X-Message-Number: 30469
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re:  strategies
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:46:09 +0100
References: <>

On 12 Feb 2008, at 16:25,  wrote:

> DSS wrote in part:
>
>
>> a  change in life philosophy seems to be a precondition for
>> effective promotion of biostasis. A new institutional framework   
>> seems
>> essential, if this is to be  accomplished.


> Not necessarily. There is a huge disjuncture between what people  
> say, or
> even what they believe, and what they do.

Exactly one of my major points. We agree on this.


> What they do, often, is just follow
> the leader, if there is any intrinsic motivation at all.

The question then becomes how to create an institutional arrangement  
that provides the appropriate leadership.



> Most peple, most of the time, want to live. When more life, or a  
> better
> chance of life, is offered through any means, including medical  
> technology,  some
> will accept that chance.

The statistical results show that a vast majority of people will never  
expose themselves to the necessary information.



> In any case, we in cryonics have no realistic hope in the near term of
> changing the worldviews of many people.

In an extensive exchange earlier, I explained that there was a way to  
do this. However, a commitment of funds is needed, if social science  
is to be used to promote cryonics.

The results I have presented show that a vast majority of the  
population is excluded by current approaches. If a five to ten fold  
increase in sign-ups isn't something seen as worth investing in, then  
the current organization of the industry and the promotion strategy is  
deficient.

Also, as argued earlier, there is a likelihood that the entire  
industry in the USA could be wiped out at a point were cryonics begins  
to show its force politically. Thus, this type of investment is  
essential, not only to promote cryonics, but also to protect current  
members. If this is the case, then the exclusive focus of research on  
improving suspension is a waste of money: It merely delays the  
destruction of the individual for some years, at a significant cost,  
both financially and in terms of time expenditure.

Finally, opposition to cryonics within the scientific establishment  
continues to be a problem. It is unlikely that the movement can  
achieve widespread credibility as long as this continues. The approach  
I suggest improves the situation by first, promoting signups, which in  
itself will accelerate acceptance (also shown by the data analysis,  
with respect to changes in people's attitudes, if membership expands  
to thousands/millions of persons) and then by gaining an understanding  
of exactly what approaches are most likely to change the situation. It  
is very likely, the same reorientation of strategy that will promote  
membership growth will improve acceptance among scientists.



> What we can do is alleviate some of the
> practical obstacles, e.g. by making participation more nearly a  
> turnkey
> proposition. Many prospective members have been deterred or delayed  
> by the
> complications of sign-up and arrangements. This is where volunteers  
> can  help.

The major practical obstacle is the required funding arrangements. The  
massive complications could also be eliminated by an institutional  
arrangement which doesn't require them at all. That is, instead of  
each individual processing their own sign-up and arrangements, a  
single person does it for hundreds of people at once. This would also  
generate a substantial saving for the cryonics providers.


dss


David Stodolsky    Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30469