CRYONICS-- CryoNet-- latest archive page

[+] Latest archive page-- mostly January 2008. CryoNet is still the de facto center of the cryonics world insofar as public expression of ideas. It has shortcomings-- serious shortcomings-- in that it does not reflect what's really substantially going on in cryonics at this time, but it can be used a little bit of a clue. It certainly has the longest uninterrupted history of cryonics discussion on the internet-- so there is some archival value there. Many cryonicists who don't blog or do other more advanced forums, post here. I think, however, that most of the substantial cryonics discussions are carried on in private email groups-- which I'm not privy to-- and which I've actually turned down membership in because I don't want my mind weighed down by the neccessity of having to remember what is confidential and what isn't. I feel that all discussion ought to be open-- that there is nothing wrong with that.

Cryonics is a truthful effort to deal with the problem of death-- so everything we do to build cryonics or to build a society in which cryonics can thrive, is a viable public discussion idea... and that's where I would like to be-- on that side of things. Usually, things that people consider "personal" are not personal because we all have similar experiences and ideas. It's in the sharing of ideas where we can splice and dice, validate, invalidate etc. Closed email roundtables are not my cup of tea. I encourage all cryonicist to blog alphabetically. We have 26 letters in the alphabet. Use 'em or lose em. At least post to Cryonet on your latest musings. For the most part, cryonicists are poor writers-- and what I'm saying here is that cryonics-- both in its content AND it's contextual frames-- including Classical Humanism-- not just Secular Humanism-- can be written about in a more meaningful way.

One writing project I'd like to see handled better is the history of nanotech as it applies to cryonics. Blog writer Mark Plus has pointed out that SA Inc has dropped the idea-- and is in agreement with them on that. However, Gina Miller, a frequent CryoNet poster and website developer who tracks the latest nanotech ideas, would likely disagree on that point. The last insightful piece I encountered on this variation was in Wired magazine a few years ago which offered an historical persepctive unmatched since then-- having covered Drexler's travails. We need a futher update on this idea-- and I think Miller is the one to do it. I've asked her to do that-- via email-- no response yet.