
<Randolfe> SJVAN: hAS ANYONE TRIED TO CULTURE ANY CELLS FROM A TINY PIECE OF SOMEONE FROZEN FOR A LONG TIME? tHAT WOULD PROVE THAT THEIR WAS STILL LIFE AT A CELLUALR LEVEL THERE.
<Randolfe> SORRY FOR THE CAPS. DIDN'T NOTICE THE light was on.
<Jonesey> just spent a weekend with some very bright folks at a colloquium, and they all thought cryo was pretty bizarre. and these are bright folks. the avg reaction is much worse.
<FutureQ> lcor shoulde stress to people when queried about grissliness of neuro that medical neuros are all the time done.
<thefirstimmortal> Sjvan, did you indicate earlier that Alcor was thinking about making the religious argument, but backed off because og publicity?
<thefirstimmortal> of
<sjvan> I don't know about culturing, but em photos show them in very good shape
<Randolfe> this is what my best friend wrote me today regareding cryonics: He's not dead. He's electroencephalographically challenged.
<sjvan> no, just that it has come up in court cases involving autopsy
<sjvan> Religion I think does better in court
<Randolfe> The fact autopsy has laid the groundwork gives Alcor something to build on.
<FutureQ> Which gorundwork?
<sjvan> making a wildly atheistic argument in AZ house does not strike me as wise
<FutureQ> SWhy stress atheism?
<Randolfe> Arguing you are a "religion" does not make a "wildly atheistic argument"{. It makes sense.
<sjvan> Orthodox jews are against autopsy, and have strict time limits for burial
<FutureQ> For folks sake there are idots signing up for mummification and we don't see legislators harrassing them!
<sjvan> no, but when the "details" of the "religion" are known, it becomes pretty apparent that this is atheism trying to use a religous loophole
<sjvan> yes, it doesn't make sense, but emotional arguments rarely do
<Randolfe> I know the mummifiers very well. They work your mummification in with your traditional religious services.
<Randolfe> Why is belief in science not a religion?
<sjvan> mummification actually fits better with conventional practice
<thefirstimmortal> sjvan, forgive me for saying this, but you are completely unaware of how are first Amendment works, Atheist are protected also
<FutureQ> Heh, A,lcor should sart mumifying the body and storing the head in liquid nitrogen "modern" Canopic jars!
<Randolfe> Not when they sell you on the idea that your mummy can be used for cloning purposes. You can't clone from dead cells.
<sjvan> because if it were a religion, there would be a open-shut case to remove evolution from the schools
<FutureQ> Then they'dget ignored
<Randolfe> Right, if you think about it, the rights of atheists are always mentioned when they talk about the freedom of religion. It is the atheists who object to being considered a religion.
<thefirstimmortal> There is already one religion formed years ago, that has Cryonics suspension specifically mentioned on it's 503 © application
<Lazlo> Randolfe the belief in science as a religion already exists, it is called Scientology. Do we really want to go this route?
<sjvan> I'm aware of how the first amendment works...that is why i said it was a good argument for the courts
<Randolfe> I'll go any route necessary to get them to leave me a lone and give me a chance to live again.
<thefirstimmortal> Sorry sjvan, my bad
<John_McC> What religion mentions cryonics?
<FutureQ> I think we should stress that we are a nebulous religious device jsded by members of many faiths. We have our own John Grigg a Mormon, and several Budhists, and some other Christians and some Jewish people in our wide ilk.
<sjvan> but legislators don't sit there and go, ooo, good first amendment argument...they figure out what they want to do, then try to find a way around those restrictions
<Randolfe> I once went to a Scientogoly meeting because of the name. It was not science. They mailed me stuff for the next ten years.
<thefirstimmortal> At a minimum, the protections of the Free Exercise Clause pertain if the law at issue discriminates against some or all religious beliefs or regulates or prohibits conduct because it is undertaken for religious reasons.]
<Lazlo> As for frozen tissues being resuscitated this is being done all the time with sprem and now will be done with ovarian tisue in humans soon too
<Lazlo> perm* ;-)
<sjvan> If we bring religion into it, be just become even more of a nutcase situation
<John_McC> Don't get Keith started on Scientology :-)
<Lazlo> sperm and bad fingers bad!
<Randolfe> SJVAN: If you accuse them of "religious discrimination" you might find they get intimidated.
* BJKlein nods to sjvan
*** Joins: taza0 (~taza0@mewtwo-42.dynamic.rpi.edu)
<sjvan> you might also find them get angry and recalcitrant, since they won't be discriminating against any of *their* voters
<Randolfe> BJK, then you have a lot of "nutcases" here tonight I think???
<Lazlo> not without a constiuency of practicing believers, I mean voters
<BJKlein> the goal of creating a cryonic friendly law is key here..
*** Joins: Derek (~Derek@zapdos-33.dynamic.rpi.edu)
<John_McC> I agree, sjvan. Religious arguments are a bad idea, a bad approach, and likely to ultimately fail.
<BJKlein> if alcor suddendly went to religion, they'd loose the support of 70% of their members
<Randolfe> Conscientious objectors never won in an election but they won in court.
<sjvan> at this time, pointing fingers, however justified, is not good tactics...later, maybe
<Lazlo> everybody who opts for cryo isn't going to have to convert or this will fail as an approach
<FutureQ> <-- nutcase, whole jars full!! ;)
* BJKlein official chat ends
<BJKlein> feel free to carry on
<Lazlo> you can't start an evangelical movement out of this, it will be even more divisive
<John_McC> Hm... I wonder if there are any cryonics friendly guys in the NV legislature.
<Randolfe> We evangelicals will do as we feel called to do.
<sjvan> as i said, religion is considered, but only as a last resort...like when trying to pry someone from the coroner
<Lazlo> this reduces the overall appeal of the technology, and defines the adherents as fringe "cultists"
<Randolfe> At least lay the groundwork so if no other alternatives are left, you can use that argument.
<sjvan> Alcor does have "Religous Objection to Autopsy" forms that we encourage everyone to fill out
<Lazlo> it is premature for an endgame strategy
<Randolfe> Lazlo, I am a science cultist!
<Lazlo> I am a simple skeptic Randy ;)
<sjvan> The interesting thing about the objection forms is that no particular religion is needed
<FutureQ> I think ulimately it is not up to Alcor or it's wide member base to choose the religious discrimination route but rather for a single imndividual, not even necessarilly an Alcor member to sue for this reason on grounds the legislation unintentiona;lly discriminates against them, ie: me.
<sjvan> the religious objection works just as well if you are the only member
<FutureQ> Something to keep for last ditch effort
<Randolfe> You have to get "religion" Lazlo and dive into eternity through the "Ice of Hope" and "rebirth" through cryonics and/or cloning! (ha)
<Lazlo> dead on FuturQ ;)
<thefirstimmortal> sjvan, I'm not advocating that Alcor should turn religious, Alcor should use The Universal Life Extension Church to advance the Arguments and take the heat
<Randolfe> Why can't there be different branches of cryoniucs like their are different branches of other belief systems?
<sjvan> Actually, things don't look *too* bad at the moment, and there is a lot of room for more compromise in the senate
<FutureQ> You gotta love the visual of me in my wheelchair against the "powers of darkness" discroiminating against me.
<thefirstimmortal> I am to understand that they have 30 grand set aside for legal defense
<sjvan> The point is that we can defend our members religious right without having to specify a particular church. The specifying part is what adds to fruitcakness
<Randolfe> One lawyer can eat 30 grand just at one lunch.
<Lazlo> To amke and appeal to more than a Ted Williams , but mainstreme voters do not make this a religious conversion case. If it is posed this way it defaults to adversarial and you make enemies that you might not otherwise get
<sjvan> lazlo: exactly
<Randolfe> You couldn't have more enemies of cryonics than you do now. The religionists hate you the most.
<Lazlo> Exactly sjvan, I am still intersted in broaddening the appeal to more groups and demonstrating how this fits in with a contiuency of respect and closure aspects for the families
<Randolfe> The better argument outside of religion is the right of people to dictate what happens to their bodies after death.
<Lazlo> Hasn't anyone come to realize how important the " presentation" is to the survivors?
<sjvan> Oh, yes, we can have many more enemies.
<Lazlo> relative need and want to commune with their loved ones and it could even be better than traditional methods as it retains a bit more hope.
<FutureQ> Is there a possible genetic tissue bank side issue to the right of people to seek to protect their bank of DNA from misues or disuse?
<Randolfe> Presentation? Has anyone thought of putting pictures and/or autobiographies on those cold cannisters at Alcor? It might humanize them a bit.
<sjvan> The vast majority of peple don't care one way or another...it is just a small minority that has the "wisdom of repugnance"
<Utnapishtim> Ah big problem is that cryonicists often simply don't speak the language of mainstream society at large
<sjvan> but they can make a lot of trouble
<Utnapishtim> sjvan: When I knocked out that article I posted on imminst I was very aware of the need for a mainstream voice
<sjvan> humanize? or deprive them of their dignity, turning it into a sideshow.....see how things can get twisted?
<John_McC> sjvan, I'll repeat my old question... What's Alcor's position on storage of side information? (hard drives, etc.)
<Lazlo> But on a practical level the lacking element is with the psychology of memorial, no "chapel" no urn or mosoleum
<Utnapishtim> How difficult a concept is it for people to graps that this is simply none of their business
<sjvan> The entire alcor building is a memorial...filled with the photos of our patients
<Randolfe> They put names on gravestones and inscriptions. What is wrong with putting some personal touches on those vats??
<sjvan> we do it for our own sake, to remind us why we are there
<Lazlo> most people that visit grave yards wnat something consitent with their perspective of "contact"
<sjvan> On the website to do list is a meet the patients site...photos, stories, reminiscences, etc
<Randolfe> Can relatives come to Alcor and visit their suspended loved ones at the vat itself??
<sjvan> do you guys think it would help?
<Lazlo> the pictures and building they can have on their computer]
<sjvan> we were really just thinking of the families
<Lazlo> Can the vats get dressed up as more traditional sarcophogi?
<Randolfe> I think someone who feels that their loved one was still there waiting to be revived would be a powerful and moving testimonial if handled properly even in a propoganda movie.
<Utnapishtim> I think the vats could look a little les sterile
<FutureQ> As regards closure issues for family and friends, I have for some time proposed using wakes and engaging the services of funeral homes for planning such so that the funerary industry does not feel left out and losing business. I have a friend who's cousin is the National Funeral Direc tors president. She's going to introduce me and among other things zi'm going to stress this desire to work with them.
<Lazlo> All of this in a non denominatinal way still preserves many traditional values and lends to legitimacy when going before legislatures
<sjvan> when we move the dewars to the new bay, there will be an effort at aesthetics
<Randolfe> I think multi-dimensional crystal figures set over the vats representing those within would create an amazinf image.
<Utnapishtim> It absolutely sickens me that it is neccessary to cowtow to autocratic arbiters of traditional values just for the right to dispose of my remains as I see fit
<sjvan> many, many specify no wake or funeral in their wills
<Lazlo> burial rituals change from generation to generation, this society can absorb and observe, there is a lot of history to support the legitimazation of new aproaches
<Randolfe> Lazlo, Alcor doesn't consider it engages in "burial rituals".
<sjvan> there are good security reasons to not specify who is in what dewar
<FutureQ> Rather than the clutter of pictures, how about the high tech route? ASAren't there now lcd paintings that switch images frequently even from a servor? Alcor could link to pictures of all the individuals in a dewer and have the images cycle.
<Lazlo> creamatino wasn't accepted by the Jewish community a centry ago and now is very common, it does " BY LAW" Randy
<Randolfe> Has anyone ever tried to retrieve or destroy one of the dewars?
<sjvan> no comment
<Randolfe> SJVAN: That is more frightening than any story you could tell us.
<Randolfe> If Ted Williams' disowned daughter shows up, have her arrested.
<Lazlo> Good idea FuturQ, a contninuous audio and visual memorial, a virtual " Eternal Flame"
<sjvan> well, the Dora Kent incident comes to mind, but I really don't want to talk about it
<FutureQ> Thanks, I'll take a small royalty please! j/k
<sjvan> didn't mean to scare you...security is what we try to keep most quiet
<Randolfe> I assume "Dora Kent" was the case where someone took a head in the trunk of a car or something. You need not comment. It sounds grisly.
<thefirstimmortal> sjvan, On the comment that you can't use the legilative record, here, from the Santeria case I mentioned
<thefirstimmortal> ... the city council made no attempt to address the supposed problem before its meeting in June, 1987, just weeks after the Church announced plans to open. The minutes and taped excerpts of the June 9 session, both of which are in the record, evidence significant hostility exhibited by residents, members of the city council, and other city officials toward the Santeria religion and its practice of animal sacrifice. The public
<Lazlo> Randolfe they default to either a funeral provider or a body parts handler,
<thefirstimmortal> and also, from same case.......
<thefirstimmortal> The president of the city council, Councilman Echevarria, asked: "What can we do to prevent the Church from opening?"
<thefirstimmortal> Various Hialeah city officials made comparable comments. The chaplain of the Hialeah Police Department told the city council that Santeria was a sin, "foolishness," "an abomination to the Lord," and the worship of "demons." He advised [508 U.S. 520, 542] the city council: "We need to be helping people and sharing with them the truth that is found in Jesus Christ." He concluded: "I would exhort you . . . not to permit this Chur
<sjvan> But no one is saying anything remotly as agreegious in the AZ house
<Randolfe> Go Wm O'Rights, go!
<Lazlo> That is what sunk them Bill was proof of prejudice, I remember the case I was living in PBC at the time
<Randolfe> SJVAN: They said you were preying on grieving families and doing a "scam".
<sjvan> The mantra, over and over, is that "we don't want to put them out of business"
<Randolfe> That "don't want to -put them out of business" mantra was Republican doubletalk.
<Lazlo> and they did get fall back regs after they lost that case on the question of how the handling of "remains" from the animal sacrifices were to be regulated in accord with local health and safety regs
<sjvan> which, to a resonable person, sound like ground for regulation
<FutureQ> They protest too loudly me thinks
<sjvan> yes, they do protest too loudly, but they know where the line is
<Utnapishtim> I genuinely don't think they understand exactly how important Alcors protocol is to its members
<sjvan> I would believe that...that is a failure of education on our parts
<thefirstimmortal> It wasn't sunk simply because of "prejudice", I've read the case no less than 20 times, combing it for weapons that we can use
<Randolfe> The trouble is that Stump "sounds reasonable" to the uninformed. That is why you should challenge him more directly. Make him lose his cool!
*** Joins: super8 (~super8@host-243-177.resnet.pdx.edu)
<sjvan> in partial defense, we didn't ahve much time
<sjvan> but we should have started years sgo
<sjvan> he almost did lose his cool
<Lazlo> It is very hard to get Libbertarians to write law, it is anathema to their character with good reason
<Randolfe> Push him nest time. Or, have someone who is not representing you really go at him like those angry emailers. that might push him over the edge. That is the only way to make him show his real colors.
<FutureQ> You didn't start years ago becasuse of the influence, to me not necessrilly good in this case, of libertarianism, shuning ALL regulation to a fault and the fault has come home to roost!
<Utnapishtim> Has he actually given ANY clear and concrete reason as to why regulation and 'oversight' is neccessary. Exactly how and why the people of arizona need protecting from Alcor?
<thefirstimmortal> <sjvan> But no one is saying anything remotly as agreegious in the AZ house, Perhaps not, but the record can help, let me dissect it, I'll tell you how valuable it is or isn't
<sjvan> oh, yes, we have been dissecting the record, and will be putting it to good use in the Senate
<sjvan> We made a fast transcript for a reason
<Randolfe> The trouble is that they talk about "standard protocols" for handling dead bodies. They means burial in the traditional sense. Cryonics violates "standard protocols" and there is your problem.
<sjvan> I'd be very interested in your dissection
<Utnapishtim> I get a strong sense that Stump sees regulation as an end in itself ratehr than a means to an end
<Lazlo> Do noative Americans still post their dead on raised platforms on the Reservations in Arizona to be eaten by vultures?
<sjvan> The AAGA puts everything out of "standard protocols"...hence our insistance on it.
<Randolfe> Thank you for being here tonight and answering these questions Sjvan. I was not too gracious earlier. I apologize.
<FutureQ> Just look at all the bill stumnp has been invo,ved in!
<thefirstimmortal> OK, you all have been dissecting the record, I'm offering free legal help, you all have till Sept of 05, don't you think we should start getting a legal case put together now, just in case?
<Lazlo> I jsut thought I would remind everyone what one of the local traditional forms of burial are ;)
<Randolfe> What is the AAGA
*** Joins: Nuzz (~Nuzz@adsl-65-43-34-148.dsl.lgtpmi.ameritech.net)
<sjvan> sure...I'd heartily recommend thta you right a formal legal brief, and I'll make sure personally that everyon see it.
<Randolfe> It is Indians in India that feed their dead to the vultures.
<sjvan> or even informal...just put your thughts on paper where I can pass them around
<Lazlo> Also praie and desert SW Randy
<Lazlo> prairie*
<sjvan> completely ot, but they are running out of vultures in India...quite an ecological problem with their customs
*** Joins: Derek (~Derek@zapdos-33.dynamic.rpi.edu)
<Randolfe> That gives me an alternative to bruial, cremation or freezing if I can just join one of the tribes.
<John_Ventureville> firstimmortal, are you a lawyer?
<Lazlo> I just mean the range of "legitimate" traditional methods are pretty broad
<thefirstimmortal> sjvan, Saul forwarded some of my legal brief like statements on this bill to the Alcor leadership
<Randolfe> Lazlo, you mean you wouldn't prefer to be eaten by vultures than to be cremated or buried? I would if I had to choose.
<John_Ventureville> thefirstimmortal, are you an attorney?
<BJKlein> john.. ya have a pm when you have time..
<BJKlein> red tab above
<Randolfe> John, don't get too hung up on titles. I understand the first immortal has won many court cases.
<Lazlo> My father outlaw says he wants to be put througha amnure spreader and mixed into fertile field, I understand that one. BTW, burial at sea is still practiced too, and by the GOVERNMENT
<John_Ventureville> *I choose to be eaten by ferrets at death if cryonics is not an option*
<Lazlo> manure spreader*
<Randolfe> Let's start an all-inclusive "alternative burial society".
<thefirstimmortal> Attorney, no, when I want to challenge a law, I break it and become a defendant, I am undefeated when it comes to challenging laws on constituional matters, and 90 percent on other legal matters. I've only lost 2 cases out of 30
*** Joins: davidbe (~davidbe@pcp08866359pcs.sabrna01.az.comcast.net)
<Utnapishtim> I am absolutely disinterested in what happens to my remains if cryonics is not an option as long as it is not overly undignified
<Utnapishtim> or distressing to my relatives
<Lazlo> Franky IO certainly *grok* the idea of being converted to food for all the life forms that have fed me through the years
<Randolfe> Lazlo, you mean "meat to meat" instead of "dust to dust". How very praqctical.
<sjvan> At one time, I suggested that my torso after neuro be parted out for use by medical students
<Lazlo> I want to remind everyone this entire debate will dramatically shift if any sibject gets revived after a few months of cryo suspension
<sjvan> but after the UCLA and Tulane scandles, that sounds like a bad idea
<sjvan> too bad for the students
<Randolfe> SJVAN: Doesn't it seem likely that entire bodies will be revived first?
<Utnapishtim> Lazlo: Stick to your classical rhetorical flourishes. They provide a welcome relief from standard extropian/techie vernacular
<Lazlo> it doesn't have to be a human and it doesn't have to be dead to begin with
<sjvan> not at the moment...vitrification is only possible with neuros
<davidbe> sjvan, is the neuro procedure compatible with donating the rest of the body to research, as with Science Care Anatomical?
<sjvan> now, with whole body vitrification, I'm switching
<Randolfe> You mean the rest of the body is destroyed when being thaw4ed?
<John_Ventureville> to change the subject for a moment....
<sjvan> not for most science use, like skin for burn victems and such...but the bones are still useful for students, and they aren't hurt at all
<John_Ventureville> how many people here took part in the Extropy Institute Online Summit?
<BJKlein> something like 150
<sjvan> Randolphe: with the neuro proceedure, the rest of the body is not preserved at all
<John_Ventureville> 150 ImmInst members took part in the ExI online summit?
<BJKlein> oh no
<BJKlein> sorry.. that was a total
<John_Ventureville> yes
<BJKlein> How Many People Attended the online Summit? 164+ people attended the Summit. This number does not include anyone who just stopped by to take a look.
<Randolfe> I thought you could have both Neuro and the entire body for $175,000 total.
<BJKlein> http://imminst.org/f...028
<Nuzz> i would prefer whole body. not because of the thought of keeping only my head, but there is a greater possibility of being revived earlier
<BJKlein> ImmInst members = probably a nice % participated, but haven't counted
<John_Ventureville> I just wondered how many people in this chatroom had attended aside from the two of us
<Nuzz> its harder to construct a new body than it is to revive one
* BJKlein would think the loss of info from a full body suspension would not be good
<Randolfe> I had a great chat with one other person one night at the summit. Felt like Zeus and Isis on top of Mr. Olympus.
<John_Ventureville> BJ, maybe after the next ExI online summit you can do a special chat on it
<BJKlein> sure thing
<davidbe> Personally, I think it would be easier to grow a new body than fix the old one. But you pays your money and you takes your chances.
<Nuzz> you'd have to do a brain transplant
<FutureQ> When is the next Exl online summit? I donated but didn't participate mch.
<Lazlo> I don't think you need to rescusitate the dead to provide hope to the living if any form of effective crryo suspension can be demonstrated
<BJKlein> would think that the focus on the brain only would be best
<Nuzz> might as well just upload
<Nuzz> worry about it later
<Derek> Does anyone here actually believe that conscious identity would be maintained with a procedure like that?
<Nuzz> yup
<BJKlein> Randolfe, remember the chat participant's name for the ExI chat?
<Derek> could you explain why for me please?
<davidbe> No you would not need a brain transplant. You would grow a new body just as a lizard grows a new tail. Tissue generation technology.
<FutureQ> Derek with aa procedure like what?
<Derek> cryo
<Nuzz> zero-clone theorem says that two identical structures have identical properties. It's referring to consciousness
<FutureQ> Yes, we do or we would not be doing it.
<Nuzz> more related to omegism though
<Derek> Hm, I'm not familiar with it. Could you get me a link to something I could read about it?
<FutureQ> http://www.alcor.org or http://www.cryonics.org
<sjvan> And all that is assuming you want a body like the old one...I would rather have a considerable improvemnt, thank you
<Derek> Alright, thanks
<FutureQ> sjvan, I figurew get reanimated first then shop for the variety of possible improvements. I might want a pair of wings.
<FutureQ> Welcome, Derek.
*** Joins: MichaelA (~altima@adsl-63-201-38-16.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net)
<Derek> So (before I read), is this saying that if I were to duplicate myself, one consciousness would be present for both minds?
<Nuzz> it's too early to tell derek
<FutureQ> Umm, I ust gave you urls for cryonics, not duplicaion. That's a whole oyher asnd perenial discussion.
<Derek> I mean the theory he's talking about
<Derek> Well I see a direct connection
<Nuzz> for uploading, the physical body dies and you stay in the virtual world
<Nuzz> so no duplication there
<thefirstimmortal> OK sjvan, on our contention that no one is saying anything remotly as agreegious, and I agree that they are not, but consider the following Supreme cout holding....
<Derek> I understand that, but it would be a gradual process, correct? As in, you wouldn't make a copy and then destroy the brain.
<FutureQ> but Nuzz, once you are virtual you can duplicate to hearts deisre!
<Lazlo> HOw close to being able to revive a dog that was frozen alive?
<thefirstimmortal> The Free Exercise Clause, like the Establishment Clause, extends beyond facial discrimination. The Clause "forbids subtle departures from neutrality," Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437, 452 (1971), and "covert suppression of particular religious beliefs," Bowen v. Roy, supra, at 703 (opinion of Burger, C.J.). Official action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere compliance wi
<FutureQ> Lazlo, down to jst above freezing for almost 20 min? I tnhink.
<Nuzz> you do it one neuron at a time... but as i said before science is many years away from having a 'correct' answer to this
<Derek> yes, that's what I mean
<Derek> but in cryonics, the brain stops completely
<Derek> why would you have the same consciousness when it started back up?
<thefirstimmortal> note the language "subtle departures ", "covert suppression ", "governmental hostility which is masked as well as overt. "
<Derek> isn't it the same as making a douplicate and destroying it?
<thefirstimmortal> In other words, it doesn't have to be agreegious
<Derek> it being the origional mind
<sjvan> I agree, good arguments, if we need to strike down a bill we can't live with. In fact, I think we should give them plenty of rope in that department should it become necessary
<Randolfe> I thought the traznsplantation of one dog's head onto another dog looked promising.
<MichaelA> didn't they actually succeed in doing that, Randolfe?
<thefirstimmortal> Well, who's been working on that???
<FutureQ> Randy, it freake out a bunch of ludditesQ!Q
<MichaelA> someone at Transvision gave a talk on this subject
<sjvan> those experiments wer in the 30's
<Nuzz> there was an essay on consciousness but I can't remember the link
<Randolfe> Yes they did. Just think of the fun you coyuld have doing it with human beings. Taking someone who was brain dead for the new body.
<Nuzz> im trying to find it
<Lazlo> hypthermia within limits but the test is literally time. It will shatter the oppositionif it can be done for weeks. It will also get DARPA funding and be seen as a possible adjunct to tradtional medical techniques if the process can be demonsrtated for longer periods. Thisis where your investment of time and money belongs really, not in the courts
<FutureQ> 1960s a scientists did the tranplant.
<MichaelA> this would be an interim technology at best, however
<Derek> Alright, thanks Nuzz
<Randolfe> The dog's head was transplanted by the Russians in the 1970s I believe.
<Nuzz> luddites are concerned with technology taking away their jobs
<sjvan> not new...it was done long time before the 70's
<Utnapishtim> Nuzz: Ahh technology and foreigners the two great job stealing evils
<thefirstimmortal> and another thing, the law fails the "general applicability " test, do you seriously think I couldn't make a winning argument on that issue alone??? Now sjvan could you tell me, how "general" is a law that only affects one company in a State????????????
<Randolfe> Just imagine "outsourcing" cryonics jobs to India. It would be the ultimate religious conflict with those Hindu's and their cremation rites.
<thefirstimmortal> is that not a targeted law?
<sjvan> robert white, who did similar experiments in the 60's, is freaking people out about it now http://news.bbc.co.u...lth/1263758.stm
<Randolfe> So is that phony futurist, Dixon, from England. he tells the story of the monkey with teh transplanted head and all the controversy it arroused.
<FutureQ> Randolfe, the Russians put two dog heas on one dog, Dr. White, if I recall corectly, in the US, transfered between two dogs.
<sjvan> you ar preaching to the chior, thefirstimmortal...why are you giving them pointers on making a better bill <grin>
<Utnapishtim> Randolfe: Its probably true. Funnily enough any Hindus in my neighborhood could cremate away to their hearts content and it wouldn't stir me up in the slightest.
<Randolfe> SJVAN They are too stupid to ever visit here.
<sjvan> Dr. white did ful rhesus monkey heads...I have the paper to prove it
<Randolfe> Utnapism, keep them away from your dewar!
<sjvan> randolphe: we know for a fact they monitor other sites.
<Randolfe> Then, they are really stalking you.
<sjvan> yes, they are.
<FutureQ> Who is "they"? May I ask
<Lazlo> the worst thing many people do today is underestimate their opponents
<Randolfe> Ask them if they pray for you? That might lead them into saying something.
<thefirstimmortal> I doubt they could get a bill passed that I could not destroy, and I've only cited arguments from one of over 150 cases I've studied preparing for a defense of cryonics. But it appears that no one is truly interested in preparing for this battle
<Utnapishtim> A stupid, foolish or evil objective can still be pursued with a great deal of intelligence and resourcefulness. History teaches this tragic lesson time and time again
<Randolfe> These people are not that intelligent or resourceful. They are narrow-minded and intolerant.
<sjvan> Who are they...
<sjvan> think about recent publicity
<Lazlo> and they are aligned with the National ruling party
<FutureQ> I mean can we point toany particular group of people?
<sjvan> the az leg is not our enemy...that is all I'll say
<sjvan> I *cannot* say
<Randolfe> FutureQ, I think they are talking about the gang in the Arizona House of Representatives that has passed this law to put Alcor out of business.
<Lazlo> the one that at least for teh moment holds a majoity of Stae houses and both the Federal Executive and Legislative Branches
<FutureQ> Buzz amon & Co. I bet.
<sjvan> Well, just ask Keith how secure IRC is....
<Randolfe> Don't worry, Lazlo, the Republicans are doomed. They will be swept from power this year!
<FutureQ> Hey, would there be any merit to a password accessible only chat for imminst memebrs?
<Lazlo> I am real tired of hearing how stupid *those guys* are when they have steered the national debate their way for decades
<Lazlo> Yeah like Schwartzenegger
<sjvan> not with anyone with 5 bucks and a paypal can join
<Randolfe> If we have an election about "gay marriages" they might win. However, people are more concerned about jobs and peace and the economy.
<Nuzz> it doesn't matter which party has control, if they are not balanced, then it is bad news
<Lazlo> actually most demographics show very little has changed since 2000
<Nuzz> republicans will still have the edge
<Lazlo> most of the same States seem to be voting the same way
<FutureQ> Screw balance, I want stem cell research and only the dems will provide it, by aand large!
<Lazlo> It is their election to lose and they have the bankroll
<Randolfe> Demographics mean little. 3 million jobs loss. the American dollar falling like a stone. Imports out of control. Immigrants streaming across the borders? etc.
<Utnapishtim> If I listen to the White House these days it seems that the truly important issues of today are Steroid use in professioanl sports and hay marriages... Truly weighty topics those...
<Lazlo> The NFL agrees with the Whitehouse but teh PLayers Union doesn't
<Nuzz> I'm a moderate liberal but I do not want to see either the dems or reps have total control. Some important issues will be neglected either way
<Lazlo> Baseball Players Union*
<sjvan> Well, who wins the WH won't really make a bit of difference to Alcor, unless the feds suddenly decide this is their thing, and Bush already said no
<Nuzz> issues that will affect everyone, you better believe it
<Jonesey> i agree with whitehouse.com
<Randolfe> Steroid use is especially weighty. It makes you gain weight like crazy. Today, a congressman talked about a 275 pound non-steroid user facing a 315 pound steroid user and how overwhelmed he would be.
<BJKlein> FutureQ... we can create private chat rooms
<BJKlein> no poblem
<FutureQ> Bush already said no to pushing states around re: gay marriage, and now where is he? On the other side of his face.
<Lazlo> no but what is happening is that if many pf these groups turn out alot of local legislatures will be swung deep int their camp around the contry, The Republican could end up gaining in the legislature even if they lose the Executive
<Randolfe> Good night everyone. I am tired. It is time to retire and be frozen.
<Utnapishtim> Goodnight Randolphe
*** Joins: super8 (~super8@host-243-177.resnet.pdx.edu)
<sjvan> naw, you can sleep whe your frozen
<Lazlo> A Nation Builder, BIg Government Defict Spending writer of unfunded mandates
<FutureQ> G'night Randy
<Lazlo> sleep well randy
<Lazlo> I will be away from the screen too for a while but I am curios FuturQ, how much effort is going into cryo suspension with intent for resuscitating?
*** Joins: Mermaid (~biteme@202.88.159.172)
<John_Ventureville> lol
<John_Ventureville> you could say vitrification is cryo r & d with intent at resuscitation
<Utnapishtim> Sjvan: What timeframe do you personally anticipate before it is possible to fully suspend a living dog and revive him
<Lazlo> yes
<FutureQ> Lazlo, do you mean research toward reanimation? If so, I truly dont have any numbers. As far as CI goes, I belve the larger portion , for now, is in better protocals for freezing.
<John_Ventureville> I would say around 2040 we might see a suspended dog brought back
<Lazlo> It is very important *politically* to demonstrate the viability of this approach and that means revival of a frozen subject
<sjvan> By that, do you mean under ideal laboratory conditions?
<John_Ventureville> perhaps give it another twenty years past that point
<John_Ventureville> it depends on how advanced A.I. and nanotech is at that point
<Lazlo> consider it analogous to getting a satellite into orbit
<sjvan> And does the revive have to be fully functional and live indefinately?
<John_Ventureville> in my mind just be fully functional
<John_Ventureville> or close to it
<Lazlo> alive and not dead to start with is probably enough to validate all effort and a big infusion of investment capitol
<FutureQ> Well as far as the purpose of showing viability the resaerch doe by both orgs in aiding in storgae systems for organ donation. The successful storage and use of a froen organ will go a long way to proving viability.
<thefirstimmortal> So, sjvan, I have argued and hammered you with questions all night (a very lawyer like thing to do;) and thank you for your patience) is there anything you would like to ask me before I leave the chat room area?
<Nuzz> I have been thinking about the possibility of a "weak AI" used to do research and information association, with some powerful hardware, it might increase your odds of getting a correct theory on AI
<Nuzz> and everything else!
<Lazlo> don't worry as much about reviving the dead as that is a whole different issue, Yes using frozen organs is a step forward too
<sjvan> With the money, I think that in less that 10 years a full size animal could be frozen, and "recovered' to the degree that they are concious, alive, ahve memory, but may have neuromotor deficites, deafness, blindness, require machine assist, ect.
<Nuzz> it might speed up cryonics by 5 or 10 years if used to look at anatomy
<Derek> I still don't trust cryonics. I would be much happier never dying in the first place
<sjvan> Frankly though, I don't think such a revival would make much differenc in popularity
<sjvan> The vast majority of peopel I talk to say "yea, it will work, but it isn't for me"
<Lazlo> I disagree sjvan I talk to lay folks about these ideas and these are teh *signposts* that they are thining about
<sjvan> dereK
<sjvan> derek: no arguments from me there
<John_Ventureville> sj, let's try to avoid telling peta about your revival experiment if those are the results!
<John_Ventureville> ; (
<John_Ventureville> *I don't want any dewars blown up by radical animal rights terrorists*
<Nuzz> I have no interest in becoming frozen myself because I think it is unnecessary
<sjvan> lazlo: I think if you delve deeper, you find those "sign posts" convenient places to stop thinking. If you remove it, they just proceed to find a new one
<Lazlo> Sputnick was a little bigger tah a football but it ignited teh Space race and ten years later we were on the moon
<John_Ventureville> if someone is under thirty cryonics may be unnecessary for them
<Lazlo> Boomers have the wealth
<John_Ventureville> but then again medical technology may not advance as quickly as hoped
<Nuzz> I'm only 17
<John_Ventureville> time is definitely on your side!
<thefirstimmortal> Accidents Nuzz
<sjvan> Nuzz: get insurance while it is cheap.
<John_Ventureville> car crash, cancer
<John_Ventureville> nuzz, immortal brings up a good point
<Nuzz> I am pretty big-headed about my immortality theory
<John_Ventureville> *your* world may come to an end long before the rest of the world grinds to a halt
<sjvan> don't join if you don't wnat to, but having the insurance makes all the difference if the doctors say the cancer is inoperable, too bad, he was so young
<Nuzz> I have been in a situation where i was almost guaranteed to die but I was fine... i've cheated death so many times I can't even count
<John_Ventureville> Nuzz, you may have run out of lives....
<Nuzz> omega point
<John_Ventureville> and as you age your vulnerability will increase
<FutureQ> Seventeen ear olds already "feel" immortal. It's a stumbling block to getting serious about the realities of the darker sides of life. I know.
<Nuzz> hey if i was rich i would sign
<Lazlo> SJ I am not sayin g that just achieving limited revival is enough but it goes a long ways towards establishinglegitimacy in the common mind and developing R&D capital for ongoing improvements
<Nuzz> but im not
<Nuzz> jobs are terrible here
<sjvan> don't mistake luck for invulnerability...unless you were the only survivory of a passenger train wreck <grin>
<John_Ventureville> at seventeen I would look into the mirror and think "other people will grow old, but I can't imagine I will with such young looking visage"
<sjvan> lazlo: you bet...it would be a great advancment
<FutureQ> Nl need to be rich. Do you have the cash for a Latte' a day? If so get life insurance, NOT TERM, an d get it while you are healthy.
<thefirstimmortal> Everybody, goodnight and Live Long and Well, Rev. William Constitution O'Rights , Universal Live Extension Church, Inc. The First Immortal
<sjvan> get it while you are *young* makes huge difference
<BJKlein> take care Will

#15 thefirstimmortal

  • Life Member The First Immortal
  • 6,912 posts
  • 31

Posted 15 March 2004 - 04:30 AM

None of which prevents vague laws from existing. Just look at the SEC. Vague laws are good from the point of view of enforcing power politics, as they allow selective prosecution and can be used to harass and remove those who oppose the political elite.

The constitution of the US is selectively enforced, and has been selectively enforced for a long time. Appealing to the constitution only works if it suits those partisan folks in positions of power.


I'm not persuaded by your argument for several reasons. For one I have actually overturned a law on the grounds that it was unconstitutionally vague (see, Title 29 A M.R.S.A. SS 2079-A, passed on September 21, 2001 (State of Maine v. William C. O'Rights).

Also, I simply don't think that the SEC laws are relevant or arguably controlling for the following reasons. The degree of vagueness that the Constitution tolerates varies depending on the nature of the statute at issue. For example, there is greater tolerance of enactments with civil rather than criminal penalties because the consequences of imprecision are qualitatively less severe, on the other hand, a statute that interferes with the right of the first Amendment requires a more stringent vagueness test. Or as West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 639 , 1186, 147 A.L.R. 674: Points out, 'The test of legislation which collides with the Fourteenth Amendment, because it also collides with the principles of the First, is much more definite than the test when only the Fourteenth is involved. Much of the vagueness of the due process clause disappears [336 U.S. 77 , 94] when the specific prohibitions of the First become its standard.

That standard is applied even more strictly to statutes that inhibit the free exercise of religion because of the value our society places on religion.

And also Reason, from Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109 (1959) In the words of arguably one of the last centries greatest Supreme Court Justice, Justice Hugo Black said "... it would be unthinkable to convict a man for violating a law he could not understand. This Court has recognized that the stricter standard is as much required....For a statute broad enough to support infringement of speech, writings, thoughts and public assemblies against the unequivocal command of the First Amendment necessarily leaves all persons to guess just what the law really means to cover, and fear of a wrong guess inevitably leads people to forego the very rights the Constitution sought to protect above all others. Vagueness becomes even more intolerable in this area if one accepts, as the Court today does, a balancing test to decide if First Amendment rights shall be protected.

One can hardly read Justice Blacks opinions without seeing honor and courage written down on every page.

#16 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 15 March 2004 - 08:53 PM

<Jonesey> neuro sounds quite grisly to the avg joe
<Jonesey> i consistently get that reaction when i describe it.


It's all in the description. Describing neuropreservation as freezing someone's head is like describing brachytherapy for prostate cancer as shoving a bunch of radioactive knitting needles up someone's *ss. Gee, maybe some Sports Illustrated reporter should go and write a story about *that* medical scandal.

Neupreservation is mind preservation. More specifically, it is brain preservation instead of body preservation. That is how you describe it. If someone can't buy into that, you drop the discussion. If brain preservation sounds plausibly useful to someone, and they want more details, you can then explain that as a practical procedural matter, the least injurious way to preserve a brain is to leave it in its container. How quickly you move on to these procedural issues depends on your perception of the person's reason/emotion quotient. There does tend to be a gender difference here.

See

http://www.alcor.org...rvationfaq.html

---BrianW

#17 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 16 March 2004 - 03:06 AM

Update... the vote passed.. now it's on to the Senate ~ BJK

http://www.alcor.org...egislation.html

March 15, 2004: House engrossed version [final house version] of HB 2637 posted on state website reveals that an error was made in the Stump floor amendment. The original Health Committee amendment contained these two lines:

Strike lines 13 through 43
Page 2 Strike lines 1 through 36

These two lines were missing from the substitute floor amendment. Mr. Stump's office has confirmed that this was unintentional and stated that the bill will be fixed in the Senate. There is no procedure for fixing it before Third Read and final House vote, which took place today. The vote was 43 Aye, 14 Nay, 3 not voting. A 5-minute MP3 recording of the vote and remarks by Representative Lopez can be found here (to download the 1 megabyte file, right click on the file name and choose Save Target As).

#18 treonsverdery

  • Guest
  • 1,312 posts
  • 161
  • Location:where I am at

Posted 20 March 2004 - 02:15 AM

What is the way to tell the senate I support cryopreservation

Treon Verdery

#19 thefirstimmortal

  • Life Member The First Immortal
  • 6,912 posts
  • 31

Posted 20 March 2004 - 02:57 AM

Who do we know who lives in Arizona, close to the legislative House??????

#20 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 20 March 2004 - 03:59 AM

Treonsverdery, ImmInst will send an email update when action is requested. ImmInst members are automatically signed up for the email, but guests can subscribe to the "Weekly Email" submit box (bottom of each page).

Will, I'm not sure, but I suspect Alcor will have represenatives there and i'll keep us posted.

#21 thefirstimmortal

  • Life Member The First Immortal
  • 6,912 posts
  • 31

Posted 21 March 2004 - 03:04 AM

Will, I'm not sure, but I suspect Alcor will have represenatives there and i'll keep us posted.


That's not why I was asking Bruce, I wanted help in getting the complete record on the bill. It would help if we knew someone who lived near the clerks office. The debates and meetings are part of the record, and anyone can get them.

#22 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 21 March 2004 - 09:03 PM

Here is an interesting article asking for calm in the issue of how we treat voluntary donation of cadavers. I am just putting the link but we may want to copy it somewhere because it outlines well the growing sides of the protagonists and their relative overlapping and conflicting concerns.

It is emanating form the recent scandals and it is advocating a bit of a reality check (that I too think is in order) reminding the reader that for the most part far more good than harm has come from the process of the scientific treatment of bodies. However it is also helpful to be aware of public concerns so as to have an adequate response to them. I think it would be better to defuse this crisis than presume it should be fought.

Most donated bodies put to good use, experts say
Sun Mar 21, 9:40 AM ET Chicago Tribune
By Vincent J. Schodolski Tribune national correspondent




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users