X-Message-Number: 7281 Date: Sun, 08 Dec 96 11:42:07 From: Dave Pizer <> Subject: Re: CryoNet #7268 - #7274 > Message #7268 > From: > Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 11:38:22 -0500 > Subject: resource allocation > > Charles Platt has speculated on what the history of cryonics and cryobiology > would have been in the absence of the cryonics movement as it actually > developed--under the sponsorship mainly of laymen. > > Undoubtedly many people had the basic idea as early as I did, or even (in the > broadest and vaguest terms) much earlier. A movement advances by the amount of successes *and* failures it has (assuming there is some benefit in the movement that others feel they need). Bob's "Prospect of Immortality" is the movement's biggest success. There is no doubt that the movement would not be as far along without it. The failures also have an effect. The two biggest ones in the past were the failures of CSC and CSNY. The former set cryonics way back in public opinion, the latter hurt within the movement. (I know there are other successes and failures, these are my opinion, other people will have different opinions). In my opinion, we are presently allowing an even bigger potential failure (bigger because the movement is larger and enjoying more publicity) and that is the constant bickering that seems to keep persisting. I do not know of any easy resolution to this. I know this from personal experience because sometimes in the past I (and others) have had a hard time just saying "no" when we feel we need to comment. I don't know what the answer to this problem is. However as an informal student of cryonics I have observed how the constant bickering is turning new prospects off and hurting all of us. Dave Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7281