X-Message-Number: 9604
Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 23:47:19 -0400
From: Saul Kent <>
Subject: Reason And Responsibility
In message 9582, Bob Ettinger says that
"to attempt to increase support for research by almost
entirely discouraging any other type of activity by
cryonicists is unreasonable and irresponsible." Since
I am one of the people Bob is accusing of being
"unreasonable and irresponsible", I need to
respond to his accusations.
Bob accuses me of believing that "present
patients have no chance of revival if they are frozen.
That's neither true, nor have I have *ever* stated any-
thing of the sort. Bob, I would prefer that you refrain from
speculating about what I believe in. I am *very* capable
of explaining my positions in my own words.
Bob then concludes that IF I believe present
patients have no chance, I should just "quietly leave
cryonics to the cryonicists." In stating this, he takes an
inappropriate and incorrect speculation about what he
believes *I* "believe" and then proceeds to draw an
even more inappropriate (and incorrect) conclusion
from it. Bob, that's neither reasonable *nor* responsible.
Bob then goes on to suggest that I might
be able to "gain the favor of the establishment by
renouncing cryonics root and branch", and raise my
research funds "from those conventional masses who
(according to Saul) so desperately want to live..."
These remarks express very well what I
believe to be one of the major reasons for the failure of
the cryonics movement in the past 33 years. Bob and
others (including myself) have taken the position that
it is undesirable to compromise with cryobiologists
(and other mainstream scientists) who disapprove of
cryonics. We have been striving to persuade scientists
to admit the "truth" (as we see it) about cryonics (that it
can work), rather than simply accepting their negative
opinions about the feasibility of cryonics, and trying to
work with them on research that might help to improve
our methods.
At 21st Century Medicine, we are *going* to
work with mainstream scientists (we're already doing so)
to help improve cryopreservation methods through
research *without* dealing with the issue of cryonics if we
can help it. We want and *need* the help of mainstream
cryobiologists and neurobiologists very badly, and we see
no benefit whatever in bringing cryonics into the picture with
these people. If *they* don't believe in cryonics as currently
practiced that's fine with me, provided that their knowledge
and expertise can help us improve our results. I'm not at all
interested in whether someone toes the "party line", only if
they can help us.
Does that mean that I will "renounce"
cryonics; no it doesn't! Does it mean that I will go out
of my way *not* to debate cryonics with unsympathetic
cryobiologists; it sure does!
As far as raising money from the "conventional
masses", we'll take money from wherever we can get it:
from cryonicists, from non-cryonicists, and from the con-
ventional masses if we become successful enough to
attact such funding as a public company!
Bob says: "Am I mistaken, Saul, or do you
still have cryonic suspension arrangements in place for
yourself?" You're not mistaken, Bob, I still have cryonic
suspension arrangements in place for myself. Not only that,
but my partner, Bill Faloon, is working on arrangements to
make CryoCare financially secure *far* into the future, as well
as arrangements to help other cryonicists plan for a secure
financial future for themselves.
Bob states over and over, and even *speculates*
over and over (in msg 9588) that I am discouraging people from
joining cryonics societies, that I am discouraging people who are
dying from being frozen today, and that I am discouraging cryonics
organizations from putting any appreciable effort into recruiting.
My objective in all my recent postings, in addition to
trying to persuade people to invest in cryopreservation research,
has been to convince people that the best *recruitment* strategy
for cryonics is to link recruitment to a solid, credible, well-funded
research program to improve cryonics methods. That's it. And
I think I've been clear about it.
But, perhaps I haven't been clear enough. I'd greatly
appreciate it if people who have been following the discussion on
Cryonet who have not signed up, would speak up and let me know
if I've discouraged them in any way from doing so. I'm particularly
interested in anyone who I may have discouraged who may need
cryonics services in the near future. If I have done anything to dis-
courage anyone from joining or participating in a cryonics
organization, please let me know about it, either publicly
(on Cryonet) or privately via email.
One more thing. In Bob's response to Greg Fahy,
he suggests that Greg is guaranteeing a timetable for success
in achieving suspended animation. Greg is in transit today, but I
spoke with him about this on the phone, and he authorized me
to state that Greg has neither said nor believes that he (or any-
one else) can "guarantee" a timetable for sucess in achieving
suspended animation (or any other scientific goal).
What Greg *did* say (as I and others have said ) is
that he (and other 21CM scientists) can show (anyone who is
interested in seeing) that 21CM has already achieved major
scientific advances, and that 21CM has detailed plans backed
by hard evidence for the achievement of suspended animation.
---Saul Kent, CEO
21st Century Medicine
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9604