X-Message-Number: 30787
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re: self interest and cryonics
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 21:52:44 +0200
References: <>

On 28 May 2008, at 17:16,  wrote:

> My position is that, if we explicitly  acknowledge the
> exclusive validity of self interest--even though we are not yet  in  
> a position to
> be always confident where our self interest lies--then we are  more  
> likely to
> question previous assumptions and be suspicious of societal   
> pressures.

The 'exclusive validity of self interest' is a previous assumption and  
one that is detrimental to cryonics.

The scientific approach is the best way to question previous  
assumptions. The science is now clear that self-interest is not an  
adequate explanation for human behavior. It also makes clear that an  
effective way of escaping previous assumptions is to enter a new  
cultural framework.


> DSS as I recall  wants to
> raise and spend millions on a public relations campaign, a  
> suggestion  of
> little if any apparent value.

My proposal was to develop an organizational model and test it in a  
few different countries, where people are most likely to accept  
cryonics. The only public relations would be advertising once to  
recruit potential new members. This would result in several hundred  
new signups and a model that could be applied worldwide.

Millions are being spent each year to improve the quality of  
suspensions. It is argued that the demonstration of reversible  
suspension will lead to widespread acceptance of cryonics. However,  
the reanalysis of the Badger data showed that such a breakthrough  
would have hardly any effect on the acceptance of cryonics (except  
among atheists).
>
>
> What is within reach of the individual, what is feasible, is to  
> question
> your indoctrination and previous assumptions, and face the fact that  
> what you
> ought to want is what is most likely to benefit you, directly or  
> indirectly, and
> refuse to make any sacrifices except the sacrifice of one interest for
> another  of higher priority.
>

The reanalysis shows that this individualistic approach will only work  
with atheists, if at all.


dss

David Stodolsky    Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30787