X-Message-Number: 9575
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 02:24:43 -0400
From: Saul Kent <>
Subject: Selling Cryonics

        In Bob Ettinger's response (9562) to my essay,
"The Failure Of The Cryonics Movement" (9556, 9557)
he disagrees with my conclusion that the cryonics 
movement is dying...at least in the case of the 
Cryonics Institute (CI).

        Bob points out that, of CI's 9 directors, 
"only three are over 60" and reveals that CI doesn't 
have many people in their "twenties or thirties."  It 
looks to me as if Bob's evidence supports my con-
clusion, but that his interpretation of the evidence 
is different than mine. I said that "the vast majority of 
cryonics activists are over 40", and that the failure of 
the movement to attract new activists in their 20s and 
30s indicates that the movement is dying.

        Bob states that "older people are the ones
who have the money"... and that "retired people can 
better afford to give their time". The problem is that 
older and retired people become  incapacited and 
die, and that, unless there are young people ready 
and able to replace them, the movement will move
closer and closer to extinction.

        That might not be the case if retired
people became active *after* they retired, but the
evidence argues against this. Virtually all of today's
aging or dead activists began their activism when
they were much younger.  In the early years of the
movement, there were a number of teen-age 
activists, including Mike Darwin and David Ettinger 
(Bob's son, who remains active today), as well as 
*two* cryonics youth organizations.

        Among the cryonics activists in their 20s 
and 30s were myself, Curtis Henderson, Karl Werner, 
Paul Segall, Harold Waitz, Bruce Cohen, John Bull, 
Ed Kuhrt, Jack Erfurt, Andrea Foote, Pat Dewey,
Dick Jones, Marcelon Johnson, Fred and Linda 
Chamberlain, Paul and Maureen Genteman,
Hugh Hixon, Art Quaife, Jerry White, Jim Yount, 
Norm Lewis, John Day, Edgar Swank Jack Zinn,
Gillian Cummings, Bob Kreuger, Dennis Ross,
Roy Yowell, and Thomas Donaldson.

        All these people are either aging or
dead today.  There were other important activists
in their 20s and 30s in the old days, but these people 
ceased  their activites *before* they grew old or died.

        In the 1980s, a new wave of young activists
came to the fore, including such people as Jerry Leaf,
Brenda Peters, Carlos Mondragon, Arthur McCombs,
Dave Pizer, Allen Lopp, Steve Bridge, Keith Henson, 
Charles Platt, Pat Heller, Royce Brown, Bill Faloon, Steve 
Rievman, Dayna Dye, Steve Harris, Brian Wowk, Glen,
Mark and David Tupler, Mark  Connaughton, Ralph Whelan, 
Tanya Jones, Derek Ryan,  Michael Riskin, Scott Green, 
Ralph Merkle, Jerry Searcy, Joe Hovey, Mark Voelker, 
Frank Rothacker, Courtney Smith, Ben Best, Kevin Brown,
Dave Kekich, Max More, Natasha Vita More, Russell
Whitaker, Billy Seidel, Paul Michaels, Alan Sinclair,
Garret Smyth, Steve Valentine, Mike Perry and many 
others.  Most of  these people aren't dead yet, 
 just aging.
 
        Who are the people who are going to
replace these activists when *they* die? I don't see how 
Bob can call a movement whose activists are almost  
all aging or dead as anything *but* a dying movement.

        Bob says that he understands that my
motivation in painting "in these dark colors" is to help
"raise money".  While it's true that I'm interested in raising
money,  I don't think I'm "painting" at all!  I believe the dark 
colors are very real and threatening, and I've presented 
evidence to that effect.

        Bob also says that my approach "will also turn
off some prospective members from cryonics and perhaps
lose their lives and their potential support."  I believe the
opposite will be true.  I believe that by facing the truth,
clearly and unflinchingly we will get more support from
our existing members, and soon gain more members 
than ever before, as the results of our research is
revealed to the world.

        I believe that a major reason for the fact that 
the cryonics movement was filled with young, active 
people in the 60s, 70s and 80s is because they saw the
movement as vital, dynamic and alive, in part because of the
fire in their own bellies, but also because of the research they
saw as leading to better cryonics methods, greater credibility,
and more rapid growth. I'm confident we can regenerate that
kind of spirit and hope for the future with our current research 
efforts, and that the more funding we get for research, the 
faster we can turn things around.

        I revealed historical data about efforts to sell 
cryonics over the last 33 years so that people who are new
to the movement would have some perspective about
previous efforts to sell the idea.  I've come to the conclusion 
that, after 33 years of failure in selling substandard cryonics 
methods, it's time for a change.

        Clearly, Bob thinks it's wise to continue trying to sell
people on current cryonics methods.  One reason he gives for
believing that we can now sell an unproven product that we've
been unable to sell in the past is that "there are much more
clearly unproven products (even clearly fraudulent ones) that
have been much more successful (than cryonics)."  Among
these, he cites "the various fads and cults, astrology, dianetics,
etc." and concludes that "there is pleny of room there for
study and improvement."

        The major lesson I derive from the successful sales
of the kinds of products Bob cites is that the methods used to 
sell these products should be avoided at all costs.  Yes, it is
true that people use misleading or fraudulent advertising and 
other unethical methods to sell products without value, but I 
don't think that's the direction we want to go in.

        Bob questions my conclusion that cryonics has 
failed despite "the intense desire for survival on the part of 
virtually everyone on earth" by pointing out that "the so-called 
'survival instinct' is only relevant  in clear and present danger
--and even then only if the individual is still relatively healthy 
and vigorous."  

        Well, vast numbers of people have been dying
every year for the past 33 years and hardly any of them have
chosen to be frozen.  It is true that it's difficult to sign up for
cryonics when a person is weak, depressed and in pain, but
it would be a hell of a lot  easier  if cryonics was an accepted
medical procedure offered without stigma or difficulty. That's
only going to become about, in my opinion, as a consequence 
of successful research.

        Most patients who are dying opt for very difficult 
and painful treatments and operations, even when there's 
little or no chance of success.  They do so because they 
want to live, and because the treatments are accepted by 
the medical profession and society-at-large.

        I'm confident that documented, improved
cryonics methods supported by a well-funded
research program leading to suspended animation,
would lead to a large increase in healthy people 
signing up for cryonics.  Historically, there have been 
about 10 times the number of healthy people signing 
up for cryonics for every patient frozen.  If this ratio
continues, we can expect an acceleration in membership
growth as the credibililty of cryonics improves, and the 
number of patients frozen grows.

        Bob says that: "Saul discounts the negative press
and the opposition of the establishment" in slowing the growth
of the cryonics movement.  That's not so. I do *not* discount it! 
I merely pointed out that products such as vitamin supplements 
and birth control for Catholics have succeeded *in spite of this 
kind of opposition* because there's no doubt about the fact 
that they work!  I believe we can begin to overcome the oppo-
sition of the establishment when we have better evidence that
cryonics works!

        Bob questions the value of 21CM's research program
and is skeptical of the results we are likely to achieve. It is wise
to be skeptical, but only if you first inform yourself of the pertinent 
facts and findings.  I understand Bob failed to attend the technical 
presentations made by 21st Century Medicine scientists at the 
recent Alcor Technology conference. These presentations 
documented some of 21CM's research results, plans, and 
reasons for optimism about the company's research program. 
I've asked organ cryopreservation scientist Greg Fahy, the latest 
member of 21CM's staff,  to respond to Bob's concerns about 
21CM's research program.  Morever, Bob has a standing invitation 
to visit our laboratories, inspect our  facilities and data, and speak 
with any members of our scientific staff..

---Saul Kent, CEO
21st Century Medicine

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9575