X-Message-Number: 979
Date: 12 Jul 92 19:55:16 EDT
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: CRYONICS

I'd like people to give serious consideration to a general 
cryonics topic that has been concerning me, which is: 
 
     How popular to we really want cryonics to be? 
 
In the past, the answer to this question was very simple. 
Cryonics was *so* unpopular, any growth was welcome. Today, 
however, the picture isn't quite so simple. We have seen 
rapid growth in the membership of Alcor, creating some 
problems (such as the need to move to a new building, coupled 
with insufficient money to pay for it). We have also seen 
three cryonic suspensions at Alcor in one month (plus an 
additional inconclusive standby), imposing a serious strain 
on personnel. This of course is unlikely to happen again for 
a long while, but was like a little glimpse into the future. 
 
It seems to me that the advantages and disadvantages of 
increased popularity for cryonics are as follows:
 
 
                        1. ADVANTAGES 
 
     a) More membership fees; hence more money for research, 
properly paid employees, new facilities, and equipment. 
 
     b) Increasing public acceptance of the idea; hence less 
backlash from government agencies, from relatives of people 
who deanimate, from hospitals, and so on. 
 
     c) Indirect social benefits that could accrue as a 
result of more people taking a long-term view of life. 
 
 
                       2. DISADVANTAGES 
 
     a) Severe strain on resources during the difficult 
transition from voluntary help to properly paid 
professionals. 
 
     b) Many new members, some of whom may become active in 
ways that are unpredictable and uncontrollable, with unknown 
effects on cryonics organizations and the public image of 
cryonics. Dilution of the dedicated spirit that only a small 
group of enthusiasts can possess. 
 
     c) Errors and failures resulting from breakdowns in 
communication, which will be more frequent as the size of 
organizations increases.  
 
     d) Bureaucratization of hitherto tight-knit 
organizations, so that they tend to become impersonal and 
inefficient. 
 
     e) Less incentive for people in the far future to take 
the trouble to revive any one patient. One revived relic from 
the past is a thrilling novelty; 100 are interesting; 10,000 
are tiresome; a million might constitute an unwelcome 
intrusion, especially if the world of the future is 
overpopulated. 
 
     f) More potential for backlash from conservatives and 
nut groups. So long as cryonics is small, no one cares about 
it. If it became large, there would be more potential for 
resentment, envy, or outrage, leading to unpredictable 
consequences. 
 
     g) More potential for corruption. If people start 
getting rich out of cryonics, we're likely to see more scams 
such as flourished in the very early days, when some people 
still *thought* they could get rich out of it. 
 
As you can see from the above, I envisage more minuses than 
pluses resulting from substantial growth. This doesn't mean 
that the overall balance is negative, because one of the 
pluses would be improved suspension capabilities, which could 
help to save my life--an overriding consideration, here! 
 
However, I'm beginning to think that while *some* growth 
would be helpful, it is not in our self-interest to have more 
than is strictly necessary. 
 
Any thoughts on this? 
 
--Charles Platt

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=979