From: David McFadzean (david@lucifer.com)
Date: Sat Jul 27 2002 - 13:43:36 MDT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hermit"
> What is the probability of recovery from "cryonic suspension"? I'd suggest
that it is only marginally better than for cadavars, in otherwords slight to
non-existent. Why be squeamish and call it cryonic suspension when it is
effectively a death sentence? Why not just harvest executees for parts,
instead of using an expensive embalming procedure?
Because we as a society cannot be faulted for doing the best we are
technologically capable of in terms of a reversible death sentence(?).
> But this suggestion logically leads to other thoughts.
>
> If accidental execution of the innocent is acceptable in order to prevent
harm to other individuals, then we have to ask ourselves whether, seeing
that we can detect those statistically likely to engage in such behaviour
(statistically based on family environment and poverty; and using genetic
markers (refer The God Module), should we not simply execute such people as
well, as a preventive measure. After all, this would be a really proactive
step saving far more people than a purely reactive solution...
Probably for the same reason we don't proactively incarcerate high risk
individuals even though accidental incarceration of the innocent is a
necessary, if unfortunate, aspect of the justice system.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:49 MDT