X-Message-Number: 9680
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 21:23:13 -0400
From: Saul Kent <>
Subject: Things I've Never Said. . .

        Lately, I've been accused of, or asked to
define or explain, a series of things I've never said, 
never implied, and never suggested.

        The latest example is in Thomas Donaldson's
post (9671) in which he says:  "I asked you to define 'failure'
of cryonics....Your last message, which claims to provide a
definition, does not do so at all."

        You are right Thomas, my last message did not
define the "failure of cryonics" for a very good reason.  I've
never said that cryonics is a failure, I've never implied that
cryonics is a failure. I've never suggested that cryonics is
a failure.  And I do not now, nor have I ever *believed* that
cryonics is a failure.

        The message of mine that you refer to--What
I Mean By Failure (9661)--not only didn't define the failure
of cryonics, but never *claimed* to define the failure of
cryonics.

        In fact, from the beginning, starting with my
essay--The Failure Of the Cryonics Movement--I have
talked exclusively about the failure of the *movement*, 
not the idea (cryonics) the movement has been trying 
to advance. My position is that the movement has 
failed cryonics, *not* that cryonics has failed, and 
almost every message I've posted has included
suggestions to help the movement fulfill the
promise of cryonics better.

        I think my criticism of the movement could 
*not* have been clearer in my message defining what I 
mean by failure, in which I gave my reasons (and my 
evidence) for my conclusion that the movement has 
failed over and over again!  To make this crystal 
clear again, here is what I said in that message:

        > I've come to the conclusion that the cryonics 
> movement has "failed" because, after 33 years, it has 
> come up *abysmally* short of my expectations for it.

        > I believe the movement has failed because 
> relatively little progess has been made in preventing 
> brain damage caused  by freezing.

        > I believe the movement has failed because,
> except for two people--Jerry Leaf and Mike Darwin---one 
> (Jerry) now frozen himself,  we've failed to develop well-
> trained professionals to deliver cryonics services.

        > I believe the movement has failed because 
> we've been unable to persuade even one establishment 
> scientist critical of cryonics to change his or her mind.

        > I believe the movement has failed because 
> we've only been able to convince the tiniest fraction of 
> the population to join us.

        > I believe the movement has failed because so 
> many cryonics activists are aging or dead, without enough 
> young activists to replace them.

        > I believe the movement has failed because I 
> see too many cryonicists content to inch forward at a snail's
> pace rather than push forward with drive and vigor!

        In message (9671), Thomas goes on to say that
"the entire thrust of your messages, as I read them, seems to
IDENTIFY crynonics and suspended animation.  Yes, we most
certainly do not have any form of suspended animation now that
works.  And so the easy conclusion is that cryonics does not
'work', a conclusion which only follows if you identify the two. I
DO NOT."

        I assume that the notion that Thomas ascribes to
me is that cryonics and suspended animation are *identical*, 
not that I "identify" the two (which makes no sense).  Again, 
I've never said, implied, *or* suggested in any way that 
cryonics and suspended animation are "identical".  In fact, 
the thrust of everything I've written is that today's cryonics is 
a bad product that causes severe brain damage, and that 
our highest priority should be research to improve our
product, which, eventually, will *lead* to suspended
animation, not that cryonics and suspended animation
are identical.

        As far as using the phrase "cryonics does not
work", I've only used that phrase to describe what other
people think, *not* what I think.  Today's cryonics methods
may very well be proven to work by future technology, at
least in some cases.  It's just that with improved cryonics
methods; greater acceptance of cryonics in society; and
a larger, stronger, richer cryonics movement, the chances
of cryonics working will improve, and I think we should do
everything we can to achieve these goals.

        In the last paragraph of your posting, you ask
that, if my "notion of 'success' of cryonics requires some
kind of mass movement, I should clarify my reasons for
believing this.

        Again, you are referring to something I've never
said, implied or suggested.  Not only don't I think that the
success of cryonics "requires" a mass movement, but I
I don't believe it will become a mass movement any time
soon, and I'm concerned, that if it did, it would lead to
considerable social unrest for two reasons:

        1) The difficulty in meeting the demand for
mass market cryonics services.

        2)  The problems of dealing with large numbers
of people who want and need cryonics, but who cannot 
afford it.

        What I've been saying is that research leading to
improved cryonics methods and greater credibility for cyonics
will lead to more rapid growth in the movement, *not* that it will
lead to a mass market demand for cryonics.  One of the good
things, I believe, in offering cryonics services with unperfected
methods is that, as the demand for cryonics goes up in concert
with the continuing improvement of cryonics methods, it will 
gradually enable us to scale up to the larger demand for 
suspended animation after it is achieved.

---Saul Kent, CEO
21st Century Medicine  

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9680