X-Message-Number: 9641
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 03:45:29 -0400
From: Saul Kent <>
Subject: ResponsesTo My Essay

        I wrote my essay about the failure of the cryonics
movement and its possible extinction as an (attempted) antidote
to the complacency and evasion of reality I've been seeing 
in many cryonicists.  My purpose was to shake up people and 
motivate them to take action.  The primary action I advocate
at this time is the support of scientific research to improve our 
methods of cryopreservation, but *any* positive action by
cryonicists would be more than welcome!

        To some extent I believe I've succeeded, based
upon the majority of the public and private responses I've 
stimulated with my essay.  However, a few people have 
responded to my essay by mischaracterizing and  misrep-
resenting my (and others) opinions on several issues, and 
by overreacting to what I said...or at least to what they think 
I said.

        When I say that the cryonics movement has failed, for
example, I don't mean (and I haven't said) that there hasn't been
significant progress over the past 33 years, only that it's been so
disappointing that I consider it a failure.

        When I say that cryonics activists are aging and dying
at a faster rate than they're being replaced by young activists,
and that, as a result, the movement is faced with the possibility of
extinction, I'm not saying that we're anywhere near extinction right
now, only that I believe I've identified a dangerous trend that needs
to be reversed.

        When I say that cryonics is a poor product, I say so based 
upon the evidence I've seen of the severe damage inflicted on cryonics 
patients by today's methods, by our failure to persuade mainstream 
scientists about the value of cryonics, and by the overwhelming failure 
of the public to buy into cryonics.  That doesn't mean I don't think
cryonics 
is a wonderful concept, or that today's product doesn't have value, only
that, 
after 33 years, I'm disappointed at our failure to improve the product
more, 
and disillusioned at the assumptions of many cryonicists that we have a 
*good* product.

        When I say that I believe our best strategy at this time should
be to focus primarily on research to improve our product, and that selling
our current product should take a back seat to the research, I'm not say-
ing that we should *cease* marketing and recruitment, only that I believe
such efforts will prove to be more fruitful when we have a better product.

        The latest misreading of my ideas comes from Thomas
Donaldson (9622), who says:  "As for ceasing our attempts to acquire 
new members, that seems to me one of the worst strategies available 
for working towards our eventual success."

        I agree completely, Thomas, but no one has said we should
cease our attempts to acquire new members.  The cryonics societies
should *certainly* continue their efforts to grow while research to improve
our product moves forward.  I've merely recommended that we tie our 
recruiting efforts as much as possible to our research efforts and to hard
evidence of the quality of our product.

        Three people who have put considerable effort into marketing
and recruitment for cryonics in the past---Mike Darwin, Charles Platt and
Paul Wakfer--all agree with me.  We (and others) are now putting most of 
our efforts into funding, conducting and promoting research.  Those who
disagree with us should put their money and efforts into marketing, sales
and recruitment.  I welcome their actions in this regard, especially in the
recruitment of young activists.

        Thomas says:  "We do not improve our present methods by
denigrating the honest attempts of those who tried their best in the past=2E"
I've not denigrated the efforts of cryonicists in the past, I've only
assessed
them in light of what *could* have been done.  When I say we've failed in
the
past, I say that about myself as much as anyone.  At the same time, I'm
grateful for the progress that *has* been made, and want to push forward 
as quickly and purposefully as possible.

        Thomas says that cryonics is "a very long-term project" and
that we should "all learn PATIENCE".  Well, that's just not my nature,
Thomas.  
I'll have plenty of time to be patient after I've been frozen.  But while
I'm still 
alive and kicking, I have no intention of being patient, and I'm going to
push 
those who think as I do to move forward as quickly as possible.  

        I think we can accomplish great things in the next 5-to-10 years.
Let me put it another way.  I think we *MUST* accomplish great things in
the
next 5-to-10 years and I *refuse* to consider *NOT* doing so! 

---Saul Kent, CEO
21st Century Medicine

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9641