X-Message-Number: 1570
Date: 10 Jan 93 13:24:21 EST
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: CRYONICS Mentioning Neurosuspension

To: Cryonet
 
 
 
          When Should We Talk About Neurosuspension? 
                     A Request for Advice 
 
Tomorrow I will be participating in the taping of the Faith 
Daniels show, a half-hour Donahue-format talk show that airs 
on NBC on weekday mornings. This will be the first time I've 
talked about cryonics on TV, and it's a slightly intimidating 
prospect, even though I will be just one of six guests, the 
others being my wife Susan, Carlos Mondragon, Fred and Linda 
Chamberlain, and Jerry White (an ACS member). The show will 
be aired probably during the coming week. When I have the 
date, I'll post it on Cryonet in case anyone is interested. 
 
Since the show is seen primarily by housewives (that 
pejorative word does unfortunately describe a large segment 
of the audience), and since housewives are relatively 
unlikely to become cryonicists, this may be a waste of time. 
On the other hand, network TV of any kind is an opportunity 
that should be taken seriously. So I've been mulling over 
(yet again) the best way to present cryonics in general--and 
neurosuspension in particular. 
 
A woman who works on the TV show called me three days ago to 
check me out over the phone. We talked for about half an 
hour, and then she casually said, "When you witnessed a 
cryonic suspension, did you see the person's head cut off?" 
 
"Yes," I said, "but I don't want to talk about that on the 
program, because it sounds so sensationalistic, it distracts 
from the important concepts of cryonics. And it's a procedure 
that only makes sense after you understand those important 
concepts." 
 
"Okay," she said, and left it at that.
 
Then she called me again a day later to explore the actual 
topics that I might be questioned about on the show. "About 
neurosuspension," she began. 
 
"I told you, I don't want to talk about that." 
 
"Yes, I understand. But just for my personal curiosity, are 
you going to be a neuro?" 
 
"It's not relevant."
 
"Okay, no problem," she said cheerfully. 
 
Finally, this morning, she called a third time. This was to 
tell me EXACTLY the kinds of questions I am likely to be 
asked. And (you guessed it) cutting off heads was high on the 
list. 
 
"Tell Faith Daniels," I said firmly, "that if she asks me 
anything on this subject, I will refuse to answer. And this 
will waste everyone's time and cause embarrassment." 
 
There was a pause. I had the distinct impression that the 
person at the other end of the phone was making a note on a 
piece of paper. Finally, she was taking my refusal seriously. 
(I hope.) 
 
My conclusion is that TV people can sound extremely 
understanding and sympathetic, but their real concern is 
ratings, and they will lie to a guest and manipulate him in 
order to get what they want. This comes as no surprise; yet 
when one is actually talking to a TV person, one feels a 
strong temptation to think, "Maybe THIS one is DIFFERENT. She 
sounds so sincere." And I felt a temptation to give in and do 
what she wanted, because there was the inevitabl feeling that 
"if I don't cooperate, they won't have me on their show. 
After all, it is THEIR show." 
 
But really, it isn't. The show should belong to the guests, 
as well as the host. If there's something I don't want to 
talk about, I shouldn't feel obliged to do so. After, I'm not 
getting paid, and no contract has been signed. 
 
But let me go further into this question of neurosuspensions. 
In my experience doing radio interviews, talk-show hosts and 
telephone callers are less willing to accept "going neuro" 
than any other cryonics concept. Severing a human head is 
such a primal image, echoing back to primitive tribal 
practices and medieval punishments. I'm all in favor of 
neurosuspension myself (I signed up for it), and I don't 
believe in having secrets about cryonics. But shouldn't we 
avoid mentioning the subject of neurosuspension whenever 
possible? I deliberately did not mention it in my recent 
article in Omni, though I mentioned just about everything 
else. Nor did I mention it in a pamphlet which I wrote for 
Alcor, with help from Ralph Whelan, Steve Bridge, and Brian 
Wowk. It seems to me, the time to talk about neurosuspension 
is after a person has already accepted the basic premise of 
cryonics. Going neuro is merely an additional option, after 
all. No one HAS to do it. 
 
How should the topic be handled? I would appreciate advice 
from people who have had to deal with it more often, and for 
many more years, than I have. Personally, I see it as a real 
stumbling block in promoting cryonics.
 
--Charles Platt 
 


Distribution:
  Cryonet >INTERNET:


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1570