X-Message-Number: 6846
Date: 	Wed, 04 Sep 1996 13:40:27 -0700
From:  (Olaf Henny)
Subject: Cryonet #6828 <sci.cryonics>

>Message #6828
>From:  (Thomas Donaldson)
>Subject: Re: CryoNet #6814 - #6818
>Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 11:12:23 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Thomas:

>My comments about Mr. Henny's posting:

>
>2. We ALWAYS need balance. That does not mean that any particular attempt to
>   raise money should spread it among several goals; that would be foolish.

On this (the latter) we agree.

>   But to deny that "balance" is needed in Prometheus just as in other issues
>   makes me think that Mr. Henny simply hasn't thought these issues out. ...

I have done some thinking about it, which took me to some of the
conclusions I presented. - Enough for a professional report or to write a
thesis? - certainly not [the great advantage of a forum like this one is
that there are always plenty volunteers to correct you if you are wrong,
and even when you are not.;-)].  

I do not remember stating anything.
which could be interpreted as denying a balance for Prometheus.  What I
did say however, was that ideally any project competing for funds from
the presently small pool of cryonics supporters would only commence
after the funding target for Prometheus is reached.  I am still convinced
that any progress on the Prometheus Project will open the doors to a
wider support base, and that includes the reaching of the $10 million
target. 

 The achievement of this funding goal may well make it into the general
press, and thereby provide cryonics with a greater audience. For more
about my opinion on the importance of Prometheus, please seem my
posting in Cryonet, Subject: Cryonics: Credibility,...

>Or does he really want to provide a real-life example of the caricature
>   I gave of the results of a LACK of balance?

I do not remember this caricature.  If you tell me in your reply, that it is
important, and where I can look it up, I will.

>3. I raised this issue of balance, and several others, not because I thought
>   that Prometheus was unbalanced but because it seemed to me that these 
>   were essential questions which individuals and societies would need to 
>   answer if they chose to support Prometheus -- or not. ...

The word balance covers a wide spectrum from tight rope walking to
cheque books.  I can only conjecture as to what you mean by balance in
the context of our discussion:  If you mean, that Prometheus should be
'balanced' with other scientific projects of similar nature, then I am all
with you with the above mentioned provisions.  If you mean, that it
should be balanced by a public relations campaign, then I caution, that
we first need to have something of substance to 'relate to the public'. 
Prometheus will provide us with that.  And not only as some have
asserted in 10 years from now.

If you read through Paul Wakfer's <sci.cryonics> posting of Aug. 23,
you will find in the preliminary Prometheus research schedule in Phase 1
four tasks to be accomplished and in Phase 2 five.  If and when each of
these tasks are accomplished is accomplished you have an opportunity
for an announcement.  Granted, some of these anticipated
accomplishments may be too technical to impress the general public, but
each of the results will generate interest within the scientific community
and progressively create respect there.

>   WE cannot know the
>   results on others of Prometheus until it completes; at the same time,
>   we can get a much better idea of its results by using matters of fact
>   which others in this forum might bring to the table. For instance, just
>   how much of a role SCIENTIFIC opposition plays in refusal to
>   accept ...

Right now, there is not a whole lot of *fact* to be accepted.

>   cryonics: I've hardly done a poll here, but I know quite a number of 
>   people who will happily accept the notion that revival will someday
>   become possible but STILL do not sign up. And there is a solid case that
>   if Prometheus succeeds we will get some proportion of those who now
>   stand on the sidelines, watching us with interest, to actually sign up.

Naturally,  it will always, as long as cryonics will exist, be a matter of
confidence in future technology, because once this technology arrives.
cryonics will be obsolete.  That alone will make anybody who signs up
a target of the derision by doubters, which may well be within his/her
own family, and who would rather add the moneys required for cryo-
suspension to the inheritance, then "blowing it on Mom/Dad's
hairbrained fantasy of a second life, after all how ridiculous can you
get?"  It takes persons with self-confidence to not let that bother them.


>   As for donations, again, some proportion of cryonicists and those interested
>   have not donated because they see their donations as ineffective. No
>   one wants to throw money into a black hole. By providing an instance of
>   a big success in OUR TERMS, not those of society or science in general,
>   it may induce some proportion of watchers to open their wallets more.

It is the nature of task-specific research (as opposed to basic research),
that it
will only benefit a pre-defined group.  I see nothing wrong with that.

>   Yes, but WHAT PROPORTION?
>
>   Yes, we need balance, but how should our cryonics societies
.   achieve this balance?

Again that magic word "balance" without defining context.

>I would like more discussion on Cryonet on these questions. I raised them
>because I don't claim to fully understand the reaction of my general society
>or of others to cryonics or any success in cryonics. And even Prometheus 
>will only remain a success in OUR TERMS: we consider death to require 
>loss of information in our brain, yet that is hardly the common definition.
>It's conceivable that the only thing Prometheus will do among those who do
>NOT accept our world-view is to produce a flurry of articles from medical
>ethicists and their ilk in suitable academic journals.

Hey, not even the Pope expects everyone on this earth to become a
catholic, but the support he does have gives him a pretty formidable
power base.

>Most of all, we do not make something true by repeating it, no matter with
>how much poetry. I would like more speaking to the question (or to others,
>as anyone on Cryonet sees it) than simple repetition. 

That is exactly why we need something substantial to present to the public, and
that is precisely what Prometheus will enable us to do.   This in turn makes
Prometheus so important to the cryonics community as a whole, that we cannot

afford to divert any resources away from it until its funding target is reached.

Olaf Henny
-------------------------------------------------------------------
To argue with those, who have no curiosity for any viewpoint but 
their own, is rarely fruitful.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6846