NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/sci/cryonics/444

Internet Message Format | 1992-07-22 | 7.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!agate!linus!philabs!ttidca!bsmart!bsmart
From: [e-mail] (Bob Smart)
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
Subject: Re: Why will they want you?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jul 92 05:28:13 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bob Smart)
Organization: Citicorp+TTI
Lines: 151

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Joyous
Dave baby) writes:
> Cryonics should never be used as means of verifying history, because
> everyone is biased.
>
> For e.g., if you freeze someone today, and that person comes back to
> life 1000 years later... when a lot of the historical records need to
> be verified, and people ask him,
>
> a) which country was the leader of the world in the 90's...
> if that person is an American, he/she will say USA,
> if that person is a Japanese, he/she will say Japan.
>
> b) which religion was the dominate religion...
> if that person is from Iran, he'll say Islam, since it's the fastest
>   growing religion, and is currently second biggest religion.
> if that person is an European, he'll probably say Catholism.
> if that person is an American, he'll probably say Baptist.

But somehow, you seem to be aware of the different perspectives and
capable of describing the different points of view.  Why assume that a
revived cryonaut would be less capable of honest, thorough answers to
such questions than you are?

For that matter, why assume that future historians will be unaware of
the effects of bias?

And where did this figure of "1000 years" come from?

> Also, a person who has been frozen for so many years will probably die
> *very quickly* when they come back to life because of:
> 1) he doesn't know *anyone*...
> 2) he might not even speak the language...

I don't see how this supports the claim that he "will probably die very
quickly." So far as I know, there's no reason to think that lack of
friends OR needing to learn a new language are particularly fatal;
people move to new cities, even new countries, all the time, and somehow
escape dying of these things.

> 3) there will be new diseases which he's incapable of resisting...

For which he can be immunized during the revival process.  Contact
between Europeans and Native Americans caused HUGE plagues and die-offs
among the NAs, in large part because of the reason you cite.  But any
civilization capable of reviving suspended patients will CERTAINLY know
about and be able to produce vaccines and treat or prevent the common
illnesses of the day.

> 4) *huge* cultural shock to the new world...
> 5) he has to learn everything again...

So what?  All of this is true for immigrants today, especially the ones
who move from "third-world" settings to industrialized nations.  Also,
as for points 1 and 2 above, these are not normally fatal, particularly
in people who have chosen to emigrate.  Some people actually RELISH the
thought of new experiences and new ways of life; that's what makes a
travel and tourism industry possible.

In America, we've had wave after wave of immigrants from all over the
world come to our shores, and many of them have come knowing that they
can never return to their homeland (they're wanted criminals there, the
old country has been destroyed by war, etc.) yet somehow, despite the
inability to go back, they make a life for themselves here.

Homesickness need not be life-threatening.  For people who really don't
think they could bear to live without familiar surroundings...there's
always the option of not getting suspended.  That hardly argues for
denying suspension to people with more adventurous outlooks on life and
more flexible dispositions.

> 6) he'll probably be stupid compared to the future humans, and that would
>    cause a lot of problems for his psychological well-being... since he
>    might not be able to find a friend (do you think you can be a *close*
>    friend to a mentally retarded?  honestly)

Quite a few non-retarded folks manage to be VERY good friends to
retarded people, but if that's beyond your compassion then you should
probably stay away from the retarded.  The fact that some non-retarded
people CAN'T be friends to retarded people is hardly a reason for
killing or aborting the retarded, so even if your premise is true, it's
also no reason for burying people who would rather be suspended.  Have
you ever actually ASKED a retarded person whether he'd rather be alive or dead?

Furthermore, why would you assume that the people of the future would be
noticeably smarter than people of our own time?  Sure, they'd be likely
to know more facts and have neater technology, but that doesn't mean
they're SMARTER, it just means they have the benefit of a future
perspective on history and a futuristic education.  It's misleading to
refer to that as "smarter," unless you also think that citizens of
today's industrialized nations are "smarter" than the citizens of
"third-world" nations...a premise that a great many people, both within
the Third World community and outside it, would reject!

If suspended patients start getting revived earlier than several tens of
thousands of years from now, there simply won't have been enough time
for evolutionary processes to have made noticeable changes in humanity.
If humanity has learned to amplify itself, it's at least plausible to
expect that the same amplification can be done to a recovering cryonaut
during the revival process.

> 7) people of the future might decide to chop him up for experiment!  :-)

If they do, they do.  The corpsicle/experiment is hardly worse off in
this case than if he'd elected to lie rotting in a grave for several centuries.

> 8) and who knows what political system or religion will they be using in
>    the future???

If that's a major issue for you, and you just can't face life without
lots of other people around you practicing your favorite religion, then
you can either not get frozen, or prepare yourself to act as a
missionary to the future.  But similar uncertainties face EVERY
explorer, and obviously some people can survive whatever stresses such
things induce, and even thrive on them.

> For his own sake, he should live his life at the time that he's been
> given and growing up with (by his parents, by God, whatever), rather than
> trying to take a big step into the future, 'cause there is a big price to
> pay in the future!!!

So don't pay it.  It isn't up to you to decide this on my behalf, any
more than it's my place to insist that you should have yourself frozen.
But thank you for your concern, however misplaced I may think it is in
this case.

> Think about it!  Think of the new diseases!  Think
> of the isolation, the loneliness!  Think of the emotional shock!

This just irritates me no end.  Why would you assume that we HAVEN'T
thought of these issues?  I honestly don't mean this as a flame, but
please remember that while this may all be brand-new to you, that
doesn't mean it's brand-new to everyone else.  Whatever occurred to you
within five minutes of first hearing about cryonics, probably also
occurred to everyone else within the same five minutes.  A FAQ list is
being constructed; in the meantime, please bear with us!

That's not to say your questions are unimportant, just because they're
obvious!  In fact, their being so obvious is part of what MAKES them
important.  But I, personally, would get less annoyed if you asked,
"what about loneliness and emotional shock," rather than instructing all
and sundry to "think about it!" as if nobody ever had.

---------

A fanatic is someone who does what he knows that God would do if God knew the
facts of the case.

Some mailers apparently munge my address; you might have to use
[e-mail] -- or if that fails, fall back to
[e-mail].  Ain't UNIX grand?