People who are interested in cryonics have a far and away favorite conversation topic, which is why other people aren't interested in pursuing cryonics. There have probably been hundreds of proposed theories and associated remedies over the years.
On free cryopreservation: Some data on this: Charles Platt created a competition for Omni magazine. The prize was a free preservation. This didn't generate new membership. Much later, despite the winner not ever being in contact, he did actually get cryopreserved. (James Baglivo, if I recall.)
On your footnote about the current efforts by Tomorrow Biostasis: Agreed, they are putting a good effort into marketing and it will be interesting to see how it works out I dispute the statement that they are the first to spend significant resources on this, although it depends on how much you consider "significant" and over what time. For a couple of years when I was running Alcor, I worked with Media Architects to create a new website, create around 30 new educational videos, and other projects (including the idea for the display dewar which Alcor recently adopted).
Our budget never exceeded around $5,000 per month and was less than that for most of the time. Alcor grew during that time, unlike now. Unfortunately, the Board cut off funding for this work so we didn't get to build on it and see how effective it was. We wanted to expand further and more systematically into social media but didn't get the chance. (It may not be coincidental that the Alcor board had then and has now ZERO directors with a background in communications and marketing.)
You're right. Good point. You did put effort into marketing at Alcor as well. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that this has mostly been done over the last decade or so, starting with your efforts and then the efforts at Tomorrow Bio. Thanks for the clarification.
You're welcome. I should have also noted the hundreds of interviews I did. It's hard to evaluate their effect since many people have to think about the idea multiple times and be exposed to the arguments a few times before taking action. When it comes to their advertising and marketing messages, TB seems to be taking a more sophisticated approach in at least using A/B testing of messages.
Something organizations should do better: Follow up with new members to ask them questions about how they first heard of the idea, why they took action, and how long it took them. This takes time and work (and many members will not want to respond) so it would require an organization with dedicated staff for that purpose. TB seems to be the one at present.
"But cryonicists don't really suggest anymore that all we need is one celebrity. Turns out that the whole celebrity thing might have been a bit misguided. " I'm not a big fan of the celebrity approach but I don't think it should be dismissed so easily. The Williams case showed that one celebrity (but how many people generally open to cryonics knew of him?) signed up in questionable circumstances did little or nothing for growth (especially not helped by a certain book of lies).
But what if several celebrities signed up? People like Stephen Hawking? Neil Degrasse Tyson? Richard Dawkins? What if Steve Jobs had signed up? Celebrities may have a major effect if (a) they are the right kind of celebrity; (b) there are several of them in a short period of time; and (c) there are no problems with their cases.
When I spoke to the journalist who wrote up the first story on Cradle, while he was still doing research prior to publication, he was surprised when I informed him that demonstrations of electrophysiological activity post-vitrification in slices had already been done. It's not that I've explicitly seen Cradle write anywhere "We're the first!", but I think in their bid to generate hype for themselves they've somewhat played down what's already been done in this space. I guess that's to be expected.
Also, while you're on the topic of theories of why people aren't generally interested in cryonics & brain preservation, I should add my own: it's because for most people, the idea is just too weird to fully take seriously. I think it won't be until it's normalised and shifted inside the Overton window that we'll see mass uptake, and I think a requirement for that is making the concept seem normalised to the general public. That's why I wrote my book on brain preservation for the general public, and went to the effort of going through a traditional publication route. Assuming the book has any commercial success, I guess we'll see whether I'm right or not within about a year!
I'm among those who think that the only way a brain or a person can be (for lack of a better word) resurrected, is through a "ship of Theseus" style of regeneration. That is, unless you start with the person's brain and get at least a majority of it "going," you haven't brought "them" back, all you've done is created a - to some degree or other - close duplicate.
Does it matter how fast the replacement happens? Can it be a max of 30% a year or so, maybe like typical synaptic protein turnover in the brain? Would it still be okay if all the material of the brain was replaced within a week? A day? A second?
I ask because instantaneous replacement is just the limit of taking what you agree with and ramping up the speed. A couple of philosophers have more thoroughly fleshed the logic of this out in this paper: https://philpapers.org/rec/WILTFO-44
Interesting. I'm not really sure what you mean. Do you think that if the electrophysiologic activity in someone's brain stops and then restarts (for example, as can occur in cardiac arrest followed by cardiopulmonary resuscitation, or in deep hypothermic circulatory arrest) that they have died and a close duplicate has been created?
On free cryopreservation: Some data on this: Charles Platt created a competition for Omni magazine. The prize was a free preservation. This didn't generate new membership. Much later, despite the winner not ever being in contact, he did actually get cryopreserved. (James Baglivo, if I recall.)
On your footnote about the current efforts by Tomorrow Biostasis: Agreed, they are putting a good effort into marketing and it will be interesting to see how it works out I dispute the statement that they are the first to spend significant resources on this, although it depends on how much you consider "significant" and over what time. For a couple of years when I was running Alcor, I worked with Media Architects to create a new website, create around 30 new educational videos, and other projects (including the idea for the display dewar which Alcor recently adopted).
Our budget never exceeded around $5,000 per month and was less than that for most of the time. Alcor grew during that time, unlike now. Unfortunately, the Board cut off funding for this work so we didn't get to build on it and see how effective it was. We wanted to expand further and more systematically into social media but didn't get the chance. (It may not be coincidental that the Alcor board had then and has now ZERO directors with a background in communications and marketing.)
You're right. Good point. You did put effort into marketing at Alcor as well. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that this has mostly been done over the last decade or so, starting with your efforts and then the efforts at Tomorrow Bio. Thanks for the clarification.
You're welcome. I should have also noted the hundreds of interviews I did. It's hard to evaluate their effect since many people have to think about the idea multiple times and be exposed to the arguments a few times before taking action. When it comes to their advertising and marketing messages, TB seems to be taking a more sophisticated approach in at least using A/B testing of messages.
Something organizations should do better: Follow up with new members to ask them questions about how they first heard of the idea, why they took action, and how long it took them. This takes time and work (and many members will not want to respond) so it would require an organization with dedicated staff for that purpose. TB seems to be the one at present.
"But cryonicists don't really suggest anymore that all we need is one celebrity. Turns out that the whole celebrity thing might have been a bit misguided. " I'm not a big fan of the celebrity approach but I don't think it should be dismissed so easily. The Williams case showed that one celebrity (but how many people generally open to cryonics knew of him?) signed up in questionable circumstances did little or nothing for growth (especially not helped by a certain book of lies).
But what if several celebrities signed up? People like Stephen Hawking? Neil Degrasse Tyson? Richard Dawkins? What if Steve Jobs had signed up? Celebrities may have a major effect if (a) they are the right kind of celebrity; (b) there are several of them in a short period of time; and (c) there are no problems with their cases.
Great commentary & review Andy!
When I spoke to the journalist who wrote up the first story on Cradle, while he was still doing research prior to publication, he was surprised when I informed him that demonstrations of electrophysiological activity post-vitrification in slices had already been done. It's not that I've explicitly seen Cradle write anywhere "We're the first!", but I think in their bid to generate hype for themselves they've somewhat played down what's already been done in this space. I guess that's to be expected.
Also, while you're on the topic of theories of why people aren't generally interested in cryonics & brain preservation, I should add my own: it's because for most people, the idea is just too weird to fully take seriously. I think it won't be until it's normalised and shifted inside the Overton window that we'll see mass uptake, and I think a requirement for that is making the concept seem normalised to the general public. That's why I wrote my book on brain preservation for the general public, and went to the effort of going through a traditional publication route. Assuming the book has any commercial success, I guess we'll see whether I'm right or not within about a year!
https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/456834/the-future-loves-you-by-zeleznikow-johnston-ariel/9780241655894
Brian Wowk just wrote a piece on Cradle and other recent announcements, putting them in context and showing why there is little new about them:
https://biostasis.substack.com/p/cryopreservation-of-the-brain-by
Oh this is good to see, thanks Max!
Hi Andy, the link under "Back to Laura Deming" no longer works. I run a similar transcript site; here's a link I made for you: https://youtubetotranscript.com/transcript?v=Paj2CqHABHE¤t_language_code=en
It does not support timestamps, but I will make it in the next few months.
I'm among those who think that the only way a brain or a person can be (for lack of a better word) resurrected, is through a "ship of Theseus" style of regeneration. That is, unless you start with the person's brain and get at least a majority of it "going," you haven't brought "them" back, all you've done is created a - to some degree or other - close duplicate.
Does it matter how fast the replacement happens? Can it be a max of 30% a year or so, maybe like typical synaptic protein turnover in the brain? Would it still be okay if all the material of the brain was replaced within a week? A day? A second?
I ask because instantaneous replacement is just the limit of taking what you agree with and ramping up the speed. A couple of philosophers have more thoroughly fleshed the logic of this out in this paper: https://philpapers.org/rec/WILTFO-44
Interesting. I'm not really sure what you mean. Do you think that if the electrophysiologic activity in someone's brain stops and then restarts (for example, as can occur in cardiac arrest followed by cardiopulmonary resuscitation, or in deep hypothermic circulatory arrest) that they have died and a close duplicate has been created?