X-Message-Number: 9620
Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 02:10:57 -0400
From: Saul Kent <>
Subject: Questions People Aren't Asking

        Bob Ettinger points out (in 9610) that 
"growth in Alcor and Cryonics Institute (the two largest 
organizations) has NOT stopped" as evidence that 
the cryonics movement isn't dying.

        I never said growth in the cryonics move-
ment had stopped.  My main concern is that so many 
cryonics activists are aging or dead, and that there 
aren't enough *young* activists to replace them.

        I believe our number one priority should 
be research to improve our product, and that promotion 
should take a back seat to research until we have a 
better product.  I think I've made this clear over and 
over again, so there's no need to belabor it any 
longer.
        
        In this post, I want to raise an issue that's
arisen out of our discussion that concerns me.  Several
people who were major promoters of cryonics in the
past, including Mike Darwin, Paul Wakfer, Charles Platt
and myself have called today's cryonics product "poor", 
"terrible", "extremely damaging", "unlikely to work" and
"non-existent".  

        In response to these statements, Bob Ettinger
has complained that we have been, essentially, calling
present-day cryonics a "fraud",  that the statements
has been damaging to the movement, and that, we are,
in effect, no longer cryonicists.

        One thing that's been totally missing from 
the discussion to date, however, is questions about 
*why* we've changed our minds about promoting
cryonics, and why we're now so negative about 
today's product.  We've pointed out that we want
to make the product better, but why do we think
it's so bad *now*?

        Isn't anyone interested in seeing the 
evidence that's caused us to change our minds 
about today's cryonics methods?  Isn't anyone 
curious about *how* severely today's methods 
damage the brain?  Or what type of damage 
we should concern ourselves with most?

        Bob Ettinger's response to Mike Darwin's
request that Ettinger send him a letter certifying that Mike
is no longer a cryonicist to give to the "Grand Inquisitors 
at the Society for Cryobiology" is that he won't do so 
because Mike "might change his mind again."

        That's true.  Anyone interested in what
caused Mike to turn against cryonics?  Or what might 
induce him to become a "rabid cryonicist" again? 

        Can anyone see the value in asking such 
questions?  Or in searching for their answers?

---Saul Kent, CEO
21st Century Medicine   

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9620