X-Message-Number: 14529
From: "John de Rivaz" <>
References: <>
Subject: Re:The Purpose of this List
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 11:22:02 +0100

---- Original Message -----
> Doug Baldwin <> wrote:
> > RE:  #14514: A Community of Cryonicists? [Paul Wakfer] <>
> >
> > >all), then in order to optimise my use of time, I  must perforce
> > >unsubscribe to this list which has become an inward looking club rather
> > >than the speciality list which its name implies.

However much many of us may agree on a private level, I feel that someone
interested in cryonics is too important to dismiss this lightly. Our numbers
are too small to practise intolerance. Mr Wakfer may have been wrong in his
approach, but he did try to do something and if he is drummed out then it
could discourage others from trying something else. Who knows, maybe the
next person who rocks the boat will come up with something that none of us
have thought of before and which is really useful.

> Message #14526
> Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 10:24:31 -0400
> From: Paul Wakfer <>
> Subject: The Purpose of this List
> been no apparent benefit for my research fund-raising efforts from the
> many hours which I spent posting to CryoNet and then defending my

This is the nub of the matter. As I understand it, the Prometheus Project
and later projects were an independent structure that *may* benefit the
cryonics community as presently constituted. Alternatively it could have
produced a different technology which would have given rise to new cryonics
organisations which would have taken over the old ones or simply taken their
members (on the basis that it was proven to be superior). Also it has been
described by cryonics leaders as speculative and it has been suggested that
the funding is better used elsewhere. That is to say it could have produced
no useful result at all.

As many estate residues of people signed up for cryonics pass to cryonics
organisations, anything any signed up member spends is ultimately going to
reduce that residue that passes to his cryonics organisation. Certainly
large chunks of money as were proposed will make a substantial difference if
otherwise they were invested in technology and stayed there for decades
before being passed to a cryonics organisation. If the payments to PP were
removed from a mutual fund (or similar) in a manner that attracted capital
taxation, then this effect would have been amplified even further.

Maybe it would be better for those interested in the Prometheus Project  to
go one to other futurist lists or whatever and start from scratch with the
concept of developing a provable preservation protocol before signing people
up for it. Don't use the words "cryo" anything in describing it. Such a
concept is totally different from the basic premise of cryonics, which is to
rely on *future* technology to do the *revival*. In the proposed scenario,
one is
still relying on future technology to do the curing and ageing reversal, but
*not for the revival*. (Obviously a relatively crude revival technology
would improve with time, though.)  If this order of events is possible
(which I and probably most people reading this list think it isn't, but we
could be wrong) then people could give you their money for you to spend on
this project. Something that came to mind: Maybe an improved approach would
be instead of asking people to give *you* the money ask for someone else to
come forward to collect the money for your idea. That perhaps may deflect
some of the name calling that follows every "beggar". (You are only a fund
raiser if you work for a big established charity.)

I hope that these comments have been of help, I have tried to say what I
think is logical and sensible, but apologies in advance if they are not good
politics :-)

Sincerely, John de Rivaz
my homepage links to Longevity Report, Fractal Report, music, Inventors'
report, an autobio and various other projects:
http://www.autopsychoice.com - should you be able to chose autopsy?

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=14529