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