X-Message-Number: 15184
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 12:26:45 -0500 (EST)
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #15169 - #15178

To Thomas Donaldson: You suggest that I need to belong to an organization,
for my comments to have any weight. An odd opinion, since you are taking
them seriously yourself! I spent 6 or 7 years working quite hard at times
to run, and help to run, a cryonics organization. Before that, I did quite
a lot for Alcor. Clearly I have established that I am willing to work
harder than the average member. If I find an organization which I would
feel comfortable in, as an activist, I will join it. In the meantime I
don't expect to have much to say, more than a couple of times a year.

Gary Tripp wonders why I "delayed" my book on cryonics. Evidently I didn't
make myself clear. I have attempted to write two books on cryonics. The
first was rejected by 20 publishers. Some editors said they felt that
while cryonics can be "bundled in" with other topics in a magazine, it is
not sufficiently interesting as a stand-alone book topic, because "no one
goes into a bookstore intending to buy a book on this subject."

The second book was crafted to be less evangelical. It was commissioned by
Wired Books--which went out of business! While they were still in
business, my editor felt (very strongly) that the book was still too
evangelical. One of the readers at the publisher was actually enraged by
it. Conversely, when SaulKent read a copy, he said it was the most
negative book about cryonics he had ever seen. Clearly it is VERY
difficult for someone who believes in the potential of cryonics to write
about it convincingly for skeptics.

In any case at this point I feel ambivalent about writing such a book.
Here's an analogy. If there were some sincere people hoping to build a
space ship to Mars, and they wanted people to give them money, even though
the space ship is only half-built, and they're not sure how to finish it,
and they're hoping for future scientists to figure out how the space ship
can land on Mars--would it be ethical to encourage people to put money
into this wacky project? Should the ship-builders be portrayed as heroic
(which most readers will not believe) or as con men (which is not true but
IS what many readers will believe) or as misguided (which will offend the
ship-builders and cause a lot of trouble in that community)? Maybe it's
better to wait another year or two until the ship-builders have some more
of the scientific details worked out, and THEN write a really convincing
book about them.

Bob Ettinger writes:

> If we define a "professional cryobiologist" as someone who has been published
> on that topic in a recognized journal, then there are several who are also
> members of a cryonics organization or/and known to have favorable views on
> cryonics. Yet, as far as I know, not a single one is fully open about his
> cryonics connection. Either he or his employer, in every case, wants the
> connection kept at least partially in the closet.

The Society for Cryobiology still has its rule that anyone who advocates
body freezing shall be expelled from the society. Surely Bob is aware of
this. Also I am sure he is aware that if you are in the biosciences, and
you want to get your work published in ANY serious journal, your chances
are minimal if you are known to advocate cryonics.

Rather than complaining that cryobiologists are not helpful to cryonics,
we might complain that the unprofessional standards and procedures in
cryonics are unhelpful to cryobiologists. If cryonics were practiced in a
more professional, sane, and ethical manner, it would not have such a
stigma attached to it.

Another reader writes (sorry, I deleted the name by accident):

> the research, apparently still ongoing, if Alcor's
> vitrification announcement is any guide. Plus Alcor
> and CI are still solvent and both are making solid
> gains in membership.

CI is probably doing well, since its expenses are minimal and it has
benefited from at least one very large bequest. Alcor allowed many members
(as many as 100, I seem to recall) to convert to life membership, which
will deprive Alcor of their annual dues in the future. This decision was
based on the assumption that membership growth would make up the
difference. Judging from numbers in CRYONICS magazine, the growth did not
meet expectations. I would guess (this is only a guess) that Alcor might
need about $100,000 a year in donations. This is not a criticism; all
organizations that provide cryonics services have always depended partly
on donations. By this standard, none of them has been "solvent." As for
"solid gains in membership," by my calculations, Alcor's net gain has been
less than 10 percent per year for the past five years. Again, please
correct me if I'm wrong. As for research into vitrification, this is NOT
being conducted by a cryonics organization. We should not assume
automatically that the results of this research will be given away to
cryonics organizations unconditionally. Also, since a vitrified organ must
be maintained at a temperature higher than that of liquid nitrogen, some
additional expenses will be involved. And the vitrification of whole-body
cases is problematic at this time. Sorry to sound a bit "negative" on
these topics, but if you don't face problems, you can't solve them.

Brent Fox writes:

> Well Charles, if the gamble of cryonics pays off, then a lot of the
> "hypothetical arguments", and "pointless speculation" may be VERY relevant.

You mean those superscientists or hyperintelligent AIs of the future are
going to take the time to read through the pontifications and waffle on
CryoNet before they resuscitate anyone? I admit, this possibility had not
occurred to me.

> I'm not familiar with the CI research.   You do have a point though,
> concerning the lack of info from Cryonic Services providers.  What about the
> vitrification techniques that Alcor has proposed?  I've not seen much
> details concerning it, nor about Alcor's plans to do all neurosuspensions in
> this matter.   There's not been much discussion about that.

Of course it would be unreasonable to expect organizations to discuss
negotiations that are in progress or research that has not been published
in professional journals yet. 21CM scientists did make a preliminary
presentation, which was described (by me) in CryoCare Report, CRYONICS
magazine, and The Immortalist. I believe relevant electron micrographs are
still shown on the ACS web site.

Mike Perry writers (gently and reasonably as always):

> of course, that if you admit that some topic or topics should not be
> excluded altogether, it/they might come to dominate the discussion. It's
> hard to partially ban something,

Mike, as I make a living by writing, I would be the last person to suggest
banning anything, anywhere. I merely observed that you may diagnose the
state of a (slightly radical) movement by reading its publications. If you
compare CryoNet, say, with an issue of CRYONICS magazine in the late 1980s
(the highest-ever period of Alcor growth), you find a very substantial
difference. The things that people write are an indicator of their
priorities, and the health of their movement.

That's more than enough from me.

--CP

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15184