X-Message-Number: 31495
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #31480 - #31487
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 16:24:28 +0100
References: <>

On 14 Mar 2009, at 10:00, CryoNet wrote:
>
> Message #31482
> References: <>
> Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 09:19:15 -0700 (PDT)
> From: 2Arcturus <>
> Subject: Re: religion declining
>
> --0-1500079525-1236961155=:25653
>
> From: Mark Plus <>
>>>> Sometimes things do fundamentally change.
>
>
> The old religions, invented in the Axial era of religion-production,  
> have been dysfunctional since the rise of science and the other  
> "modernity" shifts. But this hasn't made religion, highest ideals,  
> irrelevant.

The use of "religion" and "highest ideals" as equivalent doesn't  
conform to common use, as has been pointed out earlier. It certainly  
is possible to formulate a view that accepts the possibility of a  
Creator of the Universe and isn't in violation of science, however,  
this just doesn't fit in with the way the word is normally used and  
will not clarify the issues. Normally, 'religion' is understood as a  
worldview that includes the supernatural, that is, it contradicts a  
scientific worldview. Our operational definition is that someone is  
religious, unless they check 'atheist' or 'agnostic' on a survey.
>
>
>>>> I don't know how you measure "anti-cryonics."
>
> The USA has the highest number of signups.

This could be a result of the fact that it is the center of cryonics  
activity and that could be due to the size of the Country or other  
factors making it possible for a tiny minority to organize effectively.


> According to the recent CI newsletter, secularized Italy requires  
> bodies to be embalmed before being moved, making cryonics  
> practically impossible.

It isn't clear that use of cryopreservation fluids would violate the  
law. Also, any idea that Italy is a secular society fails to recognize  
the degree to which religion saturates that society, both in terms of  
belief and in the power of the Catholic Church.


> Also,according to CI sources, a province of secularized Canada has  
> criminalized marketing of cryonics,

This hasn't actually criminalize cryonics. In fact, the organizational  
format I propose testing would be permitted there, since it doesn't  
explicitly market cryonics.


> and secularized France has prohibited cryonics since the 1960s.

This could be due to the fact that cryonics is regarded there as a  
type of religion.


> It is impossible to consider opposition to cryonics in secularized  
> populations without understanding the secular ideologies that lie in  
> the background of this opposition. Many of the arguments will be  
> familiar to people in the USA - overpopulation concerns, fear of  
> hubris and individualism (vs social conformity and the hegemony of  
> the society), distrust of science and technology in general, etc.  
> These sorts of concerns are very common in the secularized (and New  
> Age) "left" in the USA.

This type of opposition could be a sign of the increasing support for  
cryonics. The stages of acceptance of innovations:

It is impossible.
It is immoral.
I thought of it first.


We simply don't have adequate data to answer these questions and will  
not have it until some serious social science is done in this area.


>
>
>>>> Assuming you could, how do you separate the religious versus  
>>>> secular factors from other considerations like egalitarian  
>>>> ideologies, distance from cryonics facilities, anti-American  
>>>> attitudes affecting the perception of cryonics in other countries  
>>>> and so forth?
>
> I don't separate them. Religions, worldviews, ideologies, are all on  
> a spectrum. But your point seems to be that secularism will be a  
> panacea for cryonics, which is obviously not true.

While it may not be a panacea, the data points in this direction. See  
the reanalysis of Badger (1998).


> Certain types of secularism are completely compatible with  
> opposition to cryonics. The reverse truth, that certain (new) types  
> of religion can be completely compatible with cryonics, is not so  
> obvious to many.

While true, this is not important in the marketing/acceptance of  
cryonics at this time.

>
>
> Message #31483
> References: <>
> Subject: Re: Who hasn't heard of cryonics
> Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:45:04 -0400
> From: 

> But about as difficult a sales task as is possible to get.

Right. The repackaging of cryonics is the key to effective promotion.


> -----Original Message-----Message #31477
> From: "Robert Newport" <>
> Subject: Message #31467
> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:39:20 -0700

>
> As it is not in anyone's world view who has not been exposed to  
> advanced
> scientific thinking. Again, it is without precedence. It exists in  
> fiction.

Yes, but this is a type of exposure.

>
> It has never worked and 'death is still inevitable.

The view that death is inevitable is compatible with cryonics.


>  We have a chance with
> the youth, if we can think of a way to involve them without  
> requiring their
> money (which they don't have).

Certainly, if young people are brought up in an environment accepting  
of cryonics, they will continue to support it. However, the target for  
marketing should be those in middle age, when existential concerns  
come to the fore.

If cord blood samples were routinely stored as part of the repackaging  
I propose, then every youth would have the knowledge that in case of  
serious disease, there was a handy source of stem cells in cryonic  
suspension. This is just about the best form of recruitment that I can  
think of and it would cost little compared to a serious marketing  
effort.


dss

David Stodolsky
                     Skype:  
davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=31495