X-Message-Number: 9813
Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 02:57:56 -0400
From: Brenda Peters <>
Subject: RE: Linda #9784

-------------------- Begin Forwarded Message --------------------

From: Brenda Peters, 72727,560
To: @cryonet.org, INTERNET:
Date: Fri, May 29, 1998 10:58:38 PM

RE: RE: Linda #9784


I'm sorry that Linda Chamberlain felt the need to defend Alcor as a result
of my one and only posting in probably three years.  My only mention of
Alcor was that I had been on the board of directors and that Jerry Leaf's
generosity had given them an address for many years. 

My pride in CryoCare, its organizational structure, its lack of overhead
and debt, its commitment to excellence, and its elite membership is nothing
new. I don't apologize for it. 

Linda rightly points out that "The longevity, integrity, and security of
the organization that will protect you, as a frozen patient, for
decades..." is important. In my opinion, however, she wrongly points out
that it "could, in the end very well be more important even than the
technology used to preserve you". I find this unlikely. The longevity,
integrity, and security of the preservation of "nothing" is being done
today in cemeteries. Clearly, the preservation of today's cryonics patients
is more than "nothing", but the better we can make it, the better off we'll
be.

If we can actually preserve with some degree of confidence the information
that makes me "me," then the long term aspects are negotiable and many
options could exist (even options that we haven't thought of yet). 

I dare say that I am in the unique position of being the *only* person to
have been quite so intimately involved in both Alcor and CryoCare. I was a
board member of Alcor for eight years and a board member of CryoCare for
three years, as well as holding other leading and intimate organizational
positions and participating in all aspects of the running of both
organizations. It became disturbingly apparent to me that changes and
innovations were critically important to longterm survival. 

The structural innovations are now in place and the technical improvements
now exist and continue to be upgraded and innovated (as I've said before,
literally monthly) with the finest team (*the dream team*) ever assembled
in the history of cryonics. This team exists and is employed by 21st
Century Medicine.

Linda says: "With 20-20 hind sight, they
may tell those of us who belonged to large, strong organizations
(even the Joe Cannon's) that to their (future, advanced) medical
technologies the difference in the degree of difficulty (of repair
and revival) between the highest of high tech cryopreservations and
the most severely compromised, turns out to be insignificant."

That would be lovely. But life is seldom so.  But how wise is it to depend
upon such pies in the sky? My focus is on the practical, knowable, and
rational concern that what we are doing to our patients now may not be
enough. *I'm* going to be one of those patients one day and I want more
than pies in the sky. I haven't worked this hard for this many years to be
satisfied with "hope". I already have that. Always had. I think "hope"
makes us more psychologically able to cope with life and death. I think we
are evolutionarily selected to have hope, to manufacture hope if need be,
in order to get through the day. What I am talking about is evidence. I
want some degree of confidence, not hope, that my identity is being
preserved and *only that* will give me the kind of hope I seek.

Linda tells us what we should know but it is never pleasant to admit: "This
is particularly important when we face the fact that most
cryonicists today, and probably for some time to come, will not
receive the highest technology that is possible.  Cultural
traditions, hostile relatives, and deathist laws are just a few of
the obstacles that too often stand in the way of the cryotransport
team's best efforts."

All the more reason to improve the technology. The more we can do with the
worst that we have to work with *now*, the better the chances of the
desired outcome later.

Linda says she chose Alcor "because we not only strive to give
our members the highest quality cryopreservation that we can..."

I'm sure that's true. I know of your concern over Alcor's personnel,
knowledge, ability, and quality of "suspensions" since Jerry Leaf's demise
and the loss of MIke Darwin. I know of your efforts at improvement. I
respect that effort. I wish you luck. Striving to first of all reattain the
standard that Alcor had in the 80's, and maybe later to actually improve
upon that is a good thing. You absolutely owe it to your membership to do
so. But *so* much more is possible, and we're doing everything we can to
make it
happen.

All my best and long life,
Brenda Peters



-------------------- End Forwarded Message --------------------

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9813