X-Message-Number: 9687 Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 08:10:34 -0400 From: Thomas Donaldson <> Subject: CryoNet #9673 - #9682 Hi guys, again! To Saul: I suggest that you go back and reread your own postings. In terms of its effect, the distinction between "the cryonics movement" and "cryonics" means very little. Cryonics the idea cannot save anyone, no matter what technology it may use. As for the need for research, we are agreed. Here is another series of questions I'd like you to answer: 1. If the success of cryonics does not require a mass movement, then can you give some rough estimate of just how many people it will require? (I don't expect exact figures, but just what level of growth would satisfy you). 2. Suppose that we do not reach that level of growth, for one reason or another. Do you have suggestions for what to do in that case? 3. Since we must at least renew ourselves, some level of recruitment is needed (as I've said!). So just what level of recruitment and effort in finding new members should we put out? I am referring here to the period in which our suspension technology remains approximately at its present level. Whether or not cryonics has "failed", we may have to be content for a long time with a very small % of the population being cryonicists. One point I was making was that this does not in itself mean that we cannot progress and do the research we need. I myself have NEVER been content with the level of research in cryonics; as for its growth in terms of number of adherents, I have not been content either, but have come to accept it as Reality. And that is one reason I do not so blithely accept our slow growth as a sign of failure --- or for that matter, believe that there is any single answer, research included, to the problem of growing faster. To Mike and others: if possible, I'd at least like to be able to sit in on email discussions of suspension technology and experiments. I believe that my long term interest in the technology will at least allow me to understand the discussions, PhD in math or not. I'm not a botanist either, but I want to thank Rand Simberg for the correction. And yes, I meant the long-lived, slow-growing tree. Best wishes and long long life to all, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9687