Note that one could just as easily come up with a two page article about a “Futuristic Life Meme” which represents the cryonics supporters’ sense of being threatened by death.
The analysis of a new, emerging science deserves critique. From what I can tell, this particular critique is essentially ad-hominem, in that it attempts to attack a belief based on the characteristics of the individuals, rather than their arguments.
It trivializes the fact that there are reasons for being reluctant to invest in cryonics. Lastly, this writing conflates cryonics skepticism with unwillingness to invest.
We’ve argued a lot about the advisability of cryonics. This article takes that advisibility as a given and attempts to further discussion among those who agree. If you don’t agree, that’s fine, but It’s OK for an article to move on sometimes.
Note that one could just as easily come up with a two page article about a “Futuristic Life Meme” which represents the cryonics supporters’ sense of being threatened by death.
Is there anything particularly remarkable about being threatened by death? I would find that strange, given that threatening someone with death has historically been such a popular form of intimidation.
The analysis of a new, emerging science deserves critique. From what I can tell, this particular critique is essentially ad-hominem, in that it attempts to attack a belief based on the characteristics of the individuals, rather than their arguments.
Cryonics has been “emerging” for over 40 years. People still choose not to think about it, despite lots of exposure to the concept. There has to be a reason. If you think there are rational reasons, I’m interested in hearing what they are.
It trivializes the fact that there are reasons for being reluctant to invest in cryonics. Lastly, this writing conflates cryonics skepticism with unwillingness to invest.
Contrary to popular expectation, it’s not particularly expensive. But the real problem I’m attacking is unwillingness to think about the issue. I haven’t invested money in this myself yet. I have invested the time and energy to understand it, and come to the conclusion that I should endorse and support it. There’s no particularly good humanitarian or ethical reason I can think of not to.
Note that one could just as easily come up with a two page article about a “Futuristic Life Meme” which represents the cryonics supporters’ sense of being threatened by death.
The analysis of a new, emerging science deserves critique. From what I can tell, this particular critique is essentially ad-hominem, in that it attempts to attack a belief based on the characteristics of the individuals, rather than their arguments.
It trivializes the fact that there are reasons for being reluctant to invest in cryonics. Lastly, this writing conflates cryonics skepticism with unwillingness to invest.
We’ve argued a lot about the advisability of cryonics. This article takes that advisibility as a given and attempts to further discussion among those who agree. If you don’t agree, that’s fine, but It’s OK for an article to move on sometimes.
Thank you ciphergoth.
Is there anything particularly remarkable about being threatened by death? I would find that strange, given that threatening someone with death has historically been such a popular form of intimidation.
Cryonics has been “emerging” for over 40 years. People still choose not to think about it, despite lots of exposure to the concept. There has to be a reason. If you think there are rational reasons, I’m interested in hearing what they are.
Contrary to popular expectation, it’s not particularly expensive. But the real problem I’m attacking is unwillingness to think about the issue. I haven’t invested money in this myself yet. I have invested the time and energy to understand it, and come to the conclusion that I should endorse and support it. There’s no particularly good humanitarian or ethical reason I can think of not to.
You’re right—it’s worth noting that the article does not describe all cryonics objectors.