CryoNet #33275 - #33278

CryoNet - Thu 27 Jan 2011

    #33275: Re: [Cryonics_Institute] Two professors [John de Rivaz]
    #33276: Re: Two professors [David Stodolsky]
    #33277: Re: [Cryonics_Institute] Two professors [ronhave]
    #33278: actuarial tables [Ettinger]

Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33275%2D33278

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.

Since all CryoNet messages are archived and accessible via WWW,
including search engines, make certain that your postings
reflect how you want the world to see you.

To retrieve past messages, send email to:
    [email protected]
with the message numbers in the subject line.
(Message 0003 describes the advanced syntax.)
You also can retrieve them via the CryoNet web page at URL:
    http://www.cryonet.org/

For administrative or other questions/suggestions, send email
to me at "[email protected]" with "cryonics" in the subject line.
    - Kevin Q. Brown


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

Message #33275
From: "John de Rivaz" <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Cryonics_Institute] Two professors
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 10:42:13 -0000

There is also the book Cryonics - A Sociology of Death and Bereavement by Arlene Sheskin, a Professor at Central Michigan University when she wrote it (1979).
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/arlene-sheskin/5/ab/6bb

According to the above link she now lives in the Greater Chicago area.

Also see
http://www.123people.com/s/arlene+sheskin

and for the book itself
http://www.amazon.com/Cryonics-Sociology-Bereavement-Arlene-Sheskin/dp/0470267860
(replace com with co.uk if you live in the UK)

It may well cover a lot of the work proposed for the millions of dollars, although it will be a bit out of date now.

--
Sincerely, John de Rivaz:  http://John.deRivaz.com for websites including
Cryonics Europe, Longevity Report, The Venturists, Porthtowan, Alec Harley
Reeves - inventor, Arthur Bowker - potter, de Rivaz genealogy,  Nomad .. and
more
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: [email protected] 
  To: [email protected] ; [email protected] 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 6:24 AM
  Subject: [Cryonics_Institute] Two professors


    
  Those presumably best qualified to express opinions about growth of 
  cryonics are social psychologists. <del>


 Content-Type: text/html;

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33275

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

Message #33276
From: David Stodolsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Two professors
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 13:04:26 +0100

[email protected] wrote:

> David S. Stodolsky. the former previously at the University of Michigan and the 
> latter presently at the University of Copenhagen. 

My official association to U. CPH ended 1998.


> 
> Dr. Stodolsky's main thrust seems to be that cryonics is doomed to slow 
> growth until we can effect a basic change in public attitudes, which might be 
> done with a couple of million dollars worth of public relations efforts.

My proposal is not to change public attitudes, but to identify or create a subculture with more positive attitudes. I also assume a repackaging of cryonics to make it more attractive and less economically demanding. 


> He 
> also, it appears to me, puts misleading emphasis on the role of religion. 

All surveys show that religiosity is inversely related to positive views toward cryonics / life-extension.


> He emphasizes "terror management," the terror in question being related to 
> attacks on one's world view. 

Terror management theory concerns the terror of death.

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


> 
> Dr. Havelock's views are given in his recent book, ACCELERATION, which I am 
> in the process of reading and will review in due course. The thrust is 
> that basic historical forces are at work putting the wind at our backs, and 
> improving in recent decades and years. 

This doesn't contradict my view. My analysis is more short-term and more limited to socio-political dynamics. Just guessing here, since I haven't read the book.



dss


David Stodolsky
[email protected]  Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33276

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

Message #33277
References: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Cryonics_Institute] Two professors
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 12:22:20 -0500
From: [email protected]

As far as I am aware, I am not in any substantial disagreement with Dr. 
Stodolsky. Rather I would say I am at the moment tentative. He may be 
right about the need to target an identifiable minority who are 
inclined to favor us and to launch a vigorous campaign in their 
direction. He is definitely right in thinking we need to expand our 
membership base. However, I am in a genuine quandary about what should 
be done because there are so many things that need to be done, and it 
is hard to decide what comes first and what has the highest priority. I 
sympathize with Dr. Gouras who sees the greatest urgency in the 
research area because we need to make a more convincing case for the 
feasibility of cryonics, convincing, that is, to the science-oriented, 
prudently skeptical, forward thinking people who Stodolsky thinks might 
be our core supporters. But I also worry about the current fragility of 
our "system" due to our small numbers and our dependence on a very 
small number of dedicated but way underpaid and aging staff at CI. 
Without significant growth in membership I fear that our CI 'system' 
may eventually collapse a la Chatsworth. I am becoming an old man now, 
and I see CI as my only lifeline to the future.  I for one can't 
presently afford either Alcor or SA fees so I feel I have a personal 
stake in sustaining and improving CI with whatever knowledge and skills 
I possess. One way, which I tried last year, was to start forming local 
support groups, but what I thought was a fairly vigorous outreach 
effort in New York and then in my Washington DC area yielded very 
little. I still think that is a priority, but it is hard to sustain 
energy for any project when it receives so little visible response.
  I have studied the diffusion of innovations over a long period of 
years, and I have always thought that I or someone should be able to 
apply that reasonably solid body of knowledge to cryonics. It is true, 
for example, that ideas can spread widely and attract the fervent 
devotion of millions without having any basis in fact whatsoever. The 
prospect of immortality would seem to be at least an important part of 
the draw for Christianity, Mohammedanism, Mormonism, and numerous other 
sects. Why is it not a draw for the equally promising, perhaps equally 
unproven, but scientifically more plausible idea of cryonics? I still 
don't know. I think sometimes we are still waiting for our St Paul. 
However, when Stodolsky speaks, I listen because he is a very smart 
guy, he knows a lot of the same stuff I know, and I really would like 
to have an answer as to what we should really be doing now and in what 
priority.  Ron Havelock

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Sent: Wed, Jan 26, 2011 1:24 am
Subject: [Cryonics_Institute] Two professors


Those  presumably best qualified to express opinions about growth of
cryonics are social psychologists. Two of these are members of the 
Cryonics
Institute who do not hide their affiliation--Dr. Ronald G. Havelock and 
Dr.
David S. Stodolsky. the former previously at the University of Michigan 
and the
  latter presently at the University of Copenhagen. They are poles apart 
in
their  views, as I read them.

Dr. Stodolsky's main thrust seems to be that cryonics is doomed to slow 

growth until we can effect a basic change in public attitudes, which 
might be
done with a couple of million dollars worth of public relations 
efforts. He
  also, it appears to me, puts misleading emphasis on the role of 
religion.
He  emphasizes "terror management," the terror in question being 
related to
attacks  on one's world view.

Dr. Havelock's views are given in his recent book, ACCELERATION, which 
I am
 in the process of reading and will review in due course. The thrust is
that  basic historical forces are at work putting the wind at our 
backs, and
improving  in recent decades and years. I agree with  most of what he 
writes,
but have  not yet decided on the quantitative usefulness of his 
formulation.
At the least,  he offers a good antidote to the seeping poison so
widespread.

There is entertainment here as well as potential armament. If more of 
us
(you) buy the book and promote it, we (you) will be striking a 
righteous
blow.

Robert Ettinger


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


             __._,_.___
                                      Reply to sender |              
Reply to group |              Reply via web post |                Start 
a New Topic
                Messages in this topic          (1)
       Recent Activity:                      New Members      3
                                            New Files      1
                        Visit Your Group

      Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest " Unsubscribe " Terms of Use




     .


__,_._,___

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33277

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

Message #33278
From: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 22:24:22 -0500 (EST)
Subject: actuarial tables

Tables provided by the Social Security Admin. show the following remaining  
life expectancies in the U.S. as of 2006.
 
Male age & expectancy:
 
60   20.7   Female 23.78
 
70    13.55  Female 15.9
 
80    7.28    Female 9.33
 
90    3.84    Female 4.62
 
95    2.67    Female  3.20
 
100   2.01   Female  2.35
 
110   1.11   Female  1.19
 
The most striking thing clearly is the steady  reduction in mortality  rate 
with advancing age. A man of 80 can only expect about 7.28 years more, but  
if he reaches 90 he still can expect another 3.84 years. Escape velocity,  
anyone?
 
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=33278

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

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