From: Michael S. Lorrey (mike@lorrey.com)
Date: Sat Apr 10 1999 - 14:19:25 MDT
Scott Badger wrote:
>
> Huh? OK, but that's a bit of a stretch in my mind. There is a definite
> connection between cryonic (not cryogenic) suspension and the right to die,
> though. If I were to get Alzheimers or some other degenerative brain
> disorder, I would most certainly like to have the right to take a cruise on
> the S.S. Euthanasia with Cap'n Otter and his merry crew. As for a
> "theological basis" for cryonics . . . who needs it? We cryonicists are
> more interested in divorcing the movement from any theological issues,
> prefering to take the position that there is no substantive conflict between
> religion and cryonics.
There you are again talking 'within' the movement. Most people in the
movement are rather rational people who are free of religion memes,
quite unlike most of the population. The vast majority of opposition in
society to cryonics is based on the prejudices of self appointed 'moral
majority' types who are not concerned with their flock but with their
power and authority as a moral archetype. Coming up with a theoligical
rationalization for cryonics is not for our benefit, but to make cryonic
memes palatable and rational to the average religious moralist. Despite
what most people say, the concepts of right and wrong in society are
grounded on the anchor of the most moral of its members.
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:31 MST