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

mmm@cup.portal.com writes:
>When I first heard about cryonics, it seemed to me an innocuous new
activity
>or school of thought.  But as I've heard more from the cryonics people, it
>seems more and more like a religion -- a religion with potentially
>dangerous overtones.  (For the benefit of critics, I'm numbering my
points.)

I'm afraid you've rather missed the point.  Either cryonics works, or it
does not work.  (For convenience, I'm lumping "partially works" into the
"does not work" category).  To paraphrase this slightly, either the
universe in which we find ourselves is such that the repair of frozen
tissue is feasible or, alternatively, the repair of frozen tissue is (for
some reason) not feasible.

Now, if cryonics does not work, then a more careful technical investigation
of the problems involved should eventually let us decide, with some
reasonable degree of confidence, that it does not work.  Once we can
establish this conclusion with reasonable confidence, then we need not
waste further effort on it.

If, on the other hand, cryonics does work, then a more careful technical
investigation of the problems involved should eventually let us decide,
with some reasonable degree of confidence, that it does indeed work.  Once
we can establish this conclusion with reasonable confidence, then further
action would seem appropriate.

Right now, there are good arguments that support the idea that cryonics
works.  The technical debate is now about the magnitude of the probability
that it works.  (using the term "probability" about a proposition that is
either true or false is philosophically dubious, but I think the reader
will take my meaning.  One could have had a debate in 1920 about whether or
not flight to the moon was technically feasible, but the proposition was in
fact true even then.  No amount of debate or discussion can alter the truth
or falsity of such a proposition).

Given the available technical evidence, it is unreasonable to argue that
cryonics has zero probability of working.  Indeed, I would say anyone who
defends such a position is either incompetent, grossly ignorant of the
facts, or suffering from severe emotional bias.

A significant number of technically competent people who have studied the
proposition have concluded that cryonics has a reasonable to excellent
chance of working.  Several of them have made depositions to that affect in
court cases.

Whether or not cryonics in fact works, there are people who have a pressing
need to make a decision about whether to try it.  (Because the arrangements
are time consuming, it is advisable to make them well in advance of need).
The decision must, necessarily, be based on the presently available
evidence.   There are one of four possibilities:  (a) cryonics works, and
they pursue it.  Collect the brass ring.  (b) cryonics works, and they do
not pursue it.  Oh, well.  (c) cryonics does not work, and they pursue it.
Lose the payments on a $35,000 to $100,000 life insurance policy.  (d)
cryonics does not work, and they do not pursue it.  No gain, no loss.

There have been several vigorous efforts by various officials in California
to prevent cryonic suspensions and to make cryonics illegal.  These actions
have not been based on a thoughtful analysis of the technical feasibility
of the endeavor.  As just one example, Longevity magazine said about David
Mitchell, chief of the Office of the State Registrar, that "He adds he has
no opinion about whether cryonics will ever work,..."  Mitchell has said
that cryonics is illegal.  A court case is expected soon.

If in fact cryonics works, blocking a cryonic suspension will in fact kill
a person.  Killing people is generally viewed as a bad idea, and by and
large I try to discourage the practice.

An individual who has elected to be cryonically suspended (in the event
that other treatments have failed) faces the very real possibility that his
desires will be blocked by officials with little knowledge or interest in
the technical merits of the subject.  If in fact cryonics works, then such
a person faces the very real risk of unnecessary death.

Whether or not cryonics is or is not a religion is beside the point.  The
personal beliefs about what the future might hold held by individuals who
also happen to have signed up for cryonic suspension is beside the point.
Whether the course of action for dealing with global warming suggested by
an individual who also happens to advocate cryonics is wise or not is
beside the point.

The question is, will it work?

I think both critics and advocates would be well served by discussions of
the technical merits of cryonics.  I am repelled by those who concede that
it might work, but who argue that those who wish to pursue it have no right
to do so.

     Ralph C. Merkle