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