From: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz)
Subject: Re: Why will they want you?
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:40:51 GMT

In article <9220421.27589@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> dht@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Joyous Dave baby) writes:
>evans-ron@CS.YALE.EDU (Ronald Hale-Evans) writes:
>
>>I will list a few reasons why people in a future
>>society might want to revive cryonicists:
>
>>1. Historical value.
>
>I certainly hope not.
>
>Cryonics should never be used as means of verifying history, because
>everyone is biased.

I think the idea is to ask the person what their _experience_ was like,
to find out how at least one person thought back then. My impression is
that that sort of interviewing (for point of view rather than absolute
truth) is a part of the social sciences already. 

>For e.g., if you freeze someone today, and that person comes back to
>life 1000 years later... when a lot of the historical records need to
>be verified, and people ask him,
>
>a) which country was the leader of the world in the 90's...
>if that person is an American, he/she will say USA,
>if that person is a Japanese, he/she will say Japan.

This is why you don't ask that sort of question, unless you are trying
to find out if your interviewee has enough sense to ask "What do you
mean by "leader of the world"? :-) 

For what it's worth, I've heard that the French are working on a 
monument for Japan with the theme of communication for the same
reason that they gave the US the Statue of Liberty--they want to
give a monument to the dominant country of the world. 

Maybe you should wake up someone French to get the answer to that
question. 

>b) which religion was the dominate religion...
>if that person is from Iran, he'll say Islam, since it's the fastest
>  growing religion, and is currently second biggest religion.
>if that person is an European, he'll probably say Catholism.
>if that person is an American, he'll probably say Baptist.

I really don't think that most people are that simple-minded, but
maybe it's worth taking a survey to find out. In any case, that's
the sort of question that you could find answers to in an almanac.
The interesting questions to ask a past person would be more like,
"What do you believe?" "Why?" "How did you apply it?" (I suspect
that there are more subtle ways to ask such questions so as to
get around hypocracy reflexes.)

>c) which language was the dominate language...
>if that person is Chinese, he'll say Mandarin...
>if that person is British, he'll say English.

Again, the interesting thing would be to find out how a native speaker
used the language. 

>d) which political system is the most preferred...
>if that person is an ordinary farmer in Central China, or a Greek from
>  poor family, or a starving Russian, he'll probably say Communism.

Do you think that a starving Russian would still say Communism? 

>if that person is an American, he'll probably say Communism is a failure.

Damn straight, but that isn't an answer to whether it's preferred. 

Actually, it's hard to say--my impression is that most Americans (the
only ones I can speak for at all, and this is just an impression) 
believe that the American system is best even though they're disgusted
with it. However, they're also pretty casual about breaking laws, so
maybe they're reallly anarchists. This is why you don't stop at asking
the sort of absolute questions you've been mentioning. 

>e) was life enjoyable in the 90's...
>if that person is an outcast Indian, he'll probably say life is hell...
>if that person is a Swiss, he'll probably say life is heaven....

Same issue.

>
>f) etc, etc, etc....
>
>we CANNOT rely on one person (which has been frozen) to verify history,
>because he will be biased depending on his:
>1) country of residence...
>2) religious background...
>3) ethnic background...
>4) political beliefs...
>5) economic background....
>6) and other personal biases, and his/her personalities...
>7) etc, etc...
>
>I personally think if it has to be fair, then, for every white rich Chrisitan
>American who was frozen for historical reasons, a poor white American,
>a black, a Japanese, an Arab, a rich Greek, a poor Greek, a rich European,
>a poor European, a rich Chinese, a poor Chinese, a Afrikana, a rich Indian,
>a outcast Indian, a Russian, etc, etc, etc, etc..... (the list goes on)...
>should also be frozen to be able to have a *better* (but not necessary
>correct) verification of history.... however, I somehow can't see how
>the above could ever happen.

I don't think it would, either, but it's an interesting argument for
freezing everyone.  :-)

>Also, a person who has been frozen for so many years will probably die
>*very quickly* when they come back to life because of:
>1) he doesn't know *anyone*...

You're assuming that only one person (or a very small #) is brought back.
The way it looks from the people on this group is that, while they
may not know each other (though I bet that the people who are actually
in the freezing companies are fairly close), they're tempermentally
and ethnically similar.

Or were you talking about lack of help from people who know the society,
rather than lack of company?

>2) he might not even speak the language...

If future people want to ask questions, then they'll be teaching the
person their language.

>3) there will be new diseases which he's incapable of resisting...

Maybe so, though nanotechnology should help.

>4) *huge* cultural shock to the new world...

If thawing people is routine, then there should be methods for smoothing
the transition. You're right, though, it could be very rough.

>5) he has to learn everything again...

See above. If technology has improved as much as it needs to for thawing,
there may be methods to speed up learning.

>6) he'll probably be stupid compared to the future humans, and that would
>   cause a lot of problems for his psychological well-being... since he
>   might not be able to find a friend (do you think you can be a *close*
>   friend to a mentally retarded?  honestly)

It's a rare ability, but I gather that some people of normal intelligence
manage it. Again, I'd hope that with nanotechnology and all that good
stuff, that intelligence increase will be feasible. 

>7) people of the future might decide to chop him up for experiment!  :-)

They might, but you could get killed in the present, too--it's just
one of the chances you take. 

>8) and who knows what political system or religion will they be using in
>   the future???

Good question.

>For his own sake, he should live his life at the time that he's been
>given and growing up with (by his parents, by God, whatever), rather than
>trying to take a big step into the future, 'cause there is a big price to
>pay in the future!!!  Think about it!  Think of the new diseases!  Think
>of the isolation, the loneliness!  Think of the emotional shock!

What you don't seem to grasp is that people who get themselves frozen
are refugees. At present, people mostly become refugees because where
they are living is intolerable--so bad that they're willing to put up
with not knowing the local language or mores, considerable poverty, etc.,
because, in their opinion, it's that or die. 

People only get frozen when they will die here if they stay. While 
cryonisists tend to also be optimistic about the future, I don't see
them trying to get frozen while they're still healthy. It's a choice
of last resort, not a form of tourism. 

                                 Nancy Lebovitz
                                 calligraphic button catalogue availible
                                      by email  (170K)
                                 nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu