X-Message-Number: 9068 Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 22:56:15 -0500 From: "Stephen W. Bridge" <> Subject: Cryonics societies To CryoNet From Steve Bridge, Alcor January 29, 1998 In response to: Message #9064 Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 20:22:07 -0500 From: "John P. Pietrzak" <> Subject: Re: The Future of Prometheus (and a critique of modern cryonics societies) >Just my opinion, pardon the vitriol. No vitriol, John. You haven't been on this list long enough to appreciate true vitriol. This was just strong opinion, actually fairly calm for a cryonicist. You made some good points; but perhaps missed on a couple of others. I will add my perspective, and I'm sure your note will generate several replies. >Well, let me tell you, from what I can see, the odds of any modern day >cryonaut thawing out successfully (at any time in the future) are pretty >darn bad. Practically speaking, the odds are almost totally unknown. They might be terrible; they might be pretty good. We don't know. That's a much larger problem, in my opinion. If we were *sure* the odds were extremely bad, more people might be contributing and working more to move ahead. Unfortunately, too many people have the vague feeling that "it's not too bad now, and it will get better soon" so they don't help push it along themselves. Cryonics moves forward on the efforts of perhaps 50-60 active people out of the 1,000 or so people who are suspension members, in the sign-up process, or nearly so. >But with questions of "how can we get X to sign up" being thrown around >on cryonet, I'd like to bring up the point that perhaps we shouldn't be >trying to get anyone to sign up right now. _The_ problem with cryonics >is getting people out of the deep freeze alive, and thats what should >have precedence -- This has been suggested by many people, not least by mainstream scientists. The problem there is that people are dying NOW with no alternative. Yes, maybe we aren't doing a good enough job now (but then again, maybe we are, just barely); but if we hadn't been freezing people for the last three decades, there would be 70-some more people in the ground instead of in nitrogen. A significant percentage of those people were friends of mine, several of them cryonics activists who DID work hard to make progress. And someday that could be *me*. In addition, while it sometimes seems like putting the cart before the horse, do you think that Saul Kent and Bill Faloon (not to mention other significant financial contributors) would be putting all of this money into cryonics if they were not themselves signed up and committed? Probably not. Yes, this is a confused movement, with more tasks to take on than we have people and money to do; but it is most important to take on the responsibility to do our best to preserve people dying at every step along the way. Cryonics is actually much better off now than a decade ago (with the exception of the suspension of Jerry Leaf and some other fine folks) because there are finally enough people (just barely) to run four organizations AND push for the beginnings of research. Some actual results from 21CM and PP might bring in more money -- which might make it easier for more mainstream scientists to contribute to the effort. The Prospect of Employment is at least as powerful a motivator as the Prospect of Immortality. >I would like to see whether we can't put together a society dedicated >solely to the task of getting people out of cryonic storage. Several of us have thought that such a group would be important someday. The hardest workers among us, however, already had so much to do, that it always seemed like something that would have to wait. We're so glad that you volunteered. <semi-grin> Seriously, maybe something will come of your suggestion. I hope you don't run away as fast as you can from being part of the leadership of such a group (that might be the *sane* response; but not the most "useful" one). This might be a good time for more people to become involved in cryonics activism and leadership again. There appears to be a new, if cautious, spirit of cooperation arising again, and most experienced cryonicists appear to be trying to be more or less polite in public dealings. (Paul Wakfer might not feel that way after his past three weeks; but most cryonics leaders have been subjected to much worse over the past ten years -- often by each other.) >Through direct research when possible (as with the Prometheus project), >or simply as a clearinghouse for pulling together current research and >implementation data and providing a centralized area for communication >between people working in cryonics and related fields. It could also >serve as an "unbiased" (in as much as possible) guide to the current >cryonics societies for the layman, This has been tried at least twice before, sort of as a "federation of cryonics societies" like a professional organization. Rivalries made it unworkable. The problem may be to find people who are *members* of cryonics societies without the deep *loyalty* to one particular society. Otherwise, the biases will show and will be hard to overcome. Still, as cryonics grows, that should be possible. Steve Bridge, Chairman of the Board Alcor Life Extension Foundation Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9068