X-Message-Number: 8929
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 03:01:34 -0800 (PST)
From: Doug Skrecky <>
Subject: humorous cryonics survey - results
I posted the following humorous cryonics survey on a number of
newsgroups, and have recieved to date 29 responses. Of these 8 or 28%
stated a wish to become a corspicle. I believe this over-represents the
percentage of the population that is interested in cryonics. Below is a
copy of the original survey, followed by a detailed analysis of the 21
negative responses. This is followed by two recommendations, and the
conclusion of the survey. Enjoy!
______________________________________________________________________
Of those who pass away each year, only about 0.0000000000001% choose
to be frozen, instead of being fried in a hot oven, or becoming worm
food. I found this to be a rather curious state of affairs, and I am sure
there are many good reasons for virtually everyone electing the ashes to
ashes, or back to the earth routes, instead of becoming a corpsicle.
This is a curiosity driven survey designed to investigate the main
reasons why funeral homes get almost all of the meat of the death
business, while cryonics companies are picking over the bones, as it
were. I promise to post the results of the following survey on a regular
basis, while I continue to recieve completed forms. Below is the form to
be filled out. Just delete either the Y (Yes) or N (No), to indicate
whether you agree or disagree with a given reason, and email the results
to me at
Y N Actually I love the idea of becoming a corspicle when I die.
(where can I sign up?)
(If you answer Y to the above question, you do not need
to fill out the rest of the form.)
REASONS WHY I DO NOT CHOOSE CRYONICS
Y N 1. This is morbid and unpleasant. I don't want to think about
dying, pervert.
Y N 2. Dying only happens to others. I am too young to die.
Y N 3. I am not a masochist. One life is hard enough, why would I
want another?
Y N 4. Cryonics is a joke. Frozen hamburger is all you are going
to get. Why not fry it right away and get it over with?
Y N 5. Only humourless eccentrics consider cryonics. Why would I
want to join them, and lose all my warm hearted friends?
Y N 6. If cryonics did work, I'd be revived without a friend in
the world. No way, Jose.
Y N 7. Spending all your money on your own death arrangements is
sinful. I'd rather give it to relatives, good causes, blow
it on drinking, etc, etc.
Y N 8. Cryonics costs money, and the IRS took all of mine.
Y N 9. Although cryonics might work one day, the bozos running
current cryonics companies are so incompetent that all
are doomed to a premature financial thaw out.
Y N 10. When I die I want to go to HEAVEN, not some frozen meat
locker.
Y N 11. Better dead than red. Corpsicles will only be revived to
be someone's slave.
Y N 12. I hate pain. Getting gutted, pumped full of goop and then
frozen sounds even worse than a friday night bender.
Y N 13. Never given the matter any thought. (I think I'm happier
for it too.)
14. My other reasons are as follows: (10 gigabytes of storage here)
________________________________________________________________
The following is a detailed breakdown question by question of the 21
negatives responses the survey elicited:
QUESTION #
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.
24% 24% 29% 57% 33% 29% 38% 62% 67% 14% 24% 29% 29% (PERCENTAGES)
5 5 6 12 7 6 8 13 14 3 5 6 6 TOTALS
_________________________________________________________
Y 1
Y 1
Y Y 2
Y Y 2
Y Y 2
Y Y Y 3
Y Y Y 3
Y Y Y 3
Y Y Y 3
Y Y Y 3
Y Y Y 3
Y Y Y 3
Y Y Y Y 4
Y Y Y Y Y 5
Y Y Y Y Y Y 6
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 7
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 8
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 8
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 9
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 10
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 10
The most common negative responses are number 4, number 8 and number
9.
#4. Cryonics is a joke. Frozen hamburger is all you are going
to get. Why not fry it right away and get it over with?
#8. Cryonics costs money, and the IRS took all of mine.
#9. Although cryonics might work one day, the bozos running
current cryonics companies are so incompetent that all
are doomed to a premature financial thaw out.
If these 3 questions are ignored then all negative responses are
eliminated from 5 or 24% of negative respondants, thus suggesting that it
is these factors that are critical for future growth in the cryonics
movement.
Question 4 restates the fact that current cryonic techniques are not
effective in reanimating frozen animals. For this to become a nonissue
reanimation must be demonstrated.
Question 9 states that cryonics companies will themselves not survive
long enough to be able to fulfill their mandate. Resolving both question
4 and question 8 would go a long way to helping to resolve this
question.
Question 8 is the money issue. Cryonics arrangements are much more
expensive than conventional burial or cremation. I suspect that this
question would become less of an issue once question #4 is resolved.
Paying a lot of money for something that has been proven to work is a
much more attractive proposition that paying the same amount for
something that is highly speculative. Once business volume increases due
to resolving question 4, costs per unit should decrease.
However a hidden assumption of question 8 is that making cryonics
arrangements involves some significant financial cost, which would impact
the standard of living. Most of us who are working for a living, recieve
as part of our employee benefits package some "free" life insurance often
totalling about $10,000 to $15,000 in death benefits. If cryonics
arrangements could be made sufficiently inexpensive so that the "free"
employer sponsored life insurnace could be used to pay for it, then
question 8 becomes moot.
After putting on my thinking cap, I could think of only one way that
cryonics companies could profitably offer their services for less than
$15,000. Currently two options are offered. One is whole body
cryopreservation, and the other is cephalic only cryopreservation.
Preserving only the head reduces storage costs by more than an order of
magnitude, but typically prices are reduced by only one half or even less
for this option, since the whole body is prepared for freezing, whether
it is only the head that is stored or not.
One way around this high cost of preparation would be to delete it
and use some other less expensive method to introduce cryoprotectant into
the brain only. Current cryonic preparations are composed of several
steps, whole body washout of blood with an anticoagulant solution, then
perfusion of the cardiovascular system with cryoprotectant. Here's an
alternative and much cheaper method borrowed from Indian fakirs. These
are often pictured in cartoons on TV blissfully sitting on a bed of
nails. Replace the nails with very small diameter extra long syringes,
and immerse the whole bed of syringes in a bath of cryoprotectant. Attach
a pump to slowly circulate the cryoprotectant through the syringes, and
rotate the bed so that the syringes point downwards. Then add a stepped
down motor to slowly lower the bed of syringes towards a brain submerged
in the cryoprotectant over a period of a few hours. During this time all
areas of the brain, even the center of the interior would be exposed to
the cryoprotectant that was being slowly injected by the syringes as they
penetrated the brain tissue. Retract the bed of syringes, and then store
the brain in liquid nitrogen, along with personal information, pictures,
etc donated by the customer.
I suspect that by freezing just the brain, rather than the whole head,
that tissue damage from the syringes would be quite small. Brain only
cryopreservation would also have the added advantage of greater customer
acceptance. I visited a medical anatomy museum once, and was mildly
horrified at viewing things like chopped off heads there. However viewing
a human brain in a jar of formaldehyde elicited no such repulsion.
By using what I will call here the pincushion method of introducing
cryoprotectant into the brain itself, costs of preparation would be
reduced by more than an order of magnitude. Since storage costs would
also be reduced by more tha 90% versus whole body cryopreservation, then
total costs would likewise be reduced by over 90%. The entire service
could therefore be offered at prices less than one tenth that ordinarily
charged and could be paid for painlessly by employer sponsored life
insurance.
On the basis of the results of this survey as well as some personal
cognition I would like to offer the following two
opinions/recommendations:
1. In the long term improving cryonic techniques to the point where
reversible cryopreservation of experimental animals is a reality, would
increase customer acceptance of cryonics more than anything else.
2. In the short term reducing costs so that cryonics arrangements could
be paid for "painlessly" by employer sponsored life insurnace, would
probably significantly increase customer acceptance.
_________________________________________________________________________
Here's a final question which I am adding to this humorous cryonics
survey. Please email your responses to myself at
Y N 14. If my employer sponsored life insurance could pay for it,
I would prefer to make a frozen pincushion out of my brain,
rather than rotting or burning it after I am finished with
it in this life.
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8929