The cryonicist will admit that there's no
such thing as compete certainty. Cryonics
is a rational gamble. They would also
point out that there's no assurance that
you have an immortal soul, will be
resurrected from the dead by God, etc.
either. They also ask, which is more
likely, a religious theory based on ancient
texts or a scientific theory based on
experimental evidence? While it is true
that no one has been brought back thus
far, it is also true that every year insects,
worms and frogs freeze solid and come
back to life and that human embryos are
thawed and implanted in women and
grow into normal human beings. Even
more promising is the fact that human
beings can be dead for several hours at
just above freezing temperatures and
brought back to life with no apparent ill
effects.

Think of cryonics as an experiment, the
results of which won't be know for
hundreds of years. The question
becomes, "Do you want to be in the
control group or the experimental group?"

Isn't it rational to fear, or at least try to
avoid death? If I asked if you minded if I
painlessly killed you now, assumedly,
you'd not only object, you'd probably have
rational fear if I insisted you wouldn't feel
a thing and pulled out a cotton rag and a
bottle of clear liquid and started moving
towards you with a crazed look in my
eyes.

Death is bad because it brings an end ot
life, which is good. If death isn't bad,
what's wrong with murder?

Prof. Borrowdale
borrowdalej@lanecc.edu