One of the lessons that we have learned in cryonics is that it is not helpful to make the idea more controversial than necessary. Cryonics (or chemical brain preservation) is already controversial enough on its own and we do not see the benefit of associating it with ideas such as immortalism, transhumanism, mind uploading, or any political ideologies. This is not just a strategic or public relations consideration but reflects our view of offering cryonics as a form of experimental critical care medicine.
I’ve come around to seeing it that way myself. Age may not give you wisdom, but it does give you some perspective if you pay attention.
Of course that doesn’t change the fact that early cryonics advocacy came from people who wrote books with words like “immortality” and “superman” in their titles; or who advocated Ayn Rand’s ideology, libertarianism and Galambosianism; or who sold bogus “life extension” products; or who showed up on the scene later and connected cryonics with transhumanism, mind uploading and technological singularities, as we can see in James D. Miller’s preposterous book. Given the dubious claims and company associated with cryonics’ early adopters (a population thinning out for the usual organic reasons), I can see why the idea has struggled to gain mainstream scientific and medical respectability over the past 50 years.
I’d like to see this “adolescent” phase of the cryonics movement end and an “adult” version, based on scientific empiricism, emerge to replace it. As Aschwin says, it doesn’t help cryonics’ credibility to tie its fate to unarrivable speculative technologies, futurist scenarios or fringe world views. The adult version could have started in the 1980′s, but then cryonicists developed an adolescent crush on Eric Drexler’s capital-N Nanotechnology fantasy, which has led the cryonics movement astray over the last generation.
Of course I have no illusions about my current influence in the cryonics movement (I have none that I know of). But then if I live long enough and if I can stay in good cognitive shape, I might start to acquire some authority just through attrition of other cryonicists committed to the failure path who oppose badly needed changes. (Hint, hint!) They might want to treat my point of view with more consideration, in other words.
Nevertheless, cryonics is a form of never give up. If this isn’t immortalism… However, for strategic reasons, I understand why one might want to stick with the “second shot at life” rationale.
Also, cryonics have to speculate on future technologies: the current ones cannot revive anyone yet. Here I feel a catch22: either you mention specific possibilities, and the dismissal of any one of them could lead to the rejection of cryonics; or you stay vague, and risk being accused of wishful thinking. We may overcome the problem with a well explained disjunctive scenario, though. I hope.
Aschwin writes:
I’ve come around to seeing it that way myself. Age may not give you wisdom, but it does give you some perspective if you pay attention.
Of course that doesn’t change the fact that early cryonics advocacy came from people who wrote books with words like “immortality” and “superman” in their titles; or who advocated Ayn Rand’s ideology, libertarianism and Galambosianism; or who sold bogus “life extension” products; or who showed up on the scene later and connected cryonics with transhumanism, mind uploading and technological singularities, as we can see in James D. Miller’s preposterous book. Given the dubious claims and company associated with cryonics’ early adopters (a population thinning out for the usual organic reasons), I can see why the idea has struggled to gain mainstream scientific and medical respectability over the past 50 years.
I’d like to see this “adolescent” phase of the cryonics movement end and an “adult” version, based on scientific empiricism, emerge to replace it. As Aschwin says, it doesn’t help cryonics’ credibility to tie its fate to unarrivable speculative technologies, futurist scenarios or fringe world views. The adult version could have started in the 1980′s, but then cryonicists developed an adolescent crush on Eric Drexler’s capital-N Nanotechnology fantasy, which has led the cryonics movement astray over the last generation.
Of course I have no illusions about my current influence in the cryonics movement (I have none that I know of). But then if I live long enough and if I can stay in good cognitive shape, I might start to acquire some authority just through attrition of other cryonicists committed to the failure path who oppose badly needed changes. (Hint, hint!) They might want to treat my point of view with more consideration, in other words.
Nevertheless, cryonics is a form of never give up. If this isn’t immortalism… However, for strategic reasons, I understand why one might want to stick with the “second shot at life” rationale.
Also, cryonics have to speculate on future technologies: the current ones cannot revive anyone yet. Here I feel a catch22: either you mention specific possibilities, and the dismissal of any one of them could lead to the rejection of cryonics; or you stay vague, and risk being accused of wishful thinking. We may overcome the problem with a well explained disjunctive scenario, though. I hope.