Posted 31 May 2004 - 07:35 AM
She came across as very authoritative and articulate. Everything went very well right up until the moment when the interviewer asked whether cryonics ideally should be done before death. It was a very sensible question because the subject of discussion was afterall these sperm that had their *life*, not death, preserved for years. It was the perfect setup to explain that cryonics too is about preserving life-- even as practiced now. Unfortunately everything went downhill from there. Chrissie was steeped in the 1960s paradigm of cryonics as an interment method rather than a life saving technology for terminal patients. I was left feeling at the end of the interview that the interviewer actually had a better grasp of this issue than Chrissie, and that he was a bit befuddled by her response.
I think Chrissie could be a great spokesperson for cryonics if she would reconsider her thinking on this issue. Cryonics as an interment method is stillborn by definition.
---BrianW