[ExI] Cryo-problems/was Re: Silly

[Dan]

--- On Fri, 5/8/09, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> At 06:08 AM 5/5/2009, Dan wrote:
> 
>> Will cryonics even work?  And even if it does,
>> it
>> depends on everything going right until you get
>> revived.  If, say, the laws are changed to
>> completely
>> confiscated all your funds and wealth after legal
>> death --
>> so that other, "wiser" people (i.e., those in the
>> political
>> or corporate elites) decide where your wealth goes --
>> then you might be left to rot.
> 
> Yes, all these terrible things could happen.
> But if you were faced with imminent death,
> just what choice is there?
> 
> Does your logical argument boil down to "well,
> something could go wrong"?

I was only responding to Keith's seeming attitude of "Death's already been solved, there's nothing to worry about, so let's discuss other things."  My point is not that cryonics is bunk or that it's better to be dead and not frozen, but merely that the problem hasn't been solved and I think anyone who pretends otherwise is making a big mistake.
 
>> I wonder if you've read the posts on CryoNet by this
>> dude:
>>
>> http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/findmsgs.cgi?author=daniel%20ust
> 
> That's a lot of posts, from a long time ago.

IIRC, CryoNet shut down soon after.

> What's your current take now? That chance are
> that cryonics is going to be made illegal
> sometime soon, and that those frozen must
> die?

I don't know how, based on my recent statements or on my posts on Cryonet, you came up with that question.  My current remains that, at best, cryonics is a gamble period -- and a big one at that.  I hope none of us have to take that gamble in the sense that we all live to a better solution, but I don't think it's blatantly irrational to take that bet.  (Of course, in the end, it depends on one's personal values.  After all, cryonics is NOT cost-less.)

Regards,

Dan