X-Message-Number: 1630
Date: 17 Jan 93 01:24:06 EST
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: CRYONICS Mentioning the unmentionable

To: Cryonet 
 
 
 
Thomas Donaldson says we have to confront people with 
unpalatable aspects of cryonics, because people have already 
heard about this stuff; so if we don't mention it, we'll seem 
to be evasive. He writes: "Not only have they heard about 
cryonics, but they've also at least heard hints about 
immortality and neuro-suspension too." 
 
First, I disagree. Most people I talk to have NOT heard hints 
about immortality or neurosuspension. They have a very vague 
general idea about cryonics, which they have picked up from 
LA Law or the new Mel Gibson movie. They have not thought 
about it in depth, and have not applied it to themselves. 
 
In any case, even if someone does already know a few things 
about cryonics, this still does not mean I am forced to 
confront this person with all the toughest facts right at the 
start. On the contrary; it merely means I am in the same 
position as any salesman dealing with a partially informed 
customer--selling life insurance, for instance. Would Thomas 
claim that because most people have heard a bit about life 
insurance, there is no point in emphasizing the best aspects 
of it first? Should I, instead, begin by itemizing all the 
circumstances under which the insurance company would try to 
avoid paying out on a claim? Somehow, I doubt I would sell 
much insurance that way. 
 
Please note: I am not suggesting we should withhold 
information or deny that neurosuspensions take place. Thomas 
used the word "deny"; I didn't. I am merely suggesting that 
it's in our best interests to lay out the easy concepts and 
the advantages first, establish some common ground with the 
potential new member, and proceed in small steps, since a 
substantial amount of reorientation is usually involved. 
 
I think the real problem here is that Thomas distrusts the 
idea of ANY kind of calculated "sales pitch" where cryonics 
is concerned. If that is the case, I think he is fooling 
himself. We all use some degree of "salesmanship" when we 
want to change a person's mind, whether we are aware of it or 
not. I prefer to be conscious of this, so that I can measure 
what I'm doing. That way, I am better able to decide what 
seems ethical and what doesn't. 
 
Thomas has not addressed my point that Brenda Peters has been 
phenomenally successful (relatively speaking) at persuading 
people to sign up who have hesitated for years (in some 
cases). And these are people who are FULLY informed about 
cryonics. Why has Brenda succeeded where others have failed? 
Maybe she presents the case better. Maybe we could learn from 
her. But to do so, we have to accept the principle that the 
content and style of a presentation are important. 
 
I feel that Thomas has not replied to the question that I 
posed in my last message. To reiterate: 
 
There is a whole literature on the process of argument, and 
another large literature dealing with strategies for 
converting people to different points of view. (Much of this 
stuff was written by libertarians.) Thomas Donaldson seems to 
be saying that it doesn't apply here, because cryonics is a 
special case. Why should this be so? 
 
--Charles Platt 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1630