X-Message-Number: 9669
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 01:39:00 -0400
From: Saul Kent <>
Subject: Growth In Cryonics
In recent posts, I've suggested that cryonicists
should downplay promotion and recruitment in favor of
research until we develop a better product. As a result,
several people--both publicly and privately--have tried to
convince me that it would be undesirable to neglect growth
in the pursuit of improved cryonics methods through
research.
Bob Ettinger went further. He accused me of
*sabotaging* growth by calling today's cryonics a "bad
product", and by labeling the cryonics movement
a "failure".
Now, Thomas Donaldson (9650) says
that I "seem to equate the success of cryonics with its
GROWTH." He then goes so far as to ask me whether I
would prefer growth *or* immortality...whether my survival
is more important to me than the growth of the cryonics
movement.
How Thomas can *possibly* imagine that I, or
anyone else in cryonics, would prefer the growth of cryonics
to being dead forever is truly unfathomable. All I've done in
my postings, has been to state that, in my opinion, the key
to the growth of the cryonics movement is research leading
to a better product. Further, I've gone on to say that I believe
that a big-time promotional campaign backed by big-time
dollars aimed at selling a superior product would lead to the
rapid growth of the cryonics movement.
Because I've stated these opinions, Thomas has
somehow concluded that what I *really* may be saying is that
I value growth more than immortality. He asks that, if I believe
that "rapid growth is necessary for the TRUE success of cryonics,
then please explain why---none of your postings have done so."
Thomas then goes on to define "true success" as "not that
cryonics becomes accepted by lots of people, but that you are
suspended and later revived and rejuvenated, not a test which
requires the agreement of many, but one which you yourself
can verify regardless."
I've always assumed that *everyone* in cryonics
understands that the benefits of the growth of the movement is
that it will improve our odds of being frozen under good conditions,
as well as our odds of being revived successfully, but since Thomas
does not appear to understand this, I will now list some of the ways
growth will benefit us:
1) Growth will provide the movement with a larger pool of
members from which to draw more activists, including young activists
to replace today's aging activists.
2) Growth will strengthen existing cryonics organizations
through more dues, more donations, and more volunteers.
3) Growth will provide an ever-growing pool of potential
financial investors for research, clinical services, storage services,
and more.
4) Growth--especially growth based on the greater attractive-
ness of a better product--will indicate a lessening of the stigma in
society
against cryonics. This, in turn, will lead to more growth, a further
lessening
of the stigma, and so forth and so on.
5) Growth will bring more scientists and physicians into the
movement, which will help us conduct research and provide services,
and will help reduce the negativity of mainstream science and
medicine towards cryonics.
6) Growth accompanied by continuously improving cryonics
methods will lead to laws protecting the rights of cryonicists. Among the
laws that would benefit cryonicists would be a law permitting the
suspension process to be initiated *prior* to clinical death. Other
beneficial laws would guarantee the rights of cryonics patients to life,
liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness, and laws to protect them
against greedy relatives and others who don't have their best interests
at heart. Perhaps, someday, they'll even be a law guaranteeing
attempts at reanimation in the future.
In light of all these benefits of growth, the hypothetical choice
that Thomas proposes--Growth vs. Immortality--becomes utterly absurd.
If growth will improve our odds of survival, why would anyone have to
make a choice of one over the other? Of course, the growth of the
cryonics movement won't guarantee that any particular individual will
survive, only that his or her chances of survival will be better. So my
conclusions, in general, are that research leading to better cryonics
methods will improve our chances and spur growth which will, in turn,
further improve our chances by stimulating more research, improving
the credibility of cryonics, and lessening its stigma in society.
Thomas says he is not "against growth" and says it would
be "nice" and "would help" in its own way, but questions whether growth
is "ESSENTIAL" for success. He goes on to say that cryonics "HAS grown,
even if very slowly," that "very small groups have persisted for
centuries,"
and that "inevitably slow" growth would make our survival "far from
impossible."
I believe that growth is *very* much essential for our survival,
and
it is my concern over the glacially slow growth of the past 33 years, and,
more
particularly, the *marked* reduction in the growth of young activists in
recent
years, that motivated me to label the movement a "failure", and to urge
greater
support for research and greater activism of all kinds by cryonicists.
I think it's important to understand that, the "very small groups"
(the
cryonics societies) that Thomas refers to owe their existence to the
concerted
efforts (over the past 33 years) of many people. It started with the
publication and
promotion of Bob Ettinger's book, The Prospect Of Immortality, and the
creation
by Ev Cooper of the first organization (the Life Extension Society) devoted
to the
pursuit of cryonics (even before the word "cryonics" was coined by Karl
Werner).
It continued with the efforts (over the years) of dozens of dedicated
people.
If it wasn't for the hard work, donated money, and dedication of
these
people, there would be no cryonics groups today, nor would cryonics
services be
available to attempt to salvage the lives of the dying today.
As one of the first cryonics activists, I've laid out a new plan
for growth
through research, which, I believe, is by far the best strategy for the
movement, and
for us as individuals. I'm *very* far from satisfied with a situation in
which our survival
is "far from impossible." I'll only be satisfied when my chances of
survival are
*likely*...as likely as possible!
---Saul Kent, CEO
21st Century Medicine
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9669