X-Message-Number: 30065
From: 
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:01:38 EST
Subject: Stodolsky's replies

In reply to some of my questions, David Stodolsky wrote in part;
 
>The goal is to get cryonics accepted as a default treatment  upon  
>deanimation.



Much too vague. Accepted in what degree and how soon?
 
Also:

>I have repeatedly developed and validated new technologies,  and  
>gotten them accepted.

Others are developing cryonics  technology. "Validation" presumably means 

proof of effectiveness, and he isn't  going to provide that. If he has gotten 
new 
technologies accepted, what  exactly were they, and did they have any 
similarity to cryonics in terms of  cultural resistance?

Also:

> The objective would be to   
>validate a working model for an organization of this type. [church or  
similar organization]
 
The Venturist organization already exists. Many partly similar  organizations 
exist, such as fraternal organizations. Cryonics organizations  have made 
efforts to broaden their appeal and promote fellow-feeling, with very  small 
success because of  our small numbers and diversity of members. In  any event, 
what is needed is not just a generalized objective but some kind of  plan or 
concept with enough detail to allow meaningful discussion.
 
Also:
 
>An adequate test would require a few different sites, each effort   
>adjusted to the local conditions. A minimum time-frame would be 3   
>years. At least two people would need support, one at the PhD  level  
>and another for routine work / familiarity with local  conditions.  
>Overhead would include a paid-up suspension for each  of the efforts.  
>A substantial amount of legal work would need to  be done by a local  
>attorney to set up the organizational structure  and get approvals  
>from local authorities. The launch would require  a substantial  
>publicity effort, since a minimum of one-hundred  persons per site  
>would probably be required for a valid test.  Given the current state  
>of the USD, this would cost about  $800,000.This is an optimistic figure.  
 
I don't know where these numbers come from, and I don't   know why a lot of 

legal work would be required. I have formed several  corporations with no legal
help, and as far as I know the Venturists didn't need  any legal help in 
setting up,  nor approval of local authorities. If a  physical plant is 

envisioned, there might be local questions such as  zoning, but there is no 
indication 
of a physical plant or real estate being  involved.
 
Also:

>. Calculations have  
>shown that participation would be  economically neutral in high-tax  
>countries, such as those in  Northern Europe. That is, after taxes,  
>members would have the same  disposable income. 
 
I don't understand this. Even if donations are tax deductible,  that only 
reduces the net cost of the donation and doesn't eliminate it.  I  believe the 
Venturists have tax deductible status as a church, but again, where  is the 
evidence that another such organization will do better?
 
Also:
 
>I have developed a  
>marriage system designed to resist the  transmission of diseases and  
>to maximize social support among  members:


Where is the relevance? The only relevance I see here is  fostering social 

support among members, and where is the evidence that this was  successful? Any
numbers available? 
 
Also:


>Also, I have reviewed the literature and performed some  statistical  
>tests on survey data related to cryonics, in order to  identify the  
>appropriate demographic. 

This horse is dead. We know which groups are better  recruitment prospects, 
but that doesn't help us because the absolute numbers are  so small. Paid 
advertising doesn't work, except the Web. Certainly it might be  possible to 

utilize the Web more efficiently or more extensively with volunteer  labor, but 
that 
is not D.S.'s proposal.


Also, I said that D.S.'s figure of long term increase in life  expectancy of 
3 months per year was nonsense, and he replied in  part:
 
>nfant mortality has long range effects, because it is an  indicator  
>f severity of infectious diseases in the infant  population. That is,  
>ven the infants that survive serious  infection are effected  
>ystematically in old age. The depletion of  the immune system from  
>uch events reduces the ability to resist  infection in adulthood, and  
>herefore adult life  expectance.


The opposite conclusion can be easily found in the literature,  viz., that 
childhood disease or exposure strengthens the person, e.g. that  children with 
pets tend to have fewer allergies later in life. But my  main points were 

simply that it is pure  foolishness to expect a 3 month per year increase in 
life  
expectancy into the indefinite future, and that it is very  probable, based on 
known successes with laboratory animals, that relatively soon  there are 
likely to be substantial increases in human life span.
 
Also:

>it may be obvious  to you that massive increases in life  
>xpectation will occur  shortly, a highly qualified person with hands  
>n experience in the  Human Genome Project sees a comprehensive  
>nderstanding of the  operation of the human cell and the associated  
>ife expectation  changes a millennium away.


Can any reasonable person take this seriously? This guy  (or gal) is "highly  
qualified" to tell us what will or will not happen in  a thousand years?


Also:
 
> I haven't seen any argument that allows us to extrapolate  securely  
>n any basis but the data we already have.


I haven't seen any  argument that allows us to  extrapolate securely on any 
basis, emphatically including the data we already  have.
 
Anyway, if someone is found to pay for the proposed effort,  that will be 
interesting.
 
Robert Ettinger
 



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest 
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)


 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30065