X-Message-Number: 32977
From: 
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 13:12:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: realism

Charles Platt has offered his reasons for thinking that cryonicists are  
over-optimistic and that the outlook is bleak. I think he is wrong on several  
counts. Rather than enumerating these, I'll just try very briefly to 
summarize  the  situation and outlook as they appear to me.
 
1. The main reason for rejection is not scientific or practical skepticism, 
 but just cultural inertia. This is clear for several reasons. For one 

thing, the  misimpression that mammals have already been successfully frozen and
revived did  not result in a wave of sign-ups. Also, a variety of sources 
indicate that, even  with guaranteed success, sign-ups would still be few. 
Also, look at the cases  where reasonably well informed people declined 

cryonics for reasons other than  likelihood of success, e.g. Pohl, Asimov, 
Clarke, 
Heinlein, and some of my  relatives. 
 
In addition to cultural inertia, there is simple laziness or/and stupidity. 
 Think of smoking. Breaking the habit had little or no social stigma, had 
plenty  of main-line medical backing, and yet it took many years just to 

reduce the  incidence of the habit substantially in the U.S. (In Asia apparently
just about  everybody still smokes.) 
 
An important element of the cultural inertia, or cultural legacy, is the  
fear factor--fear of betraying one's commitments to a "higher" value, as well 
as  fear of what the  neighbors will think. People mostly don't want  
radical change--just the present, gold plated and chocolate covered. 
 
Does this mean that motivation is hopeless? Far from it. Human stupidity is 
 formidable but not invincible. We are gaining much too slowly still, but 
gaining  none the less.
 
2. Financial viability. At CI, the marginal cost of a new patient is  

(relying on memory) around $20,000 lump sum. Talk of inflation is misleading. We
are not subject to most of the vagaries of inflation, and some costs have  
decreased. Initially we estimated liquid nitrogen at around $1,000 per year 
per  patient, and this held up for many years. More recently we have seen 
sharp  improvements, with patients in our newest cryostats costing only around 
$100 per  year per patient. Nitrogen was initially considered a major cost, 
but now is a  minor cost. In event of unforeseen emergency I  believe we 
can count on  enough members pitching in with work or money or both.
 
Alcor has made many mistakes in my opinion, and wasted a lot of money, and  
I agree that LEF is unreliable as a source of future donations. But Alcor 
still  has a relatively large number of rich people, including several 
big-rich, and  large donations are still coming. I don't see them going down.
 
Remember that there are millions of millionaires in the U.S.--millions of  
people who could afford cryonics with negligible cost to their estates. Some 
of  these will come around sooner or later. As a gamble--expected value vs. 
 cost--you can't beat it.
 
Robert Ettinger

 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32977