CryoNet #32429 - #32433

CryoNet - Sat 27 Feb 2010

    #32429: 1973 article about cryonics [MARK PLUS]
    #32430: terasem [Ettinger]
    #32431: Re: Do we want to be a Movement? [David Stodolsky]
    #32432: Continuing Message Suppression with CryoNet's Rating System [Kitty Antonik Wakfer]
    #32433: Re: #32421: Re: CryoNet #32418 -  Kitty Antonik Wakfer's Post... [Kitty Antonik Wakfer]

Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32429%2D32433

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 #32429
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 08:40:45 -0700
Subject: 1973 article about cryonics
From: MARK PLUS <[email protected]>

--0016369208c40fbfd2048082b96f

Apparently the problems associated with the kinds of people drawn to
cryonics go way back:

The Iceman Cometh: The Cryonics Movement and Frozen Immortalty, by Clifton
D. Bryant and William E. Snizek. Society, Nov.-Dec., 1973.

Quote:

"In their enthusiasm to sell the cause, followers may well have oversold it.
Some have publicly boasted of their intention to become 'immortal supermen';
other spokesmen have suggested future 'super armies that never wear out,
thanks to a continued supply of rejuvenated
men.' Such remarks are hardly calculated to convey the image of rational
reform. The cryonics movement, like any other attempt at scientific and
social innovation, inevitably attracts its share of eccentrics, and writers
who covered some of the early conferences and meetings of cryonics groups
reported 'odd mixtures of people,' and specifically mentioned 'vegetarians.'
Funeral directors, clergymen, physicians and public officials, never
enthusiastic as a whole about cryonics, are presumably more rigid in their
posture of opposition than in the early days, when innovation and prospect
outweighed practical disadvantages."

You can read the whole article at either of the following links:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/27514724/Iceman-Cometh?secret_password=2caov1mrh18v8yjt8bwz

http://www.box.net/shared/static/7zterv1gck.pdf


-- 
Mark Plus
Life is short: Freeze hard!

--0016369208c40fbfd2048082b96f

 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32429

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32430
From: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 11:46:06 EST
Subject: terasem

I've finally looked at some web information on the
"Terasem Movement." As far as I can see at the
moment, these are well meaning people whose
objectives include furtherance of cryonics. Their
weaknesses include uncritical backing of some
vague or/and mistaken notions including
"cyberconsciousness" or machine intelligence.
Whether the merits or weaknesses will prevail,
as relates to cryonics recruitment, I couldn't
guess.
 
R.E.


 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32430

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32431
From: David Stodolsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Do we want to be a Movement?
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 22:11:47 +0100
References: <[email protected]>

On 26 Feb 2010, at 11:00 AM, CryoNet wrote:

>>>
>>> The word "movement" suggests a cult to me. I think of cryonics as a
>>> field of study with practical applications in the same way that I
>>> think of physics. Wouldn't we project a better image if we called
>>> ourselves the cryonics community, defined as a group of people
>>> interested in the study and practice of cryonics?
>
> There's difference btw movement and community. Community doesnt need
> to move anywhere. And the movement needs goals, plans, strategy,
> coordinated actions. As a participant of CryoFreedom community i have
> to agree - cryonics now are companies and communities, there's no
> movement now and it's hard to realy start one. I'm personaly failed.

There is a large number of unaffiliated persons who promote cryonics,  
or accept it as a feature of a comprehensive program of life-extension  
or of space exploration. It is not clear in exactly what form cryonics  
will win acceptance. However, if some new approach shows success, we  
can expect everyone to jump on the bandwagon. This is how movements  
normally succeed. It is only when the winning strategy becomes  
obvious, that coordinated action becomes dominant. (One of the best  
known books on social movements advocates organizing without  
organizations. It sees formal organizations as detrimental in many  
ways. The authors argue that organizations provide opportunities for  
co-optation of movements by elites, etc. See reference.)

Remember the old saying-

Every great new idea goes through three stages of societal reaction:
It's impossible
It's immoral
I thought of it first.


The cryonics movement is still at stage one. The acceptance of  
cryonics will totally transform society. It will be equivalent to the  
transition from rule according to the doctrine of Divine Right of  
Kings to democratic rule. Expect a long struggle and perhaps repeated  
failures before cryonics is accepted by the mainstream.


dss


Pro-cure social movement:

http://richardjschueler.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=56966


One approach to understanding social movements:

http://vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/movements.pdf


Reference:

< http://www.amazon.com/Poor-Peoples-Movements-They-Succeed/dp/0394726979/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267215451&sr=8-2 
  >



David Stodolsky
[email protected]  Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32431

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32432
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:14:39 -0700
From: Kitty Antonik Wakfer <[email protected]>
Subject: Continuing Message Suppression with CryoNet's Rating System

--------------030005020109040700030607

In following up on comments to my own post of 1/24, I noted that again 
Melody Maxim's most recent message, #32421 - Subject: Re: CryoNet #32418 
- Kitty Antonik Wakfer's Post, does not show in the digest and again the 
only notification is:


<<< POSTER'S REPUTATION TOO LOW >>>

Just as I wrote back in October 2009 
(http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=32072), it is clear that "a 
number of CryoNet subscribers are using the rating system to squelch 
publication of Melody Maxim's messages in the daily digest."

Melody wrote:

I hope the Alcor Board of Directors will give the proper attention to Paul 
Wakfer's suggestions, as outlined in Kitty's Antonik Wakfer's recent post, as I 
feel it would be a step in the right direction. It is time for Alcor to focus on
the survival of the community, rather than on individuals who don't take steps 
to protect themselves and ensure their wishes for cryopreservation get carried 
out. In regard to Ms. Robbins, is this one person, who didn't move closer to 
Alcor, (when she knew she was dying and Alcor suggested she do so), and didn't 
take steps to make sure her family did not interfere, or perhaps truly did 
change her mind in the "11th hour," (just as Timothy Leary did), really worth 
the bad publicity involved? Alcor seems to be on a collision course with 
regulation, or extinction...not just for themselves, but for the entire cryonics
community. (And, yes, I am currently inclined to think that nothing short of 
regulation will veer the cryo-orgs off an impending collision course with public
perception.) 



Melody Maxim


I think that this latest message by Melody - and in fact all of them - 
deserves to be read by all who subscribe to CryoNet and anyone who is 
interested at all in the continuation and improvement of cryonics.

Melody's raising of points that some do not like to hear does not equate 
to her trying to incite hatred against or harm to any individual  whose 
actions she has questioned - the essence of "flamebait", the score she 
has been given by sufficient numbers of CryoNet subscribers to result in 
this filtering by Kevin Q Brown's algorithm. Imputing intention is 
always foolish (not to mention slanderous) unless one has very clear 
evidence. I recently made this very same point in a comment to a blog 
entry at the Association of Physicians and Surgeons:

The intent or desire of a person "to harm [another] usually seriously 
through doing something unlawful or otherwise unjustified" (from Merriam 
Webster's definition) is most often not clear unless the person has made 
specific verbal or written statements of his/her (hir) intentions 
regarding an action taken. A person simply taking the action to inform 
others of the activities or practices of another with which that 
informant does not agree/approve may be and often is without any desire 
or intention to cause physical harm to the party with whom s/he does not 
agree/approve, but just to have that person stop the activities. In a 
non-coercive society, one has only the liberty to inform; it would, in 
such a society, be solely the decision of others how they will make use 
of such information - purchase or not the "snakeoil" or any 
service/product, or to voluntarily interact or not with such informant. 
http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00802/comment-page-1#comment-4157

Even this simple message by Melody has Poor 6.00 as part of the (at the 
time I noted & after I'd scored it myself)
Current Rating Summary:
Excellent 	 1.25 	    	Good 	 1.20 	    	Informative 	 0.45
Insightful 	 0.45 	    	Interesting 	 0.45 	    	Normal 	 0.20
Poor 	 6.00


I suspect that the "Poor" came from those who regularly rate her 
messages as "Flamebait". Do those of you who do this *really* want to 
help solve the problems that cryonics organizations face, maybe even as 
a result of some of their own practices? Stifling a messenger is *not* a 
recipe for gaining information and finding true solutions.

Specifically to Kevin Q Brown, Administrator:
Why do you continue to ignore the "vote" of those who do not rate 
messages at all? The fact that someone has not thought it worth their 
time to register a specific rating of a message, even though they get 
the digest daily, is worth something in the algorithm - I do not see 
that this happens. This failure in my estimation distorts the entire 
system and reduces the value of CryoNet to me, and likely to many others.

 
**Kitty Antonik Wakfer

MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting


--------------030005020109040700030607

 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32432

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32433
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 01:22:40 -0700
From: Kitty Antonik Wakfer <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: #32421: Re: CryoNet #32418 -  Kitty Antonik Wakfer's Post...
References: <[email protected]>

This is a response to Melody's message having been retrieved from the 
archives, because Kevin's "rating" algorithm enables a few censorship 
supportive subscribers to deny all the others the convenience of its 
inclusion in the daily digest:


Melody Maxim wrote:
> I hope the Alcor Board of Directors will give the proper attention to 
> Paul Wakfer's suggestions, as outlined in Kitty's Antonik Wakfer's 
> recent post, as I feel it would be a step in the right direction. It 
> is time for Alcor to focus on
> the survival of the community, rather than on individuals who don't 
> take steps to protect themselves and ensure their wishes for 
> cryopreservation get carried out.

I agree and do most sincerely (I'm always sincere) hope that the Board
members give Paul's message - which he has now sent- very serious
consideration.

> In regard to Ms. Robbins, is this one person, who didn't move closer 
> to Alcor, (when she knew she was dying and Alcor suggested she do so), 
> and didn't take steps to make sure her family did not interfere, or 
> perhaps truly did change her mind in the "11th hour," (just as Timothy 
> Leary did), really worth the bad publicity involved?

These are reasonable questions to ask and not ones that I think any
cryonicist should find offensive.

> Alcor seems to be on a collision course with regulation, or 
> extinction...not just for themselves, but for the entire cryonics 
> community. 

I and Paul have similar concerns and this is what prompted him to add to
my CryoNet message and to send his suggestions with prefacing comments
to the Board.

> (And, yes, I am currently inclined to think that nothing short of 
> regulation will veer the cryo-orgs off an impending collision course 
> with public perception.)

Melody, here I will register strong disagreement with you to the idea
that "regulation" - interpreted to mean government involvement in the
mutually voluntary contractural agreement between parties - is what is
needed to "veer the cryo-orgs off an impending collision course with
public perception." What is needed in my estimation is clear public
meaningful standards of practice - something sorely missing in many
other of the vast types of activities engaged in by reasoning humans.
Imposed regulations by government under threat or actual use of physical
force is a perpetuation and enlargement of ruler/ruled mentality rather
than development of exchange to mutual benefit - the spirit that
underlies the best of human potential and promotes a truly free and
rational society.

Paul last raised the subject of a cryonics standards organization some 6
years (at least) ago to a few individuals who have/do held/hold
leadership positions in the two provider groups. Although we were
enthusiastic and even willing to work with people with whom we had some
serious disagreements in the past in order to create a viable true
standards organization, the others in our discussion were not similarly
inclined, either with us or with certain others. With only two cryonics
providers and with the preponderance of "us-them" thinking, it was not
surprising that turf-protection was also viewed as a serious drawback to
the formation of a truly independent standards organization.

Cryonics promotion groups, whether associated with one of the two
current providers (I am not counting SA since it does only field cool
down) are *not* equivalent to a cryonics standards organization.

Discussion of what is needed for such a standards organization, as a
minimum, could take place with involvement of those who are truly
interested - and I would certainly like to see this happen. I hesitate
to suggest that it take place on CryoNet since some readers may use the
rating system to filter out participants whose views they do not like. A
special Yahoo or Google group may be a possibility.


>
> Melody Maxim
>


**Kitty Antonik Wakfer

MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32433

----------------------------------------------------------------------

End of CryoNet Digest
*********************