X-Message-Number: 9564
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 18:24:13 -0400
From: Paul Wakfer <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #9556 The Failure Of The Cryonics Movement - Part I
References: <>

> Message #9556
> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 22:18:03 -0400
> From: Saul Kent <>
> Subject: The Failure Of The Cryonics Movement - Part I

General comment: I found this to be a very powerful essay and I believe
that it (or variants of it) should be
published as widely as possible, even (and especially) in cryobiological
circles.
 
>         In 1964, the cryonics movement was launched
> by Bob Ettinger's book, The Prospect Of Immortality. I was
> inspired by Bob's book to become a cryonics activist
> To me cryonics was far more than a chance of survival
> in the face of death.  In 1964, I saw death as being far in
> the future.  I was 25 years old and in excellent health. The
> first patient had yet to be frozen, and I knew that freezing
> would cause severe damage to the body.
> 
>         My primary motive in becoming a cryonics activist
> was to save my life in the *future*, when I knew it would need
> saving.  I knew that my youth and health were short-lived; that
> I was programmed to grow old, suffer and die; and that major
> scientific advances would have to occur to change all that.
> 
>         I saw cryonics as a dynamic, dramatic force to
> drive the pace of research forward.  I saw it as a vehicle for
> *me* to play a role in driving the pace of research forward. I
> assumed that anyone who wanted to improve their chances
> of survival through cryonics would be *strongly* interested
> in research.  I realized that few people would have the will or
> aptitude to become researchers themselves, but I expected
> that everyone who opted for cryonics could contribute to
> research in other ways. They could help to fund research
> themselves.  They could urge the government, corporations,
> and other individuals to fund research.  And, if they couldn't
> afford to fund research in 1964, they could dedicate them-
> selves to making money for the purpose of funding and
> promoting research in the future.
> 
>         In 1964, I was thrilled to learn that there were groups
> of mainstream scientists conducting organ cryopreservation
> research.  I assumed that cryonicists would be a major force
> in helping these and other mainstream researchers advance
> their research, and that, as the cryonics organizations grew,
> we would begin to conduct research ourselves.  As I saw it
> at the time, the combination of mainstream research, and
> the fierce dedication of cryonicists in promoting and funding
> bold, pathbreaking new research would lead to perfected
> suspended animation before the end of the 20th century.
> 
>         With these assumptions in place, I was *highly*
> motivated to help the fledgling cryonics movement grow as
> rapidly as possible.  I saw every minute, hour and day spent
> in fostering the growth of the movement as a tremendously
> exciting opportunity for me to save my life, and the lives of
> my loved ones, and to advance the most powerful and
> far-reaching revolution in history...a revolution that would
> lead to physical immortality and the opportunity to explore
> an incredibly vast universe of unimagineable riches.  It was
> going to be the adventure of a lifetime...*my* lifetime!

Comment: It is interesting that these reasons, thoughts and motivations
parallel very closely *mine* when I become involved with libertarianism
over 20 years ago. By the time that I got involved with Cryonics, I was
older and wiser although still capable of being as ardent.

>         My assessment today--33 years later--of the
> cryonics movement that began with such promise and
> potential is that it has failed, and that there is significant
> risk of its extinction.  At a time when cryonicists continue
> to debate about the probability of cryonics patients
> being restored to life in the future, I think it's time to face the
> unpleasant truth that the cryonics movement is dying, and
> that, unless it can be revitalized and rejuvenated, our
> chances of survival may be very small.
> 
>         I make this assessment as someone who has
> been an active cryonicist for most of the past 33 years, who
> has seen and participated in many of the ups and downs of  the
> movement, and who remains, in spite of this overwhelmingly
> negative assessment of its current state, an optimist about
> our ability to turn the downward spiral of the movement
> around in the next 10 years, and, ultimately, to succeed
> in our quest for physical immortality.  However, before I give
> you my prescription for this turn-around, let's look at the
> the evidence that the cryonics movement has failed.
> 
>         The first piece of evidence that the cryonics
> movement has failed is the fact that we've attracted such
> a minuscule following in the past 33 years.
> 
>         When you consider that cryonics offers the
> most valuable product ever conceived--the possibility
> of everlasting life--that we offer the only product in history
> that is essential for everyone on the planet, and that the
> vast majority of Americans (and a great many people
> abroad) have learned of its availability over the past
> 33 years, our ability to attract members has been
> utterly and absolutely abysmal!
> 
>         I believe cryonics has received more publicity
> with less results than any idea in history.  Over the years,
> there have been thousands of radio and TV shows and
> newspaper and magazine stories about cryonics.  Although
> much of this publicity has been negative, many media stories
> have presented our point of view fairly, and many have been
> quite positive about cryonics.
> 
>         Despite this massive publicity for a variety of
> cryonics organizations for more than three decades, we
> have a mere 700-800 people worldwide who have made
> financial and legal preparations to be frozen.
> 
>         Despite all the publicity, under 100 patients
> have been frozen since the inception of the movement,
> in the face of hundreds of millions of people who died
> during this period, but chose burial or cremation over
> cryopreservation.
> 
>         In the last 33 years, billionaires and an
> untold number of millionaires, who were well aware
> of the option of cryonics, chose instead the total
> destruction of death the "old-fashioned" way.

Comment: IMO, the reasons they did this are *the* problem,
Saul. They thought they had nothing to gain and they also
*believed*, psychologically, that they had much to lose!
The latter is even harder to overcome than the former.
Only *after* suspended animation is perfected and becomes
medically mainstream and socially acceptable will either
of these be overcome for most people, even the rich, IMO.
 
>          The facts speak for themselves.  In the
> context of the intense desire for survival on the part of
> virtually everyone on Earth,

Comment: This desire appears to weaken considerably with
age and eventually becomes far less than the desire to 
"make way for the younger generation, leave a legacy to
ones descendants or society, escape from the pain and
effort of living, etc." IMO, most people will never
elect even perfected suspended animation until it becomes
socially mandated and they do it to *gain approval*
rather than disapproval.

> we've failed miserably in
> attracting people to the cryonics movement. Consider-
> ing the powerful attachment to life that most people have,
> the almost total rejection of cryonics by the general public
> is strong evidence that people just don't think it will work!

Comment: Much as I agree that this is very important and we
would gain enormous numbers of people (the "best" people) if
they could only be convinced that it would work, I do not
believe that this is the *major* reason why people in the
general publc do not sign up.

>         It's true that it costs money and takes time to
> sign up  for cryonics, but these would not be major barriers
> to growth, I believe, if people truly believed there is a
> reasonable chance that cryonics will work.
> 
>         The evidence also shows that, not only have
> we failed to attract people to the cryonics movement in
> general, but more ominously, when it comes to attracting
> young people, we are rapidly losing ground.  This is the
> evidence for my conclusion that the cryonics movement
> is dying and moving towards extinction.
> 
>          According to Mike Darwin, the average age of
> Alcor members in 1984 (when he was President of Alcor)
> was 38 years of age.  Today, half of CryoCare's members
> are 50 or older, 80 percent are 40 or older, and only two
> members are under 30 (One of them is an infant, the child
> of a member in his 40s). The largest group of CryoCare
> members is in the 40-to-60 age range.  They represent
> about 20 percent of the *total* age range, but more than
> 60 percent of the membership. (I'd appreciate it if  the
> other cryonics organizations would post the current age
> range of their members).
> 
>         Actually, the aging of the cryonics movement is
> far more serious than these figures show.  When you look
> at cryonics activists, the figures are even more alarming.
> Today, the vast majority of cryonics activists are over 40,
> many of them are over 60, a fair number of them are over
> 70, and a significant number of them have already died,
> including such stalwarts as Jerry Leaf, Paul Genteman,
> Jerry White, Dick Marsh, Walter Runkel, Jack Erfurt and
> Andrea Foote. A signficant number of others are
> likely to die within the next 5 years or so.
> 
>         These people are *not* being replaced by any
> stretch of the imagination.  The cryonics movement is *not*
> attracting young activists in anywhere near the numbers
> we need to keep the movement alive and vital. It is *clearly*
> a dying movement.
> 
>         The reasons young activists aren't being attracted
> to the cryonics movement aren't hard to see.  When I was a
> young activist in the 1960s, I saw great hope and promise in
> a movement that I was confident would, eventually, bring me
> wealth, fame and physical immortality.  I knew that it would be
> quite a while before these goals would be achieved, but I was
> young and vigorous, I was working with other young and
> vigorous people, and we were shooting for the stars!
> 
>         In 1971, I realized that things were moving much
> slower than I had hoped, that I was 32 years of age without
> any money, a viable career, or any prospects for either if I
> remained a cryonics activist.  So I dropped out of activism
> to make my mark in the "real world" and didn't drop back in
> until the mid 1980s, when I could afford to do so.
> 
>         In the mid 1980s, the cryonics movement was
> already aging fast, but the major activists were still young
> and ambitious enough to be optimistic, and hardly any of
> them had died yet.  Moreover, as a result of our activism,
> we *were* beginning to attract young activists, such as
> Ralph Whelan, Tanya Jones and Derek Ryan.
> 
>         However, this "youth movement" proved
> short-lived.  Ralph, Tanya and Derek found, after a
> number of years of toil and trouble, that there was still
> no future in cryonics. They managed to escape from
> the movement while they were still young enough to
> build a viable career in the real world.
> 
>         Today, as the cryonics movement grows
> older and older, its attraction to young people grows
> weaker and weaker.  Today, the cryonics movement
> has *nothing* to offer young people except hard work
> with little or no pay; apathy, ridicule or hostility from the
> outside world; internal fighting with aging cryonicists,
> many of whom have never learned how to work and
> play well with others; a level of emotional stress from
> dealing with cryonics cases that is comparable to
> that found in emergency care medicine, without any
> of the benefits of being a health care professional;
> and the fear that you'll end up an institutional
> cryonicist with little or no hope of success in the
> outside world.
> 
>         Further evidence that the cryonics
> movement has failed has been our inability to persuade
> mainstream scientists of the value of cryonics.  I am not
> aware of a single mainstream scientist whose negative
> opinion of cryonics has been changed by anything we've
> said, written or done in the past 33 years.  On the contrary,
> the position of establishment scientists over the years has
> hardened into perpetual, and sometimes ridiculing
> negativism and condescension.
> 
>         The overwhelming negativity of established
> scientists for cryonics was *not* preordained or inevitable.
> In fact, in the early years of the movement, a number of
> scientists, including prominent cryobiologists, were quite
> friendly towards cryonics.  Reknowned biologist Jean
> Rostand, for example, wrote the preface to The Prospect
> of Immortality.  Armand Karow, Jr., an established
> cryobiologist at the Medical College of Georgia
> wrote a series of columns for Cryonics Reports, the
> newsletter of the Cryonics Society of New York.  A.P.
> Rinfret of the Linde Division of Union Carbide, which
> sold cryogenic equipment in the 60s, was friendly
> towards cryonics. Jerome K. Sherman, a cryo-
> biologist at the University of Arkansas sought
> financial help from the cryonics movement. In the
> 1960s, I was able to put together a Scientific
> Advisory Board to the Cryonics Societies, which
> included a number of eminent mainstream
> surgeons and cryobiologists.
> 
>         When I was about to go to New
> York University Hospital to participate in the
> freezing of Ann DeBlasio in 1969, I called
> cryobiologist Arthur Rowe (who was then
> working at the New York Blood Bank) for
> advice, which he gave me willingly and openly.
> This is the same Arthur Rowe who has since
> been quoted over and over in newspaper and
> magazine articles saying that the belief that
> cryonics will work is like believing you can turn
> "hamburger back into a cow!"
> 
>         It's no mystery why mainstream
> cryobiologists were friendly towards cryonics
> in the early days of the movement.  They
> thought cryonicists were a potential source of
> funds for their research.  They thought that any-
> one who wanted to beat death by being frozen
> would want the best possible chance of success.
> That even a small cryonics movement would
> do everything within its power to help fund cryo-
> biological research.
> 
>         They soon found out they were wrong.
> Cryonicists *didn't* fund their research.  Cryonicists
> didn't try to raise funds for their research. Cryonicists
> didn't even seem interested in their research. Instead,
> cryonicists spent a great deal of time trying to persuade
> cryobiologists, and the rest of the world, that people
> frozen after legal death by the extremely crude and
> damaging methods of the 60s, had a chance of revival,
> perhaps even a good chance of revival, in the future.
> 
>         And so the cryobiologists withdrew all
> support for the cryonics movement.  As the years went
> by with little or no evidence that cryonicists were
> interested in research, they turned more and more
> against the movement.  When their government and
> corporate funding sources began to dry up in the
> 1970s, some cryobiologists began to worry  that
> the cryonics movement was, in part, *responsible* for
> their loss of funding.  As a result, they became bitterly
> opposed to a movement in which they saw no
> redeeming value.  In their eyes, the vast publicity that
> cryonics was attracting was a direct slap in the face of
> the only people (the scientists) on Earth who could ever
> achieve the goal the cryonicists were supposed to be
> seeking.  In their eyes, the constant focus of the media
> on cryonics rather than cryobiology was a sad, cruel
> joke played upon them by a group (the cryonicists)
> driven primarily by vanity and narcissism,  who
> preferred sensationalism to science.
> 
>         As the cryobiologists hardened their stance
> against the cryonics movement, cryonicists reacted by
> attacking the cryobiologists for *their* attacks on the
> practice of cryonics.  What could have become a
> *highly* productive partnership driving us to perfected
> suspended animation became instead a cold war
> between two hostile camps who were hurting each
> other's chances for success.
> 
>         My thesis that the cryonics movement
> has failed and is moving towards extinction is so
> strongly supported by the evidence that it is truly
> remarkable that cryonicists have failed to discuss
> it.  I contend, in fact, that the failure of these issues
> to be raised and taken seriously by cryonicists
> is indicative of an escape from reality that is at the
> root of our failure, and is a significant threat to our
> survival.  Before we can deal effectively with the
> threat of the movement's extinction, we must first
> accept the fact that we have failed.
> 
>         I believe that, unless we face the truth
> about the failure of our movement and its possible
> extinction squarely and unflinchingly, we will be
> doomed to the very thing we have been trying so
> desperately trying to avoid...permanent and
> irreversible death!
> 
>         A major symptom of our escape from
> reality has been our widespread denial of the
> importance of the massive damage caused by the
> primitive freezing methods we employ.

Comment: IMO, relatively few are denying the
*existence* of the damage. What they are denying is
that the damage is *important* and *life-threatening*.

>  We've not
> only failed to fund and promote the research needed
> to improve cryonics methods, but we've actively
> resisted finding out and admitting to the world (and to
> ourselves) how much damage we were (and are)
> inflicting upon our patients.
> 
>         The result has been the failure to
> confront and effectively deal with the fact that
> our failure to *sell* cryonics has been due, almost
> entirely, to the poor quality of our product. Outsiders
> don't have to think twice to come to that conclusion.
> It's self evident to almost everyone....except to
> cryonicists!
> 
>         For the past 33 years, we've been bending
> over backwards to evade the truth about our movement.
> We've twisted ourselves into proverbial pretzels in our
> efforts to pretend that we have a good product, when all
> the evidence screams at us that our product is terrible!

Comment: I would almost go so far as to say that
we don't have any "product" at all!

>         In the process of evading reality, we've side-
> stepped, twisted and distorted the truth so badly that
> we've lost our way in a tangled jumble of wrong
> ideas, false notions, and misleading myths.
> 
>         Instead of facing up to the crudity of our
> freezing methods and the importance of the massive
> damage caused by these methods, we've focused
> more and more on the possibility of future repair of this
> damage.  This has been easy to do because of the
> growth of the nanotechnology movement, which has lent
> credibility (in some quarters) to the concept of future repair
> of very severe injury caused by aging, disease, ischemic
> injury, and freezing damage.
> 
>         When cryobiologists contend we are damaging
> our patients too much to permit future reanimation, we criticize
> them for failing to take into account the potential of future repair
> methods.  In doing so, we fail to appreciate that we are, similarly,
> failing to take into account the severity of the damage our
> methods cause.  Until we have solid evidence that we can
> preserve the brain well enough to retain enough information to
> maintain our identities, it is inappropriate, I believe, for us to
> criticize cryobiologists over their opinion that future repair of
> today's frozen patients will be impossible.  Without the
> evidence that we can effectively preserve ourselves, the
> cryobiologists are not only entitled to their negative opinions
> about cryonics, but we don't have the slightest chance
> of changing their minds!
> 
>         Whenever we refuse to admit that the "miracle"
> of nanotechnology might not *ever* be able to repair the
> most severe damage to today's patients, we are seen as
> irrational, wild-eyed dreamers, and our movement as more
> a cult or religion than a scientific endeavor.
> 
>                                           (End of Part I)

-- Paul --

 Voice/Fax: 416-968-6291 Page: 800-805-2870
The Institute for Neural Cryobiology - http://neurocryo.org
Perfected cryopreservation of Central Nervous System tissue
for neuroscience research and medical repair of brain diseases

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9564