X-Message-Number: 5812
Date: 24 Feb 96 13:02:18 EST
From: Saul Kent <>
Subject: Convincing The Unreceptive

	Every now and then, someone who is not receptive to cryonics surfaces
on Cryonet and efforts are made to convince that person of the feasibility and
value of its practice.
	As someone who has been involved in cryonics for 32 years, I'd like to
provide my perspective on this issue.
	When I first heard about cryonics in 1964 (before the word "cryonics"
had been coined), I was immediately  "sold" on the idea. I bought the idea of
cryonics, even though there was far less evidence of its feasibility than there
is today, for five basic  reasons:
	
	1) I was *extremely* interested in staying alive--a desire I had had
since about the age of four when I first became aware that people died and what
death meant. My desire not to be dead was (and is) the strongest motivating
factor in my life (by far). 

	2) I was well aware, of course, that the religious concept of an
"afterlife" was (and is) a purported answer to the desire not to die, but I had
never seen any satisfactory evidence of such an "afterlife" and, as a result,
wasn't about to be reassured by it.

	3) The idea of cryonics, on the other hand, was (and is) based upon

scientific evidence.  Although the state of that evidence was slim (at the time)
compared to now, it was still very compelling to me.  The fact that living
cells, and simple organisms, could be frozen and restored to life, convinced me
that the ability to freeze and revive an entire human being required only
scientific and technologic advances which would almost certainly occur at some
point  in the future. 

	4) I very quickly accepted the idea that it is possible to revive a
person who has been pronounced "dead" because of its logic and the evidence in
favor of it. Since many people who had stopped breathing and whose heart had
stopped beating had been revived, it was clear that cessation of these vital
functions did not necessarily constitute death.  It was also easy to understand
that someone whose heart had just stopped breathing was still potentially alive
because his or her brain was as yet undamaged and that prevention of

"irreversible" damage to his or her brain would preserve that person's chance of

eventual revival. The fact that sections of brain tissue could be well preserved
by freezing and that persons had been revived after up to an hour or more at
hypothermic temperatures provided me with further evidence to support the logic
and validity of cryonics.

	5) I also very quickly accepted the idea that future scientists might be
able to repair damage to my brain (and other organs) caused by disease, injury,
aging, and imperfect freezing methods because I realized that such damage is
brought to a virtual halt at cryogenic temperatures, which would allow an
indefinite period of time (thousands of years if necessary) for medical science
to advance to the point where repair of damage leading to restoration of life
might be possible.  It was very obvious to me that the potential of medical
science was enormous because of the advances that had already occurred over the
years, and because the rate of progress in medical science was increasing
rapidly.   

	Although, in 1964, at the age of 24, I had virtually no knowledge of
this evidence and the reasoning based upon it that leads to the realization of
the value of cryonics, I was fortunate that the evidence and arguments for
cryonics had already been presented cogently and eloquently in a book (The
Prospect Of Immortality by Robert C.W. Ettinger) that I could read quickly.
	Reading The Prospect Of Immortality in June of 1964 changed my life
profoundly and irrevocably.  In fact, I was convinced of the feasibility and
value of cryonics after reading only the first half of the book (which deals,
largely, with the scientific evidence (at the time) in support of cryonics. The
second half of the book, which deals, largely, with speculation about future
advances and issues rasied by cryonics was interesting, but only icing on a
cake that I was already chomping to partake of.
	My initial assumption was that all or most of my friends would share
my enthusiasm for an idea that provided (in my eyes) for the prospect of
immortality, but I soon found that none of them (and I do mean none of them)
were even remotely as excited about cryonics as I was.
	I also discovered that, although none of my friends were roaring with
enthusiasm about cryonics and ready to jump into action (as I was), their
attitudes towards the idea could be (roughly) divided in two categories: those
who were interested and receptive to the idea and those who were opposed to the
idea and, in some cases, unwilling (and perhaps even unable) to discuss it.
	In the 1960s, I spend a considerable amount of time trying to convilnce

people who were unreceptive to cryonics that the idea has merit...with little or
no success.  By the end of the decade I had come to the conclusion (which I
continue to hold today) that trying to convince unreceptive people about
cryonics (or anything else) is largely (if not entirely) a waste of time.
	I then focused my attention solely on those who *were* receptive to
cryonics and then, as the years went by, and I became busier (and older) to
those who are receptive to cryonics *and* ready to sign up!  Today, I believe
there are a great many people in the U.S. and abroad (perhaps hundreds of
thousands) who are receptive to cryonics, and many (perhaps thousands) who are
ready (or close to ready) for action.  I believe it is highly profitable to
spend  time discussing cryonics with people who are receptive to cryonics and
highly unprofitable to spend time discussing cryonics with people who are
unreceptive to cryonics.
	One of the values of Cryonet is that most of the people who participate
in its discussions are receptive to cryonics.  I'm not suggesting that *only*
people who are receptive to cryonics should be welcome on Cryonet, or that we

shouldn't respond to those who enter its domain who are unreceptive to cryonics.

My message  is only that we are not likely to get very far in trying to convince
unreceptive people on Cryonet (or off it) about the value of cryonics, and that
we should spend little or no time trying to do so.

---Saul Kent


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5812