X-Message-Number: 9572
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 14:56:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: Scenario for Widespread Adoption of Cryonics

Andrew Davidson makes a good point: that the general public does not know
the details about factors preventing cryonics from working. He concludes
(if I understand him correctly) that if we fix these technical problems,
few people will know or care, and thus cryonics will not broaden its
appeal. 

This is contrary to historical experience in other fields of research.

Consider some random examples of technological innovation: high-fidelity
sound in the 1950s, computers in the 1970s, TV in the 1940s, color TV in
the 1960s, birth control pills in the early 1960s, civil aviation in the
1930s, dietary supplements in the 1970s. Initially, all of these concepts
seemed mysterious, technically daunting, unnecessary, or "wacky." Only a
few extremists were involved during the experimental phase. Then, when a
functional prototype was developed, it was endorsed (implicitly or
explicitly) by people who understood it thoroughly. This generated
publicity that attracted early adopters, who understood the general gist
of the technology, but not the details. (In the case of microcomputers,
for instance, early adopters in the 1970s knew the difference between RAM
and ROM but might not know that a transister works via electron
tunneling.)

Eventually, technically illiterate people started using the technology
because it had become sufficiently legitimized by authority figures and
the core group of early adopters. Also, of course, the product became 
cheaper as it was used more widely.

Cryonics attempted to skip this gradual process. Advocates started trying
to market the technology when it was not even at prototype stage. In 
effect, they were selling a product that didn't work, and promising that 
some completely different group of people would fix it maybe a century in 
the future. What continues to amaze me is that cryonicists imagine this 
deal should appeal to a large consumer base, when it runs counter to all 
known principles of commerce and human behavior.

Cryonics received a boost from Drexler, because he was a quasi-legitimate
scientific authority figure. But this only proposed a plausible outline of
a strategy to fix damage in the future. Here and now, the product still
did not work. 

If you want to sell cryonics to a larger audience, you are going to 
have to face the fact that this audience will view it with the same 
skepticism that they greet ANY new technology. (Rule #1: respect the 
needs of your customers, don't just scoff at them for being stupid.) 
Moreover, since cryonics violates very fundamental instincts and 
preconceptions, people will require EVEN MORE assurance than usual, 
before they will opt for it.

Therefore I conclude that the prerequisite for widespread adoption of
cryonics is VALIDATION. This does NOT mean endorsements from showbiz
personalities or science writers; we've already established that this has
a limited effect. William Shatner and Arthur C. Clarke endorsed the
concept of cryonics thirty years ago. Result: virtually nil. Many people
believe that Walt Disney is frozen. Result: still nil. Charles Platt
endorsed cryonics in Omni magazine 8 or 9 years ago. Result: many info
requests, but hardly anyone actually signed up when they understood the
concept in detail. 

Validation, initially, must come from scientists--ideally, at least one
Nobel prize winner. We can reach this point incrementally (by a series of
published papers) or by one dramatic demonstration (as occurred recently
with cloning). The latter option involves some risk, since it antagonizes
scientists who dislike the idea of doing science via the media, and will
prompt backlash from groups that try to debunk the work (as happened when
the MIT hot-fusion group staged a very successful media assault on cold
fusion). 

Validation should generate a fair amount of publicity. As a journalist 
myself, I know that most journalists will check the validity of a claim 
by calling a couple of trusted sources. If the sources say it's okay, the 
journalist implicitly endorses the concept (by reporting it fairly 
instead of doing a hatchet job). The sources in this case will be 
establishment scientists.

These scientists obviously will need to understand technical details about
damage to human tissues. But once we achieve that goal, the media takes
over and presents a simplified version to the public. At that point I
believe we will see a flow of early adopters that will be far greater than
the trickle of hardcore nonconformists we have known in the past. 

The flow of early adopters will encourage others to trust the concept of 
cryopreservation, and these people may be totally oblivious to cryonics 
technicalities. They will sign up because a) some easy-to-understand demo
indicated that it has a real chance of working, and/or b) a trusted
authority figure advised them that it's "okay." 

     Conclusion: Research to perfect cryonics procedures is the absolutely
     essential prerequisite in either case.

Note that my rosy scenario, above, omits another consequence of proven 
functionality: federal regulation. I fear this the most, since I cannot 
imagine the FDA in its current form *ever* approving the multifactorial 
approach that seems necessary to inhibit the toxic cascade which 
follows cardiac arrest. But, if cryonics is ever going to appeal to a 
large consumer base, federal regulation is an unavoidable risk.

--Charles Platt
CryoCare

PS. In his recent post Bob Ettinger implies that we have seen optimistic
predictions about cryonics research in the past, and those predictions
have resulted in disappointment. This is an oversimplification. With very
low funding, Darwin and Leaf revolutionized the process of human
cryopreservation. This was thoroughly documented in Alcor's _Cryonics_
magazine, as Bob well knows. Subsequently, still with tiny amounts of
funding by everyday standards, Darwin and Harris have achieved a huge step
forward in understanding and preventing ischemic damage, to the extent
that they now hold the unofficial world record for survival of dogs that
have endured normothermic ischemia following cardiac arrest. Bob should be
well aware of this, also, since one of the dogs was brought to the Alcor
Technology Festival earlier this year, where Bob was an attendee. 

In fact, small amounts of money have produced huge and dramatic
achievements, far beyond any reasonable expectations. In the course of my
work as a science writer, I visit various laboratories, and I have never
seen such a high ratio of results to funding. It's quite exceptional. 

The only big disappointment that I am aware of, in cryonics research, 
occurred in the case of Olga Visser. I have already written about this in 
detail, and there's no need to go into it again here.

Bob lives an easy 8-hour drive from the lab at 21st Century Medicine. I am
baffled that he would disparage the work that has been done there without
seeing for himself. I believe he would be extremely welcome, if he chose
to do so. 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9572