X-Message-Number: 8750
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #8741 - #8745
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 01:10:08 -0800 (PST)

Hi again!

Clearly Alcor cannot indefinitely run at what is fundamentally a loss. Befpre
I start thinking myself about just what might be done, some figures would
help: just how well have donations done to slow down or stop loss of basic
funds? (figures, please). This will tell me just how much donations or other
income needs to be increased.

Do those who donate now get any special privaleges? Clearly it's only the
people who are devoted to Alcor, one way or another, who are likely to donate.
Are there only a few large donors, or lots of little ones? that can make a 
big difference.

While lifetime memberships in themselves are a good idea, it would be an
EXTREMELY BAD idea to use the money raised to replace money spent to keep
Alcor above water. That's a recipe for disaster. I hope the Board of Alcor
knows that; if not we should all get very interested in replacing its
members.

And for a second issue:

To Saul Kent:
Ultimately our disagreement will have to be settled by the outcome.

I also want to make it very clear that this is NOT a situation which I favor,
it is a situation to which I have become reconciled. 

HOWEVER I will repeat and explain one major reason why even perfected 
suspended animation is likely to have a smaller effect than some of those in
favor of it hope. (I'm in favor of it, myself, but recall my last message in
the last Cryonet). The really serious problem is that even with perfected
suspended animation there will still be a problem convincing people to be
suspended for an indefinite time. Almost by definition, we're saying: OK,
you have an illness no one knows how to cure, and no one now sees any way
to find out a cure. So why don't you go into suspension? And (given common
irrationality) that option just doesn't look too good: tearing yourself
away from family and friends, giving up your contemporary life for a 
possible life in the unknown "far" future, etc etc.

Not only that, but it's one thing to be able to successfully suspend and
revive a healthy animal, and quite another to do so with someone who is
dying (which seems to me the only reasonable time the vast majority of 
people would choose suspended animation). Cryonics is emergency medicine,
with all the confusion and problems that attend emergency medicine: to
do a good suspension under THOSE circumstances will still be hard. In
terms of the condition of the patient, we know that there can be very
little difference before and after the ritual declaration of "death". 
For that matter, it matters very little whether or not we can 
(theoretically) revive such patients if it would be unwise to try revival
in any case.

I've spoken to a surprising number of people who have no problem at all
with the notion that we might be eventually revived, even with present
cryonics technology. BUT THEY STILL DON'T WANT TO JOIN. I've found it hard
to get them to say why: but perhaps they don't want to be torn away from
friends and family (and unconsciously believe they are immortal and need
not worry), or they actually fear the future and what it might bring ...
I really don't know. There are many barriers: we're still a small group.
So we go to someone who doesn't know any of us from Adam and suggest
that he might arrange for us to suspend him? Why should he trust total
strangers? (Yes, associate memberships and suchlike do help that ... but
people take a while to adjust, still).

I remember Ettinger's description of the response of one cryobiologist,
who said (approximately): "Cryonics will not be an acceptable technology
until someone with a presently incurable illness is suspended, revived,
and cured completely of their illness". Suspended animation only brings us
the first part of that. I describe this incident not because I think this
guy was rational, but as an instance of the kind of responses we can
expect.

At one time Alcor was growing at almost 30% a year, a high rate. Companies
in Silicon Valley that grow at that rate are rare. I think that we do
stand a chance to reach such rates of growth again. But then when you
actually do the arithmetic, starting with the present number of members
Alcor has, even at 30% it will take decades before a substantial number
(meaning a significant percentage of the US population) has joined. What
do we do in those decades?

I would like to see much improved suspension most of all for myself. It may
or may not get lots of other people to join, but I want it. And if we
can actually do suspended animation that's even better (though personally
given the conditions from which I might die, neuropreservation seems to me
quite sufficient). I'd like to see many more cryonicists donating toward
research to improve our methods. But if someone were to ask me what I 
thought a successful research program ending in true suspended animation
would do to our RECRUITING, I'd have to say I don't really know. And if 
recruiting is the ONLY reason for such research (Oh dear, if that is true!
What's wrong with simply wanting to save your own arse?) it just doesn't 
look like a good argument to me.

I will say, though, that I DO support such research. And if it DOES cause
a sharp and sudden increase in membership for all the cryonics societies,
I'll admit I was wrong. I don't think we can really say with the firmness
of any proven truth. As for the present situation, I think we would do well
to make no assumptions about the effect of such research on the population
at large. If we get more members, fine --- if we do not, then we still have
something very valuable, obtained by our own efforts, and we can turn our
attention to all the problems of implementing it that will arise --- as
emergency medicine. 

			Best and long long life,

				Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8750