CryoNet #33007 - #33013

CryoNet - Sun 31 Oct 2010

    #33007: Re: Collecting data [David Stodolsky]
    #33008: Re: older people happier? [David Stodolsky]
    #33009: Re: CryoNet #33004 Happiness Increases with Age [Melody Maxim]
    #33010: AW: CryoNet #33001 [Jens Rabis]
    #33011: Re: Gateway president [Keith Henson]
    #33012: Life [drmriskin]
    #33013: Playing, Working, Old, Young [Jonano]

Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33007%2D33013

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.
Send questions, comments, or feedback to [email protected]
with "CryoNet" or "cryonics" somewhere in the Subject line.


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

Message #33007
Subject: Re: Collecting data
From: David Stodolsky <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:51:58 +0200
References: <[email protected]>

On 30 Oct 2010, at 11:00 AM, CryoNet wrote:

> David Stodolsky writes:
>> In fact, thus far none of the suspension organizations are even 
>> systematically collecting the data that already is available to 
>> them. Data on web activity, telephone and mail inquiries, and 
>> cancelled memberships, etc. could throw some light on what it takes 
>> to achieve a successful signup. Given that collecting this type of 
>> data would be virtually cost free, the failure to do so amounts to 
>> marketing negligence by the current organizations.
> 
> Actually, much of this data *is* being collected, at least for one or 
> more of the major organizations, but analyzing it is a chore that 
> hasn't been carried through properly. 

If you haven't consulted with a statistician or someone with related knowledge, the chances that data will be collected in the most useful format is close to nil. Once the data is in a proper format, analysis is straightforward using modern tools. However, just getting data into a proper format is typically about a third of the job.


dss

David Stodolsky
[email protected]  Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33007

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

Message #33008
Subject: Re: older people happier?
From: David Stodolsky <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 12:18:42 +0200
References: <[email protected]>

On 30 Oct 2010, at 11:00 AM, CryoNet wrote:
> 
> David Stodolsky writes: "We know that older people are on the whole
> happier. Whether this is genetically programmed or not isn't clear.
> However, they don't stop fearing death, they just stop thinking about
> it."
> 
> Wow. Huge generalizations without any supporting source.

Still haven't done your homework? :-)

Try this as a starting point for some theoretical background:

http://cosmism.blogspot.com/2010/05/existentialism-today-terror-management.html


> And totally
> opposite to my personal experience and the experience of people I know
> who are over 60 (cryonicists and noncryonicists alike). They (we)
> think about death a LOT more, because every little thing that you can
> no longer do so easily is a reminder of it. It's like being in a
> slowly shrinking box. Even my father, from a totally different
> generation, felt this way.

The idea that cryonicists and their associates can serve as a representative sample on this issue is amusing, to say the least.


> Some elderly people may become resigned to their fate, but I have
> never met any. Of course some people may _say_ they have resigned
> themselves, but I don't believe them. 

Your typically open-minded approach to any facts that you disagree with :-)


dss

David Stodolsky
[email protected]  Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33008

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

Message #33009
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:04:54 +0000 (UTC)
From: Melody Maxim <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #33004 Happiness Increases with Age

In Message #33004, David Stodolsky wrote: "We know that older people are on the whole happier. Whether this is genetically programmed or not isn't clear. However, they don't stop fearing death, they just stop thinking about it." 

And someone complained, "Wow. Huge generalizations without any supporting source."

There are plenty of supporting sources for David's comment, including many recently reported studies. I've happened upon several such articles, (just reading about health, in general), in recent years. Just google the phrase happiness and aging, and many sources for David's "generalizations" will be found. Here are just a few:

"Our findings suggest that it doesn't matter when you were born," Carstensen said. "In general, people get happier as they get older." (From Stanford University News, this week.) http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/october/older-happy-study-102710.html

"Happiness May Come With Age, Study Says" (From the NY Times, May 2010) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/health/research/01happy.html?_r=1#

"Older people are more likely to be happy...those 65 and older have a Happiness Index score of 44%, one of the highest of all demographic groups." http://www.moneyandhappiness.com/blog/?p=942

ScienceDaily (Feb. 18, 2008) " "Growing old is a happier experience than many of us imagine - that's according to the findings of a study conducted at Queen's University, Belfast, on behalf of the Changing Ageing Partnership (CAP)."

"Luckily, since 1972 sociologists have been surveying over 50,000 interviews in something called the "General Social Survey." Researchers can add questions, and questions are repeated for decades. The survey is open to the public (you can analyze the data yourself online). It is the source of lots of information about our society and perfect for a study on happiness over time. By comparing differently aged individuals over time within the same year, researchers were able to get around some of these problems. What they found is that happiness increases with age."
http://longevity.about.com/od/mentalfitness/a/aging_happiness.htm

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33009

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

Message #33010
From: "Jens Rabis" <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Subject: AW: CryoNet #33001
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 14:20:02 +0200

Hi Charles,


... have you asked a old rich man if he can think of a donor's body get? If
the operation "old brain / whole head in a donation body donation was
unsuccessful, you can freeze the brain / head quickly.
What surprises me, especially the Christians in America (a free country, in
contrast to Germany) are likely to have no problem, but they do not. Please
inquire protestant and catholic teachers, then go to the rich. Charles get
rich and support Cryonic. Christians do not need Cryonic or ... !? Ask the
teacher.

Tags: communion wafer body Jesus 

*************************

... haben Sie schon mal einen reichen alten Menschen gefragt, ob er sich
vorstellen kann einen Spenderkorper zu bekommen? Sollte die Operation "altes
Gehirn/ganzer Kopf in einen Spenderkorper misslingen, kann man das Gehirn /
den Kopf schnell einfrieren. Was mich wundert, besonders die Christen in
Amerika (ein freies Land, im Gegensatz zu Deutschland) durften damit kein
Problem haben, aber sie tun es nicht. Die Idee: Reiche christliche Menschen
unterstutzen dafur Forschungen, bis sie selbst Korperspender benotigen.
Befrage bitte evangelische und katholische Lehrer, gehe dann zu den Reichen.
Charles, werde damit reich und unterstutze Kryonik. Christen brauchen keine
Kryonik oder doch!? Frage die Lehrer.

Stichwort: Hostie Leib Jesus


Best greetings Cryoson
Jens Rabis
Germany-Berlin


Message #33001
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 18:08:43 -0700
Subject: the mentality of wealth
From: Charles in Arizona <[email protected]>

I will address the "billionaires" topic within my very limited
experience. I have spent a few hours with a guy who is among, I think,
the 1,000 richest people in the world. I think I calculated that if he
put $10 million into cryonics, that would be the equivalent of me
spending around ten dollars. I have also been present at meetings with
Don Laughlin, the casino owner, who is said to be worth at least $500
million.

Both of these men are SIGNED UP. (Don Laughlin makes no secret of
this.) They understand the cryonics paradigm and they want it. But
they are still extremely reluctant about parting with money for
cryonics-related purposes. Below I will try to suggest some reasons
why.

Most seriously wealthy people are very serious about wealth. It is
their measure of success. So, they will pay the minimum unless someone
can prove to them that spending more will buy them more. In Alcor's
case, just the opposite. Putting more money into the Patient Care
Trust will dilute it by a factor of at least a few hundred, as it is
spread among other people whom the wealthy person has never met and
doesn't care about. They have also learned to be cautious about
donations, even for purposes such as employee salaries or public
relations, although these are areas of cryonics where donations have
been applied occasionally. Experience has taught them (rightly) that
if you donate money to an organization which is run by
business-amateurs who may not follow sound fiscal principles, the
money may not be well used. If the organization offers the wealthy
person a seat on the board, or some other measure of control, then
maybe there will be a better chance of attracting his involvement; but
what cryonics organization wants to do that?

As for research: The wealthy person has to understand why the research
is necessary. He thought he already bought cryopreservation. Now
explain to him how you sold him something that doesn't work yet, and
you need more of his money to make it work. Probably a lot more;
certainly millions. Now make this sound legitimate and credible.

Even if some hypothetical wealthy person fully buys into the need for
research, once again we have the risk of people abusing donations. How
does a wealthy person know if the scientists are for real? How can he
trust them to get results? He probably thinks of research as a
sink-hole which tends to consume unlimited amounts of money while
always promising results tomorrow, and never quite delivering them
today. There's a lot of truth in this.

Of course, a wealthy person could allocate time to getting personally
involved. But that would take him away from his primary occupation:
Sustaining and increasing his wealth. It would mean that he would have
to turn into a completely different type of person. I once asked the
president of Gateway Computer why he didn't just sell all his stock,
take the money, quit the company, and live the rest of his life in
luxury, never needing to work again. Apparently no one had ever asked
him this. He had had quick answers to all my other questions, but now
he just stared at me. He had no answer at all. Then he said--"But
we've only just started here!" gesturing at his office and the huge
factory beyond. (This was at a time when Gateway was more successful
than Dell, incidentally, and probably bigger than Compaq, which had
not yet merged with HP.) Like many successful business people, he was
obsessed with being more successful. The idea of just opting out would
be like suggesting to a football player that he walk off the field in
the middle of the game.

Overall, when someone says, "A rational wealthy problem could solve
all our problems," what he really means is, "If *I* were a wealthy
person I would know how to spend the money." But he is not a wealthy
person, he will never be a wealthy person, he does not think like a
wealthy person, and probably he has not proposed his ideas to any
seriously wealthy people.

In addition there is the issue of protective colleagues, family, or
friends. Wealthy people are besieged with scammers wanting money, so,
naturally they have a protective entourage including accountants,
partners, or relatives who form a protective barrier. Whether people
in the entourage are self-interested (trying to maintain the wealth
for themselves in some way) or genuinely concerned about fiscal
responsibility, is a matter for debate. But this is something that I
have seen in action. If the wealthy person is signed up, the entourage
may tolerate it as a harmless eccentricity--but they are likely to
intervene if the cryonoids start trying to get more of the money.

Then there is the whole plausibility problem. About 15 years ago I
attended a meeting of investors raising money for cold fusion
research. I've told this story before, but it can never be told too
often. I spoke at length with a man who was putting several million
into the supposedly discredited process of cold fusion. I mentioned
the subject of cryonics, outlined the reasons why it might work, and
suggested he might be interested. "No," he said, without hesitation.
"It's far too speculative." In other words: Implausible.

I have also made a one-hour presentation on cryonics to Jeff Bezos,
founder of Amazon. The founders of Facebook were also there, but I
didn't recognize them back then, and they didn't say much. Bezos was a
wonderful guy, super-smart, full of sharp questions, and he had a
great sense of humor. He was so interested, he followed me out into
the hallway to talk more. But when he had learned as much as he needed
to know, he just smiled, thanked me very much, and walked away. Like
so many other people I have dealt with over the years, he could see
that cryonics had a chance of working, but he never imagined applying
it to *himself.* This may be the biggest problem of all.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33001


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

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33010

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

Message #33011
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 07:37:21 -0700
Subject: Re: Gateway president
From: Keith Henson <[email protected]>

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 2:00 AM, Gerald Monroe <[email protected]> wrote:

>  Thus, spending years making even more money makes sense.  And, from an
> evolutionary perspective, he is : he if makes more money, he can breed with
> more women, and his genes really will live on forever.

There was a time when men poured resources into a number of women and
their children.  That's kind of gone out of favor since the decoupling
of sex (the immediate goal) and offspring as a consequence.

> Also, if he were really going to live forever, making more money so that he
> can live in luxury longer also makes sense.  But in actuality, those years
> he keeps struggling as president are years he will not get back, during
> which he could have been lounging on the beach or whatever.  His decision
> reduces the amount of pleasurable, luxurious things he will get to enjoy
> before he dies, rather than increasing them.

That's not necessarily true.  Dr. Gregory Clark has rather strong
evidence that some people's of the world underwent selection as
intense as that that turned wild foxes into tame ones.

As a result people *like* to work, and the ones from the selected
cultures work much harder than our hunter gatherer ancestors did.  The
obvious reason that Clark found in probate records is that for at
least 20 generations (same as the tame foxes) people who became at
least modestly well off produced the vast majority of descendants.

> >From an individual perspective, our instincts are wrong.  What needs to be
> done so that our memories and thought patterns live on is very different
> from what our instincts tell us.

"Instincts," or evolved psychological traits, were optimized by
reproductive success in a world without birth control.  Genes are
immortal or potentially so, from the gene's prospective, we are
throwaways.  You are absolutely correct on this issue.

But a major problem is that we don't know exactly what "needs to be done."

I.e., success on obviously needed goals may doom us.

The reason(s) vast silence from the rest of the universe is unknown.

Keith

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33011

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

Message #33012
Subject: Life
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 13:49:02 -0400
From: drmriskin <[email protected]>

----------MB_8CD4671DFBA2AAE_F14_19085_webmail-d048.sysops.aol.com


Virtually everyday brings me some bit of new information or awareness or revelation. I have been in the same basic business ( psychotherapy)

for 34 years and just when I think I have have seen it all something new pops up...a new challenge. It is hard to believe that everyone doesn't feel

the same way. However, I am not getting happier. I am getting sadder that one day this will end. Therefore cryonics.




----------MB_8CD4671DFBA2AAE_F14_19085_webmail-d048.sysops.aol.com

 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33012

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

Message #33013
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 05:22:26 +0100
Subject: Playing, Working, Old, Young
From: Jonano <[email protected]>

as we increase our lifespans, we need to increase playgrounds, and
virtual reality is all about playing, young people play more because
they have a bigger time to cover, old people know they have a shorter
life so they play less

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33013

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

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