More crazy than inspiring...

[archerships]

Cryonics is number three!:

"...The reason the idea takes third place is that we don't see a big private demand for cryonics and the public is more likely to think this idea crazy than inspiring..."

Comments

[serratia.livejournal.com]

Have you ever read Cryonet? I believe a huge reason why cryonics is considered crazy is the personalities of the people involved. Not to tar everyone with the same brush (and to be sure there are notable exceptions), but "out" cryonicists are an arrogant, mean-spirited lot.

The constant bickering between Alcor people and CI people, the high rate of turnover in leadership, the gossip, the backbiting, oh my! And heaven help you if you present yourself as someone who is supportive of cryonics in general yet lacking the desire to sign up personally. In such a case, you are treated with a mixture of suspicion, pity, and contempt.

Not that I'm bitter or anything... *cough*...

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Yes, I've been on Cryonet since '92 or so, though I've hardly ever posted. When I was doing research, it could've been Mprofessionally damaging to have been too open.

And you're right, cryonicists often shoot themselves in the foot. I think it's a function of the fact that to have been a cryonicist, especially in the early years, you had to be willing to buck social programming and risk ostracism. So the people it attracted tended to be on the social margins already, think highly of their own opinions (often to the point of arrogance), and are often lacking in social graces. That's slowly changing, and there are some very nice cryonicists, but they don't tend to post to cryonet, as they're too busy doing the research/work to make it more socially acceptable.

[serratia.livejournal.com]

I started reading '96-'97-ish because I was...er... involved with someone who was/is signed up. 'Nuff said about that.

I never had any interest in signing up myself for various personal reasons, but thought it was a great idea for those who are so inclined.

The few times I posted and made my views known, I absolutely could not believe the negativity that was thrown my way. I mean, helllllooooo... I'm on your side, people!

You know, when the Apollo space program was going on, some of us were actual astronauts, while others sat in front of their TV's wearing footie pajamas and drinking Tang and cheering them on. Why can't cryonics be like that?

I am an RN with almost 20 years' experience at a university-affiliated hospital. I am in a good position to be a proponent/liason for cryonics if an opportunity to do that happened to arise. But am I willing to put myself out for a group of people who are essentially calling me a moron? Perhaps not so much.

-Serratia (a.k.a. Deathist Lurker Girl)

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Yes, I agree that cryonicists in general need to work on diplomacy. And remember that the nicer, saner people may not post to cryonet both for professional reasons, and because such mailing lists tend to distract you from doing real work. (Cryonet tends to devolve into interminable arguments about the nature of identy.) If you have any questions that you felt weren't satisfactorily addressed, I would be happy to help if I can.

(I should point out, in cryonet's defense, that calling yourself "Deathist Lurker Girl" is akin to calling yourself "Abortionist Lurker Girl" on a Catholic mailing list. Are you really surprised that cryonicists on the mailing list might have suspected your motives?)

Regarding the "Deathist" moniker...

[serratia.livejournal.com]

I pointed out, in either my first or second post, that my use of the label "Deathist" was a form of rebellion against the willy-nilly application of that epithet to anyone who wasn't a signed-up cryonicist.

I believe there are "true" deathists- and those are people who believe it should be illegal for *anyone* to pursue cryonics. However, the term has been greatly abused on Cryonet, and my nickname was an amusing (hey, to *me*, anyway...) attempt to defuse its effects.

Anyone who read beyond the headers in my posts knew what my motives were. I made them perfectly clear.

[tinymammoth.livejournal.com]

I just saw a fascinating documentary about the history of the birth control pill. Interestingly, only a few people were involved in its development - Margaret Sanger, an heiress inspired by Sanger who put up the money, and a scientist. Private industry didn't take any interest until there was already a working prototype, and there was huge public resistance to the idea.

But once it was available it had a huge adoption rate and became socially acceptable within a few years.

Perhaps something analogous could happen with cryogenics.

[candid.livejournal.com]

Maybe, but I'd be surprised.

Something like 9 out of 10 Americans believe in "Heaven." How do you get these people to support (let alone tolerate) a national movement for cryogenics?

[tinymammoth.livejournal.com]

It was illegal to *talk* about birth control when the pill went mainstream. My point is that people won't support a national movement to develop cryogenics - but once it's there, people will begin to use it, because what people say they believe and how they act is not always congruent. (According to the show, Catholics use the pill at the same rates as non-Catholics.)

Of course it depends on whether it's possible for just a few scientists to develop this technology. Some scientific problems are amenable to a small, focused research effort and some are not, and you can't know for sure which type of problem it is until it's solved.

Lots more on the pill here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pill/gallery/

[candid.livejournal.com]

Yes, but sexual puritanism has always been hypocrital, so it's no surprise that the pill caught on like wildfire.

It doesn't strike me as a good parallel.

[harryh.livejournal.com]

I actually think it's a great parallel.

People talked a lot about sexual peritanism but really they wanted the opportunity to have lots of sex without worrying about having kids.

Similarly people talk a lot about heaven, but when push comes to shove their terribly frightened of death and would (i'm guessing) love to have the opportunity to avoid it (though cryonics isn't quite the same thing as immortality).

[fishsupreme]

Acutally, I think it is a pretty good one.

My Mom believes in heaven. She'd still take any life-prolonging technology she could get her hands on. If convinced that cryonics would be successful, the fact that she believes in heaven would be no impediment whatsoever -- her thought would be that heaven's not going anywhere, and will still be there in a thousand years, so why go now?

While I doubt my Mom is typical of American society, I doubt she's unique in this regard, either.

[candid.livejournal.com]

You don't think there's a qualitive/aesthetic difference between "life-prolonging technology" and freezing your head?

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not anti-cryonics. I just agree with the MR guys that the public would find it "more crazy than inspiring."

[tinymammoth.livejournal.com]

Oh, it's also worth noting that Americans are far more religious than any other first world country, most of which are very secular.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

How do you get these people to support (let alone tolerate) a national movement for cryogenics?

I don't think you do, at least at first. I think that Tabarrok's analysis is correct, and that currently most of the public would still regard cryonics research as crazy, rather than inspiring.

Long term, however? Most Catholics regard abortion as a mortal sin, yet I wonder how many Catholic women still have them? When death comes knocking, I expect that even the most devout will try to escape, if the technology is available. Anaesthesia and CPR also suffered initial opposition from the religious, but are now non-controversial medical practices.

Moreover, although the Ted Williams scandal set things back quite a bit, cryonics is becoming increasingly socially acceptable. News reports are beginning to treat it as "cutting edge " rather than "fringe" science, much more so than they were in the 70's and 80's. Dolly the sheep also made cryonics seem much more plausible--in addition to being an enabling technology (you could clone a new body for all those heads), it is also one of those "Buck Rogers" technologies, that most people expected wouldn't happen for hundreds of years. If cloning can work, why not cryonics?

I think the tipping point will occur when they can demonstrate that they can cryopreserve a whole organ, like the kidney. At that point, I think that most scientists at least will be persuaded that it's a worthwhile goal, more people will be willing to sign up, and more investors will be willing to front the money for additional research. All of these will feed back on each other, until eventually it becomes an accepted medical practice.

(Incidentally, cryogenics generally refers to low temperature engineering and research (refrigeration, cryogenic liquids and gases, etc). Cryobiology is the study of the effects of low temperatures on living organisms and tissues. Cryonics refers specifically to the practice of cryopreserving people now in the hopes that future technology will be able to repair/cure them. Some cryogenics engineers and cryobiologists get annoyed when they're confused with cryonicists.)

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Yes, I think you're right. That's been the pattern with cryonics as well, so far. Almost all of the funding for cryonics research ($millions worth) has come from Saul Kent and Bill Falloon, founders of the Life Extension Foundation. And much of the research has been done by a single scientist (Greg Fahy, though large contributions have also made by Brian Wowk, Steve Harris, Mike Darwin, Sandra Russell, and Jerry Leaf).

I think the turning point will be when they successfully demonstrate that they can cryopreserve a whole solid organ (such as the kidney). At that point, I think that it will be plausible enough to the scientific community that they stop pooh-poohing the idea to the press. At that point, the press will stop presenting it as "fringe" science, and present it as "cutting edge biotech" (this is happening already to some extent, though the Ted Williams scandal didn't help). More mainstream scientists will feel comfortable working in the field, investors will be more willing to invest, and so on.

[harryh.livejournal.com]

successfully demonstrate that they can cryopreserve a whole solid organ

Wouldn't this actually be terribly useful technology in and of itself? By my understanding when an organ-donor dies the organs must be transplanted into a new person within hours. If cryonics could extend this window to a few days even I'm guessing that it would be a huge win.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Yes, indeed, and this is the justification for the funding of "mainstream" organ banking research.

I like the skyhook idea best from that link

[polyanarch.livejournal.com]

Ever since I read _Friday_ by RAH I've been certain that this is the easiest way into wholesale space exploration. A catapult would be cool too but might be a better idea for a moon base than from earth. Plus the catapult would be useful for declaring independence from earth maybe...

I'm such a Heinlein freak...

Re: I like the skyhook idea best from that link

[crasch.livejournal.com]

I'd love to see a space elevator too. Although I have to confess it strikes like a fairy tale, like Jack's giant beanstalk.

Re: I like the skyhook idea best from that link

[polyanarch.livejournal.com]

If you remember the story from _Friday_ even Heinlein predicts terrorism on such a structure. The world climate seemed to be somewhat less intense in that regard at the time that book was written. That might just be an American view since we had been very insulated from African, Asian and even European terrorism until one large event in 2001.

What kind of security would you need for the type of structure that runs for many miles straight up? A fleet of fighter aircraft constantly patrolling? Surface-to-air missiles enforcing a strict no-fly zone of a few miles radius all the way up? If someone really wanted to bring down the beanstalk it would not be very hard and the lives lost would be great if there was a lot of passenger traffic and many people around the bottom of the cable.

[karina.livejournal.com]

xoxoxoxox hugs and kisses to you xoxoxoxoxo

Happy New Years!

I hope this year brings you much love and happiness!

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

[karina.livejournal.com]

Spank you very much!