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