X-Message-Number: 6397
From:  (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
Subject: Re: Importance of Brain Cryopreservation
Date: 26 Jun 1996 15:43:03 -0700
Message-ID: <4qsedn$>
References: <>

In article <>, Brian Wowk <> wrote:
>	Can you give any examples?  I recall a T.V. movie about 
>8 years ago that treated a brain transplant (in a contemporary, 

You must not watch much of this stuff.  The brain in a jar with bubbles
going over it and wires connected (somehow able to speak) is almost a
cliche of bad SF.   At least in Spock's Brain, stupid as it was, they
didn't have the jar.

>have historically had a strong neuro focus.  While neuro may look
>bad to Joe Blow on the street, it does not seem to be an impediment
>to people who actually understand cryonics well enough to sign up.

It probably isn't, though you know very little about the people who don't
sign up.  Those who do sign up won't be confused by brain vs. head of

The point is it's bad PR.  It makes people *laugh* at Cryonics.  It makes
people think cryonicists must surely be quacks.  Surely you've encountered

Most people's vision of this is the movie image of suspended animation,
where Mel Gibson or Sly Stallone or Amelia Earhart (to pick modern examples) 
are locked in a big vault and you push a button and they start breathing
again.   And so it shall remain, because in movies, the actual method of
suspension is not important, and "Oh look, a frozen head, let's pour in some
of our head-repair and body-rebuild nano" would serve nothing in drama.

So continue to *do* neurosuspension, just don't focus on it as anything but
a cost-saving member to make cryonics more accessible to the middle class.
Brad Templeton, publisher, ClariNet Communications Corp.	 
The net's #1 E-Newspaper (1,400,000 paid sbscrbrs.)  http://www.clari.net/brad/

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6397