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