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