X-Message-Number: 31757
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re: Why hasn't cryonics become a status symbol?
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:42:37 +0200
References: <>

On 22 Jun 2009, at 11:00 AM, Mark Plus wrote:

> The misconception persists that only very rich people can afford  
> cryonics

Badger (1998) stated, "Group differences based on Income approached  
statistical significance". That is, the wealthy are more likely to  
say, "I believe that cryonics is an exciting idea and intend on  
looking into it further." This was the only action item on the survey.  
And "Individuals making more than $100K were generally more favorably  
disposed toward cryonics". So, there is some evidence that this is not  
a misconception.

My reanalysis of this data concluded that only atheist millionaires  
would likely be attracted by current marketing. Therefore, it is  
likely that any misconception there is, is reinforced by the current  
marketing strategy for cryonics. The fact that less wealthy  
individuals can afford cryonics - assuming they don't prefer to use  
their money on their children, etc. - doesn't change the overall trend  
and therefore perceptions.

Status symbols have to be symbols, that is, visible signs. There is  
very little in cryonics that can function like this at the moment -  
maybe a bracelet or a card. These don't measure up as compared to a  
big house, fancy car, etc. Also, since cryonics is still regarded by  
many as a scam or foolish, and maybe even a threat - to the  
environment due to overpopulation, etc. - it doesn't have the  
unambiguously positive perceptual value needed to be a status symbol.


David Stodolsky
  Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=31757