X-Message-Number: 1336
Date: 19 Nov 92 10:29:29 EST
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: CRYONICS

To: Kevin Brown
 
 
 
Re the recent postings by Mike Darwin and Paul Wakfer: I do 
not want to debate the content of these postings, but I do 
want to suggest a way to avoid the factionialism and 
alienation that they represent. 
 
As Mike points out, cryonics is a business which lacks a good 
feedback loop from its consumers. A cryonics organization can 
provide a service which is worthless (freezing people in such 
a way that they can never be revived by any future 
technology), and no one will know the difference for decades 
or even centuries. If the organization presents a plausible 
image, it may thrive. I gather that Bob Nelson was pretty 
plausible, back in the 1970s, when he was president of the 
Cryonics Society of California. His cryonics protocol was 
primitive, but that didn't turn people away. It took a major 
disaster--patients thawing in their capsules--to put Nelson 
out of business. 
 
For this reason, we must always be wary of ANY attempt by a 
cryonics organization to make itself look better than it 
really is. When unpleasant facts are glossed over, we've 
started down the road to Nelsonism. Self-criticism and 
ruthless self-exposure are the only reliable antidotes. 
 
For this reason I am glad to see Mike Darwin making his 
outlook public. I would be glad to see any cryonicist making 
any outlook public. I do regret that Mike's angst prompted 
him to make personal attacks in such a way that the targets 
may find it impossible to work with Mike ever again, because 
in this small field, even if we don't need each other now, we 
may need each other in the future. I also wish that in some 
cases Mike had used specific evidence rather than vague 
general statements. On the whole however I believe that any 
honest outburst is basically good for cryonics. 
 
At the same time, I am not at all happy when the outburst is 
accompanied by cancellation of suspension membership and loss 
of two valuable (if sometimes difficult) people. How could 
this situation have been avoided? 
 
1. Let us admit that contentiousness and factionism are 
inevitable in small groups of smart individualists who are 
motivated by acute awareness of mortality coupled with a 
degree of hubris. Hence the infighting that Mike laments (and 
is a part of). 
 
2. This being so, and honesty being vital in cryonics, I 
suggest it would make sense to institutionalize the unruly 
behavior. In other words, allow a proper vent for powerful 
feelings, so that they can be dealt with in a controlled way 
before they ever have a chance to become totally destructive. 
Cryonet has served that purpose, to some extent. It is 
inadequate, however, because everyone knows that it does not 
reach a large enough constituency. I started my own little 
magazine, Cryonet Digest, as a way of reaching more people. 
But Alcor (or any other cryonics organization) would do well 
to run its own little newsletter CIRCULATING TO ITS ENTIRE 
MEMBERSHIP, with a totally free editorial policy, encouraging 
people to say whatever they like. This is what Paul Wakfer 
suggested in his posting, and I absolutely agree with him. 
 
The British long ago found that the best way to deal with 
one's opposition is to institutionalize it; hence the party 
system of democracy, which is designed to monitor and 
restrain the people in control. It doesn't always work, but 
it works better than a single-party system. 
 
The US Freedom of Information Act has served a similar 
purpose, maintaining some honesty in government. 
 
For Alcor, the "loyal opposition" could consist of a small, 
cheap newsletter, for distribution to suspension members only 
(not the general public), with the sole, specific purpose of 
self-criticism. If someone objects that there isn't enough 
manpower to produce such an item, I hereby volunteer for the 
job--not because I am yearning to say bad things about Alcor, 
but because I believe such a newsletter would be good for 
Alcor's long-term survival (hence my survival, too). If the 
newsletter was bimonthly, I estimate its total production and 
(first-class) mailing costs at around $1200 per year. 
 
Obviously, a newsletter of this type could not work unless it 
had free access to information--ideally, all data in Alcor 
files with the exception of names of patients who have 
requested confidentiality. 
 
I wonder if Alcor--an organization which I joined, 
originally, because it seemed so unusually open and honest 
about itself--currently has the nerve to do such a thing. 
 
I emphasize again that I am not evaluating the validity of 
Mike's or Paul's postings. That is an entirely separate 
issue, which I am not qualified to judge. 
 
What I am concerned with is that this has happened. I believe 
that if institutionalized self-criticism and ruthless honesty 
had existed during the past year or two, it would not have 
happened, even allowing for Mike's history of dramatic 
pronouncements and personal abrasiveness. I believe, also, 
that Saul Kent would not have resorted to self-publishing his 
compendium of complaints against Carlos Mondragon if a proper 
vent for criticism had already existed. Overall, a lot of 
people would be feeling better about Alcor than they do right 
now. 
 
I say again: you're not going to stop cryonicists from being 
contentious, and in a business which has no built in self-
regulation mechanism, honesty is vital. So, instead of trying 
to suppress or evade criticism (as I believe has happened), 
let's sponsor it. 
 
--Charles Platt
 


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1336