Book review: The Philosophy of Robert Ettinger, eds Charles Tandy and Scott R Stroud.

This volume consists of a series of articles, written by different authors to the level of university standard philosophical dissertations. As I am in no way professionally qualified as a philosopher, I will have to review this book as a lay reader, and as an interested person being a signed up cryonicist. My comments are my own in this capacity, not profound philosophical remarks.

In particular, I need to ask myself whether by reading it have I learned things that I haven’t considered following regular reading of Cryonet and The Immortalist. As this review is being submitted to The Immortalist for publication I also need to ask whether the things I have learned are going to be helpful in considering whether to remain a signed up cryonicist and whether they will be helpful in discussing cryonics with other people.

It has been said elsewhere that when and if cryonics is proven to be viable, everything any cryonicist has ever written will be dissected in the minutest detail and discussed by future historians for as long as history is debated. Books discussing the points made in The Prospect of Immortality and similar works will appear in their hundreds, if not thousands. This book preceded that event, and for that reason could have been regarded as a particularly interesting glimpse into a possible future. - That is except for the fact that the majority of the articles were pessimistic or negative in their conclusions. One reasons for this could be that the articles were themselves based on classical works of philosophy from the 19th century. Some even referred to the works of Socrates, composed thousands of years in the past. This book therefore is therefore not only a product of times in which cryonic revivals have not occurred, but also times when the annihilation of the individual seemed as even more certain than the idea that daylight will return at dawn.

The book starts with a foreword: Freeze-Wait-Reanimate! In which Charles Tandy gives a brief introduction to the book, its editor and subject.

The first main article is The Prisoner's Dilemma, Collective Rationality, And The Prospect Of An Indefinite Prolongation Of Life by John M. Collins. It raises some interesting points about ethics and self and group interest. The concept was introduced that if civilisation adopts policy A instead of policy B, even if A is less "ethical" than B the succeeding generation will be comprised of totally different people, therefore selecting the ethical alternative (or visa versa) would result in the total annihilation of the generation that would have followed it.

The next is Desirable And Undesirable Immortality: Ettinger And Arendt On Coping With Human Finitude by Farhang Erfani. In this article a potted history of government from kings through democracy to some post-democratic dictatorships is used as the basis to suggest that avoidance of the death of the individual is a bad idea. Although I can’t agree with the conclusion, I do feel that the article gives food for thought and I cannot fault the concept of approving the annihilation of individuals coupled with a history of government that ends with Hitler and Stalin. Brilliant! (even if the author didn’t intend it quite that way.)

Another naysaying article follows, Immortality, Death, And Our Obligations To Future Generations by Richard V. Greene. This presented cryonics as a burden on future generations. However it did not manage resolve the conundrum that "not doing something to preserve individuals’ lives" is the same as "doing something to exterminate individuals when they are no longer any productive use". From time to time governments emerge that attempt to exterminate unwanted citizens, the latest victims being the Kurds.

It seems to be a human characteristic for the rest of humanity to remove these governments sooner or later. I suspect that the same characteristic would also lead to all available cryopreserved bodies being reanimated if this is physically possible. I remain convinced that any philosophising that suggests that reanimation is an unethical burden should belong in the same class as the rationale that causes governments to eliminate unwanted individuals as a matter of general policy. But this article gives the reader a chance to work through the ideas involved, just as a reading of Mein Kampf is essential to any student of government and authority. Maybe it could be argued that the article has failed inasmuch as I have not been shaken from my previous beliefs by reading it, or maybe it is plain wrong. - Or maybe I am too thick to see the point. But if the latter applies, then there could be some advantage in not thinking too much.

Time Shock And The Problem Of Anachronistic Being: An Anthropological Approach To Cryonics by James C. Lindahl, considers the problem of continuity of self after emigration to another time. He points out that every technological advance beings benefits and problems, as I mentioned earlier. The trite answer to all of this is that "first you save your life then you worry about these issues" but nevertheless if you have the time and inclination, then this article presents several avenues for thought.

As the caring aspects of cryonics (as opposed to burning or rotting a body) have drawn people to the movement, the title Caring Cryonics? by Rita C. Manning seemed as though it would be about this. However it looked a different aspects of caring, the caring for people both financially and physically during the process of cryopreservation and possible reanimation. Male and female gender perspectives were discussed, and the effects on family units. The conclusion wasn’t particularly favourable to the concept of cryonics, but again the old issue arises - is this a valid reason for killing people by default?

The question of the nature of the individual ("The Soul") is the real subject of an article entitled Ettinger And Immortality by Scott D. O'Reilly It concludes that metaphysical ideas may show that physical cryonics is unnecessary. No compulsion anywhere, you make you own choice. No one can argue with that!

A Kantian Critique Of Cryonic Immortality by Scott R. Stroud may have philosophical merit, but I have to confess that it went right over my head!

Immortality, Identity, And The Grounds Of Egoistic Concern by Scott D. Wilson is yet another naysaying article, based on Bernard Williams’ famous (or infamous) paper The Tedium of Immortality. What I see as fallacious is that a single person can understand everything there is to know about the universe however long he lives. The other fallacy in relation to cryonics is that cryonics doesn’t necessarily imply immortality, just indefinite (not infinite) lifespan. The very word "Immortality" is a nonsense word - you cannot know that you are immortal unless you have lived an infinite time. Infinity is unattainable by definition.

Maybe the word "immortal" is the very source of all the negativity expressed in these articles. If someone had proposed that instead of having old age pensions everyone was put in camps and gassed to death when they could no longer work I cannot seriously imagine that any of these authors would have been willing to second this proposal. Indeed if someone had suggested that all medical care beyond pain control be denied those incapable of work because of age, I cannot see any of these authors supporting the proposition. If someone aged 65 years was a victim of a "dread disease" and could be cured by medical treatment, and if so cured could possibly live to 120 years in reasonable health, should society deny him the treatment on the basis that he would be an economic burden? Again I would doubt any of these authors would promote such a dreadful idea.

Whether these "dreadful" ideas can be supported by learned and valid philosophical debate I have no doubt, presumably Hitler and his colleagues did just that. No doubt I could wade through Mein Kampf and find the arguments, but I have neither the time nor inclination. But surely the human instinct to preserve individual life stands out above all of this, rendering such arguments ultimately fallacious.

The Prospect Of Mortality: Buddhist And Heideggerian Critical Reflections On Ettinger by

Jason M. Wirth starts with comments similar to those I have made bout the actual word "Immortality". It then goes on to use concepts generated thousands of years ago by various religious philosophers as to why personal "immortality" would be undesirable. Finally 1950s anti-technology ideas were presented.

The book ends with an Afterword from Robert Ettinger, which gave some ideas from his work in progress Youniverse. There was the odd comment about some of the suggestions made by the philosophers who wrote the preceding articles, but the bulk of the material was about philosophy itself, and the various theorems and paradoxes that have occupied people’s minds down the centuries.

In conclusion I look again at the questions I asked. It may be a failing of myself rather than the book, but there is little that I hadn’t already considered about cryonics here. Despite the learned weight of some of the naysayers, they have not persuaded me that I should change my mind about being signed up for cryopreservation. As to the book being helpful, well yes, it could be helpful to some people to see the reasoning behind the many who reject cryonics. People who reject cryonics for themselves are sad, from our perspective. But those who seek to impose their rejection on others are just as worrying as anything else what threatens our lives. None of these authors said that cryonics should be withheld by violent force (which term includes force of law).

But they do tell us how people who may consider using the violent force of legislation could be justifying their actions. I wonder if Adolf Hitler and similar authors in the 1920s and 1930s had been more widely read, whether other politicians and philosophers could not have read their works and seen the dangers to come and done something about it.

This book could be a useful volume for those cryonicists looking to exactly that - see the dangers to come.