From: Gina Miller (echoz@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Mar 16 1999 - 18:48:18 MST
I've made packs with others, regarding our return after cryonic
freezing. Although I am young enough at this stage in technology that I
may not have to even bother concerning myself with death. (in my
nano-opinion) However, if it comes to that, I will take a higher
percentage of a chance with cryo, than having none at all.
Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
>J. R. Molloy wrote:
>> Furthermore, cryonics seems entropic in that it denies
>> that life may create even more talented and gifted people. Scientists
>> capable of reviving dead genius could create even greater genius, and
>> consequently would have no reason to perform resurrections.
>> After all, it makes no sense to rebuild a 1950 machine, when you can
create
>> a better and more powerful new one to replace and surpass the old one
in
>> 2050. Cryonics can only hope to revive talented and gifted people,
but
>> transhuman extropy seeks to surpass, exceed, augment, and transcend
what has
>> gone before, no matter how talented and gifted.
>
>Dear J.R. Molloy: I'm more talented and gifted than you are. Please
>shoot yourself.
>
>A sufficiently altruistic Extropian might decide that investing $100K
in
>Cycorp and/or Zyvex takes precedence over cryonic preservation.
>Consoling ourselves by saying cryonics isn't important is silly. It's
>not all-important. It might be unnecessary or undesirable. There
still
>exists a significant probability that it is important, necessary and
desirable.
>
>Information must never be destroyed. It's a simple precaution.
>--
> sentience@pobox.com Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
> http://pobox.com/~sentience/AI_design.temp.html
> http://pobox.com/~sentience/singul_arity.html
>Disclaimer: Unless otherwise specified, I'm not telling you
>everything I think I know.
>
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:19 MST