X-Message-Number: 10532
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 09:22:35 -0700
From: Peter Merel <>
Subject: Are all cryonicists Heinlein fans?

Seeing Bob Ettinger and myself both invoke the shade of the great man 
yesterday suggests an odd idea. I wonder - is there anyone here who is 
not or has not once been an avid reader of Robert Anson Heinlein?

I know that SF fans, despite marketing focused on them, have proved less
receptive to the non-fictional practice of cryonics even than averages 
would suggest they ought. But although Heinlein remains extremely popular, 
only a fraction of SF fans really dig him. Most are much more interested in 
simple morality plays like Star Trek and Star Wars, or hearts and flowers 
fantasy like Tolkien and McCaffery, or gory horror stuff or conspiracy
theories or ...

Don't get me wrong - I like those too on occasion - but I wonder ...

I know that RAH himself is reported not to have been frozen, but sprinkled
over the ocean. If he had decided to get frozen secretly I'm sure we'd never 
find him out until he came back and wrote about it. But perhaps he himself
didn't buy into the Long family ethos that he wrote about and really did
get burned and scattered. It doesn't matter to me; I'll plainly admit that
what drew me to cryonics, and what I most admire in the folk that practice
it, is that alpha-person if-we-can't-solve-it-it-can't-be-solved only-science-
is-sacred small-mouthed-anarchist you-too-can-survive-the-crazy-years 
longevism that I read in RAH's books as a kid.

So I wonder: are we all Heinlein fans? If we are, then that doesn't mean that
all Heinlein fans are incipient cryonicists. But it suggests that'd be worth
investigating. If it turns out to be true, maybe we should be doing like the
Gideons and seeding "Time Enough" into schools and motel bedrooms. I mean, 
if RAH predisposes for cryonics, hell's bells, if you're stuck in a New 
Jersey room alone for an evening and you have nothing else, which good book
would you rather read?

Peter Merel.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10532