|
Argument: “Money invested to preserve human life in the deep freeze is money wasted, the sums involved being large enough to fulfill a punitive function as a self-imposed fine for gullibility and vanity.” — Biologist Jean Medawar
争论:生物学家Jean Medawar说:“投资在冷冻中保留生命是对金钱的浪费,总额足够对自我欺骗,受骗和虚荣心的罚款”。
Actual cryonicist response: “Nobody would ever imagine calling the first recipients of bone marrow transplants or artificial hearts “gullible and vain”. And what of dying children who are cryopreserved? Cryonics is an experiment, and people who choose this experiment are worthy of the same respect as other participants in high risk medical endeavors.”
回应:没人想过把第一批骨髓移植或人造心脏受体说是被骗和徒劳的。那么将死的孩子的冷冻保存呢?人体冷冻法是一个实验,参加这项实验的人应该和参与其他高风险的医疗事业的人受到一样的尊敬。
Argument: Cryonics will cause an overpopulation disaster.
争论:人体冷冻法会引起人口过剩的灾难。
Actual cryonicist response: This is a common one I’ve heard in my discussions. Here’s what Alcor says: “What about antibiotics, vaccinations, statin drugs and the population pressures they bring? It’s silly to single out something as small and speculative as cryonics as a population issue. Life spans will continue increasing in developed parts of the world, cryonics or not, as they have done for the past century. Historically, as societies become more wealthy and long-lived, population takes care of itself. Couples have fewer children at later ages. This is happening in the world right now. The worst population problems are where people are poor and life spans short, not long.”
回应:这也是我听过最普遍的争论。下面是Alcor的回复:“那么抗生素、接种疫苗和他汀类药物带来的人口压力有多大呢?挑出人体冷冻法小的,推测性的问题比如人口问题是愚蠢的。生命跨度会随着世界发展持续增长,有无冷冻法,过去的几个世纪都是这样进行的。从历史观点讲,社会变得更富有长命,人口不受其影响。世界上夫妻普遍选择少生孩子,最糟糕的人口问题是贫穷短命,而不是长命”。 |
|