From: S.J. Van Sickle (sjvan@csd.uwm.edu)
Date: Mon Jun 19 2000 - 09:29:32 MDT
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Robert Bradbury wrote:
> IMO, you can throw away the rest of the arguments and simply stick with #5.
> Even a 0.000001 % chance of survival is better than the 10^-??? chance
> allowed by dependence on "faith" or "belief". The cost is minimal relative
> to the potential benefit.
Especially when you consider the payoff part of the expected value. I
probably wouldn't bother if all it bought me was the remainder of my
"natural" lifespan. A technology able to recover me, though, will almost
certainly have defeated aging, giving me at *least* several hundred years.
I find this notion to be vital, and in some ways harder to get across to
people than the freezing part. They can grudginly accept it for someone
my age, but are bewildered by the 99 year old patient Alcor had a couple
years ago.
steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:29:18 MST