X-Message-Number: 31476 From: David Stodolsky <> Subject: Re: CryoNet #31467 - #31472 Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:41:36 +0100 References: <> --Apple-Mail-9-878059215 format=flowed; delsp=yes On 12 Mar 2009, at 10:00, CryoNet wrote: > All this discussion about religion declining (or not) and > suggestions that if certain people are given lots of money for > publicity they could somehow get lots of sign ups seem to miss one > thing. > > How many people are there that have never heard of cryonics? > > Once someone has heard of it, they can very easily find out more > without ever disclosing their interest to anyone. The fact that few > people have signed seems to me to be very unlikely to be due to > unawareness. My proposal is not to spend lots of money on publicity, but to fund development of a new model for social organization and promotion, that once tested could be applied widely with very limited resources. The testing of this new model requires some funding for publicity, but word-of-mouth/viral advertising would be the main means of dissemination after development. In fact, I explicitly stated that money currently spent on publicity is wasted. The discussion about religion is crucial, because the Badger data clearly shows that the current marketing strategy is only effective on atheists. However, this doesn't mean that religion has to 'go away' before cryonics will be widely accepted. It means that a model has to be developed that provides people with the benefits of a religious organization. Cryonics is one component of this model, but it can't be effectively sold alone to most people. So, the challenge is to incorporate or package cryonics as part of an organization that provides the essential (claimed) benefits of a religious organization. > The Epicureans in ancient Rome thought that religion was dying out > in their day. > The Confucians of ancient China were sure religion was about to be a > thing of the past. > The Enlightenment philosophes were certain religion was at the end > of the line in their time. > > How many times does this stupid mistake have to be made over again? > > Religion is not on its way out. Just, perhaps, in a major transition > period. No wonder to most of us the ancient religions no longer seem > functional in today's societies. But that does not mean *no* > religion could be. Paul's (2008) article suggests why this historical truth no longer holds. Modern societies can overcome the major environmental factors that promote religion: "lower income inequality correlates with lower religiosity" "insecurity breeds religion" Advances in technology have both increased the standard of living (and reduced inequality of incomes) and reduced insecurity. The three legs of popular secularism (Paul, 2008): Naturalistic Science (evolutionary theory) Socioeconomic Security (low societal disfunction) Corporate-Consumer Culture (materialism) My proposal enhances the science focus through education, increases security by forming groups for mutual aid, and deals with the problem of death materially. Therefore, the plan can be seen as a way to promote secularism, which in turn leads to more signups. "Conservative theists tend to oppose effective social and economic policies (Paul, 2008)." This supports my earlier claim that conservatism leads to reduced signups via an increase in inequality. Paul's (2008) main finding is that the 'internal causes' of religiosity, for example, evolved brain function (Boyer), do not hold up. This is a point I have made on this List and also on the Transhumanist List (that got me banned, because I opposed the moderator's view). So, it is time for cryonicists to accept the fact that the major factors effecting religiosity and thereby signups are socio-economic and organizational. > > And it should be noted, on this list, all the heavily secularized > societies mentioned in the article are *much more* anti-cryonics > than "religious" America. I don't see how this can be supported. dss David Stodolsky Skype: davidstodolsky --Apple-Mail-9-878059215 Content-Type: text/html; [ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=31476