X-Message-Number: 2363 Subject: CRYONICS Message from Robert Ettinger From: (Charles Platt) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 93 21:41:49 EDT The following message comes from Robert Ettinger, who has given his permission for it to be reprinted here. --Charles Platt ------------------------------------------------------------- CRYONICS RECRUITMENT: ADDRESSING THE SECOND COHORT By R.C.W. Ettinger I suggest a possible way for cryonics organizations to cooperate in improved recruitment and public relations. It seems to me this approach offers several advantages never heretofore realized. "THE SECOND COHORT" is our second-easiest group of potential recruits, namely, those who have no major emotional or philosophical hangups, but who simply do not agree that people frozen by present methods have any appreciable chance of revival. This group includes large numbers of scientific and technical people. (The "first cohort" consists of those who have been in sympathy all along, and just need a little push, reminder and encouragement. These are far fewer, but still many times outnumber our current membership.) The SCIENCE COURT is an old idea, and one which the Immortalist Society and Cryonics Institute tried formally just once, a few years ago, with very poor attendance. If properly handled, however, especially by a consortium of cryonics organizations, I still think it could be very effective. The "science court" is essentially just a debate, or series of debates, in person or in print, to test the merit of a technical or scientific idea or proposal--in this case, the technical merit of cryonics, the probability of revival of a patient suspended by present methods. But there are some key differences between this kind of debate and--for example--a political debate. First, the formal aim is not to win an argument, but to clarify it--to focus clearly on where the differences of opinion lie and to eliminate any misunderstandings. (The debate is sometimes called a "fact forum.") Second, the "debate" continues--if necessary over a considerable time span and with repeated meetings, and perhaps different participants--until all rebuttals and revised arguments have been presented, until questions of fact have been settled so far as possible, and everyone has made his best possible case. Third, we eliminate so far as possible all matters of personality, ideology, politics, etc., and focus exclusively on technical feasibility. In this case, for example, the sociological desirability fo cryonics is an out-of-bounds topic; we look only at the technical probability of eventual revival. BAITING THE TRAP. We know that anti-cryonicists cannot win a fair fight, and never fight fairly. All they ever do is make brief public put-downs, and never hold still for cross examination. Our Second Cohort people seldom get a chance to see a clear picture. What can we do to change this; how can we lure opponents into court? 1. We use money and publicity. We offer to pay their expenses and an honorarium, and we make a loud challenge. Some of these people like the limelight, and are vain enough to think they can hold their own. 2. We don't necessarily need dyed-in-the-wool, foaming-at- the-mouth antagonists. A "debate" or discussion can be many- sided. Some of the non-cryonics participants--if necessary, all of them--could be Second Cohort people, leaning away from us but not philosophical enemies. Every conversion could be important. 3. If necessary, we could throw down the gauntlet and then, if there are no takers, proceed anyway. If we can't get any prominent participants, we could at least attract attention and sympathy by offering prizes or scholarships. We could invite faculty and students from colleges and offer cash prizes for the best essays on either side of the argument. 3(a). A variation might be just to have a college contest (or series of them, to use different geographical regions and learn from experience; faculty and students eligible, prize for best essay(s)--"best" in terms of quality, regardless of conclusion, neutral judges. Those who want to enter would be given large packets of information including books. Three drafts (two revisions) required, giving the cryonics coordinators two opportunities to comment on the first two drafts. Perhaps a physical meeting to announce the decision(s), discuss the results, and present the prize(s). 4. We threaten invited opponents with the penalties of default--that we will relentlessly publicize their craven refusal to meet us face to face. Typically, they prefer to ignore us, feeling that any attention may help us; but if we can make their risk appear greater if they duck the issue, maybe some would accept. This tactic would require careful choice of ideal targets. COOPERATION between organizations could be important here, to share expenses and to contribute effective and variegated representatives. If we can work out a modus, I am willing to recommend that Cryonics Institute contribute $10,000 plus travel expenses. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2363