I’d like to know what “nefarious group” you think I belong to. Sexually under-experienced middle age men? Yeah, I cop to that. I’ve even written about it.
As for,
“There is no chance for revival—NO CHANCE—Dead is Dead is DEAD—how do you bring a cadaver back to life?”
I hope you recognize the circularity of your statement. Cryonicists challenge the assumption held even by “rational” people that something spooky happens at death which makes it a “theological event” instead of a set of problems in trauma medicine which lack current treatments. We’d like to give ourselves and our companions the benefit of second medical opinions in the future.
‘Bwowk is obviously a “fXXkpipe” a scientist who is only intererested in protecting his pet theories and making money from delusional idiots who are in love with there own egos.’
Those miners trapped in Chile managed to survive because their rescuers thought the exact opposite of their value, instead of complaining about the miners’ “egos” for expecting an expensive and difficult rescue effort. Cryonicists expect the same consideration.
In fact, a lot of the anti-cryonics claims sound ridiculous if you applied them to the miners’ situation. Fortunately nobody I know of dismissed the effort to rescue the miners as pseudoscience, denial, quackery, snake oil, etc.
For some reason the idea doesn’t communicate that cryonics exists potentially for everyone’s benefit. Instead people get caught up on the fact that we challenge the woo-woo and terror management fantasies they internalized as children about death. I acknowledge that the current state of cryonics has some fundamental problems, and cryonics as a whole probably needs rebooting, including the repudiation of Eric Drexler’s fantasy-tech as the means of revival. But the problems don’t change the fact that we desperately need something like cryonics for moral and ethical reasons.
RichieKGB:
I’d like to know what “nefarious group” you think I belong to. Sexually under-experienced middle age men? Yeah, I cop to that. I’ve even written about it.
As for,
“There is no chance for revival—NO CHANCE—Dead is Dead is DEAD—how do you bring a cadaver back to life?”
I hope you recognize the circularity of your statement. Cryonicists challenge the assumption held even by “rational” people that something spooky happens at death which makes it a “theological event” instead of a set of problems in trauma medicine which lack current treatments. We’d like to give ourselves and our companions the benefit of second medical opinions in the future.
‘Bwowk is obviously a “fXXkpipe” a scientist who is only intererested in protecting his pet theories and making money from delusional idiots who are in love with there own egos.’
Those miners trapped in Chile managed to survive because their rescuers thought the exact opposite of their value, instead of complaining about the miners’ “egos” for expecting an expensive and difficult rescue effort. Cryonicists expect the same consideration.
In fact, a lot of the anti-cryonics claims sound ridiculous if you applied them to the miners’ situation. Fortunately nobody I know of dismissed the effort to rescue the miners as pseudoscience, denial, quackery, snake oil, etc.
For some reason the idea doesn’t communicate that cryonics exists potentially for everyone’s benefit. Instead people get caught up on the fact that we challenge the woo-woo and terror management fantasies they internalized as children about death. I acknowledge that the current state of cryonics has some fundamental problems, and cryonics as a whole probably needs rebooting, including the repudiation of Eric Drexler’s fantasy-tech as the means of revival. But the problems don’t change the fact that we desperately need something like cryonics for moral and ethical reasons.
Mark Plus