CryoNet #32397 - #32399
CryoNet <[email protected]> 19 Feb 2010 10:00:03 -0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.culture.science.cryogenics |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
CryoNet - Fri 19 Feb 2010
#32397: Re: cryonics terminology [David Stodolsky]
#32398: Re: What Darwin Got Wrong [David Stodolsky]
#32399: RE: uppity_cryonet_members [Warren Keevers]
Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32397%2D32399
Administrivia
To subscribe to CryoNet, send email to:
[email protected]
with the subject line (not message _body_):
subscribe
To unsubscribe, use the subject line:
unsubscribe
To post a message to CryoNet, send your message to:
[email protected]
from the same address to which you are aubscribed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message #32397
From: David Stodolsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: cryonics terminology
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:38:05 +0100
References: <[email protected]>
On 18 Feb 2010, at 11:00 AM, CryoNet wrote:
> It seems to me, however, that the
> inclusion of the four points above in suspension contracts/
> literature would
> be a good starting point as one of the standards that each group
> should,
> perhaps, adopt anyway as some protection against the usual nonsensical
> claim that cryonics is some sort of a "scam" or that we are misleading
> people in any way.
This kind of narrow legalism is not the real question we have been
discussing. It is important, but only secondarily. Legal decisions, in
particular, jury decisions, are often based upon 'community standards'
or a climate of opinion. If cryonics is regarded as a scam or a cult,
because it uses terms that are in opposition to their everyday
utilization, no amount of legalistic detail is likely to save the day
(in court).
However, the overall question is how to make the transition from a
separatist movement to a mainstream movement. According to social
movement theory, this will involve a revolutionary transformation of
society. Such changes are resisted by current elites. We have already
seen this in pronouncements of Leon Kass, the head of Bush's
Presidential Bioethics Council. Kass argues that life wouldn't be
meaningful without death and opposes any form of life extension:
http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/works/answeringkass.htm
We can be sure that when a political battle develops, the opponents of
cryonics will attack any weak point in the way cryonics is presented.
The term 'patients' is one of these. Cryonics is already well
represented on sites such as Quackwatch:
http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/QA/cryonics.html
Cryonics has also been a topic of discussion on an anti-cult site, as
posted here earlier. The accuracy of these sites isn't the question,
they contribute to a climate of opinion which is detrimental to the
survival of the movement.
In terms of marketing, terms that don't travel well from inside to
outside of the movement are detrimental. If cryonics fails, it will
probably be due to social breakdown or political opposition. The short
history of the movement has already demonstrated the importance of
these threats. Therefore, all possible steps toward improving
credibility should be taken.
dss
David Stodolsky
[email protected] Skype: davidstodolsky
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32397
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message #32398
From: David Stodolsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: What Darwin Got Wrong
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:45:50 +0100
References: <[email protected]>
On 18 Feb 2010, at 11:00 AM, CryoNet wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 3:00 AM, David Stodolsky <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>> This doesn't address the argument in the original article. Regardless
>> of what Dawkins himself believes, the "Selfish Gene" concept as been
>> used to support a range of social darwinistic policies.
>
> Probably so. Can you provide pointers to some of them? It is not a
> legit use of the selfish gene concept.
While the term itself is not used in the professional literature, the
individualism implied has played a major role in, for example, the
debates about group selection in evolutionary theory, in Friedman's
and related economic theories, in certain lines of research in
artificial intelligence, such as genetic algorithms, etc. So, the
concept has served as a lens through which many of the 'soft' science
questions have been viewed over the last thirty years.
The originally cited author points to the neo-liberal policies of
Thatcher and Reagan. These economic policies have been used to
transfer wealth to the rich. The net effect has been harmful to
cryonics, since it reduces the number of persons who have sufficient
economic reserves for suspension. Regardless of arguments that
cryonics is 'cheap' via life insurance, the data show that atheist
millionaires are the target population of current marketing efforts.
Only about 12% of the World's population are within the formal
economy. The rest are excluded from even considering suspension. The
current economic collapse, resulting from market fundamentalism, and
the resulting transformed expectations of consumers has also removed
large numbers of persons from potential membership in cryonics
organizations.
Since economic instability is contributory to religious belief, which
in turn is the best predictor of support for cryonics, the continuing
dominance of market fundamentalism is indirectly reducing cryonics
enrollments. Therefore, the "Selfish Gene" concept has been
contributory to reduction in signups both directly, due to economic
limitations, and indirectly due to promotion of religiosity.
The economism / market fundamentalism justified by the Concept also
contributed to the CryoCare fiasco, an ideologically motivated attempt
at social reorganization of the cryonics enterprise. What solid
scientific results we do have about what would be a more effective
social organization of the cryonics enterprise has been ignored. This
can be attributed to the extreme individualism rampant in much of the
cryonics movement. And here we can make the transition from the
ridiculous - the idea that greed is the only human motive worth
considering - to the absurd, with the idea that the 'meme' concept
will be useful in solving the marketing problems of cryonics. The
sooner this pop science is replace by a professional approach to the
marketing of cryonics, the sooner we will see improvements. Failure to
do so will lead to the end of the hope that the movement will become a
major social force, and perhaps the end of the movement and loss of
all investments that have been made.
>
> It is a legitimate use to invoke selfish gene/evolutionary psychology
> concept to *understand* or try to understand social phenomena. I have
> done it myself in tying the Patty Hearst kidnapping, army basic
> training and SMBD all to one evolved psychological mechanism, capture
> bonding.
I am not aware of any use of the term "selfish gene" among
professional biological or social scientists. So, good luck with your
reinvention of social and evolutionary psychology. A review of the
literature will get you a lot farther and reduce the risk that you
will be regarded as a crank by the professionals in these fields.
Social identity theory is often used to explain the above type of
phenomena:
<http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120185297/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
>
Social Identity Theory and Self-categorization Theory: A Historical
Review
The social identity approach (comprising social identity theory and
self-categorization theory) is a highly influential theory of group
processes and intergroup relations, having redefined how we think
about numerous group-mediated phenomena. Since its emergence in the
early 1970s, the social identity approach has been elaborated, re-
interpreted, and occasionally misinterpreted. The goal of this paper
is to provide a critical, historical review of how thinking and
research within the social identity approach has evolved. The core
principles of the theories are reviewed and discussed, and their
effect on the field assessed. Strengths and limitations of the
approach are discussed, with an eye to future developments.
dss
David Stodolsky
[email protected] Skype: davidstodolsky
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32398
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message #32399
From: "Warren Keevers" <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: uppity_cryonet_members
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 14:11:50 +1000
Hi David
Sorry for my late reply, I have been very busy lately...
To be perfectly frank, I wasn't satisfied with any of the responses, they
all seemed to be stating the same facts as I did, just from a different
viewpoint. My view I guess is subjective just as yours is. There are no
facts to back any of us up, which is exactly my point.
I still think 1 in a million is generous, and yes, although I do "believe"
cryonics is possible, I very much doubt it will happen in any of our
lifetimes, I also doubt that any of the people you put on ice will ever be
brought back. I also doubt that the current cryonics members here, or ALCOR
or CI, etc, etc will have anything to do with it. Except of course as to
offer a service once someone else has done all the work. Not that there is
anything really wrong with that, remember I'm just having a go at "uppity
cryonics members" who were looking down upon those of us who disagree with
you. i.e you started this.
One day they will cure cancer
One day space travel will be common place
Until any of these things happen, or until more facts are available, I see
no point in continuing any of these redundant discussions.
That is where I relate you to religion.
One day, is it god or jesus, will come down to earth.
I see no point in discussing that either until the facts are available, but
it is a possibility.
But don't be dismayed as I'm sure all of you will have your marketing
pitches and terminology ready for when it happens.
Actually there was one comment that really stuck with me, and I forget who
it was from (sorry), but stated the fact that the discussions here don't
really reflect the majority of cryonics members, it is just the vocal
minority. I agree with that, but again the subject of my initial email was
uppity ones, so my email wasn't directed at you, but thanks for the
reminder.
I've stopped reading cryonet messages as well it seems the minority are
still getting their marketing/legal strategies together and well im just not
interested anymore, ill look out for replies to this message though.
Have any of you read the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy? Guess who reminds
me of the people who got sent to earth? (you know all the lawyers, insurance
salesmen, etc etc)
All the best
Warren
p.s. again I don't think any of you are doing anything wrong or misleading
people, and im sure generally speaking, you are all very nice people.
-----Original Message-----
From: David Stodolsky [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, 15 February 2010 7:16 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: uppity_cryonet_members
> When I think of cryonics now and specifically your group, I think of
> a religious organization, because in all honesty you are closer to
> that then any other category, you have a belief and you think that
> anyone who disagrees with you is wrong and/or simply beneath you.
> Might I remind of you of the scientific method, or does science have
> no bearing in this group?
I enjoyed your post. Many of the points were on target.
Were you satisfied with the response you got?
dss
David Stodolsky
[email protected] Skype: davidstodolsky
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32399
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of CryoNet Digest
*********************