X-Message-Number: 8772
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 20:28:46 -0800
From: American Cryonics Society <>
Subject: Cryonics Growth and ENGINES of CREATION

The notion that the publication of the book ENGINES of CREATION in 1986
caused "real growth" in cryonics is not well substantiated, nor generally
accepted by cryonicists.  Research is important, and should be supported,
but we must be prepared for the prospect that research results don't come
as fast, or as cheap, as some believe.

Charles Platt, in message #8758 "Research and Budget Issues" responded to
my earlier post:

Jim Yount says:
>> 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.

Charles Platt says:
>If you graph the membership at Alcor per year (Alcor being the largest
>organization and most oriented toward technical improvement in cryonics
>during the 1980s) you see linear growth before ENGINES OF CREATION,
>followed by a steepening growth CURVE following publication. It's quite
>dramatic.


I would be interested in seeing that graph, Charles.  There were a lot of
things happening during those times, besides the publication of ENGINES OF
CREATION (published in 1986).  For example, to the surprise of many of us,
what seemed like a lot of negative publicity over the Dora Kent incident
apparently produced a lot of new leads and a lot of new members for Alcor!
There is also the question as to what happened to that growth the last five
years?  There have been other publications on nanotechnology since.  One
would think, that the nano-spurred growth would continue.

ENGINES was of great value to the cryonics movement.  It is certainly an
important milestone.  However I, and a lot of other people I have talked
to, do not buy into the argument that ENGINES produced all that much
growth.  I would like to be convinced that I am wrong.  If whooping up
nanotechnology is what it takes for "real growth," then we can use that
information to jump-start the cryonics movement.  Maybe that's where the
research dollars should be spent.  Forget about the biological approach,
and concentrate on nano design.

I disagree with you that Alcor was the "most oriented toward technical
improvement in cryonics during the 1980s."  During that time I served on
the board of Trans Time and later the American Cryonics Society ("ACS"),
both of which sponsored research.  If memory serves me, the American
Cryonics Society alone put over $90,000 into research in that period.  For
a small organization, that is a lot of money.  As most readers of CryoNet
are aware, there have been at least two highly successful commercial firms
formed by the people who were doing this research for us.  John Day,
working with ACS and Trans Time, worked on several interesting innovations
in long-term cryogenic patient care, during that time.  The Cryonics
Institute developed its "soft vacuum" cryostats.  The 1980s were far from a
"one cryonics society" time period.  This is not to detract from the
accomplishments of Alcor.  Jerry Leaf and Mike Darwin did much to advance
technology for all of us.

In terms of size (as measured by number of members), my recollection is
that at the beginning of the 1980s Alcor was well back in the pack.  At the
time of the merger of Manrise (the original service company for Alcor) with
Trans Time, the American Cryonics Society (then BACS) had more than twice
the membership of Alcor.  Alcor has benefited substantially by the money
from Dick Jones with its membership numbers increasing significantly after
that influx of cash.



Jim continues:
>>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.


Charles Platt says:
>On the contrary, it is 10-fold growth. Moreover I believe it mostly
>occurred not from 1976 to 1997, but from 1980 to 1990. The absolute
>numbers are not impressive, but the RATE is high, and does coincide with
>ENGINES OF CREATION. Also, a survey that I did in the late 1980s indicated
>that ENGINES OF CREATION had attracted a new class of member: people in
>the computer business for whom nanotechnology seemed a very comprehensible
>concept. Therefore I feel there is strong circumstantial evidence that any
>technical improvement which makes cryonics seem more plausible will
>enhance growth dramatically.

In order to find agreement: we would have to confirm dramatic growth from
1986 to 1990 (compared to other periods), conclude that this growth WAS the
result of ENGINES, excuse the slow growth after that time, and explain why
other societies didn't experienced the same thing.  People "in the computer
business" have always been good prospects.

The factors I believe contributed to Alcor's growth (sometimes paralleled
by general growth in cryonics, sometimes not)  are (in order) as follows:

1.	Dick Jones' money, (as well as financial support by a few other
members)

2.	Jerry Leaf's and Mike Darwin's suspension laboratory work (with
emphasis on immediate application to freezing humans).

3.	Aggressive marketing

4.	Publicity

I DO want to see cryonics research continue, and agree that research will
contribute positively to our growth.  However, I believe we need to be
prepared for the likelihood that growth will continue to be slow, in spite
of all but the most dramatic research results, and that the research
breakthroughs will be less dramatic and take longer to come than some now
predict.  Lets do research, but not go down with the ship if that research
doesn't produce the results we hope for. Nor should our marketing strategy
be dependent upon research breakthroughs.


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=8772