X-Message-Number: 6775
From: 
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 21:14:58 -0400
Subject:	SCI. CRYONICS misc.

Date:	96-08-14 23:53:55 EDT
From:	Ettinger
To:	

[This is reposted, since it apparently didn't get through.]

1. I want to extend public thanks to Bill Faloon for his help in connection
with Cryonics Institute's latest patient. Bill gave the patient's family the
names and contacts of several cryonics organizations, and spoke well of us.

2. Regarding Mr. Platt's recent remarks about some comments of mine on
possible uses of funds alternative to Prometheus:

First, Mr. Platt puts his own spin on my statement that uses of funds
alternative to Prometheus (including other research) might be worth
considering. He even concludes that I am complacent about present suspension
methods and not interested in research. That just isn't true. When I say
worth considering (or the equivalent) that is what I mean--it is not a code
phrase for "the devil with research,"  or even "the devil with Prometheus."

As for his conclusion that large sums spent for public relations would
necessarily have little effect on cryonics recruitment, based on history, I
think his reasoning is far from tight, for reasons too numerous to spell out
today. Primarily, though, one cannot equate the large amounts of free
"publicity" cryonics has received with the kind of marketing we could buy
with equivalent dollars--marketing WE would control, as opposed to the
scattered, diffuse, sporadic, and lukewarm (at best) coverage we have
received for free. Neither can one equate previous conditions with those of
today.   

As for the causes of the recent improvement in the (still very small)
acceptance of cryonics, and the probable effect of "proven" brain
cryopreservation, again his argument is questionable for many reasons. My own
impression is that perhaps the largest single influence on improved growth
(in addition to Alcor's David-vs.-Goliath act in the Dora Kent case) has been
the growth in computer-related industries. Computer people are better than
average (although still poor) prospects because: (a) they often think of the
brain as a computer, and in general tend to be mechanists; if you  want
something you build it, and if it isn't good enough you improve it, and if
something goes wrong you fix it; (b) they are accustomed to rapid and radical
progress, "revolutions" in the ordinary course of business, quick changes and
quick fixes; (c) they are accustomed to seeing logic prove itself, over and
over again, in the course of the day's work--if a logic string leads to a
conclusion, no matter how startling, then you had better believe it (or else
question your premises). 

Charles Platt and Paul Wakfer have done very well in many respects; they
would do even better if they would resist the temptation to ascribe bad
motives or incompetence to those who don't entirely agree with their ideas.

3. Olga Visser's post #6722 is extremely encouraging. Her suggestions about
organization of research should also be given the most serious attention. 

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6775