X-Message-Number: 9
From: Kevin Q. Brown
Subject: reply potpourri (conclusion)
Date: 9 Aug 1988
Roy,
Here is my reply to your seventh question in your "question potpourri".
Any more questions or comments?
- Kevin Q. Brown
...{att|clyde|cuae2}!ho4cad!kqb
PS: I forgot to mention in my previous posting that, although I am a member
of ALCOR, I am not a representative of ALCOR.
< Standard Disclaimer >
> 7) Here are some statistics I've gathered. In all of human history,
> only about 40 humans have been suspended. Improper arrangements
> were made for some suspensions performed in the 1960s: only 15 or
> 16 persons remain suspended today (ALCOR seems to hold a majority
> of them). Contrary to public conception, suspension has never been
> a fad, never been popular. Have you had any success convincing
> close relatives to look into this alternative? What arguments
> are effective? Do you think suspension is an option which will
> only interest the technologically literate?
Cryonics is a divisive issue. Marriages have broken up over it.
If you think that finding a good, logical argument will be sufficient to
convince people that cryonics is a good idea then you are going to be
disappointed. Logical arguments are important - you need to show that interest
in cryonics is rational and that you are not just a kook - but some (most?)
people are, at present, just not open to this idea, no matter how logical it is.
For example, surely many of the estimated 4900 readers of sci.nanotech have read
Engines of Creation and are familiar with Drexler's arguments concerning
cryonics. Yet, only a small percentage of the sci.nanotech readers expressed
interest in the cryonics mailing list, so you can all congratulate yourselves
on being quite special!
My close relatives (parents and sister) were at first skeptical and then turned
somewhat hostile to cryonics when I gave them the relative's affidavits forms
(which are optional forms in ALCOR's signup procedure) and showed them other
legal documents concerning the cryonic suspension paperwork. They thought that
ALCOR was just out to rob people of their money. (Maybe I did a bad job of
presenting the idea? I forgot to also include the Agreement to Hold Harmless
that should go with the affidavits.) I have unfortunately had to just write
them off for now, as far as cryonics is concerned, which is not a happy thing
to have to do.
What sorts of people become cryonicists?
Most are young (not old people just about to die). A large percentage of
ALCOR's suspension members are computer programmers. (The sci.nanotech USENET
newsgroup is one of the best targeted audiences for cryonics that I know of.)
Also, according to a straw poll at a recent conference, a large percentage call
themselves Libertarians. This surprised me; I didn't even know what the word
"Libertarian" meant. ** I have also noticed that people who are signed up with
ALCOR tend to be very "cerebral" sort of people; they think a lot, think highly
of their thinking, and highly value their minds.
** Now I have a rationale for the Libertarian connection. You have surely
heard that the only two certainties in life are death and taxes. Cryonicists
seek to avoid death and Libertarians seek to avoid taxes; cryonics and
Libertarianism thus make a natural, synergistic pair. :-)
Why aren't most people interested in cryonics?
Eric Drexler suggested, in a talk at the 1985 Lake Tahoe Life Extension
Festival, that evolution selected against people (and cultures) that wasted
time on something they could do nothing about. Therefore, most people do not
think (seriously) about defeating death. (Note: Drexler's argument is not just
about genetic evolution but also, and especially, memetic evolution in our
culture.)
An article by Mike Darwin ("A World Gone Wrong") in the July 1986 issue of
Cryonics suggested that many non-cryonicists lack sufficient self respect to
think that they should have a longer life. Also, some people apparently do not
enjoy life and do not want to take nonstandard measures to prolong it.
The Nov. 1987 issue of The Immortalist had an article by Keith Henson titled
"Cryonics, a Very Slow Spreading Meme". Henson suggested that the ecological
niche (in meme space) that cryonics occupies is a hotly contested area that is
also occupied by the major religions / philosophies. "Most of these memes
have been around a long time, are very well adapted, and motivate those they
possess to spread them. Most hold their own in the face of fierce competition.
Within minds, they help form 'mental structures' that are ordinarily quite
resistant to change." Henson also suggested that thinking about death is
painful and people don't like to think about it or question the belief patterns
they were taught in their youth. Thus, the cryonics meme not only has a hard
time getting through the door, but the old, established memes are very good at
kicking out the few competitors that make it that far.
I read the book "Vital Lies, Simple Truths (The Psychology of Self-Deception)"
by Daniel Goleman (Simon & Schuster, 1985, $9.95 paperback). One of Goleman's
main points is that one of our main methods of reducing pain is to dim our
awareness of the painful thing. This is a pain/attention tradeoff that applies
to a lot more than just the general public's lack of attention to rational
means for indefinitely postponing death (such as cryonics). The book quotes
from the Indian epic, the Mahabharatta:
"What is the greatest wonder of the world?"
The answer is:
"That no one, though he sees others dying all around, believes he
himself will die."
Belief systems that include reincarnation or souls that go to heaven satisfy
this quite nicely. (Even cryonics is kind of like reincarnation.)
Also, even though it sounds perverse, death may have a number of "advantages"
that people do not often like to admit. Here are some possibilities:
(1) inertia, tradition, being part of the group, respectability
(All my friends died. The great heros of the past died. If it was good
enough for them it ought to be good enough for me.)
(2) Death is part of the "Natural Order of Things"
(3) Through death good people can receive their reward (heaven) and the
others receive their due punishment (hell).
(4) Death makes life simpler by reducing the number of things to concern
oneself about (those things that will happen in the next 50 years or so).
(5) Death makes room (at the top) for new people and new ideas.
[This supposes that old dogs can't learn new tricks.]
(6) If people don't die, our world population will explode.
[The world population would actually not be increased by a large factor
if old people did not die. This is because population is increasing
geometrically with a doubling time of just a few generations and
the last term in that geometric series is a large part of the sum.]
(7) Death provides an end to pain (especially for old people who are lonely,
miserable, and sick).
(8) Death allows one to quit the game (without being called a quitter).
(9) Death makes our limited life more valuable (Cult of Evanescence)
(10) Nobody ends up any better (off) than you (Great Equalizer)
(11) Death allows everyone to be a victim (since everyone ends up dead).
[Playing victim is actually a way to avoid responsibility.]
(12) Death puts a time limit on getting your work done and thereby helps
ensure that you get it done rather than indefinitely put it off.
(Parkinson's Law)
[However, market windows also put a time limit on getting things done
without having to invoke death.]
Question: Will the downloader meme be more successful than the cryonics meme?
In the July 1988 issue of The Immortalist, Robert Ettinger pointed out that
"Cryonics is gritty and demanding and expensive and messy and troublesome and
causes friction in the family and confers no status." Downloading at least
sounds cleaner and less gruesome. Its main disadvantage, at the moment, is
that it doesn't exist. [But that won't necessarily stop people from believing
in it. :-)]
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9