Sep 27, 2021Liked by Giulio Prisco

The thing is that many in the skeptic community write article like this: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/cold-reality-versus-the-wishful-thinking-of-cryonics/,

which basically use authority of science to claim immortality is a fantasy and shift the burden of proof on immortalists. I understand that younger skeptics like Elizer Yudkowsky and Julia Galef aren't deathists who believe that immortality is a myth created by religion, and is scientifically impossible, as because they grew up in secular environment, they are less traumatized by fundamentalist or conservative religion and therefore don't use authority of science to claim radical life extension, immortality are fantasy and that you cannot outsmart evolution or the nature. Also, they went to college at different times, therefore Hayflick's conclusion about aging and it's reversibility isn't the only one they are taught, as opinions of biogerontologists becomes more diverse. Most younger deathist skeptics aren't scientists, but comedians like Adam Connover, who is just a clown. As a result, the CSICOP is the organization consisting almost exclusively of older, white males, who won't likely live to radical life extension and will be asleep till technological resurrection, and the organization will be taken over by clowns if they don't change the broader skeptic movement doesn't change their view on immortology and rejuvenology and surviving in situation through medical intervention and technology where evoulution didn't give us ability to. While typical audience of hardline deathist materialists are teenagers, they aren't young scientists and science majors, and the result might be not us winning, but religious fundamentalists, or New Age winning the broader public, if we don't convince the public. The deathists are shifting the burden of proof on us that cheating or indefinitely preventing death and reversing aging and degenerative disease of fundamental damage to our health is possible, and while we have better arguments, both logical and technological, they have one strength, they have the position considered default within secular society. Since we cannot infringe the freedom of speech, in order to see change in the academic discourse, we need to create public demand for it. Logic and reason don't work quite well, so I suggest appeal to peoples fear of death, emphasizing it, and to inability to accept death of close to them will be great strategy to get people to want to listen to us. It worked for religious fundamentalists.

Expand full comment