X-Message-Number: 13159
From: Daniel Ust <>
Subject: RE: 13143 More on abortion and cryopreservation
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 17:38:58 -0500

On Date: Wed, 26 Jan 100 12:59:32 +1100 (EST) Thomas Donaldson
>There first thing I will say here is that, yes, my opinion on these issues
>has been affected by my previous experience. A good number of people have 
>proposed various ways to increase the growth rate of cryonics. So far,
>such proposals have utterly failed.

Which leads me to ask:  Why did they all fail?  Sometimes a plan can fail
because it is not implemented or seriously implemented.

I noted, e.g., from my interaction with some local cryonics groups that no
serious outreach program was put into place - even on the local level.  I
participated in a discussion group (the Central Jersey Objectivists; see my
site for more on this) a few years back and I noticed that we got higher
attendance when we put up posters about our meetings and such ("cold"
calling and [snail] mailing to lists).  Even these seem to not have been
tried at the cryonics groups.  This does not mean getting more people to
know about and attend meetings results in more people signing up for
cryonics, but I bet there's a slight positive correlation there.

(I also wonder about setting up booths on campuses and at fairs and the
like.  I've done such things with the Libertarian Party.  In fact, in New
Jersey, such booths were the main method of recruitment...  I suppose
someone has already talked about this idea, but has anyone done it?  If so,
what were the results?)

>The main strategy that works NOW is
>simply for those who want to promote growth to approach those they know
>personally and raise the topic of cryonics with them. Yes, all those other
>methods DO produce a relatively small number of new members, but hardly
>the number expected by their proponents.

Surely, word of mouth works, but other low cost methods also work.

This raises the question of measurable results.  Again, where are the
numbers for growth?

>A very few years ago (1996-1997, as I remember) one fellow with a
>background in promoting various organizations and charities joined Alcor
>and promised to increase Alcors growth rate within a year. We all hoped
>that he'd do that, but so far the only thing Ive heard about the success
>of his ideas is total silence (suggestive, especially when I look at
>Alcor's figures on growth).

Where can I find those figures?  Or any figures on growth in membership,
subscriptions, and the like?

>I will also admit that the strategy of trying to substitute freezing for
>abortion hasnt been raised, at least very loudly, at all over the last
>10 years as I remember them.

Early on this list people mentioned it being talked about before.  This is
not news anymore.  The problem again is in talking about it only amongst
ourselves and not amongst those who would actually have more of a vested
interest in doing it.  I'm still doing the latter.  I hope over the next few
weeks to have an idea of how much people will be willing to invest in this. 

>I do not withdraw the problems I see with
>such a strategy. Anyone who wants to try it is welcome to do so; my 
>personal opinion (which may be wrong) is that they will find their
>proposal offends both "pro-life" people AND "pro-abortion" people, with
>no frozen babies resulting.

Then at worst, all we lose is what little we invest in it, right?

>Finally, a short comment on Doug Skreckys piece, clearly relevant to 
>the proposed strategy: so far methods for freezing embryos are done only
>a few days after fertilization, when the embryo consists of only one or
>a very few cells. It DOES work, but using it requires that the mother
>have ALREADY decided to freeze the embryos beforehand. Presenting that
>possibility when she first realizes shes pregnant is likely to be much too
>late for anything other than some form of cryonics to work --- if shes
>interested at all.

Perhaps, though the technology could get better - which is an assumption of
plain vanilla cryonics right now.  I mean, I hope, there is no one out there
who counts on cryonics working - in the sense of having revivals -- with no
technological progress.

>I will also point out that so far the legal situation
>of such embryos AFTER THE DEATH OF THE MOTHER has been unknown at best.
>Several courts have decreed simply that they be thawed and buried; since
>human embryos dont count as property, the mother cannot even control their
>fate by her Will.

I think this is an important issue, but not one that can be decided on this
list.  Instead, if a large and vocal enough group of people decide they want
this, then I'm sure laws can and will be bent to suit them.  I'm not saying
this is right or wrong.

I also think if some in the Pro-Life crowd become serious about doing this,
then they will more than likely be ready to defend the embryos against legal
and physical attack.  (As I've stated, I'm not in that crowd, but I can see
them doing that.:)

Have a great weekend!

Daniel Ust
	Find more information on tar water's medicinal properties at:

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=13159