X-Message-Number: 32319 References: <> Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:43:49 -0800 Subject: Re: CryoNet #32315 From: Michael Smith <> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 2:00 AM, CryoNet <> wrote: > > CryoNet - Sun 17 Jan 2010 > > #32315: Re: Stressing rejuvenation to promote cryonics [Mark Plus] > > Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32315%2D32315 > > Administrivia > > To subscribe to CryoNet, send email to: > > with the subject line (not message _body_): > subscribe > To unsubscribe, use the subject line: > unsubscribe > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message #32315 > From: Mark Plus <> > Subject: Re: Stressing rejuvenation to promote cryonics > Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 07:34:12 -0800 > > In Cryonet #32314, Ben Best writes: > > >> I was asked to concentrate on the scientific > >> aspects of cryonics. I will devote the first > >> half of my presentation to rejuvenation science because > >> I believe this is an essential part of the cryonics > >> program that is too often missed, and which provides > >> so much incentive (a marketing benefit for outreach). > > >David Stodolsky wrote: > > >> What evidence is there to support this view? > > > I have drawn this conclusion from the hundreds if not > thousands of conversations I have had with people > about cryonics. > > I've also noticed that several components of the cryonics idea fail to communicate well, including the role of rejuvenation as part of the revival process, and the expectation that progress in trauma medicine will lead to the ability to repair "whole body frostbite," as someone called cryonic suspension. > > Instead I read or hear misconceptions about waking up in Future World with the aged body that killed you in the first place, or "skepticism" that because nobody can revive you from suspension now, the whole cryonics exercise can't possibly work. > > Of course, "skepticism" of that sort rationalizes not doing anything to make cryonics better, and therefore guarantees its continuing underperformance. As I feel tempted to say to such people, "Okay, brainiac, tell us your plan for staying alive." > > Given that cryonics idea has circulated in the culture for almost 50 years, and that people can now easily read about it online, I'd like to know why such misunderstandings about it persist. > > Mark Plus At a guess, I would suggest that it's because people are scared of looking socially deviant. I think we're all familiar with the standard litany of illogical arguments against both cryonics and the whole idea of immortality. The fact that the same arguments appear in people who don't collaborate and often clearly haven't put much thought into the issue suggests that the primary resistance to cryonics is cultural. The arguments, I would wager, are completely secondary to the primary drive to belong to and be accepted by a community. There are a few memes in particular that I think compound the problem. The two that I think are the most difficult to overcome are (1) the idea that aging is an integral and therefore inevitable part of life and (2) the idea that everyone has a proper time to die. Since being part of a culture is to a large extent a matter of adopting the memes of that culture, we immortalists can often appear as though we're not part of the same "tribe," so to speak, as those whom we would like to persuade. I suspect it has absolutely nothing to do with the logic of life and death and has everything to do with the sense of belonging. Mind you, this is largely guesswork - well-researched guesswork, but still very uncertain. I and a few others who attended the Teens & Twenties conference in Florida this last weekend are planning on performing a study to explore this and other hypotheses (e.g. that people with an inclination towards cryonics have a fundamentally different psychological constitution than the general populous). If I'm right, then that's actually a really good thing. Yes, it means people are frustratingly unreasonable - but we already knew that. What this would tell us is WHY people appear unreasonable by pointing us to their actual motivations for rejecting cryonics and other immortalist endeavors. Once we know that, we can change our tactics in presenting cryonics so that our presentations come across as more compelling, meaning that we can really make progress in saving lives. That's just my personal take on the matter. ~Michael Smith Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32319