From: Keith M. Elis (hagbard@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Wed Dec 02 1998 - 00:19:17 MST
John Clark wrote:
>Perhaps we will have nanotechnology by then [2030-40], but I wouldn't bet my
> life on it.
Hmm. Some have said that nanotech is inevitable, Feynman for one. (Or at
least Feynman said something along those lines in /There's Plenty of
Room.../.) If so, I wonder if a true cryonicist, if that is the term,
believing that nanotech is inevitable, would consider the option of
having himself frozen *while still alive*.
Okay, so it might be considered 'assisted suicide' and thus illegal by
any one of the number of ridiculous laws we have hanging around at this
time, and Alcor would probably not agree to participate in such a
bad-press-bringing event, but does it not seem reasonable? In fact, it
would probably be a good idea to freeze yourself as young as you
possibly can. This allows you to avoid the cellular deterioration of
aging and at the same time gamble on the youthfulness of your brain to
re-self-organize for scanning, 'bouncing back' with possibly better
results. That's little more than mere speculation. What is even littler
more than mere speculation is that a younger person would probably have
an easier time adjusting to the enormous changes that have occurred in
the world he awakens to. Enormous changes if only in terms of the
amazing new ability to resurrect frozen corpses.
One down side is that you're dead. Another down side is that you might
not be able to come back. Another downside is that you might have been
the one to discover the brand-new resuscitation technique that would
have guaranteed that everyone could come back. If only you had stuck
around, that is.
Has anyone ever made a *real* argument for this position before? Has
anyone ever *done* this before (I mean that you've heard of, duh:)? If
not, any takers?
Keith
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:53 MST