X-Message-Number: 8929
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 03:01:34 -0800 (PST)
From: Doug Skrecky <>
Subject: humorous cryonics survey - results

     I posted the following humorous cryonics survey on a number of
 newsgroups, and have recieved to date 29 responses. Of these 8 or 28%
 stated a wish to become a corspicle. I believe this over-represents the
 percentage of the population that is interested in cryonics. Below is a
 copy of the original survey, followed by a detailed analysis of the 21
 negative responses. This is followed by two recommendations, and the
 conclusion of the survey. Enjoy!
 ______________________________________________________________________

     Of those who pass away each year, only about 0.0000000000001% choose
 to be frozen, instead of being fried in a hot oven, or becoming worm
 food. I found this to be a rather curious state of affairs, and I am sure
 there are many good reasons for virtually everyone electing the ashes to
 ashes, or back to the earth routes, instead of becoming a corpsicle.
     This is a curiosity driven survey designed to investigate the main
 reasons why funeral homes get almost all of the meat of the death
 business, while cryonics companies are picking over the bones, as it
 were. I promise to post the results of the following survey on a regular
 basis, while I continue to recieve completed forms. Below is the form to
 be filled out. Just delete either the Y (Yes) or N (No), to indicate
 whether you agree or disagree with a given reason, and email the results
 to me at 

  Y N  Actually I love the idea of becoming a corspicle when I die.
       (where can I sign up?)

     (If you answer Y to the above question, you do not need
             to fill out the rest of the form.)

  REASONS WHY I DO NOT CHOOSE CRYONICS

  Y N  1. This is morbid and unpleasant. I don't want to think about
          dying, pervert.

  Y N  2. Dying only happens to others. I am too young to die.

  Y N  3. I am not a masochist. One life is hard enough, why would I
          want another?

  Y N  4. Cryonics is a joke. Frozen hamburger is all you are going
          to get. Why not fry it right away and get it over with?

  Y N  5. Only humourless eccentrics consider cryonics. Why would I
          want to join them, and lose all my warm hearted friends?

  Y N  6. If cryonics did work, I'd be revived without a friend in
          the world. No way, Jose.

  Y N  7. Spending all your money on your own death arrangements is
          sinful. I'd rather give it to relatives, good causes, blow
          it on drinking, etc, etc.

  Y N  8. Cryonics costs money, and the IRS took all of mine.

  Y N  9. Although cryonics might work one day, the bozos running
          current cryonics companies are so incompetent that all
          are doomed to a premature financial thaw out.

  Y N  10. When I die I want to go to HEAVEN, not some frozen meat
           locker.

  Y N  11. Better dead than red. Corpsicles will only be revived to
           be someone's slave.

  Y N  12. I hate pain. Getting gutted, pumped full of goop and then
           frozen sounds even worse than a friday night bender.

  Y N  13. Never given the matter any thought. (I think I'm happier
           for it too.)

  14. My other reasons are as follows: (10 gigabytes of storage here)
 ________________________________________________________________

    The following is a detailed breakdown question by question of the 21
 negatives responses the survey elicited:

                   QUESTION #
  1.  2.  3.  4.  5.  6.  7.  8.  9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

 24% 24% 29% 57% 33% 29% 38% 62% 67% 14% 24% 29% 29% (PERCENTAGES)
  5   5   6  12   7   6   8  13  14   3   5   6   6  TOTALS
 _________________________________________________________
  Y                                                    1
                              Y                        1
                              Y   Y                    2
              Y                   Y                    2
              Y           Y                            2
              Y       Y       Y                        3
          Y                   Y                   Y    3
              Y               Y   Y                    3
              Y               Y   Y                    3
          Y                   Y   Y                    3
                  Y       Y       Y                    3
  Y           Y                   Y                    3
          Y   Y   Y               Y                    4
      Y   Y           Y   Y                       Y    5
  Y   Y                       Y   Y   Y           Y    6
              Y   Y       Y   Y   Y   Y       Y        7
              Y   Y   Y   Y   Y   Y       Y   Y        8
          Y           Y   Y   Y       Y   Y   Y   Y    8
      Y   Y   Y   Y   Y           Y       Y   Y   Y    9
  Y   Y       Y   Y       Y   Y   Y       Y   Y   Y   10
  Y   Y       Y   Y   Y   Y   Y   Y       Y   Y       10

    The most common negative responses are number 4, number 8 and number
 9.
    #4. Cryonics is a joke. Frozen hamburger is all you are going
        to get. Why not fry it right away and get it over with?
    #8. Cryonics costs money, and the IRS took all of mine.
    #9. Although cryonics might work one day, the bozos running
          current cryonics companies are so incompetent that all
          are doomed to a premature financial thaw out.
    If these 3 questions are ignored then all negative responses are
 eliminated from 5 or 24% of negative respondants, thus suggesting that it
 is these factors that are critical for future growth in the cryonics
 movement.
    Question 4 restates the fact that current cryonic techniques are not
 effective in reanimating frozen animals. For this to become a nonissue
 reanimation must be demonstrated.
    Question 9 states that cryonics companies will themselves not survive
 long enough to be able to fulfill their mandate. Resolving both question
 4 and question 8 would go a long way to helping to resolve this
 question.
    Question 8 is the money issue. Cryonics arrangements are much more
 expensive than conventional burial or cremation. I suspect that this
 question would become less of an issue once question #4 is resolved.
 Paying a lot of money for something that has been proven to work is a
 much more attractive proposition that paying the same amount for
 something that is highly speculative. Once business volume increases due
 to resolving question 4, costs per unit should decrease.
    However a hidden assumption of question 8 is that making cryonics
 arrangements involves some significant financial cost, which would impact
 the standard of living. Most of us who are working for a living, recieve
 as part of our employee benefits package some "free" life insurance often
 totalling about $10,000 to $15,000 in death benefits. If cryonics
 arrangements could be made sufficiently inexpensive so that the "free"
 employer sponsored life insurnace could be used to pay for it, then
 question 8 becomes moot.
    After putting on my thinking cap, I could think of only one way that
 cryonics companies could profitably offer their services for less than
 $15,000. Currently two options are offered. One is whole body
 cryopreservation, and the other is cephalic only cryopreservation.
 Preserving only the head reduces storage costs by more than an order of
 magnitude, but typically prices are reduced by only one half or even less
 for this option, since the whole body is prepared for freezing, whether
 it is only the head that is stored or not.
     One way around this high cost of preparation would be to delete it
 and use some other less expensive method to introduce cryoprotectant into
 the brain only. Current cryonic preparations are composed of several
 steps, whole body washout of blood with an anticoagulant solution, then
 perfusion of the cardiovascular system with cryoprotectant. Here's an
 alternative and much cheaper method borrowed from Indian fakirs. These
 are often pictured in cartoons on TV blissfully sitting on a bed of
 nails. Replace the nails with very small diameter extra long syringes,
 and immerse the whole bed of syringes in a bath of cryoprotectant. Attach
 a pump to slowly circulate the cryoprotectant through the syringes, and
 rotate the bed so that the syringes point downwards. Then add a stepped
 down motor to slowly lower the bed of syringes towards a brain submerged
 in the cryoprotectant over a period of a few hours. During this time all
 areas of the brain, even the center of the interior would be exposed to
 the cryoprotectant that was being slowly injected by the syringes as they
 penetrated the brain tissue. Retract the bed of syringes, and then store
 the brain in liquid nitrogen, along with personal information, pictures,
 etc donated by the customer.
    I suspect that by freezing just the brain, rather than the whole head,
 that tissue damage from the syringes would be quite small. Brain only
 cryopreservation would also have the added advantage of greater customer
 acceptance. I visited a medical anatomy museum once, and was mildly
 horrified at viewing things like chopped off heads there. However viewing
 a human brain in a jar of formaldehyde elicited no such repulsion.
    By using what I will call here the pincushion method of introducing
 cryoprotectant into the brain itself, costs of preparation would be
 reduced by more than an order of magnitude. Since storage costs would
 also be reduced by more tha 90% versus whole body cryopreservation, then
 total costs would likewise be reduced by over 90%. The entire service
 could therefore be offered at prices less than one tenth that ordinarily
 charged and could be paid for painlessly by employer sponsored life
 insurance.

 On the basis of the results of this survey as well as some personal
 cognition I would like to offer the following two
 opinions/recommendations:

 1. In the long term improving cryonic techniques to the point where
 reversible cryopreservation of experimental animals is a reality, would
 increase customer acceptance of cryonics more than anything else.

 2. In the short term reducing costs so that cryonics arrangements could
 be paid for "painlessly" by employer sponsored life insurnace, would
 probably significantly increase customer acceptance.

 _________________________________________________________________________

 Here's a final question which I am adding to this humorous cryonics
 survey. Please email your responses to myself at 

 Y N 14. If my employer sponsored life insurance could pay for it,
         I would prefer to make a frozen pincushion out of my brain,
         rather than rotting or burning it after I am finished with
         it in this life.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8929