X-Message-Number: 9686
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 07:31:31 -0400
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: reply to Saul again

Hi again, especially to Saul:

Saul, when you say that cryonics has failed, and then explain this
by saying that it has not grown nearly as fast as it "should", I find
it hard to interpret what you say as other than stating that growth 
(and you seem to mean not just 5% yearly but a very high rate) is
necessary for the success of cryonics. I was doubting this. Clearly
we must renew ourselves, and I myself would like very much to get
figures on this from organizations other than Cryocare. From what I've
seen I do not believe Alcor has that problem, but I want figures, not just
an impression.

I am not reading what you say as a poet might, but as a mathematician.
You have made statements about the failure of cryonics which, when
parsed, say that it has failed because it has not grown rapidly. Just
what might be meant by "growth" here, of course, has not been explained.
You also seem to believe that cryonics will succeed if it grows fast
enough. Fine. That means that growth is both necessary and 
sufficient for the success of cryonics, whether or not that is what
you intended to state.

And when you state that cryonics has failed, it seems obvious to me 
that you are suggesting that current patients be thawed out. Don't
back up at this! That may not be what you MEANT, and I even believe
myself that it is not what you MEANT, but that is what you SAID.

More than anything else in cryonics we need clear thinking. Just how
rapidly must cryonics grow in order to satisfy you? How many people
must join next year? 10 years from now? And why do you say that 
our inability to do reversible suspensions lies behind our lack of growth?
I do not want rhetoric, I want reasons.

As I have said repeatedly, I too am strongly in favor of research. But
I still doubt the PUBLIC EFFECT of such research. When Arthur Rowe
forbade a well know cryobiologist from doing further research on brains,
he did not do so because he believed that such research was hopeless.
I can't read minds, but my best explanation is that he believed such
research might just succeed, and feared that result. I too talk to people,
my relatives included. I have a sister now with metastatized breast
cancer. She will not agree to making arrangements for suspension, even
if it were reversible. Her husband got angry with me when I raised the
subject. It seems to me that a large number of people, how large I
cannot say, would not accept cryonics even if we had perfected suspended
animation. 

Yes, I agree that there are people who WOULD accept cryonics if we had
a reversible suspension. Again, how many I do not know, nor have you
clarified that question in your postings. It may just be a small 
percentage right on the edge of joining, it may be large. I don't claim
to know. 

I know very well that you do not want any current patient to be thawed
out, and you are certainly not acting as if cryonics has "failed". AS
for myself, I am in favor of much more research whether or not it 
increases the number of cryonicists. Its true merit is not in recruiting
but in the improvement in our suspension technology, hopefully to a 
state in which our suspensions become reversible, at least for brains.
And I very much doubt that there is ANY cryonicist would would not
want to see that result. 

If we are going to argue recruitment methods, then let us do so with
facts. Clearly, we will need some recruitment even if we put much
more effort on research: after all, we must at least maintain our
numbers, and the number of activists. As for the facts, that remains
to be discovered, and no amount of rhetoric about "failure" will
change those facts, good or bad as they may be. 

			Best wishes and long long life to all,

				Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9686