> I just want to highlight two things, firstly his support for the NHS
Which is meaningless; an anecdotal impression is not data.
> Secondly, can we leave off the cryogenic stuff ? The guy is dying, and pretending it will just be a pause is insulting all round.
Some people think that cryogenics is a better chance of resurrection than burying a body in dirt. The case isn't settled, but it's not a stupid or crazy belief. Even if the chance is only 0.1%, it's worth talking about. The chance of my house burning down is only 0.1% or so, and I still buy fire insurance.
(And, no, I'm not a big believer in cryogenics; I merely want to argue that discussion about it is reasonable.)
> Some people think that cryogenics is a better chance of resurrection than burying a body in dirt.
And some people think burying a body in dirt is the best chance of resurrection. These beliefs do not seem, at this point in time, differentially stupid or crazy.
It is quite all right to hold such beliefs, but bringing them up every time someone dies as if-only-they-had is rather insensitive.
There is no proof for either, and both are purely based on hope. We have no technology available to resurrect frozen people and we don't know if such a technology will ever be available, and religious people don't know if they will be resurrected in the afterlife - they can only hope. The key word here is belief/hope.
Which is meaningless; an anecdotal impression is not data.
> Secondly, can we leave off the cryogenic stuff ? The guy is dying, and pretending it will just be a pause is insulting all round.
Some people think that cryogenics is a better chance of resurrection than burying a body in dirt. The case isn't settled, but it's not a stupid or crazy belief. Even if the chance is only 0.1%, it's worth talking about. The chance of my house burning down is only 0.1% or so, and I still buy fire insurance.
(And, no, I'm not a big believer in cryogenics; I merely want to argue that discussion about it is reasonable.)