X-Message-Number: 4688
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 95 14:04:07
From: Steve Bridge <>
Subject: Organizations, survival, and 10%
To CryoNet
>From Steve Bridge, Alcor
July 30, 1995
In reply to various messages:
Lots of interesting messages over the last couple of days, which all
flooded in at once after Kevin's email problem was fixed. Too much to
comment on at length, since I'm really here at Alcor on Sunday to work on
other projects. But, like most of us, I can't escape without a few words.
In reply to: Message #4676
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 19:29:00 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Eugen Leitl <>
Subject: longevity of cryonics associations
>Would a cryonics company resemble the archetypal commercial one, signing
>a cryocontract would be a terrible risk indeed.
Worse than the risk of burial or cremation, Eugen? Besides, joining
a cryonics company does not mean selling yourself into slavery. At least
while you are alive you can switch companies whenever you want. True,
once a particular company eventually freezes you, you pretty much have to
hope you ended up with the right one and that they continue to make the
decisions you would have agreed with. All of us could project different
scenarios as to which (if any) current companies will most likely survive
for the necessary decades; but the vagaries of chance -- even chance that
is planned for, such as having the most members so that your likelihood of
a large bequest is numerically higher -- may make any prediction
completely wrong.
But being part of SOMETHING raises your odds astronomically above
those who are part of nothing but a cremation club. And in cryonics you
can PARTICIPATE in your organization and make it stronger.
>Today, any major world wide military conflict (it need not
>to be A+B) would disrupt the brittle storage cooling line. This is the
>worst case: doubtless all patients will be lost, then.
Yes, but if all we do is sit around and call out the doom of
civilization, there won't be ANY patients frozen at all. What if we DON'T
have WWIII and IV and V? What if the nitrogen plants in the world DON'T
get handed over to the military? What if the world economic system
DOESN'T collapse? We have found a possible path that might make a long
life possible for people alive but dying today. If we don't pursue it,
any chances for many people will be lost completely. Doing something is
better than doing nothing.
To somewhat alter an analogy of Mike Darwin's: When you are trapped
in a burning building and ready to jump onto a fireman's ladder, you don't
stop to look for cracks in the ladder or ask to examine the ladder's
safety inspection records.
Check the ladder's safety NOW if you like, and donate money for a new
ladder if you don't like what you find; but don't tell the fire department
you would prefer they not come at all.
>The monies necessary are surely taken into
>account by most cryocorps, but currently there isn't any out-of-USA
>cryonics infrastructure worth to be spoken of, apart from UK Alcor (?).
I think Australian cryonics is slowly headed in the right direction
and may reach that capability in the next few years, especially if one
dynamic, energetic leader shows up Down Under.
>E.g. Germany, having only 2 cryonics members, is certainly a white spot
>on the cryonics map.
That's likely to change soon. Klaus Reinhard and others are in the
process of forming a German cryonics group, and they have many people
interested. Alcor and cryonics are getting a huge amount (relatively) of
publicity in Germany this year.
>Even the former Soviet Union, disastrous as its economy is, has currently
>about 15 or something members.
That's a new one on me, Eugen. Alcor has no suspension members in
the former Soviet Union and I have never heard of any of these folks
joining another suspension organization. I know of several people there
who are in contact with each other and some who are part of a cryonics
*club*; but none who have made suspension arrangements and become THAT
kind of member. Perhaps Ettinger's connections with Pichugin have led
several people to sign-up with CI? We'd all like to know more about this.
**************************************
In reply to: Message #4677
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 11:59: -0700
From: (Gregory Stock)
Subject: Impacts of Life extension.
>I've been following your list for a month or so and was wondering whether
>any of you can suggest any news groups, books (fiction or non-fiction),
>or articles that explore in a serious way some the potential social
>consequences of widespread life extension.
Two of the first and still most thought-provoking are Robert C.W.
Ettinger's non-fiction books, *The Prospect of Immortality* (the book
which started cryonics, but which has a lot more in it) and *Man Into
Superman.*
There are a lot of science fiction books beginning to explore this,
too. Two recent ones I would recommend are *Beggars in Spain* by Nancy
Kress and *Aristoi* by Walter Jon Williams (both available in pb). Both
in part deal with the concept of new generations in immortality.
>I suspect these latter types of consequences will depend on what kinds of
>interventions are possible to render an older brain more malleable to
>change, but in any case, it seems unlikely that long-lived adults will
>ever routinely undergo the kinds of huge attitudinal shifts that
>generally occur quite naturally every few decades as a new generation
>takes over the helm.
Maybe, although this may depend very much on space exploration.
Radical change may occur to some portion of the human race if some groups
go off on their own. New generations may still come about, even in an
immortal society, by a couple of mechanisms. One, a population expanding
across the galaxy will frequently require more people than they have
available to properly populate a new environment. Some of those new
individuals may well be conceived and born by "traditional" methods. Some
will be developed to order. Some may be clones. Still, any of these
methods could create some different perspectives on life.
Second, as many of the long-lived adults explore life and technology,
many of them will *re-create themselves*, perhaps with machine or
biological enhancements, perhaps making completely non-human copies or
analogs of themselves. Some of these may be required for survival in
those new environments in space or on other planets. New bodies or
completely new kinds of existences are likely to make for huge attitudinal
shifts indeed.
Change will occur; but it will be differently from today. If you're
writing a book about it, it's time to become creative.
>For example, everyone has thought about the need for cryonics
>organizations to tolerate the organizational disruptions brought by
>personel changes from one generation to the next. But as long as
>everyone involved in a cryonics organization is ultimately driven by the
>hope of having a shot at personal immortality, at least their motivations
>will remain largely the same as the people now involved in the cryonics
movement.
>But what happens when human life span is vastly extended? How does an
>organization best insure the interest and commitment of individuals who
>are already esentially immortal? They are unlikely to feel the same
>driving passions about cryonics as people with a direct personal stake,
>however curious they may be about bringing back a bunch of ancients.
I've written at least two lengthy CryoNet postings on this subject.
Maybe Kevin can give you the MSG numbers. To simplify greatly: Many
people have this notion that we will freeze a bunch of people today and
then a hundred years from now, a bunch of immortal strangers will suddenly
discover them.
Nope. If that is the case, patients will not last to that future,
because no organizations will have been taking care of them for all that
time. Patient Care requires ATTENTION. If there are patients frozen in
100 years, it will be because:
1. Organizations survived and GREW.
2. Many thousands of people contributed their time and their money, and
eventually went into suspension.
3. Most of these thousands made sure to have many friends and
descendants.
The current cryonics patients have many living friends and relatives
who would do just about anything to see them repaired and "alive" again.
Those last cryonics patients in the future (in that time where fewer and
fewer people are dying and *needing* suspension) will also have a lot of
friends and family alive. Even if you have become immortal, wouldn't you
want to expend a lot of energy and money to push for the recovery of your
wife, your brother, your parents, your best friend?
And when they were finally brought out of suspension and made healthy
and immortal themselves, wouldn't they want to revive the lovers, and
family, and friends who preceded them into suspension?
Besides, the *cryonics organization ITSELF*, if it survives, is
likely to have an immense amount of money and motivation available to it
to work on revival. True, sometimes the ideals and goals of an
organization change over time. But it seems likely that the balance of
the two-- family and organization-- raises the odds a lot higher.
*****************************************
In reply to: Message #4679
Date: 27 Jul 95 18:57:22 EDT
From: Mike Darwin <>
Subject: 10% Rule
Directly to Mike:
It is obvious that patient care and survival into the future has
always been an emotional checkpoint for you, and rightly so. It might
surprise you to discover, however, that even many of the people you have
disagreed with most over the years have the same concern.
You say, "Don't argue with me: I made it!" OK, Mike, I won't argue
with you about it. I will merely note that we disagree on this particular
issue, and that other people who disagree with you also are extremely
concerned and involved with long-term survival of their own friends and
relatives in suspension. We are all trying to make the best decisions we
can to make Alcor and the patients survive. That's why I have spent
hundreds of hours in the past two years working on a Patient Care Trust
Fund and other exhausting projects.
I think I explained pretty well why Alcor's Board made the decision
it did. I think, under the circumstances, it was a rational decision. An
organization which cannot progress in membership and in research is a bad
bet to survive long enough to revive patients. You and I disagree on the
particular steps we might have taken. I hope you do not think that only
people who agree with you 100% on the subjects you feel strongly about can
care about the interests of the patients.
One wording point:
I wrote:
>>The 10% Rule is not a Holy Icon; it is
>>a tool. There is nothing unsound about making such decisions; they
>>are part of doing business.
You responded:
>Define Holy Icon? That is a throw-away word. Meaningless to me and thus
>is meanigless in evaluating the sentence that flows out of it.
Yes, I can explain what I mean, and will; but you quickly switched in
your post to complaining about my use of the term "Holy Grail" -- which I
DID NOT USE.
Their meanings are quite different. A Holy Grail is an object of a
quest, a pure answer to a problem, perhaps to all problems. Perfected
suspension animation is the Holy Grail of cryonics.
I used "Holy Icon" to mean "sacred cow" (with some irony intended
toward your long-ago Catholic upbringing), a object or principle which is
worshipped as an object itself, outside of its true symbolism or
usefulness. I would consider some of the politicians who wrap the US flag
around themselves in the recent arguing about a "flag-burning" amendment
to the Constitution to be worshipping a "Holy Icon," instead of truly
protecting freedom and democracy. They place the flag above freedom of
speech; a piece of cloth above the ability to criticize a government.
I should have said that the 10% Rule *should not be* a Holy Icon. I
suggest that some of your defense of the 10% Rule looks like emotional
worship of an object outside of its true usefulness. Survival of the
patients is the object, not survival of the 10% Rule. There are many
possible routes to that end, and the 10% Rule is not the only sacred path.
I can't read your mind, of course, Mike and I won't try to analyze you for
your feelings. I simply believe that there may be more practical ways of
ensuring patient survival than by starving the growth of membership and
research. As you always said, an cryonics board has to make tough
decisions. That hasn't changed. As always, we won't know how correct or
meaningful any particular decision was for a very long time.
Steve Bridge
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4688