X-Message-Number: 9582
From: Ettinger <>
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 11:53:07 EDT
Subject: Responsibility

RESPONSIBILITY

Some quick responses to points on posts that appeared on Cryonet May 1:

1. Mike Darwin (#9574) said that CI cryostats have vacuum pumps attached and
require "frequent rehardening." No, not frequent:  the outgassing diminishes
steadily over time, and frequent pumping is needed only initially. In any
case, the pumps are cheap and there is never any urgency about pumping. 

Incidentally, many years ago Mike assured the world that fiberglass could not
be used for cryostats. He had tried it. As always, we wanted to check it out
ourselves, and we found that, while polyester fiberglass would not stand up to
liquid nitrogen, the right kind of epoxy fiberglass stands up just fine.

Mike also says he thinks the MVE type dewars will take just as rough handling
as the fiberglass. Care to make a little wager, using sledge hammers? 

But I don't quarrel with the assurance that the latest MVE types are
satisfactory under reasonable conditions. 

2. Saul Kent (#9575) suggests that older people generally do not join and
become active after retirement, to support his thesis that young people are
essential to do the work. Well, two of the CI directors (John Connole and John
Besancon), and also John bull, editor of THE IMMORTALIST, joined and became
active after retirement. We'll take as many like them as we can get, and there
are signs we can get an increasing number.

3. Saul insists that by "facing the truth" (about the alleged failure of
cryonics so far), we can get more support from existing members, and soon more
members than ever before. 

That is only an opinion on both counts, especially getting more members
"soon." It makes at least as much sense to expect that trumpeting the
"failure" of cryonics will turn off prospective members in the here and now.
It seems to me it would be more reasonable for him to do his best to emphasize
research WITHOUT discouraging present prospects, including those now dying and
their relatives. 

Actually, if Saul and others believe present patients have no chance, it seems
to me they should just quietly leave cryonics to the cryonicists.  Gain the
favor of the establishment by renouncing cryonics root and branch, and raise
your research funds from those conventional masses who (according to Saul) so
desperately want to live. Hail and farewell.

Further: Am I mistaken, Saul, or do you still have cryonic suspension
arrangements in place for yourself? If so, why are you, in effect,
discouraging others from doing so? Why are you discouraging the organizations
from putting any appreciable effort into recruitment? 

Incidentally, Saul, your analysis of our "failure" leaves out of account the
failure to raise appropriate amounts of  money for anti-senescence research.
There is the inertia of tradition there too, but not the stigma of cryonics
and not the "total failure" of the product. As you yourself note, there have
been encouraging signs of possible benefits from various aging interventions;
yet the research support--while far exceeding that for cryonics--is still tiny
relative to the need and the goal. This suggests you are overoptimistic about
the positive effects of encouraging results in cryo-research.

4. Referring to the sales successes involving unproven or even fraudulent
products, such as dianetics and cults, Saul (and Paul Wakfer) seem to think
that we can only learn from them if we also use deceipt. They should know
better. Success in sales often relates more to the salesman and the sales
methods than to the merits of the product. For example, it usually helps if
the salesman is likable, friendly, tactful, cheerful, helpful, energetic, and
resourceful. Some in cryonics fill this bill reasonably well, others not. But
Saul's thesis that the sales people and sales methods cannot make any
appreciable difference is unsound.

I am by nature the worst kind of salesman. I'm just not a "people person,"
although I have learned over the years to correct this defect to some extent.
But through the application of simple common sense, courtesy and
consideration, I have led quite a few prospects into the fold. If I can do it,
anybody can. It just takes work.

5. Greg Fahy, through Saul (#9577), first offers vague and non-substantive
answers to questions about the relationships between 21CM, INC, the
university, and himself. We'll just have to wait for that. 

6. Greg also asks why I didn't attend the technical presentations on Saturday
morning at the recent Alcor conference. The answer is that I had intended to,
but an emergency arose at home, and I couldn't get there until later. If the
substance of those presentations is available on paper, I'll be glad to see
it.

He also asks again why I don't visit the 21CM labs. Aside from duties keeping
me home, I have never found any great benefit in visits or conversations.
Sure, that's another of my defects. I'm not smart enough to learn a lot by a
glance around while listening to patter. I want written papers and photos, so
I can study and reflect, and written exchanges so there is no doubt as to what
was said.

7. Greg also introduces a number of non sequiturs or irrelevancies or straw
men etc. I had said that our own research, here-and-now, is not the be-all and
end-all of our effort. By that I meant--wasn't it clear?--that despite the
importance of research by various labs, other work was also of non-negligible
importance, including recruitment. Greg "responded" that we "have to start
somewhere." Once more: Research is wonderful (no sarcasm intended), and Greg
is wonderful, and Saul and Mike and Brian are wonderful, but putting 99% of
our effort and money into research is not reasonable. It just doesn't compute.

8. I had said that, in the history of cryobiology, there have been many
encouraging "breakthroughs" that elevated optimism but did not lead to the
anticipated quick further major advances; and the same might happen with 21CM.
Greg responds that this time it's different, as he can show by detailed
explanations of where he is and where he plans to go and how he plans to get
there. 

No, it isn't different this time. Greg has done wonders, and we are very proud
of him. We raised him from a pup, after all. But the fact remains that neither
he nor anyone else can guarantee any time table for success in suspended
animation. The brain is exceedingly complex and ill understood, and suspended
animation might (conceivably) take just about as long to perfect as repair of
cryo-damage. 

Summing again: Research is very important, but to attempt to increase support
for research by almost entirely discouraging any other type of activity by
cryonicists is unreasonable and irresponsible.

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

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9582