CryoNet #33023 - #33026

CryoNet - Thu 4 Nov 2010

    #33023: Keith : "... cryonics is so hard to sell !?" [Jens Rabis]
    #33024: powering nanosystems [Perry E. Metzger]
    #33025: South Florida Cryonics Meetup scheduled for November 20th [Mathew Sullivan]
    #33026: Off topic article...but potentially relevant "New Morality Ar... [Rudi Hoffman]

Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33023%2D33026

Administrivia

To subscribe to CryoNet, send email to:
    [email protected]
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:
    [email protected]
from the same address to which you are aubscribed.
Send questions, comments, or feedback to [email protected]
with "CryoNet" or "cryonics" somewhere in the 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:
    [email protected]
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 "[email protected]" with "cryonics" in the subject line.
    - Kevin Q. Brown


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

Message #33023
From: "Jens Rabis" <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Subject: Keith : "... cryonics is so hard to sell !?"
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 11:12:50 +0100

Quote: "I don't have any really good ideas about why cryonics is so hard to
sell, but I doubt this is a big factor. Keith " End quote



Hi cryonauten and Keith,

1. For me it is logical, but many academics have forgotten how to listen. ^
^

2. 6.7 billion people live on the earth, that means 670 million (about 10
percent) die per year. What a huge mountain of flesh when it freezes. Within
10 years, 7 billion people. I am grateful that it only want a few. We are
elite! Because healthy (!) Self-interest, we should remain small in number.
So no one says in the future: "The frozen mountain of flesh" has to go.

3. Resurrection technologies are automatically in the future, we do not need
to finance.

4. If my Cryofather ignored my questions, allowed the movement cryonic lick
me there, where never the sun shines. * grin *

5. Keith you want me? I want personal care. You are not dream / visionary of
masses ;-) Wonder ... what you can do for me.

6. Hi Charles, will you ask religion teacher in the USA?



******************



1. Fur mich ist es logisch, aber viele Akademiker haben das Zuhoren
verlernt. ^^

2. 6,7 Milliarden Menschen leben auf der Erde, das bedeutet 670 000 000
(rund 10 Prozent sterben pro Jahr). Was fur ein riesiger Berg aus Fleisch,
wenn man sie einfriert. Innerhalb von 10 Jahren, 7 Milliarden Menschen. Ich
bin dankbar, dass es nur wenige mochten . Wir sind Elite. Wegen gesundem(!)
Eigeninteresse, sollten wir zahlenmaBig klein bleiben. Damit niemand in
Zukunft sagt: "Der gefrorene Fleischberg muss weg! .

3. Auferstehungstechnologien kommen in Zukunft automatisch, das brauchen wir
nicht zu finanzieren.

4. Wenn mein Cryo-Vater meine Fragen ignoriert, darf die kryonische Bewegung
mich dort lecken, wo niemals die Sonne scheint. *grinst*

5. Keith Du willst mich? Ich will personliche Pflege. Schwarme Du nicht von
Massen ;-) Frage mich, was Du fur mich tun kannst.

6. Hi Charles, wirst Du Religionslehrer in den USA fragen?

Best greetings 
Jens Rabis
Germany-Berlin







On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 2:00 AM, David Stodolsky <[email protected]> wrote:

snip

> "Work" is a modern concept

Replace "work" with the effort (or time) required to gather, hunt or farm
sufficient to subsist.  This can be measured across cultures.

> and as such could not have served as a factor in the Early Environment 
> of Adaptation (EEA),

Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness is the usual meaning of EEA in an
evolutionary psychology context.
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/epfaq/eea.html

> which is the overwhelming source of genetic determination in Man.
Regardless of popular science nonsense, such as the "Selfish Gene," humans
and most animals manifest a group survival instinct, as well as an
individual survival instinct. In fact, in most evolving systems it is
possible to identify adaptations at the cellular, bodily, group, and
ecosystem levels.

I think you violate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor when all of
these levels can be understood as simple consequences of genes.
 You do have to include Hamilton's rule, i.e., inclusive fitness but that
just says that a gene can affect the survival of its copies without being in
the same body.

> What the Gateway Computer President is saying in the above quote, is that
he considers Gateway to be his 'Group' and feels it is necessary to work for
its success and survival.

I doubt it.  What you see in people like the Gateway guy where people work
hard far beyond the need to do so is the result of selection.
Northern temperate zone farmers had to work hard in the spring, summer and
fall--far beyond their immediate needs--in order to store enough food to get
their families and animals through the winter.

The ones who did not pile up enough food or firewood to get through an extra
long, extra cold winter died and their farms were reclaimed by the children
of those who did pile up more than they would have needed for an ordinary
winter.  A few thousand years of this results in genes for over achievers in
the population of survivors.

Clark was only looking at the historical records from the mid 1200s.
I suspect this had been going on since farmers moved into northern Europe.

> The reason that Dr. Clark's findings are limited to selected cultures is
that these Cultures have made the connection, perhaps only implicitly, that
'work' is good for the success of the Group. So, the pre-existing group
survival instinct is channelled into 'work' for the benefit of the Group.
>
> Unfortunately, current marketing strategy, while recognizing the key role
of the group through fee reductions for family members, fails to take
advantage of this fundamental human instinct. The key to marketing success
is to form self-identifying groups or find pre-existing ones, and to target
an appropriate suspension offer to the Group as an entity.

I don't have any really good ideas about why cryonics is so hard to sell,
but I doubt this is a big factor.

Keith

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33017

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33023

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

Message #33024
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 08:45:58 -0400
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email protected]>
Subject: powering nanosystems
References: <[email protected]>

> From: Gerald Monroe <[email protected]>
> Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 04:30:49 -0500
> Subject: Re: CryoNet #33017 - #33019
> 
> 
> External magnetic fields for a power source?

An unrealistic idea, IMHO...

> Why not just use DC
> current? Molecular manufacturing equipment will be physically tied
> to a macroscopic host machine that can supply them directly with
> electricity, cooling, and reactive intermediates from feedstock.
> See this video for some concepts :
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEYN18d7gHg&feature=player_embedded.

That's not really a sufficient answer, no.

That video is about a desktop nanofactory. (The video, btw, is pretty
good at a high level but sadly unrealistic in some of its details --
it fairly freely chooses to depict structures that would have to be
visibly made of atoms as undifferentiated bulk material for example,
depicts grippers holding on to highly reactive depassivated diamond
structures, and a number of other material behaviors which feel
unrealistic.) We would expect a *desktop* nanofactory to be immobile
(say, atop a desk.)

Just as a modern machine shop can get its power from the AC lines and
is an essentially immobile structure, while automobiles or
aircraft made with such immobile equipment have to be able to move
around, a desktop nanofactory is going to be essentially immobile,
but other sorts of nanomachines (say, for example, Freitas' design
studies for "respirocites" and "microbivores") will be mobile and the
size of cells or smaller. I would expect most medical systems to be
physically untethered in this manner.

Clearly, mobile nanosystems of this type cannot get their power from
externally supplied electric current. However, there is no great
mystery to solve as to how they could get power, either.

In Freitas' theoretical designs for machinery that operates inside the
human blood stream, power comes from oxidizing glucose in specialized
machinery in a small part of each machine. This is a reasonably
convenient source inside the human body. Many other mechanisms are
possible, with practicality depending on operating conditions as well
as fundamental limitations imposed by physics.

A great number of such mechanisms are considered in considerable
detail in "Nanosystems", along with ways for nanomachines to
communicate with macroscopic systems (surprisingly, acoustic
communication turns out to be a good choice in many situations),
mechanisms for the control of nanomachines, etc.

This work has been extended by people like Freitas in his very
detailed work "Nanomedicine" which discusses these topics and more
(including problems specific to medical applications like the
biocompatibility of the materials such machinery might be made from.)

The field is hardly all worked out -- it is, in fact, in its infancy
-- but I would suggest that if people are interested in such topics
they would do well to read the existing literature. (The literature
is also a lot better than artist's conceptions in the form of videos.)

I would also suggest that people should be a aware of the environment
that leads to periodic breathless news stories about various
scientific papers, such as the one that triggered this
discussion. University PR departments often hype things without regard
to their actual significance, and reporters are frequently ill
educated in science. Researchers frequently play along to some extent
because of the way the funding game is played. Taking popular press
stories about new developments with a grain (or ton) of salt is often
the best policy. (For these purposes, btw, if it isn't a journal, it
is pretty much "popular press"...)


Perry
-- 
Perry E. Metzger		[email protected]

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33024

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

Message #33025
From: Mathew Sullivan <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 15:13:05 -0400
Subject: South Florida Cryonics Meetup scheduled for November 20th

--0016e6de0023f3b8af04942ad54b

The South Florida Cryonics Meetup Group will be getting together for the
first time in Fort Lauderdale on Saturday, November 20th, from 1 p.m. to 3
p.m.?  Light refreshments will be provided.



Since this gathering will be held in a private residential community,
pre-registration will be required to be admitted to the building by the
Concierge.  If you are interested in attending, please signup at the
following link:  <
http://www.meetup.com/South-Florida-Cryonics-Meetup-Group/calendar/15325172/
>



Address is 408 NE 6th Street, Fort Lauderdale, Fl  33304.



We will be located in the club and kitchen area, and you can review the
amenities at the following link: < http://www.alexansolmar.com/amenities.php
>



Also, mark your calendar for Suspended Animation's upcoming conference, in
Fort Lauderdale, from May 20th - 22nd, 2011.  More details will be
forthcoming.

--0016e6de0023f3b8af04942ad54b

 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33025

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

Message #33026
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 13:55:42 -0400
Subject: Off topic article...but potentially relevant "New Morality Ar...
From: Rudi Hoffman <[email protected]>

--20cf30549e7104b127049429c095

Hello, Cryonetters:

One of my clients forwarded me an article which I found to be brilliant.

While it may be somewhat off topic, it also counters and responds to the
arrogance that academics hold for producers and free enterprise.  I wish I
would have written this article, as I agree with almost all of it.  Although
actually getting one's head around the idea that business tycoons, who
enable voluntary value-for-value transactions, are actually better MORAL
exemplars than a "saint" or "politician" who gives away someone elses work
product, takes some deprogramming.

At the very least, it will annoy David Stodolsky.  Who occasionally annoys
with his pronouncements, especially politically.

This statement of David's, for instance, deserves rebuttal if not ridicule:
(quoting dss)

Richard "Selfish Gene" Dawkins was one of the leading fanatics. He developed
a following of libertarians pushing social darwinism as their religion. The
social instability following from these socio-economic trends has
contributed to the growth of religion in general. The CryoCare fiasco showed
how this nonsense played out in the cryonics community.
The growth of religion, economic collapse, and the failure to mobilize group
survival instincts in marketing have all contributed to the current
stagnation in sign ups. For a cryonicist to support this nonsense is
suicidal.

(end quote)

Wrong on several levels, David.  To keep this post short, I will simply
reprint article here:  I think most thinkers on this list will like this as
much as I did.

(Article start)

Our moral code is out of date
By Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate, Special to CNN
September 16, 2010 3:26 p.m. EDT

Editor's note: Yaron Brook is president of the Ayn Rand Center for
Individual Rights and a columnist at Forbes.com; Onkar Ghate is a senior
fellow at the center. Brook is one of the speakers at The Economist's "Ideas
Economy: Human Potential" conference in New York.
(CNN) -- Human progress requires good ideas.

Consider how just two fundamental ideas have ushered in the modern world.
Rewind a scant 600 years, and modern science doesn't yet exist.

Men and women live and die in squalor and filth, largely ignorant of the
germs that ravage their bodies and of the natural laws that govern the
universe, instead imploring an alleged supernatural force to help them
navigate this vale of tears.

But thanks to minds such as Galileo, Sir Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur and
Charles Darwin, this is not how we face the world today. They taught us our
method of knowing: careful, mathematically precise observation, step-by-step
inference and generalization, and systematic, evidence-based theory
building.

They had the courage to challenge entrenched authority, toss aside
superstition and defy popes. As others followed the trail the first
scientists blazed, human knowledge advanced dramatically.

Thanks to a second idea, this explosion of knowledge broke the confines of
the laboratory and ivory tower. Another daring group of thinkers challenged
political authoritarianism.

Kings and aristocrats were swept aside to make way for the rights of man.
This idea gave birth to a new nation, our beloved America, in which the
individual was free to think and pursue his own happiness. A new person
arose: the industrialist.
Slandered as robber barons, what these individuals actually did was earn
fortunes by studying the discoveries of science and commercializing them.

A mind-boggling array of inventions and products ensued: automobiles, oil,
radios, antibiotics, refrigeration, electricity, washing machines, air
conditioning, indoor plumbing, airplanes and on and on, to our present world
of personal computers and cell phones.

Try to imagine life without all of this. It's not easy.

But as far as we've come because of these two ideas, human progress demands
implementation of a third idea to complete the scientific and political
revolutions. We're still beholden to the past in ethics.

Although few of us would turn to the Old Testament or the Quran to determine
the age of the Earth, too many of us still turn obediently to these books
(or their secular copies) as authorities about morality. We learn therein
the moral superiority of faith to reason and collective sacrifice to
personal profit.

But the more seriously we take these old ethical ideas, the more suspect
become the modern ideas responsible for human progress. The scientists in
their laboratories did not demonstrate the superiority of faith. Thomas
Jefferson in his Declaration did not proclaim the superiority of collective
sacrifice. Why should we think these ideas are the path to moral
enlightenment?
Perhaps, of all the damage these antiquated moral ideas do to human
progress, the most significant is how they distort our conception of moral
ideals.

Ask someone on the street to name a moral hero; if he isn't at a loss, he'll
likely name someone like Jesus Christ or Mother Teresa. Why? Because they're
regarded as people of faith who shunned personal profit for the collective
good. No one would dream of naming Galileo, Darwin, Thomas Edison or John D.
Rockefeller.

Yet we should. It is they, not the Mother Teresas of the world, that we
should strive to be like and teach our kids the same.

If morality is judgment to discern the truth and courage to act on it and
make something of and for your own life, then these individuals, in their
capacity as great creators, are moral exemplars. Put another way, if
morality is a guide in the quest to achieve your own happiness by creating
the values of mind and body that make a successful life, then morality is
about personal profit, not its renunciation.

Monetary profit is just one of the values you have to achieve in life. But
it is an eloquent representative of the whole issue, because at its most
demanding, as exhibited by a Bill Gates or a Steve Jobs, making money
requires a profound dedication to material production.
The fact that earning money is ignored by most moralists, or condemned as
the root of evil, is telling of the distance we must travel.

In effect, we need to turn the Billionaire's Pledge on its head.

The world grants, at best, no moral recognition to Gates and Buffett for the
personal fortunes they've created, but it awards them a standing ovation for
giving their profits away. But the standing ovation belongs to the act of
creation, the profit they brought into their own lives and anyone who traded
with them.
If morality is about the pursuit of your own success and happiness, then
giving money away to strangers is, in comparison, not a morally significant
act. (And it's outright wrong if done on the premise that renunciation is
moral.)

Science, freedom and the pursuit of personal profit -- if we can learn to
embrace these three ideas as ideals, an unlimited future awaits.

(End quote)

There...that ought to generate some observations and discourse on ideas that
matter.  I can already hear the academics howling...especially those who
have never actually engaged in the practice of enabling prosperity promoting
free exchange.

Reasonably Respectfully,

Rudi




-- 
Rudi Richard Hoffman CFP CLU ChFC

World's Leading Cryonics Insuror rudihoffman.com
Former Board Member Financial Planning Association fpafla.com
Board Member Salvation Army salvationarmy.org
Member Alcor Life Extension Foundation alcor.org,
Member Cryonics Institute cryonics.org
Certified Financial Planner(TM) CFP Board of Standards
Member World Transhumanist Association http://transhumanism.org/
Securities offered through Broker Dealer Financial Services Corp. Member
FINRA and SIPC.

--20cf30549e7104b127049429c095

 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33026

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

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