X-Message-Number: 842
Date: 22 May 92 05:36:49 EDT
From: Bob Smart <>
Subject: CRYONET: Dirty Linen II

Actually, I had intended only to raise the issue of "slick" literature, then
slink away and watch the discussion...but now that Ralph Whelan has gone and
addressed me directly, I suppose I'm actually going to have to participate.
NOW see what you've done!  I apologize in advance for the length of this
post...but this is what happens when you push my buttons.  Let sleeping Bobs
lie!

First off, I'm not convinced that there's necessarily any correlation
between "human-interest stuff" and "slickness."  That is, I think "human
interest" concerns can be addressed, without leaving people feeling as if
they've just been hard-sold or hyped.  I'm pretty firmly of the opinion that
if the idea you're "selling" has much merit (and it's hard for me to
imagine an idea of greater importance, or of greater merit, than cryonics),
it will more or less "sell" itself if you do no more than express it
clearly, then step back out of the way and let it sink in. But when I see
literature (not just ours, but any promotional literature) that shows me an
endless parade of shiny, scrubbed faces, happy-happy smiles, and never any
breath or hint of a "downside," I find my built-in cynicism filter module
running a little warm. EVERYTHING has SOME kind of a "downside," everything
has tradeoffs, and when I see literature that doesn't acknowledge that, or
that I think is soft-pedaling that...I assign it credibility inversely
proportional to the level of hype I smell. Maybe I'm just excessively
crochety...but that's how I tend to view these things, whether they're
selling encyclopedias or life extension.

I'm not suggesting that we should have a heavy emphasis on doom-and-gloom,
only that we step away from (what I perceive as) gilding the lilly.  The
distinction I'm trying to describe might be characterized as that between
POPULARIZING and PATRONIZING. I think it's possible to educate interested
persons who might not be familiar with our technology, without also
manipulating them (or making them feel as if we were TRYING to manipulate
them, which is just as counterproductive).

As for the thoroughness of coverage about cryoprotectants and the like, this
seems to me a symptom of a larger issue: what is the book supposed to be
FOR?  Perhaps we shouldn't try to use a single publication to address all
our promotional and introductory-educational needs after all.  Perhaps we
should devise some kind of package, including a book of "human interest"
information, speculations, and so forth, plus some collection of _Cryonics_
back issues or reprints?  My guess is that we have some small number of
target audiences, but their information needs are sufficiently different
that no single booklet will ever really address all of them satisfactorily,
and attempting to produce such a single booklet may only guarantee that we
end up addressing none of them adequately.  Does this make sense?

I realize that the innovative advantage of CRFT was that it drew all those
diverse materials together under one cover for the first time, and a
suggestion that we return to a multiple-titles approach might seem like a
step backwards.  But I think somewhere between the extremes of, on the one
hand, a single all-purpose booklet, and on the other hand, dozens of
anonymous and chaotically-arranged individual leaflets, there probably lies
an optimum arrangement of specific content assembled for specific audiences.
That optimum arrangement might well change over time, but that's why editors
will never be out of work.  Besides, our technology is ALSO likely to
change, so we can expect to continue revising our publications for that
reason alone.  We might as well make necessity into an opportunity, and take
a good, hard look at who we believe our target audiences are each time we
have to rework the literature anyway.

As for mechanical discussions of suspension techniques being "off-putting,"
that's certainly true.  I think we can handle that sort of material
tastefully and without being excessively ghoulish...but ultimately, it ain't
a very pretty ride.  People have a right to know what they're getting into.
You're right that a plastic surgeon would want to show you pretty "after"
pictures of successful new noses...but any ethical one would ALSO caution
you that there is no guarantee that this will come out as well for you, and
help you explore your reasons for wanting anything as radical as
reconstructive surgery.  If you think you want a new nose, but really your
problem is that you hate your parents, then rhinoplasty is not for you...and
a good doctor will explore that with you before anybody gets cut.  If you
decide to go on, at some point you WILL get a lecture (and maybe grisly
photos) about how painful and repulsive your new nose definitely WILL be
while it's healing...anything less would be a gross breach of professional
ethics because anything less would preclude the possibility of "informed
consent."

And to continue the comparison with plastic surgery, the fact is that there
have been many successful rhinoplasties, start to finish.  We have some good
reasons to believe that we're onto something, here, but we're not in any
position to make even as solid a set of promises as a plastic surgeon can.
I myself would go so far as to say that nanotechnology is "likely," but not
"inevitable."  (Maybe we'll have a massive nuclear war next year and all
wind up eating grubs and beetles while we watch our hair fall out.  Hard to
do research under those conditions.)

Is it really part of Alcor's mission to persuade people that "life is good?"
I'm not at all convinced that any pamphlet can really do that; if it were so
simple, why would we still have cases of clinical depression and general
existential angst?  Wouldn't someone already have written a booklet that
would lift you up out of your despair?  There are plenty of religious tracts
available that were written for precisely that purpose, and they're not
especially effective.  It seems to me that this is a Big Project all its
own, independent of cryonics!

Finally, I'd like to speak to your notion of increasing the amount of
content related to what life in the future might be like.  I heartily agree
that we have a big stake in that sort of issue, but here's another area
where our image, as created by first impressions, might get in the way of
our message, regardless of its merits.  You noted "less than five pages"
about life in the future, and proposed increasing that coverage to 30-40
pages.  That's fine, as far as it goes, but "futurism" is as much a separate
specialty in its own right as are cryonics and counseling.  Alvin Toffler
made a big splash writing about "futurist" concerns, but look at the scale
of his work--he wrote entire BOOKS just about that subject.  I think if we
take on the task of modeling the future in our literature, we have to be
EXTREMELY careful to avoid giving the impression of being cursory or shallow
in our approach...which will be difficult, because in the limited space of a
promotional or introductory booklet, it's pretty hard to be anything OTHER
than "cursory" about anything!  But we have to find some way around that
limitation, because if we're obvious about just sketching or skimming the
surface of ANY issue, we'll end up looking like crackpots who don't think
things through.  And we won't get a chance to strut our stuff, won't have an
opportunity to show that we DO have detailed, thorough bases for our
activities, because we'll already be on the same junkpile as every other
whacko group that sends out literature.

Personally, I suspect this last issue (trying to cover entirely too many
bases in a single, short publication) is probably at the root of my own
discomfort with CRFT.  One of the characteristics or components of
"slickness" is a superficial treatment of what should be complex issues,
presumably (in the case of deliberate "slickness," anyway) in the hope that
uncritical readers will be swept along before they have a chance to probe
the eggshell-thin treatment of the material at hand.  Given the apparent
ambitions of CRFT, and given the limitations of its size, it seems
inevitable that it would take on an aura of "slickness."  Perhaps we can
reduce that effect by creating a series of booklets, each with a more
tightly-focussed scope?

I propose the creation of a Standing Literature Project, whose task it will
be to design a coordinated set of publications, see that they get written,
and revise the literature as necessary. I also volunteer to help, in a
capacity to be determined later.

                               Relentlessly,
                               Bob

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=842