X-Message-Number: 9593
Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 13:22:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: Resisting the Idea of Cryonics

A couple of people have mentioned general emotional resistance to the idea
of cryonics. This resistance often has nothing to do with doubts about
scientific plausibility. 

In fact I believe this "general resistance" really comes in many 
different forms, from different sources. There are many theories about 
this. Some blame religion. Steve Harris believes that only people who are 
alienated misfits would want to wake up in a future where they would find 
themselves isolated from familiar aspects of their current lives. And so 
on, and so on.

It really doesn't matter what the real reasons are, because they all boil 
down to the same thing: _resistance to change._ Cryonics does entail a 
radical rethinking of very deep, socially well-established ideas about 
life and death. Most people don't have time for this.

When I was 25, I emigrated from my British homeland to the United States. 
This was a major decision that involved some radical changes. It was 
tough in some ways, but of course it is trivial compared with 
"emigrating" into the future. Most people simply aren't motivated to make 
this kind of change, especially if (unlike myself) they have family 
obligations.

Death, of course, should provide some motivation, but as we well know, 
most people don't believe there is any chance that they will die TODAY. 
Therefore, they put off thinking about it till tomorrow.

However, if we look at societal attitudes toward death in the past 50 
years, we see a gradual shift away from the view that "death is 
inevitable," toward a view that "we should take precautions against 
dying." The underlying reasons for this shift of attitude are irrelevant 
here. But clearly, the shift has occurred. 50 years ago, there was very 
little that anyone could do to reduce the risk of mortality, and people 
accepted a far higher level of risk than we do in North America today. 
Today, we have seat belts, health warnings on dangerous products, proper 
product labeling, crash barriers on highways, childproof caps on 
prescription drugs, health-and-safety regulations in the 
workplace--there's a huge list of precautions that never used to exist, 
and as a result, the death rate from ALL forms of accidents has slowly 
declined (as shown in Statistical Abstract of the US, a very useful 
source of deathrate data).

Concurrently, medicine has advance; there were no paramedics 50 years 
ago, for instance. And people are now voluntarily changing their behavior 
to increase their chances of longevity. Hard liquor consumption has 
steadily declined; cigarette smoking, overall, has declined; the 
popularity of whole milk has declined while consumption of skim milk has 
radically increased; people drink diet sodas and even bottled water, 
which would have seemed incomprehensible 50 years ago.

A previous generation would have laughed at this concern with safety. So, 
a very important shift has occurred. It's no accident that the concept of 
cryonics appeared during this period.

I believe that postwar society is the first in history where everyday
people have confronted the prospect of death (rather than merely shrugging
and hoping for the best), and have tried actively to minimize the risk. 

I think this trend will continue--albeit more slowly than we would like. 
What could accelerate the integration of cryonics into the new outlook on
mortality? Proof that it works. And I mean real proof, not isolated
questionable reports about resuscitated beagles and baboons. Some lay
people may believe this stuff, but they have an implicit sense that it is
"not for them." Too wacky, too experimental, probably too expensive. The
early adopters, on the other hand, are waiting for the REAL validation,
from several different accredited sources, before they'll commit
themselves. And until the early adopters start to commit in large
numbers, cryonics won't spread out through the general population. 

Therefore, I return to the same point I made in my previous post. 
Validation of cryonics must come first.

--CP

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9593