CryoNet #22708 - #22711

CryoNet - Thu 23 Oct 2003

    #22708: Re: population . . still . . [Philip Rhoades]
    #22709: CryoNet #22705 - #22707 [Thomas Donaldson]
    #22710: Re: CryoNet #22705 - #22707 [RANDY WICKER]
    #22711: RE: CryoNet #22586 - #22594 [Kitty Antonik Wakfer]

Administrivia

To subscribe to CryoNet, send email to:
    cryonet-request@xxxxxxxxxxx
with the subject line (not message _body_):
    subscribe
To unsubscribe, use the subject line:
    unsubscribe

To post a message to CryoNet, send your message to:
    cryonet@xxxxxxxxxxx
(Note: A "Subject:" line starting the message body replaces
the "Subject:" line in the header.  This gives a second
opportunity to provide a meaningful subject line.)

Since all CryoNet messages are archived and accessible via WWW,
including search engines, make certain that your postings
reflect how you want the world to see you.

To retrieve past messages, send email to:
    archive@xxxxxxxxxxx
with the message numbers in the subject line.
(Message 0003 describes the advanced syntax.)
You also can retrieve them via the CryoNet web page at URL:
    http://www.cryonet.org/

For administrative or other questions/suggestions, send email
to me at "kqb@xxxxxxxxxxx".
    - Kevin Q. Brown


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #22708
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:37:40 +1000
From: Philip Rhoades <pri@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: population . . still . .
References: <20031022090001.71143.qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

> Message #22707
> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 18:10:11 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Charles Platt <other@xxxxxxxx>
> Subject: population
> 
> I hate to have to repeat myself, but those who are concerned
> about overpopulation in the USA seem to be ignoring the list
> of population densisites which I posted previously, showing
> that many other countries (where people live seemingly happy,
> reasonably prosperous lives) have more than ten times as many
> inhabitants per square mile.
> 
> In this country I simply cannot see that overpopulation is a
> rational issue. Of course, it remains an emotional issue, but
> that's a different matter.


It is not just an emotional issue.

When an increasing population has the effect of:

- substantial loss of biodiversity (on which we all depend for  
maintaining biological systems and therefore human existence)

- decreasing the quality of life for the existing population

it is a significant issue.

These two issues of course don't (directly) address the issue of the  
innate natural beauty of wild areas - do we _really_ want to add every  
last bit of wild land into a sprawlling suburbia?

People banking on future technology to produce more food and other  
technologies to move people to space/Mars to solve population problems  
are dreaming if they think these are short-term solutions.

It is true that some populations are declining but that fact does not  
seem to be preventing the global problems.

R&LL,

Phil.
-- 
Philip Rhoades

Pricom Pty Limited  (ACN 003 252 275  ABN 91 003 252 275)
GPO Box 3411
Sydney NSW      2001
Australia
Mobile:  +61:0411-185-652
Fax:  +61:2:8923-5363
E-mail:  pri@xxxxxxxxxx

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #22709
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 08:48:50 -0400
From: Thomas Donaldson <73647.1215@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: CryoNet #22705 - #22707

Well, everybody, I guess I must log in to the discussion about
population.

The first point is that many European countries aren't producing
enough children to replace their numbers. Though I don't have the
statistics, I wouldn't be at all surprized to learn that some ethnic
groups in the US aren't replacing their numbers, too. In Germany,
for instance, ads and other inducements are provided to produce
more children. As an immortalist, I would comment that if a group
doesn't want to see its numbers decrease slowly over time, it
really has TWO choices rather than one: the first and obvious one
is to make more children. The other one is for people to live
longer so that don't need replacement for longer.

And as human beings have lived longer, they have universally
(though with some delay, admittedly) decreased their rate of 
producing children. This has gone on for literally thousands of
years. Not only that, but ALL the small populations of Pacific
islands almost as a matter of course used a form of birth control.
Yes, that form is one many would object to now, but it worked:
they directly or indirectly killed those babies they decided
that their island could not support. And remember that these
were so-called "primitive people". We've got better forms of 
birth control now, but in any rare case in which push comes to
shove, I would expect that the older ways would be used --- no
doubt with lots of excuses and explanation all round. It's called
"child mistreatment" in some circles.

Perhaps unreasonably I am assuming that all this interest in 
Cryonet about overpopulation comes from an implicit belief that
it would interfere with our own immortality. No, it would not,
because population large enough to put a strain on the Earth,
or even on our present lifestyles, just won't happen. Humans
just don't work that way. Yes, some humans can be quite vicious,
and hardly lovable, but the one thing humans do not do is to 
allow too many people to exist.

And yes, I include the former events 30 years ago in India in
what I say, and the present events in Africa, too. Did I say 
that humans were always friendly and nice? As for India, note
that by now it's self-supporting in food.

            Best wishes and long long life to all,

                  Thomas Donaldson

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #22710
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:51:55 -0400
From: RANDY WICKER <rhwicker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #22705 - #22707
References: <20031022090001.71143.qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

rhwicker@optonline wrote:



 The United States already accepts more immigrants than
EU countries with a substantially larger population. 



The United States has a lower population density and a
greater capacity to feed itself.

 I personally find it quite plausible that we'll see
all countries starting to close their borders as the
world fills up. 



That will probably happen.  The important issue isn t
The amount of immigration but the quality of the

Immigrants.



If the United States acts as a magnet for the world s

finest and brightest, creating a brain-drain toward

itself, immigration will make it stronger and better and

enable it to continue to be the dominant power in the world.



  I can believe that if WW IV turns hot
(WW III being the cold war), then we'll see both some
of the advancements necessary for space travel and with
that a tendency towards re-establishment of national
or clan based states(similar to what we saw in Europe
after the breakup of the Roman empire). 



It would be impossible to establish clan-based states in
most parts of the United States because we have become
a country of mixed racial and ethnic groups.

Randolfe H. Wicker

rhwicker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *********************
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #22711
From: "Kitty Antonik Wakfer" <kitty@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: CryoNet #22586 - #22594
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 00:28:56 -0400

I started responding to several of these posts within a couple days of receipt, 
but
then the mania that started taking over my mind 9/22 during day 4 of Aubrey de 
Grey's
mind expanding/breaking conference at Cambridge, really went into high gear and 
I
left this reality for several days.  I've been "myself" again since early last 
week;
Paul has earned a medal of honor in my book since caring for a bipolar in 
full-blown
mania is a momentous task.  This is the first time I didn't have to be 
hospitalized -
or was simply taken to the ER or doctor's office and presented with a shrug as 
to,
"what can you do with her?".  So the explanation for my much delayed 
response... I
still think the comments are worth saying, even if late.

**Kitty
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message #22586
> From: "John de Rivaz" <John@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: funeral directors
> Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:07:52 +0100
>
> I think it is in error to suggest that funeral directors have any interest
> in destroying the cryonics movement.

<snip>
>
> Considering now the funeral directors as a profession -- their power base
> and their incomes are set for substantial increase if the practise of
> cryonics comes widespread.
>
> Lawyers and regulators also stand to gain more income if they don't stamp
> out cryonics, but milk it for fees.
>
> Individuals *within* any profession are quite different.

<snip>

Well said, John. It is the *individual* that is the essential point here; 
individuals
who can do harm or provide benefit. For those who do not follow John's 
reasoning, I
will add here that the practice of using "generalization linguistics" is a poor
idea - it tends to fuzzy one's mind. If you haven't yet done so, I suggest that
reading Paul's essay, "Essential Collectivism in Language: its Effects on 
Rational
Thinking", <http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/we.html>, which is a supplementary 
piece
to his "Declaration of Individual Independence",
<http://selfsip.org/solutions/DOII_annotated.html>, to be found in the writings 
of
the Self-Sovereign Individual Project <http://selfsip.org>.

**Kitty Antonik Wakfer
MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Rational freedom by self-sovereignty & social contracting


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message #22588
> Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 10:10:30 -0400
> From: Thomas Donaldson <73647.1215@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: CryoNet #22574 - #22578
>
> SOME COMMENTS FOR MARK PLUS:
>
> As I live now in Australia his comments about getting suspension cases
> to Scottsdale or the CI clearly need answering.
>

<snip>

Thanks, Thomas, for a thorough explanation of your plans; I'd wondered several 
times
over the years how you were planning to actually get to the US and Alcor - 
should and
when it becomes necessary.  Most of us have our contingency plans and sharing 
the
details can show others that we have considered all the risks of being where we 
are
and even in the particular state of "sign-up" we choose to remain until the 
condition
of our health deteriorates significantly.  For some of us that means a state in 
which
we no longer can maintain the high level of health we are in currently.


>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message #22591
> Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:32:03 -0700
> Subject: The White Lodge of Cryonics
> From: Peter Merel <peter@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Let's see, where are we up to? Both the main orgs have problems. I
> don't think it's fair to say the problems threaten their ability to
> continue. But it seems like if we lost a few more key players to injury
> or politics we'd reach that point. We place a terrible burden on those
> few of our number who are willing to shoulder it. Running a cryonics
> org isn't fun. It's isn't entrepreneurial. It's obviously a grind.
<snip>

>
> We're butting up against psychological fundamentals here. God and
> Death. Responses to these aren't hard-wired, thank goodness, or else
> even we pervects wouldn't have been able to shake 'em and approach the
> matter rationally ourselves. But plainly for 99.99+% of humanity, the
> scientific explanation of a rational precaution against an avoidable
> fate has no meaning at all.
>
> And that's fine. There's nothing wrong with those "deathists" we rail
> against. They're perfectly normal people. It's just that you can trust
> a perfectly normal person about as far as you can spit. No farther.
> It's we kinky immortalists who have the problem here. It's our problem,
> for us to solve. Once we honestly accept that - that we don't need to
> agree with the normals, but only to find a way to work with them - we
> might be able to do something about it.

You are asking the right questions, IMO, Peter. I just don't think your 
suggestion of
a cryonics version of Masonry is the answer in the long run. However, I will 
agree
that some, perhaps even many, have derived considerable personal growth from 
being
Masons, but I contend that the better way is for individuals mature 
intellectually,
emotionally in a different way. I contend that a stronger more beneficial
metamorphosis of the individual will come from within each using the best tools
accessible to him/her, available at the place for each period in time in life. 
This
process can not be forced if it is to be effective, truly so for the individual 
and
therefore of greatest benefit to those around and in association with that
individual.  Of course, Masonry is voluntary; no man is forced to enter.  But 
it is
also quite a closed organization, which was a judicious practice in years long 
past
when an association of individuals could be destroyed by the "well chosen" word 
to a
government official.

In today's world of the internet, the sources of information are almost 
endless. Yes,
there is junk there just as there are jewels to be valued - not simply to be 
admired
but to be used in the sense of tool. Paul and I like to think of ourselves - 
speaking
"for" MoreLife as much as it is correct to say that entities of ideas can speak 
- as
producers of "jewels" in various areas that others will seek to use like 
industrial
diamonds. While Paul and I have been concentrating the majority of our efforts 
this
year on the Self-Sovereign Individual Project, we have not abandoned the
life-extension portions of MoreLife, which includes cryonics. And even moreso, 
we
think that many of the cryonicists whom we know would benefit greatly by 
improving
their life-extension practices - nutrition, sleep, exercise, supplementation,
appropriate use of drugs/chemicals, relaxation, and fulfillment.


<snip>

The philosophical basis, or one's sense of life for those who have not 
consciously
considered the most essential aspects of life, underlies all the ideas that a 
person
holds, whether he wishes to acknowledge that or not. (This denial would then be 
part
of that person's sense of life - that life has no meaning or value.) It is not
necessary in this period of man's evolution for anyone in a civilized 
environment to
choose or seek religion for the answers. These can be found among the products 
of the
minds of rational humans via books, tapes, CDs, the Internet - all to be chosen 
using
reason.

Nor, Paul and I will contend, is it necessary for humans to be *governed*, 
directed
by others by physical force, to make decisions deemed appropriate/desirable for
others. For detailed reasoning on this subject, I defer to Paul, and those of 
his
writings already online.

<snip>

>
> Joe Smith's story is a veritable how-to manual for grafting your pet
> kink onto christianity. Smith's was polygamy where ours is immortalism.
> Can you think of any reason why the Mormons should have the big white
> marble temple in every town and we should not?

Peter, here you are asking the wrong question. It is not why "the Mormons 
should have
the big white marble temple in every town and we should not", but rather why any
group of individuals should be barred from carrying on mutually agreed to 
activities
by interference in regulation or taxes or any of the numerous ways in which
governments distort the market place, of goods and services.  The proper 
question
follows what I wrote above about having liberty to make one's own decisions - 
and to
be responsible for the consequences, including restitution of damage done. 
(These are
concepts covered in the SelfSIP and you are encouraged to read them and bring 
your
comments/questions to MoreLife Yahoo.)

>
> Awaiting the pillory,

Actually, I found your post the most interesting of this digest, and I praise 
you for
asking some untypical questions .

>
> Peter Merel.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message #22592
> Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 12:14:28 -0700
> From: James Swayze <swayzej@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: On the other hand, re: cryonics vs funeral
> References: <20030927090001.63850.qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> >Message #22581
> >From: "Basie" <coetzeebasie@xxxxxxxxx>
> >References: <20030926090002.92302.qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Subject: Funeral Industry
> >Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 18:10:32 -0400
> >
> >Many people in Cryonics live in a dream world. The funeral industry will
> >crush Cryonics as if it is a fruit fly. I think a small organization like
> >cryonics should avoid confrontation with giants.
> >
> >Basie
> >
> >
> Basie and folks,
>
> On the other hand, that fight may well be inevitable. If it is so then
> there is possibly some value in being in the position of or seen as a
> David versus Goliath. People, especially in this country, the US, love
> the underdog. In the US we have a strong and long tradition of
> distrusting large corporate or government interests that often seem not
> to have the best interests of the little folks at heart. I believe this
> is especially so recently with large corporate excesses such as Enron
> and Worldcom.
>
> While we are yet "the little guy" we may well have some public sympathy
> even though for some cryonics seems a little weird. Americans do still
> tend to feel everyone should be allwed to exercise free choices so long
> as it does not hurt others. So I guess I'm saying if the fight is to be
> fought someday regardless, is there value in having it now or will the
> environment be more favorable later? I only know I don't have that answer.
>
> However, I think the public is wise enough to choose against the funeral
> industry grabbing more powers if it were put to the public in the right
> frame such as:

<snip>

>
> James
>

What you and many others do not consider about the funeral industry is that it 
could
become a sort of "travel agency industry" for those leaving "this life" with the
current methods being burial or cremation (into the typical and sometimes 
suggested
places) or cryopreservation or suspended animation. Funeral homes even if they 
do not
actually provide the latter services but would be the waystation used by the 
clients
(including those who are anatomically donating their bodies for future 
reanimation).

This is not my original idea, but one Paul had many years ago and retold it to 
me
with the recent hub-bub about funeral industry phobia. As I recall him telling 
me, it
seems that he was approached years ago in southern California - probably back 
in the
early days of CryoCare or maybe even prior to that - to arrange for teaching a 
course
to student morticians about cryopreservation. But the most technically 
appropriate
person then wouldn't cooperate - saw no value - and the whole idea fell 
through....
sounds familiar doesn't it?

>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message #22593
> Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 18:18:51 -0700
> Subject: I have never seen a post like this before (was Potvin's Problem...)
> References:  <20030927090001.63850.qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> From: tim@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Tim Freeman)
>

 <snip>


>
> Assuming Rick really wrote it, my opinion of him just went up a few
> notches.

I agree and think the same, since my opinion had dropped in recent weeks when I 
read
of the assumptions being made w/o verification.

Hope Rick is succeeding at his own introspection - determining his purpose and
finding what is necessary to get there.  Everybody ought to seriously introspect
periodically with a rational philosophical basis.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

End of CryoNet Digest
*********************