[ExI] Robert Ettinger's obituary in NYT
pharos at gmail.com
Tue Aug 2 15:53:20 UTC 2011
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:32 PM, David Lubkin wrote:
> It seems to be more accurate than the Washington Post obit
> but the tone is insulting.
> Have any of the obits gone into why cryonics might be prudent?
> Cryonics as an ambulance through time, the prospects of
> molecular nanotechnology, and the assessment that a slim
> chance of revival is better than none, could be presented in
> lay terms in a sentence apiece.
That's not the way public 'news' type organisations work.
If they did say why cryonics might be prudent, then for the sake of
so-called 'balanced' reporting, they would also have to give equal
column inches (or time) to explaining why cryonics is NOT a good idea.
They even do that with things like evolution or exploring space or
regulating giant banks.
More information about the extropy-chat