X-Message-Number: 5579
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 96 16:37:03
From: Steve Bridge <>
Subject: Kids, neuro, and alarms
To CryoNet
>From Steve Bridge, Alcor
January 13, 1996
Today's CryoNet postings were so long and filled with so many
different subjects to which I need to respond, that I decided to just do
this in one message. I hope this isn't too confusing.
The group of posts were somewhat confusing already, however, because
some messages appeared to be answers to posts on other mailing lists.
This was especially true of Mike Darwin's posts (apparently cross-posts
from the CryoCare mailing list), and I'll ask for some clarification as I
go.
****************************************************************
In reply to: Message #5565 From: Randy Smith <>
Newsgroups:sci.cryonics
Subject: Re: Cryomania, an introduction...
Date: 10 Jan 1996
>That's why it's important, I feel, to get the message out to kids before
>their view of life is set in concrete. In some ways Hollywood is already
>doing this for us. When I spent a class period on cryonics with my 7th
>graders last year, at least half of them were already familiar with the
>idea from a recent movie, _Demolition Man_. The movie, while not exactly
>Oscar material, was not that bad, and was really second cousin to your
>basic video game, aimed more or less at kids.
Over the years, I have made many talks to children and young adults,
from 4th grade through high school. I haven't yet seen any of them become
cryonicists; but maybe it takes longer for them to bump into enough
evidence of their own mortality. The number of people who have become
cryonicists on their own (not through family involvement) under the age of
even 25 is extremely small; and probably less than 5 individuals under the
age of 20.
What is also needed are more exciting *books* for children and YA's
that promote themes of life extension and immortality, that life is good
and worth living forever. Too many children's books which deal with
immortality (and even that is a tiny number) take the approach of either
the "Wandering Jew" (Oh, why I can't have the "gift" of Death?) or
Frankenstein (Man was not meant to meddle in issues of life and death.)
Surprisingly (even to me, when I looked at them again), one book and
one series of books seemed to have given me a pre-influence as a child to
become "anti-death": *David and the Phoenix* by Edward Ormondroyd and the
Oz books of L. Frank Baum. You won't know this if the only Oz book you
read was the Wizard of Oz; but in the later Oz books, Baum took great
pains to explain that in Oz, no one really dies unless they are
obliterated completely. The Tin Woodman was actually a human slowly
converted to a cyborg as he was forced to chop off various body parts by a
curse the Wicked Witch placed on him.
Maybe someday one of us will write a great series about Johnny
Freeze, Boy Cryonicist (not to be sexist; a girl cryonicist is fine) which
will spread some more of those ideas to the right kids.
The advantages to books over movies is that a reader *lives inside* a
book much more than in a movie. I think books are more likely to change
patterns of thought.
****************************************************************
In Reply to Message #5567
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
From: (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Don't talk about neurosuspension
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996
>But actually, after you get past the "death is part of the natural order"
>phenomenon, the thing that seems to turn most people off is the idea
>that anybody has signed up for neurosuspension. I've often seen people
>who hear about cryonics hear that and decide it's all kooks.
>
>Now I'm not going to rehash the neurosuspension argument here.
>
>But I wonder if it might be wise for all cryonics organizations to simply
>not talk very much about it -- except of course in the contract.
Too late, Brad. 90% or more of the reporters I meet and more than
half of the general public already know about it. If you try to avoid
it, they think you are hiding something or that you are ashamed of it. I
have much better success now by treating neurosuspension more matter-of-
factly. I wrote about this in my article, "Neurosuspension: Head First
into the Future," in the 3rd Quarter Cryonics. I believe I also posted it
to CryoNet. (If not, I will be happy to do so.)
When doing tours or talks, I begin with a general discussion of what
our bodies can already do (grow from one cell in the first place; heal
over massive chest surgery; children can regrow cut-off fingertips;) then
speculate on likely future capabilities (repair of spinal cord injuries;
cloning of damaged or missing organs instead of relying on cadavers;
regrowth of entire missing fingers or limbs). Few people find these
future developments outlandish at all.
So when I eventually get to talking about neurosuspension, perhaps
half an hour later, they are prepared to see that as an extension of what
they have already accepted as possible. (They won't remember they might
have thought cloning organs was impossible yesterday.)
I also agree with Brian Wowk that the emphasis should be first on
*brain* preservation. We try hard to sidestep "decapitation" images of
the French Revolution, and 1950's movies about wired-up heads on a plate.
And I try not to make a big deal out of the choice. Either whole
body suspension or neurosuspension are perfectly acceptable if that is
what the individual wants. I NEVER belittle either choice. I even agree
that taking along the added information in the body may be useful,
especially if the technical concentration during the suspension remains on
the brain.
Personally, I have enough funding for whole body but have selected
neurosuspension; because I believe the biggest risk in the next decade or
two is the survival of Alcor and of cryonics, not the difference between
neuro and whole body. I believe that Alcor will be better off with that
extra money to use for research, salaries, promotion, etc. than wasting it
on LN2 for my body.
However, in 10-15 years if Alcor is wealthy and cryonics is
mainstream or at least well established, my extra $50,000 or so may not be
terribly important. At that point, especially if I have more funding
available, I might switch my preference to whole body.
When Mike Darwin first sprang neurosuspension on me some 18-19 years
ago, I was grossed out myself. It took me more than a year of constant
conversation about it (and the word "constant" will be much more
descriptive to those of you who know Mike well) before I gradually began
to see that option as rational.
Since it is too late for at least those of us at Alcor to avoid
discussing neuro, we must learn to do it in the best way possible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply to: Message #5573
Date: 12 Jan 96 15:13:26 EST
From: Mike Darwin <>
Subject: Perry's response
>been found at the last minute or while dying at home. We may be pushing
>10% unattended deaths. That is a VERY big risk.
>
>And nothing is being done about it. Rather than blame Alcor for not
>digging up the poor bastard it would be more constructive to DO something.
>I am not qualified to this, but there are others who surely are in this
>community. THAT was my point.
Without the context of Perry Metzger's previous message to Mike, this
is at best insensitive and unfair, and at worst inflammatory. If Perry
wishes to criticize Alcor in private, I cannot do anything about that.
But if Mike suddenly forces Perry's private criticism into the public
domain without his permission and without even reproducing the actual
criticism, it makes it difficult for either Alcor or Perry to handle it in
any meaningful way.
In reply to: Message #5575
Date: 13 Jan 96 00:04:58 EST
From: Mike Darwin <>
Subject: emergency alerts
Mike's discussion here of the problems with the various possible
types of emergency alert systems was highly informative. We've talked
about this at Alcor for years, and more in the last month, with the same
general conclusion. The reliable technology isn't quite there yet; and
how do you get people to wear it and use it properly even when it is?
>4) The point of the system I describe is that it requires nothing more
>than use of a conventional alarm system. When you come home you switch
>on, when you leave, you switch off. A simple light switch like on-off
>device would work as well as a keypad. It's simple and easy.
[much deleted]
>Is a 10% rate of long down-time rate acceptable to CC? I am willing to
>aggressively market and promote a system to detect SCD. But I need a
>product. No one seems interested in generating one. I certainly cannot,
>but have freely given good ideas for a starter system. No one seems
>interested!
I assume that Mike has "freely given" these good ideas in some other
forum than here. If he would like to back up a message or two and post
his earlier ideas, there might be more response on CryoNet. I know of
several Alcor members also looking at these ideas.
Steve Bridge
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5579