X-Message-Number: 9660 Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 02:45:07 -0400 From: "Stephen W. Bridge" <> Subject: Kent, Halperin, prizes To CryoNet From Steve Bridge May 9, 1998 I'm glad to see CryoNet back to debating cryonics, with valuable new information, useful debate, and even new ideas. They even pulled me out of my new comfortable life back in Indiana (well, as comfortable as suddenly becoming the step-father of three children can be) to comment. For new readers who don't know me, I have been involved deeply in cryonics since 1977 when Mike Darwin persuaded me that this idea could work. I was President of Alcor from early 1993 to early 1997 and am currently Chairman of Alcor's Board of Directors. 1. On the furor over Saul Kent's essay on "the failure of cryonics": Good for Saul! This debate was long overdue. I didn't agree with every single point Saul made; but I thought his general logic was correct. What some people seem to have forgotten already was that Saul's essay came as a response to a general discussion on "why don't more people sign up?" a subject we were debating back in 1977, too. Saul's answer was that the main reason was that cryonics is a very poor *product* to sell. He's absolutely correct. As an *idea*, cryonics is terrific. I can have speaking engagements whenever I want. I could be speaking to dozens of high school and college classes, and doing interviews in hundreds of media formats -- which I did while at Alcor. I'm sure I have put in more than 5,000 total hours marketing cryonics in some way since 1990 alone, and it could be twice that. In the short run, at least, all of that work has gotten Alcor and cryonics very few new members, because what we have to sell is both complex and uncertain, with benefits that are vague to most people even if cryonics DID work. So why did I do it? In the beginning, I did have the right perspective, I think. I was planting seeds so that the idea of cryonics as *possible* was embedded in the brains of millions of people. There are at least four benefits to that approach: A. A few people will sign up now and get involved. B. A lot more people will be interested enough so that if we can ever show this WORKS, there will be a ready-made market for cryonic suspension (or other biostasis methods). C. Many more people, including government bureaucrats, elected officials, hospital personnel, and law enforcement officers would see that we are at least sincere and not take actions to prevent us from doing cryonics. D. Some scientific curiosity would be generated in young people who might get into this research in the future. (I'm pleased that one of my trips to Northern California had some small role in getting Chris Rasch interested in cryonics-related research; so I can see the benefit). But after a while, I also began to get frustrated. After all this work, why wouldn't more people actually sign up?!!! My long view began to be frayed by increasing pressure to grow, to earn enough money to keep Alcor's bottom line above flood level -- maybe even enough to pay myself and my employees a decent wage, and to make something HAPPEN. But one can only sell "a really neat idea" for so many years without feeling one should have something MORE to offer. A great proportion of my frustration came from the fact that I hated the requirement to sell cryonics from the viewpoint of: "here's why you should buy a product that is unproven and upon which little money is being expended for research." Whether Saul is specifically right about cryonics not growing or failing to gain young enthusiasts, he is right that cryonics is still growing no faster than ever (which is too slow) and he has a darn good handle on why: we can't prove it works a bit better now than we could 20 years ago -- and maybe it even looks *worse*, since we know more. Saul's most recent essay (Msg. #9648) is his best on this point. I was prepared to scold people for not realizing that NO ONE REASON will explain why so many different kinds of people reject the idea of cryonics. The reasons vary according to the personality and background of each person. But Saul put it well: > When a scientist looks at cryonics, he soon finds that >virtually none of his colleagues think it's a legitimate practice. >When a physician looks at cryonics, he sees a practice that other >doctors scoff at. When a religious person looks at cryonics, he >sees a practice that appears to be in conflict with the teachings of >his church or synagogue. When a business man looks at cryonics, >he sees a practice without a market that the "authorities" dismiss. >When members of the general public look at cryonics, they see a >practice without credibility of any kind that is costly, time-consuming, >and a potential source of conflict with their loved ones. For the group of people (especially scientists and opinion-makers) who might think we have a neat idea but don't see that it could work, research is essential to convince them. THEY in turn will help to convince other classes of people over time. So research really is the core of the problem. I still hope that future historians will not see my public relations time as wasted and that I really DID plant the seeds that will enable millions of lives to be saved in the future. But I am well aware that only research will provide the water and fertilizer to make those seeds grow into something. 2. On the wisdom of offering a huge cash prize for success in organ preservation or suspended animation: Right now, I think this would be a waste of money. As far as I know, the ONLY lab in the world seriously pursuing organ preservation anymore is 21st Century Medicine. It would require a new lab to find a couple million dollars of capitalization for specialized equipment and knowledgeable researchers, to start with. No incentive THERE for a prize of $500,000. Any prize under $10 million wouldn't stir much interest in this field -- because most scientists think it is an impossible idea. Why should they risk a lot of money in a field that won't get them any academic advancement or future jobs, for the sake of a prize? Sure, people will do a lot of things for money; but it's not that simple. I'll bet if you offered a $1 million dollar prize for the invention of a perpetual motion machine (someone may have already made this offer), you would get ZERO university researchers or grad students working on it. You would only get crackpots, most of whom are working on their ideas for free already. Much of the scientific establishment considers us in the same realm as the search for perpetual motion -- at least we've moved up from astrologists and snake oil salesman these days; we've made some real progress <grin>. Now, a prize combined with grants to grad students, carefully shielded from cryonics terminology at first, might get some small results. But any real success will come only from people who get the cryonics fire in their belly. At least we already have one such group of people working today. 3. Jim Halperin's idea for brain preservation via the organ donation establishment makes me feel quite uncomfortable. (I like Jim a lot, however, and admire his willingness to test new ideas.) With the various restrictions on our ability to get donated brains in conditions that would even allow decent preservation, the entire idea has seemed like a classic bait-and-switch sales job: Offer them a prize that they cannot qualify for (free freezing) and use that to talk them into buying something else. I was glad to see Jim's clarifications on his ideas. His understanding that a cryonics group would have to begin with tissue samples and that brain preservation wouldn't take place until organ donation rules and technology change was an improvement; but those very limitations would appear to doom the public relations value for cryonics. And I do agree with some other opinions that very few people will ever understand and accept this approach. I'm not hostile to Jim's suggestion; just very pessimistic about its practicality. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9660