ciphergoth: (Default)
Paul Crowley ([personal profile] ciphergoth) wrote2010-01-21 11:14 pm
Entry tags:

Anti-cryonics links

I may not reply to everything in that 159-comment thread but thanks to everyone who participated. I hope people don't mind if I carry on asking for your help in thinking about this. I might post articles on specific areas people raised, but first I thought to ask this: my Google-fu may be failing me. I'd appreciate any links anyone can find to good articles arguing against signing up for cryonics, or pointing out flaws in arguments made for cryosuspension. I don't mean South Park, thanks :-) I'm looking for something that really intends to be persuasive.

thanks again!

Update: here's some I've found If you find any of these articles at all convincing, let me know and I'll point out the problems with them. Update: while I am definitely interested in continuing to read your arguments, I'm really really keen to know about anyone anywhere on the Internet who seems well-informed on the subject and writes arguing against it. Such people seem to be strikingly few and far between, especially on the specific question of the plausibility of recovery. There's a hypothesis here on why that might be, but I'm not sure it's enough to wholly account for it.

[identity profile] damerell.livejournal.com 2010-01-22 05:02 am (UTC)(link)
The point is that those premises are fatuous. Either a very specific god exists or no god at all? Says who?

I don't think, conversely, it's at all unreasonable to speculate about what future societies with a high level of medical technology would be like. In particular, as I mentioned in t'other post, it's a somewhat contrived (not impossible, but unlikely) scenario where death isn't still an option if you don't like it.