X-Message-Number: 8755
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 19:17:36 -0800
From: American Cryonics Society <>
Subject: Cryonics: Doing something wrong?

Cryonics research is very valuable, perhaps necessary, but its worth is in
improving our own chances, not in making cryonics more attractive to
potential recruits.

On Friday, November 7, 1997, in a reply to Linda Chamberlain (double
quotes), Charles Platt, message #8733 (single quotes), wrote:

>> After almost 30 years of promoting cryonics, Alcor still has less
>> than 500 members.  That is telling us that we've been doing something
>> wrong.

>I disagree. I think that Alcor has done everything a small organization
>with a small budget CAN do to expose itself to the media, especially
>under the Steve Bridge presidency, where countless news teams were
>allowed access to the facility.

Like Alcor, the American Cryonics Society ("ACS") gets lots of "press".
However, most cryonics news stories simply treat us as a curiosity.  It is
rare to walk away from an interview where we believe the reporter
understands what we are, what we are about, and the rational behind
cryonics.  "ACS freezes dead people and thinks that the dead can be revived
when a cure is found" is the story.

>And before Alcor, let us not forget the HUGE amount of publicity
>generated by Robert Ettinger and other cryonics pioneers. They appeared
>on nationally networked talk shows. They received major coverage in
>national magazines. And they found VERY few people willing to sign up.

>Real growth in cryonics began coincidentally with the publication of
>ENGINES OF CREATION. I don't think this was really a coincidence at all.
>Suddenly there was a seemingly rational plan for repairing freezing
>damage. As a result, a lot of people who had been hesitating finally
>decided to give it a try. (I believe Alcor director Keith Henson wasa
>among them. I know many others.)

I have heard people say this before, but I haven't seen much in the way of
collaborating evidence that "real growth" was after ENGINES of CREATION.
There are now (perhaps) 1,000 people enrolled to be suspended at death, and
something over 70 people in suspension.  In 1976 there were (my estimate)
about 100 people enrolled, and perhaps 15 people in suspension.  With or
without ENGINES OF CREATION, that is not much growth.

>Surely the lesson is clear by now. Cryonics as it is practiced today
>requires a huge speculative leap. If you want more people to take it
>seriously, it has to show a better chance of actually working. You may
>attract some members by trying to CONVINCE them that the chances are
>better, but the real growth will occur when the chances ARE better.

To me the value of research is in REALLY improving MY chances.  I have no
doubt that more people would wish suspension if they viewed the chances of
success as better.  The question is "how many?".  If ENGINES of CREATION
was a giant leap forward in taking cryonics out of the "black box," then we
SHOULD have seen "real growth."  The fact that we didn't suggests that for
widespread acceptance we have more to do than simply improve our product.
Until we are able to freeze someone today and revive that person tomorrow,
growth will not necessarily follow success in research.

Back to those reporters.  Each time I chat with one, or talk cryonics to my
ephemeral (by choice) friends, I am impressed with the tremendous
information gap.  It is as if we are living in different centuries.  Before
cryonics becomes a common practice there will have to be fundamental
changes in the way society views (and understands) life and death.
Society, and indeed many philosophers, are still stuck on the notion of
"vitality:" a vital force which makes us move (animates our body), and
which exits the body upon death: "when you are dead, you are dead!"  How do
you expect to convince someone of the value of suspension when they hold
such beliefs, and are busy trying to ban the teaching of evolution in
school?

I know cryonicists who argue that we SHOULDN'T TRY to win converts, by
research success, or argument.  The popularity of cryonics will present all
the problem our critics wish upon us, such as overcrowding, and scarcity of
resources.  Don't worry about that friends; our experience thus far is it
doesn't much matter what we say or do: the crowd ain't coming!

Are there strategies which can lead to success given our slow growth?
Perhaps.  Slow growth is not zero growth.  Slow growth also has advantages.
The shysters and con men who our critics are sure will take over (if they
haven't already) are conspicuously absent.  It is NOT JUST by doing
research that we improve our product.  Since 1976 we have learned some
things about what to do and not to do to maximize the chances of survival
of a frozen individual, or a cryonics society.  These are hard learned
lessons, lessons we had best remember as we attempt to build a better time
machine.

Long life and love,

Jim Yount



=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+American Cryonics Society
(650)254-2001
                      FAX (650)967-4444
P.O. Box 1509
Cupertino, CA 95015
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8755