X-Message-Number: 8028 From: Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 17:23:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: motivation Robin Hanson (#8014) notes the recent news item that a repeat questionnaire of scientists--after several decades--showed no change in attitudes toward conventional religion, with 42% of the current generation saying they believe in a personal God; and also that only 34% have an intense desire for immortality. He concludes that probably very few have both an intense interest in immortality and disbelief in a conventional God, and this may explain the small interest in cryonics among scientists (as well as among others). Actually, I think nothing at all of any value can be inferred from this questionnaire or most others along this line. Responses vary widely depending on wording; and responses are often dishonest, whether consciously or unconsciously. For one thing, the nature of religious "belief" becomes either extremely vague or nearly vacuous when you try to analyze it. For example, some Christians believe that there is INFINITE punishment for "sin"--eternal hellfire--yet sin abounds, as an extreme example among "devout" Mafiosi. Some Moslems believe that death in a Holy War brings an INFINITE reward--eternity in Paradise, with a new virgin to deflower every day--yet volunteers for suicide missions are not so numerous, and soldiers in a losing battle mostly surrender rather than die fighting. I think the real reasons for the slow growth of cryonics and immortalism are the following: 1. Simple inertia, social and psychological. A radical change of world-view, together with a substantial change in practical behavior (at either the personal or institutional level), cannot happen quickly or easily. Isaac Asimov said the important thing is not individual human lives, or even the life of the human race, but only life and intelligence in the abstract [e.g. the art of Arcturian spiders a million years from now]. Obviously, he was lying, whether consciously or not. In actuality, he was so contented with his routine of book writing and being lionized at science fiction meetings that he couldn't bear the thought of fundamental change. Something similar is probably true of most "successful" people. How do we deal with this? A combination of strategies. First, we continue to hammer home the logic; human stupidity is formidable but not invincible, and slowly increasing numbers will recognize the rationale. Second, we employ many of the usual tools of revolutionaries; more on this below or another time. 1 (a). Active fear of dislocation and of personal responsibility. Those who have made their peace with mortality, in whatever mode, have the utmost distaste for the prospect of "agonizing reappraisal." Dostoevsky again: "Men prefer peace, even death, to freedom of choice in the knowledge and evil." How do we deal with this? Again, mainly through gradualism, and partly through specific social/psychological stratagems, including a kind of jiu-jitsu that harnesses rather than opposes the target's feelings. If he wants a group to give him support and guidance, we provide it; if he wants to salute a flag, we wave a flag; if he wants to march in a parade, we stage a parade; if he wants recognition of his valuable contribution, we give him a plaque or throw him a party; if he wants someone to listen to his problems, we listen; etc. Not easy at all, but gradually achievable. 1 (a) (a). There are several specific threats that militate against acceptance of immortalism. For example, many find spiritual refuge in the notion that, even though they will die, the institution or ideal of their fealty (church, state, ideology, lineage) will live forever and justify their existence. If you tell them (in effect) that their institution is ephemeral, while they themselves are potentially immortal, that is not psychologically acceptable and may indeed arouse severe discomfort at best, rage at worst. How do we deal with this? In part, see above. Another part of the strategy is that we defuse the issue by showing, explicitly or (better) implicitly, that his mind-set is NOT in danger--even if some of us are not totally sincere in this. After all, every person holds mutually inconsistent beliefs and mutually inconsistent goals; double-think is frequently a practical necessity in this benighted era. We just dodge or sidestep or deflect attention from the uncomfortable aspects to the pleasant ones. The prospect doesn't have to knock down his house of cards--just gradually move out. In 1972, when my book MAN INTO SUPERMAN was published, I foolishly thought that speculation about the future would lure people into cryonics. But really radical change--however theoretically attractive--is not a practical motivator for most people. We have to focus on those relatively near and mundane things that everyone wants and can understand, such as better health and a longer life (not eternity/immortality). Very few say they want to live forever, but large numbers are buying life extension supplements. 2. The short time horizons and weak disciplines of most people. Neither positive nor negative motivators are very effective if the reward or punishment is long deferred (cf. smoking or overeating or saving money). And if a potential reward has only a small probability it may be ignored, even if the reward is huge. Lotteries might seem a counter-example to this generality, but the lottery has one immediate and certain reward--the chance to daydream. How do we deal with this? Make life after the thaw as alluring as the lottery, in part by socializing and group-daydreaming. Not easy to avoid the pitfalls, and not easy to get around the fact that cryonicists tend to be less social than others as well as extremely busy; but something can be done. .....There's much more, but enough for now. Robert Ettinger Cryonics Institute Immortalist Society Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8028