From: hidden (hidden@mosquitonet.com)
Date: Tue Dec 01 1998 - 23:47:30 MST
Hal Finney wrote:
> Keith M. Elis, <hagbard@ix.netcom.com>, writes:
> > 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*.
>
> Even if you believed that nanotech was inevitable, it would not guarantee
> that the cryonics organization would be successful in keeping you frozen
> until revival was possible. To use a very topical example, if Y2K causes
> a major economic collapse, liquid nitrogen could stop being available
> and all cryonics patients would be destroyed. You have much less control
> over your life while frozen than you do while alive, so in most cases
> even "true cryonicists" would probably not elect premature freezing.
>
> There was a court case in the 1980s in which Thomas Donaldson, who
> was suffering from a brain tumor, sued to establish his right to have
> himself frozen before death. The concern was that if he waited until
> the tumor killed him, his brain would be destroyed and there would be
> nothing of value to freeze. Donaldson lost his case, and there is no
> legal right to have yourself frozen before death in the United States,
> as far as I know. Fortunately Donaldson's health has remained good,
> and the tumor is apparently under control for now.
>
It was Donaldson that was on Phil Donnahue Right?
I have wondered what had happened in his case. I always thought I would
committed suicide somehow. Because I know my insurance would still pay off...
if I have had it for over two years. But would Alcor be able to freezes a
suicide victim?... (suicide corps?) i.e. autopsy etc...
Any thoughts...?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:53 MST