X-Message-Number: 3230
From: 
Date: Sat, 08 Oct 94 23:01:59 EDT
Subject: CRYONICS miscellaneous

Some quick comments on recent postings:

1. Patient counts: 

I think the easiest way to keep track is through the physical location, not
the "legal custody" which can be somewhat confused/confusing and even
changeable.

Cryonics Institute has never lost a patient, nor had one transferred out, for
any reason.

2. Terra Libra and Neo-Tech:

Despite the fact that these people seem to be  well-meaning and sympatico in
many ways, I find their programs very dubious and probably
counter-productive. Terra Libra smacks of a pyramid scheme. Neo-Tech seems to
be a hodge-podge of good and bad ideas, with an enormous amount of
over-simplification, all packaged together under an "authority" or
father-figure ("Wallace") with delusions of grandeur, who is also running a
business which is apparently successful financially but does not have high
standards of intellectual/scientific  discussion. 

In particular, this authority's (he seems to use different names)
pronouncements on identity and criteria of survival are not well considered
nor at all persuasive, and he seems to lack a good deal of factual
information.

For one thing, as others have mentioned, there is considerable evidence that
memory (generally) and personality survive temporary brain "death,"
including--in the case of Audrey Smith's hamsters--about half the water in
the brain changing to ice. 

The correct criteria of identity and survival (if any) are simply not known
yet, but it seems a very good bet that a revived cryostasis patient will be a
"survivor." In any case, as others have pointed out, it's the best bet
currently available--and little prevents someone from pursuing more than one
avenue, such as cryostasis and anti-senescence research, as John de Rivaz has
said.

I don't like to seem put-downish, but sometimes it is difficult to avoid. Mr.
Pitts refers to Dr. Wallace as the "discoverer" of Neo-Tech. I'm sorry, but
Neo-Tech is not a "discovery"--it is only, as I said above, a collection of
ideas and advocacies old and new, good and bad, with a few new phrases or
labels thrown in for salesmanship.

Needless to say, everyone is free to do his own thing, but we should try to
keep our reasoning clear and our labels appropriate.

3. Charles Platt warns that, to be effective in our public relations, we must
respect the other people's points of view, even when we consider them
foolish.

While by no means advocating the "hard sell," I'm not sure his attitude is
always best or even feasible. I prefer to take the Christian dictum of "Hate
the sin but love the sinner." It is entirely possible--although admittedly
not always easy--to tell someone his idea is stupid, without implying that HE
is stupid. People tell me I have stupid ideas all the time, and sometimes
they are right. If you imply "Maybe you are right," or "Everyone is entitled
to his own opinion," you have instantly lost a lot of possible momentum or
authority, and removed from the object of your attention any sense of urgency
to review his position. 

If someone is not willing to question or review his previous position, the
case is probably hopeless anyway. If he is potentially willing to listen, I
think you can be as hard as you wish on his ideas, without necessarily
turning him off. 

How do you do this? I think you do it not by avoiding confrontation of ideas,
but by remaining friendly on a personal level, admitting that you are human
and fallible too, relating instances when you had to make wrenching changes
in viewpoint, giving praise for his areas of merit, and making it clear you
understand what he is up against in changing viewpoints. 

In some cases you can do an end run and show that his viewpoint is not
necessarily in conflict with ours. As one of the most obvious examples, if
someone has difficulty with the question of the "soul" leaving the body after
death, in some cases just a change of wording may do the trick. (The soul
doesn't leave the frozen body because the person is not REALLY dead, any more
than in the cases of temporary "death" involving CPR.)

Sometimes it might even help to publicly humiliate an unreasonable opponent.
Some of his previous sympathizers might become even more hostile, but some
might see the light before having to declare themselves publicly.
Confrontation  (carefully chosen and regulated) with public opponents can
also help in energizing potential sympathizers. People like to choose sides;
yells are better than yawns. We are probably better off having 10
sympathizers and 10 antagonists (if the latter aren't too powerful) than  in
having 20 who are undecided or indifferent. In other words, we need to gain
active sympathizers more than we need to avoid mild opposition, and you
probably don't do this by being too delicate or deferential.

Mr. Platt has had considerable success in promoting cryonics, so his views
must be respected. But no one is right all the time.

4. One specific recommendation for public appearances or debates--especially
when an alleged "expert" appears in opposition: 

When the "expert" says something to the effect that frozen/thawed brains will
be "mush"--or words to that effect--ask him if he has ever SEEN a mammalian
brain frozen and thawed by (say) the methods CI uses. Carry some photos with
you. The brains, after rewarming from liquid  nitrogen temperature, still
look like brains--not mush--and the microscopic photos still show fine
structure very much like normal brains or textbook sketches. And it might not
hurt to show some righteous indignation--how DARE he express opinions, and
offer advice concerning life and death, when he doesn't have the faintest
notion of the facts?

Robert Ettinger

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3230