X-Message-Number: 7503 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 97 18:50:49 From: Steve Bridge <> Subject: Research/Public relations "Debate?" To CryoNet >From Steve Bridge, Alcor January 14, 1997 There is an interesting mindset on CryoNet sometimes. Perhaps it is the medium; perhaps it's the type of person in cryonics. Many people prefer to create debates rather than discussion. By "debate," I specifically refer to the "sport" version: that formal, cutting high school or college contest in which it is only important that one side wins and the other loses. To do this, each side defends a particular pro/con viewpoint and ignores the reality that the "truth" is probably either a mixture of the two or a third alternative altogether. On CryoNet there seems to be a special eagerness to cast every argument into black and white: if I am in favor of PR, I must therefore be *against* research. Why? Because it is easier for others to win a "debate" by casting it in either/or terms. Since it is obviously dumb to be against research -- viola!, they win the argument! But it is a false argument. That is not what I believe or what I am arguing for, and for others to somehow set the agenda of the debate by casting me into that corner just wastes all of our time. Paul Wakfer, for example, is obviously in favor of doing public relations to raise research funding. So am I. I am also in favor of PR for many different things. Doing public relations does not mean ignoring research. I am not a researcher; so I do what I can to advance the interests of Alcor and cryonics with my abilities. That does not belittle the abilities of others. It all works together. But agreement and gentle shifting of both positions doesn't stir the blood. Only attack, destruction, and the capitulation of one side will fulfill that instinct. Now I have to agree with Mike, Saul, and Paul that not enough energy, talent, and money has been used on the research problems of cryonics. I think that Fred Chamberlain will be pushing that area much harder as Alcor's new President. I also think that we need more researchers involved. That will not come from training the people already in cryonics to be biochemists, cryobiologists, doctors, and physiologists. It will come from finding people already trained in those fields and getting them involved in cryonics. I assume that the ability to get such people involved is not limited to Saul, Mike, and Paul. A couple of minor points from earlier postings: Michael Darwin said: >Finally, a qualification. Yes, it is true that 21CM is spending $50K a month on >"research." But a significant fraction of this expenditure is to do things that >could be done with FAR greater efficiency if cooperation were possible between >organizations: He then goes on to lament that some of the expertise in different organizations is being used inefficiently because of organizational rifts and pleads for more cooperation. I completely agree and have worked for years to keep the organizational angers low enough that such a relationship will eventually be possible. I could point out the various ways in which Mike himself has *contributed* to those rifts during his younger years (and not Mike alone, of course); but I would like to take him at his word that he is trying to be more open today. Somehow we must learn to cooperate at least on a scientific basis so we are not all forced to become experts on everything -- which usually means half-ass on most things and expert on but a few. On their good days, just about everyone in cryonics understands this. I can only hope for a few more good days each year. Saul Kent said: > 4) In commenting on Mike's remark, Steve ignored my >response to Mike that, in my opinion, the most effective PR >we could possibly do would be to announce and publish >scientific advances to improve cryonics methods and a >systematic plan to achieve suspended animation. Not only do >I believe that this would be the best PR for cryonics, but >also that it is the most likely type of PR to attract new >members willing to fund research on a large scale, and to >convince our wealthier current members to support such >research. There is nothing wrong with this at all, but it is also not incompatible with the kinds of general educational PR I usually do. As real advances are made, of course this would be effective; but I don't see that what I have been doing has any effect which *prevents* such advances. Paul Wakfer said in reply to me: >>1. Adding more members increases the number of people willing to donation >>funds and energy. >Adding more members who *believe* that cryonics will work doesn't help us >at all; it just gives us all a false sense of security. True, but that's not what I said. Adding more members who want to do the work of research and suspensions or who want to invest in the research WILL help us all. PR helps us find some of each. >>2. More members increases the likelihood that *other* people with the >>funds and commitment of Saul Kent and Bill Faloon will become involved -- >>leading to more research. >I believe that something which Saul has stated many times is relevant here. >He was a cryonicist first and *then* set out to make the money necessary to >further his desire for vast life extension. It is much less likely that >those who become wealthy first, and then are attracted to cryonics, will be >induced to part with large sums of money to make it successful. Although, I >still remain hopeful about this possibility. I agree, and maybe I should have emphasized the *commitment* more; but the word was there in the original quote. It is the most important attribute of Saul and Bill. Steve Bridge Stephen Bridge, President () Alcor Life Extension Foundation Non-profit cryonic suspension services since 1972. 7895 E. Acoma Dr., Suite 110, Scottsdale AZ 85260-6916 Phone (602) 922-9013 (800) 367-2228 FAX (602) 922-9027 for general requests http://www.alcor.org Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7503