X-Message-Number: 26641 Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:47:00 -0700 (PDT) From: "D. den Otter" <> Subject: Re: Chemopreservation II (possible PR issues etc.) Mike Perry wrote: > it is > my feeling that something should be done even if little interest is > shown; > you might still save a few. Kennita Watson replied: <<But the few who sign up for chemopreservation cannot be properly counted in isolation: those few might have been talked into making the additional financial commitment to cryonics given time, and might be lost unnecessarily if it turns out that chemopreservation is inadequate.>> Or, more likely, they *wouldn't* have made the additional financial commitment --which is quite substantial if you don't have life insurance; at least ~$30,000 vs (potentially) $500-6,000-- and subsequently been buried or cremated. Let's not forget that quite a few of such folks would presumably be last minute cases, post mortems even, for whom time has already run out, and low cost is the only financially realistic option. To deny them this service would amount to a death sentence. Note: the objective is emphatically NOT to 'steal' (potential) signups from the cryonics organizations. The low budget org's website would make it very clear that this is just and emergency solution, and that if you can afford regular cryonics services you should *definitely* opt for those. Links to all cryonics organizations (unless they don't want to be associated in any way with this venture, not even as a link) would be provided. <<Knowing that Alcor provides chemopreservation might also undermine confidence in their cryonics procedures.>> Only among the misinformed and narrow-minded. Also, it would most likely be plastination or freeze drying rather than simple chemopreservation. Anyway, it doesn't look like Alcor (or any other cryo org for that matter) is going to offer low cost alternatives, at least not anytime soon, so the point is moot. If this is going to be done at all, it will be via a separate, dedicated provider. It is, btw, not entirely impossible that the publicity surrounding low budget services would ultimately result in *more* signups for the cryo orgs, not less. People might visit the low budget site and think 'hm, this won't work, but that cryo stuff is kinda interesting' or 'hey, I can actually afford cryonics!'. Who knows? If the sword cuts both ways, the final result might simply be 'neutral'. <<Also, preserving brains alone (apparently, without even the heads around them) is likely to bother more people (or bother people more) than preserving whole heads or whole bodies. And the media are likely to have a field day with "brain in a vat".>> Actually, I think brains are better PR-wise, because they tend to be associated with medical procedures, while severed heads tend to remind people of old skool executions. Disembodied brains look kinda funny and harmless, learned almost, while severed heads look rather ghastly (especially if they're grimacing 'n' stuff). Also, with the brain-only approach, non-immortalist relatives can bury or cremate an apparently 'intact' corpse if so desired (no more mutilated than after a standard autopsy), as opposed to a headless one (the horror!) or nothing at all. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26641