X-Message-Number: 26641
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:47:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: "D. den Otter" <>
Subject: Re: Chemopreservation II (possible PR issues etc.)

Mike Perry wrote:

> it is
> my feeling that something should be done even if
little interest is 
> shown;
> you might still save a few.

Kennita Watson replied:

<<But the few who sign up for chemopreservation cannot
be properly counted in isolation:  those few might
have been talked into making the additional financial
commitment to cryonics given time, and might be lost
unnecessarily if it turns out that chemopreservation
is inadequate.>>

Or, more likely, they *wouldn't* have made the
additional financial commitment --which is quite
substantial if you don't have life insurance; at least
 ~$30,000 vs (potentially) $500-6,000-- and
subsequently been buried or cremated. Let's not forget
that quite a few of such folks would presumably be
last minute cases, post mortems even, for whom time
has already run out, and low cost is the only
financially realistic option. To deny them this
service would amount to a death sentence.

Note: the objective is emphatically NOT to 'steal'
(potential) signups from the cryonics organizations.
The low budget org's website would make it very clear
that this is just and emergency solution, and that if
you can afford regular cryonics services you should
*definitely* opt for those. Links to all cryonics
organizations (unless they don't want to be associated
in any way with this venture, not even as a link)
would be provided. 

<<Knowing that Alcor provides chemopreservation might
also undermine confidence in their cryonics
procedures.>>

Only among the misinformed and narrow-minded. Also, it
would most likely be plastination or freeze drying
rather than simple chemopreservation. 

Anyway, it doesn't look like Alcor (or any other cryo
org for that matter) is going to offer low cost
alternatives, at least not anytime soon, so the point
is moot. If this is going to be done at all, it will
be via a separate, dedicated provider.

It is, btw, not entirely impossible that the publicity
surrounding low budget services would ultimately
result in *more* signups for the cryo orgs, not less.
People might visit the low budget site and think 'hm,
this won't work, but that cryo stuff is kinda
interesting' or 'hey, I can actually afford
cryonics!'. Who knows? If the sword cuts both ways,
the final result might simply be 'neutral'.

<<Also, preserving brains alone (apparently, without
even the heads around them) is likely to bother more
people (or bother people more) than preserving whole
heads or whole bodies.  And the media are likely to
have a field day with "brain in a vat".>>

Actually, I think brains are better PR-wise, because
they tend to be associated with medical procedures,
while severed heads tend to remind people of old skool
executions. Disembodied brains look kinda funny and
harmless, learned almost, while severed heads look
rather ghastly (especially if they're grimacing 'n'
stuff).

Also, with the brain-only approach, non-immortalist
relatives can bury or cremate an apparently 'intact'
corpse if so desired (no more mutilated than after a
standard autopsy), as opposed to a headless one (the
horror!) or nothing at all.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26641