X-Message-Number: 18291
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 12:06:29 -0500
From: Keith Henson <>
Subject: Re: The Cryonics Biz 

 >From: <>
 >Subject: The Cryonics Biz
 >
 >Dear Cryonet:
 >
 >In these discussions of the marketing of cryonics I hope we're not to be
 >caught between two hyper-polarized views: one in which packaging is held
 >to be everything, and the other in which honesty demands that it be
 >nothing. This is the real world, and there are many shades of gray between
 >these extremes.
 >
 >Our popular cultural image does seem to give us two extreme choices for
 >life: one is the Madison Avenue / Warner Brothers approach, which is to

snip (sorry, the quote counter rejected my first try)

 >And now, for my own view on the matter.
 >
 >I believe things are much more complex. The reality is that the world, and
 >nature, is a buzzing, blooming confusion, and we all have tiny little
 >brains and almost no time to make sense of it.

To some extent this is the current situation because the world we live in
is far removed from the world in which we evolved. Evolution provided us
with a vast array of specialize mental modules to deal with the physical
world of hunter-gatherers and the equally important social world of social
primates living in tribes and small villages. I highly recommend
this: http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html

 >Existence may exist, all right, but it's a bitch to figure out in
 >real-time. We've monumentally stupid, and we die early. So we get along

snip

 >The result of all this is that we make most judgements at a superficial
 >level, based on obvious proxy markers for (what we fondly hope are) deeper
 >realities. And this works well enough to be a successful strategy.

Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. (Nisbett,
Richard, and Lee Ross. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,
1980.) is hard to find, but it discusses the cost of making decisions and
the ways people reduce the cost so they don't starve to death like the
proverbial donkey caught between two piles of hay.

 >The pea-hen looks at the peacock's tail and doesn't do that badly on that
 >criterion alone, because the length and color of the tale gives
 >information about health and strength. Humans do similar things when it

snip

 >The problem is that
 >science, like the legal system, is slow. The wheels of scientific
 >judgment grind so finely and so glacially that individual lives and
 >endeavors are often lost in the works. The history of science is littered
 >with notations and footnotes that this or that fact was actually
 >discovered or first stated by Dr. X or Y who we've never heard of, but who
 >had the bad luck or judgement to publish in some obscure place. Or in
 >complicated language which wasn't understood until somebody else
 >independently did it better, and allowed a clearer look at the past.

Indeed. The net and search tools may be speeding up the process somewhat
and better allocating credit (which translates into social status--which in
previous times translated to reproductive success--and to some extent does
today).

 >In the real world of science, it turns out, whether or not you're the
 >first to a discovery can depend on silly things. Like whether or

snip

 >Finally (hope you're still with me) we come to cryonics. Cryonics is a
 >powerful idea-- quite as powerful as any of Nash's-- but its time has not
 >quite come. It is known broadly now as science fiction, like Star Trek's
 >warp drive, but that is all. Eventually it will rock our society to the
 >core, as a lot of people begin to realize that they've been taking the
 >most precious things on this planet (human brains) and burying them like
 >old garbage, when they could have been saved. Wups. But the technology to
 >make people understand that at a gut level, has not yet arrived.
 >
 >Meanwhile, how long will it take? In part, I propose that that's a matter
 >of presentation. Cryonics seems destined eventually be as much a part of
 >our culture as any piece of modern medicine, but whether that happens in
 >20 years or 50 years is probably largely a matter of salesmanship. That
 >may not be fair, but that's the way it is. Do you want to see it happen in
 >your life-times?

I am not sure I disagree with Steve here, but I suspect that the social
acceptance time constant for cryonics may be longer than the technological
developments that will make it obsolete.

snip (good stuff, may comment later)

 >Steve Harris
 >
 >And BTW, Happy New Year. May 2002 C.E. suck less than 2001 did.

Your point is well taken.

Keith Henson
www.operatingthetan.com (new material if you have not looked for a while)

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=18291