X-Message-Number: 10444 Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 11:35:14 +0100 From: (John de Rivaz) Subject: Re: selling cryonics In "Selling Cryonics" Jeff Davis worte > Disguise the idea and sneak it in (fable or folk tale or TV series). This is already happening, spontaneously as far as I can see. There are many books, films, tv series which are centred on cryonics or even feature it as a background to the plot. In fact I think if there was an opinion poll which asked people. Do you believe that it is possible to freeze people and revive them in good health. An appreciable portion of the world's population would say "yes". >>>>>>>>>>> Cryonics is not for everyone. Establish entry requirements. Make the candidates pass an exam. (Yes, it's a trick, but you have to help them get past their own defenses.) Cryonics is not for everyone. Exclude murderers, rapists, child-molesters, armaments manufacturers, politicians, tobacco company execs. Cryonics is not for everyone. Only the: elite, fortunate, hip, worthy, just, wise. etc. get into cryonics. Only the "right" people will be smart enough to recognize that "Once-in-a-Lifetime" opportunity, and gutsy enough to go for it. Head down in a dewar of liquid nitrogen, everybody is special. <<<<<<<<<<<< This might have worked in the early years of the 20th century, but now it is fraught with difficulties. It is a ghastly idea, ghastly in the context that it is openly elitist and selective and smacks of socialism, national socialism, communism and so on. Blatant elitism is not "politically correct" and is not acceptable by much of the public at large. > Now, you CAN take it with you. No. Most people cannot see five years into the future. Few indeed are willing to look more than a few months into the future. > (re pet suspensions) I think that all of the established organisations will do these for their suspension members, but not for others. They have a legitimate worry that people may make such arrangements in time of grief, and later see the situation as an opportunity for legal adventuring. [Some lawyer may suggest to them that they can get rich quick by suing the cryonics organisation on the grounds that it has raised unreasonable expectations at a time of grief.] Pet cloning is an isolated operation that may or may not succeed. To me I think it is just as legitimate as breeding thoroughbreds. It could be argued that breeding thoroughbreds is a sort of cloning. If you like a particular breed of dog, for example, when the one you have dies you can get a very similar pet back by buying another of the breed and training it in a similar manner. Call it by the same name, and you can even forget that your original pet has perished. Nevertheless, opportunists may find that they can get fee income by attacking cloning operations as they do with anything new. This is, unfortunately a side effect of society today. Pet cloning may or may not survive this. My guess is that it will appear in non-litigious lightly regulated countries first even if it is stamped out in the developed world. Remember the sex change operations in some African city - Casablanca wasn't it? The main point of this is that a backlash against indiscriminate pet cryopreservation could damage the existing human cryonics movement and those suspended, because of the opportunity it would provide to legalist adventurers. >>>>>>>>>>>> The Society for the Preservation of Cultural Treasures. What is a Frank Sinatra worth? A George Burns? A Barbra Streisand? A Pablo Casals? A Lauren Bacall? An Oprah Winfrey? A Michael Jordan? An Albert Einstein? These people, and others like them are (or were) loved by MILLIONS. Millions who would readily pay to "save" them. <<<<<<<<<<<< An interesting idea, but I would somewhat doubt that it would work. It could be possible to recruit a million people contributing $1 nett of expenses each (gross contribution say $10 to allow for making the club totally legal and conformist). What would be difficult is persuading the close family of the idolised deceased individual to allow this money to be used in cryopreserving that individual. Bear in mind also that it would be difficult to collect the money until the time of emotion of the death, and at that time it would be virtually impossible to get "the remains" for cryopreservation. I suppose that one could start with clubs for famous people who have been reported to have expressed a vague interest. I think Alcor has had some celebrities reported to have visited them. Also, even if the celebrity is not cryopreserved due to actions of relatives, the constitution of the club could provide for the money going to a second choice or even just to fund research. I'll be interested to see if there are any other comments. The Internet could be a good recruiting ground if such a venture is considered sensible. Personally I have great doubt though whether this is a good idea. >>>>>>>> Every day, in oncology clinics around the world, people are being given a death sentence. The doctor describes two options: we can make you comfortable, or we can experiment on you. Most people are aware of a third option--the Kevorkian option--but few know of the cryonics option. In light of the staggering numbers, the terror and tragedy, the pain and suffering and expense, if cryonics had no more to offer than bouyant hopefulness it would be a blessing on that basis alone! But it has SO MUCH MORE to offer! <<<<<<<<<<< I couldn't agree more, cryonics does have so much more to offer. Pre-mortem suspension should, logically, be offered in very hospital and doctor's offices throughout the world. But again the legal system and general attitude makes the risk of legal and ethical attack too dangerous. We live in a world where money is king, and this is probably the most efficient way of running the world. But there is an unfortunate side effect in that making money by legal opportunism is a highly effective way of doing it. The success to risk and work ratio is much better than trying to make money by creating something useful. This side effect is responsible for terminally sick people being tortured to death (heroic and experimental surgery) as opposed to being treated humanely by cryopreservation. Look at it this way, though - if we lived in a world where everything was decided by a government committee, cryonics would never have even been suggested, let alone got to the state where it is today. (Neither would many other things we now take for granted - we'd still be in the age of the horse and cart. All advances were once the territory of crackpots. For example, it was Marconi's ignorance of contemporary ideas amongst professional scientists about radio that enabled him to advance the subject.) I hate the lawyer mentality, but unless we can find a cure for this side effect of capitalism it is better to live it as best we can rather than want decision by central committee. Dr Kevorkian's self imposed task is trivial compared with trying to get pre-mortem cryonics accepted. It is much easier to destroy as opposed to repair or build. Once someone is dead there is nothing any law court can do about it, but if someone is cryopreserved, a law court can kill them very easily, and what is more use the opportunity to kill everyone else who is cryopreserved. That is the difference. I am sorry most of what I have said is negative. But I do thank Mr Davis for his thought provoking article and I hope that it generates much fruitful debate. -- Sincerely, * Longevity Report: http://www.longevb.demon.co.uk/lr.htm John de Rivaz * Fractal Report: http://www.longevb.demon.co.uk/fr.htm **************** Homepage:http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JohndeR In the information age, sharing can increase world wealth enormously, because giving information does not decrease your information. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10444