X-Message-Number: 9562
From: Ettinger <>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 19:42:27 EDT
Subject: Saul Kent's View

Saul Kent's View

Responding to Saul Kent's Cryonet #9556-7, in no particular order, and trying
hard to keep it brief:

1. Sure, Mae and I will consider investing in 21CM. However, as I understand
it, both ICN and 21CM have their own hippocampal slice projects. How are
responsibilities and potential benefits divided? We remember all too clearly
the long misunderstandings between 21CM and Wakfer's Prometheus Project,
culminating in the collapse of the latter, after years of effort and
assurances of mutual understanding and trust. There is also the third party,
the university. How does it fit together? Paul's explanations fall short, and
so far so do Saul's.

2. Research is wonderful, but our own research here-and-now is not necessarily
the be-all and end-all. In the early 1960s some cryobiologists thought major
organ cryopreservation was just around the corner. Ten years ago leaders
thought major organ vitrification was just around the corner. They were wrong
(with excuses, of course). Saul wants brutal honesty, great--we need a dose of
it here. Even though cryobiology has been greatly understaffed and
underfunded, the total work done by all the non-cryonicist cryobiologists has
greatly exceeded that done by cryonics-friendly cryobiologists, with
relatively small results. 

Small results may well continue for decades. There were several points in the
history of cryobiology where "breakthroughs" raised optimism, such as
Rostand's original work with frog sperm, Suda's cat brains, blood cryobanking,
a few successes with mammalian small organs and tissues, etc. In each case,
the follow-through proved much harder than expected. That this will happen
again is not foregone by any means, and we should try to achieve a better
outcome--but those chickens may take a long time to hatch, and many of us
don't have a long time, as Saul notes for himself. 

3. Is cryonics moribund? Not by Cryonics Institute measures. We are still
growing slowly, in membership and in patient population--but our growth has
improved since the nineties, not slowed. With the advent of the Internet,
inquiries are more numerous. 

4. Aging cryonicists? Of our nine directors, only three are over 60, including
Mae and myself. We don't have many people in their twenties or thirties, true.
Alcor once had quite a few, but some of those probably had unrealistic
expectations of careers in cryonics, and others didn't want to keep paying
dues. The energy of youth is fine, but the older people are the ones who have
the money and who are in more danger, and retired people can better afford to
give their time.

5. While acknowledging that there are many contributing reasons for the tiny
numbers in cryonics, Saul says the major reason is a product not proven to
work. Well, there are much more clearly unproven products (even clearly
fraudulent ones) that have been much more successful--the various fads and
cults, astrology, dianetics, etc. So there is plenty of room there for study
and improvement. 

6. Saul points to various people as successful in other enterprises but
unsuccessful in cryonics, citing this as evidence that promotional skill and
funding etc. cannot make the difference. I think that, if you look at the
details, this analysis is faulty. For example, Milgrim was never especially
successful at anything; he was basically just a brassiere salesman; and Gold,
as I recall, had only had minor success in manipulating corporate
restructuring. Milgrim thought he could impress me by buying me a steak!
Shrewd salesman! And those pig freezers were totally incompetent. (They just
wanted to dunk the whole pig into a vat of something, as I recall.) The
funeral guy may have been a good salesman, but he was initially under the
misapprehension that it would be an easy sell to venture capitalists, and when
he found out differently he was long gone. Enough. 

7. Saul speaks of the "intense desire for survival on the part of virtually
everyone on earth," and our "failure" in spite of this. I have often pointed
out that the so-called "survival instinct" is reliable only in clear and
present danger--and even then only if the individual is still relatively
healthy and vigorous. If the danger is indirect, or remote in time, or if the
person is weak or depressed--or even if required action would violate
established habits--forget the "survival instinct." It isn't that simple.

8. Saul discounts the negative press and the opposition of the establishment.
He is wrong to do so. Many prospective members have cited such opposition as
dissuading them. And we are justified, both from a scientific and public
relations point of view, in nailing the lies of such as Rowe, the immoral
arrogance of trying to use a spurious "expertise" to suggest that the
probability of success is near zero, without ever displaying a calculation of
probability and without ever acknowledging the favorable evidence.  But time
here is on our side; the constant advance in all kinds of technology steadily
erodes the lingering feeling that future advances will be only minor ones, not
the major ones needed to reverse current freezing damage.

9. Saul says, "Whenever we refuse to admit thatnanotechnology might not ever
be able to repairtoday's patients, we are seen aswild-eyed dreamers"  I
don't know anybody who refuses to admit this. I don't know anybody who
guarantees success. If Saul is equating "refusal to admit" with arguments
tending to support the likelihood of success, this is wrong.

10.  Saul suggests that rich people abstain from cryonics, or from heavier
involvement in cryonics, because they are too smart to invest in something
unproven. Nonsense. They refrain for the same reasons others do, and
additionally because they are busier than others, with more demands on their
time and attention than others, with more appeals for funds than others, with
more "protective" advisers around them than others, with more greedy relatives
than others, and with more to lose psychologically. 

Naturally, I understand Saul's motivation. He thinks he needs to paint in
these dark colors in order to raise money. Maybe that will work with some
people. It will also turn off some prospective members from cryonics and
perhaps lose their lives and their potential support. To counter that tendency
a bit is my only reason for responding.

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society
http://www.cryonics.org

P.S. Last week CI suspended another pet cat. That brings our pet patient
population to 4 cats and 4 dogs. We also have 26 humans, all whole-body.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9562