From: T0Morrow@aol.com
Date: Wed Jul 10 2002 - 14:33:10 MDT
I'm willing to wager that Max did a wonderful job in his televised debate
with Moreno, but must admit that some uncertainty remains because *I only
read the transcript*. My point: efficacy in that sort of medium turns
largely on presentation. Knowing Max and trusting in his professionalism, I
have little doubt that he came off as well-informed, calm, and personally
likeable. I'll bet, too, he roused an appealing sense of moral indignation
at the notion that we should let people die just to get them out of the way.
Sadly or not, those aspects of his presentation probably had a far greater
impact on most of his audience than the substance of his comments.
As other commentators on this list noted, even so far as substance matters in
such debates, it does so mostly via soundbites. Allow me, then, to add to
others' suggestions about how to package the cryonics memeset. I suggest, in
line with Max's comments, that it might help to playfully reverse the burden
of proof; to wit: "I think we need to ask why anyone should be permitted to
condemn a loved one to certain death by refusing to permit cryonic
suspension. We rightly question refusals to apply CPR to a suffering
patient. We should likewise wonder about refusals to apply potentially
lifesaving techniques like suspension."
That the NY Times gave Alcor such a fair accounting bears noting--and
celebration. Note, in particular, the last and inspiring word the story gave
to Dr. Lemler, President and CEO of Alcor:
"[Dr. Lemler] expressed hope that one day Alcor's services would no longer be
needed.
"'When that happens,' he said, 'it will be a great day for mankind.'"
We live in exciting times, friends, and have the pleasure of knowing that
more and more people have started to learn about them.
T.0. Morrow
http://members.aol.com/t0morrow/T0Mpage.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:18 MST