X-Message-Number: 8740
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #8724 - #8731
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 00:44:48 -0800 (PST)

Hi again!

More thanks to David Brandt-Erickson for his reporting on Oregon's assisted
suicide law. 

To Ed Swank, some comments:
First of all, the comment by Miller about DHEA sounds like the usual grousing
by doctors who don't like the idea of ANY drug against aging. After all, it's
not a disease, right? Right?? It's quite true that lots more needs to be
done in terms of research on DHEA, but that's simply not the relevant question.
The relevant question is whether or not it truly helps us live longer in a
healthy state.

To this point Miller did make one very important comment, though he might 
better have followed it up with citations etc. He stated that DHEA did not 
help those who took it avoid heart attacks. (There are lots of issues behind
that statement: perhaps DHEA delays those heart attacks, for instance. After
all, right now we have NO means to stop or reverse aging entirely, and the
consequences of aging --- heart disease among them --- may simply occur 
later).

I will add that I personally am not a proponent of DHEA, mainly because      
(despite the claims to the contrary which occur in various ads for it, etc)
there so far has been NO published study showing that DHEA will prolong the
lifespan of any mammal. I am criticising the logic and (what I believe is)
the intention of his comments, which did have some content. If he had been
an advocate of life extension, he would have phrased this matter quite 
differently.

Second, well, I'll say it. PERIASTRON reported on experiments with neural
stem cells in the issue before the last one (4 mos ago). They're a very hopeful
possibility in many cases. Whether they will help with Alzheimer's, however,
is at best an open question, since the major feature of Alzheimer's Disease
is the development of a condition causing death of neurons. We need to
understand that condition better than we do now before replacing lost
neurons becomes an issue at all --- otherwise they'll just get slaughtered
like their precursors. (Incidentally, the consensus among neuroscientists
now is that Alzheimer's is a separate condition from aging, even in human
beings. Some deterioration of our brain due to aging does occur, but it's
much much less, and usually does not involve any loss of neurons. The former
belief that Alzheimer's was something that would inevitably develop as we
grow older came from earlier studies which could not distinguish between
brain tissue donors at higher ages).       
 
And finally, to Linda Chamberlain:

I've been over this territory before, but your statement does make me
repeat myself. 

First of all, the proper measure for our increase in numbers is a percentage.
Absolute figures, at this very early stage, simply fail to characterize what
may or may not be happening. Cryonics cannot be compared to any of the 
popular movements (say, against racial discrimination, against sexual 
discrimination, etc etc, or for that matter even Libertarianism) if for no
other reason than the simple fact that cryonics is in a MUCH earlier stage.
All those other movements began in the last century! No wonder they have
so many adherents. If you really want to make a comparison, why not look
at movements for the rights of women, not now, but say in 1820 or so?

I don't mean by this that I don't want further increases in the number of 
cryonicists and the number of members of Alcor. I do mean that we need some
perspective on our numbers. At one time Alcor had a very high (compared to
other groups) rate of increase, over 30% per year. For whatever reason,
that went down. I don't know of any recent measurements of % rate of increase
for Alcor, and it would be quite helpful for all of us if ALL the cryonics
societies actually reported their memberships monthly, so that we could 
make a general estimate rather than one for one society only. I believe
(but can't prove) that most of those who left Alcor joined OTHER societies,
so that the loss of members in no way constituted a loss of adherents to
cryonics.

For that matter, efforts such as those of Mr. Cloud are just those which
keep the growth rate up. (We'll see how well his efforts work when we
compare numbers of full members at the next Cryonics Conference). Our
numbers don't go up without our effort; but the other side of that is that
our efforts will always be in proportion to our numbers.

What this viewpoint tells me, as a cryonicist, age now 53, is that for 
decades into the future we must reconcile ourselves to the fact that cryonics
simply isn't going to be very numerous on any absolute scale. This is hardly
a death sentence for cryonics, since it's true for ALL other kinds of belief
and action. And many, though not all, of these eventually took in a large
proportion of the population. It's not at all unheard of for small groups
to survive for hundreds of years; all it takes is sufficient recruitment to
make up for losses, and I note that Alcor HAS continued to grow. 

MOST of all, I think that talk about how small we are and how much this puts
us at risk simply raises fears where none are appropriate. If the number of
cryonicists at present involves risks, then we might best look at those risks
and work out OTHER ways to deal with them: legal strategies, allies we might
use in case of political opposition, and so on. That would deal with the 
issue much better: we are not going to get enough numbers to deal with all
possible threats DIRECTLY and by our own actions for many years to come. 
(I'll add, too, that when I look around me I see no obvious threats: no 
demonstrators, no yelling. We are mostly ignored).

As for Mr. Cloud's PARTICULAR ideas on increasing our growth rate, I was
skeptical of whether or not they would work when he announced them at the
last conference. I DID, HOWEVER, CONTRIBUTE MONEY TO HIS EFFORT. We'll have
to see just how this issue develops, EMPIRICALLY. I remember vividly that
he claimed he could double our numbers in a year. That year is fast coming
to an end. Michael Cloud has certainly gotten note as a strong recruiter into
the Libertarian Party; at issue is whether or not Alcor, or cryonics in
general, attracts people in the same basic way as Libertarianism. (And to
Michael Cloud, if he's reading this, I'll add that even if his ideas did not
work, their success elsewhere isn't diminished at all. Not everything works
always --- what else could we expect? Now you really ARE a cryonicist).  

Finally, the idea that Alcor might have a private BBS is a very good one.
There are plenty of issues which should be taken up but not in public, if
only because they wouldn't interest those who are not members of Alcor. And
complaints, too, should first be expressed in private; I'll add here that
Associate Members, and anyone considering the possibility of joining Alcor,
should also have access to such a BBS. It is OPENNESS which helps recruitment
to cryonics the most, and every time we keep secrets it's a strike against
us.

			Best and long long life to all,

				Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8740