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