X-Message-Number: 22553 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 13:41:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Platt <> Subject: questions, questions First the easy question from "flavonoid": > Unrelated footnote: How long does it seem to take to > experience 5 hours of total anaesthesia? How much longer > would it seem to take to experience 500 years of total > unconsciousness in a cryostat? Why would anyone who takes > cryonics seriously, be concerned? The reasons should be obvious. One kind of oblivion may be subjectively identical to another, but cryo-oblivion will deprive me of the experience of probably the most exciting decades in human history, and will only end after the world has changed beyond recognition. I am apprehensive about such a massive break in life-continuity. Also I am not confident that I will still be the same person with the same memories after I experience damage followed by repairs. This is one reason why I hope very much that we will see further advances in cryobiology. Fully reversible cryopreservation would make me much more enthusiastic about cryonics for myself. In the meantime I would still recommend cryonics for people who want to avoid death and see the future, and I would especially recommend cryonics for people who wish simply to make a rebellious statement against death (this is my own primary motivation), but anyone who really thinks that entering cryopreservation is as trivial as entering anesthesia is fooling himself. > Totally absent is the explanation of whether Charles Platt > was indeed the author of a 27 page document asking for the > removal of Dr. Lemler, Since Dr. Lemler has offered his resignation, this question is no longer relevant, and the memo is no longer relevant. > Also absent is the information of whom the "personal > differences or misunderstandings" exactly were with (i.e., > who is "Alcor" in this case?). Why do you want to know? Or, more to the point, what do you really want to know? I don't think you just want names, I think you want to know about broader issues. What are they? > Also absent is the information of who gave the urging to > remain an Alcor member. In other words, who is pulling the > strings here, and why? No one told me what to do. However I was encouraged by several people in CryoNet, several personal email messages, and several phone calls from people I hardly knew (one of which lasted almost two hours). Also I would guess that all 7 Alcor directors and all 9 Alcor employees (or is it 8?) probably feel that as a metter of principle, it is better for the organization if a former activist doesn't quit his membership abruptly. At first I was skeptical, because when I quit from Alcor back in 1992 (after organizing PR events which were, and still are, the most successful in the organization's history) it didn't seem to make any difference. However, I had not been as deeply embedded in the organization at that time, and I suppose it does make sense that if someone quits membership after (e.g.) being the team leader in five fairly successful cases, it looks odd. This is why I offered an explanation, which unfortunately you found unsatisfactory. But my reasons for being highly motivated as an activist and not so highly motivated to seek cryopreservation for myself were genuine reasons. > Although the Alcor Board seems lately to prefer secret > meetings, the information has gotten out that they are > looking for a new President. I wonder who that would be. > Is anyone following my train of thought here? Is anyone > concerned? I'm not following your train of thought. I believe that Alcor is quite correctly searching as far and wide as possible, and will be able to choose from more than one candidate. At least, I hope so. Lastly a word on secrecy in general. I have said many times that my personal preference is to minimize secrecy in cryonics. I believe that complete openness ultimately encourages people to join, even if the openness entails some revelations that may be negative. Cryonics depends entirely on trust (since we cannot prove the outcome), and openness encourages trust. This was the way it was done when I became interested in cryonics around 1990. The ruthless honesty in Cryonics magazine (written by Mike Darwin at that time) was a major factor encouraging me to sign up. Currently I see a tendency to be more discreet. Personally I don't know if this is a good idea, but, I'm not running (or helping to run) Alcor. During the past year, when I was responsible for writing quick case summaries, I did include some mention of things that went wrong, as well as things that went right. That's as far as my responsibility extended. If you want Alcor to adopt a different policy, you should petition the directors, not me. I must add that flavonoid might get a more sympathetic response regarding his complaints about secrecy if he would drop his own attempt at secrecy and reveal who he really is. Assuming he is not a director or staff member of Alcor, what does he have to lose? --CP Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22553