From: Max More (max@maxmore.com)
Date: Wed Jul 10 2002 - 18:10:14 MDT
At 05:28 PM 7/10/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>From: T0Morrow@aol.com
>
>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."
>
>Excellent suggestion. I like this reasoning better than any of the
>one-liners. Putting the duty of proving the disputed assertion back onto
>the Moreno-type both catches him/her off guard and gives the audience
>something to think about after the program.
>
>Natasha
Well, I did do something of the sort, though using analogy rather than
reversal:
"MORE: I'm shocked by this idea that we should just dispose of people as
soon as they keel over. Would you not give people resuscitation as their
hearts stop temporarily? Or would you not give them chemotherapy to try to
get over cancer?
These people are not disposable. These are human beings who have a chance
of coming back."
Moreno didn't respond to that. He started rambling on about what is
"appropriate".
Cheers,
Max
_______________________________________________________
Max More, Ph.D.
max@maxmore.com or more@extropy.org
http://www.maxmore.com
Strategic Philosopher
President, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org <more@extropy.org>
_______________________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:19 MST