X-Message-Number: 30328
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re: Advancing Research and Alcor
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 12:20:54 +0100
References: <>

On 16 Jan 2008, at 17:46, david pizer wrote:

> First we have to improve research so that we can show
> the hospitals that there is a pretty good chance that
> someone, someday in the future, can bring the patients
> back.

While this makes perfect sense to someone interested in cryonics, It  
hasn't been demonstrated it has any effect on others. There are two  
types of influences that can change hospital policy. The first is  
profitability. If for-profit hospitals can see a money making  
opportunity, they will support it - unless the activity is prohibited  
by law. It would be extremely difficult to make suspension profitable,  
since there are very few cases, meaning startup costs are difficult to  
recover. The way around this is to make suspension routine and  
performed on a regular basis - several times a year, at least.

For non-profits, it is typically political influences that are  
important. This means lobbying and other political activities. Both of  
these approaches depend upon greatly increased numbers of members.  
Thus, I reassert my previous claim, that the most important research  
area for cryonics is social, including marketing. The failure of  
previous efforts in this direction demonstrate that a totally new  
approach is needed. That is why I suggested support for a PhD social  
scientist to develop a new strategy for the promotion of bio-stasis.


Since the above claim, that better suspension technologies would lead  
to greater acceptance of cryonics, comes up again and again, perhaps  
it is time to put that hypothesis to a test. It would be inexpensive  
to perform a study that examines this issue. We already have  
questionnaires designed to measure attitudes toward cryonics. A simple  
experiment would have participants reading two descriptions of the  
state of suspension technologies and then filling in a survey. It  
would cost about 4,000 USD to get a random sample of a thousand people  
and a definitive answer to this question. This seems like a trivial  
amount as compared to the millions that have been and continue to be  
expended on suspension technology improvements. While such  
improvements can be valuable in themselves, we should know whether  
they can change attitudes toward cryonics, if such investments are  
going to be justified based upon hoped-for changes in public opinion.  
A failure to demonstrate attitude differences would not be an  
indication that improvements in suspension technology are irrelevant.  
However, it could show that acceptance of cryonics depends upon other  
factors, that must be influenced, if  suspension is to become a  
routine hospital procedure.



dss


David Stodolsky    Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30328