Hal Finney wrote:
>I think it's an emotional reaction people have to the very idea of
>cryonics. Most people find it absurd, horrifying, and/or the ultimate
>in selfishness and narcissism. A few people don't have these reactions
>and ultimately come to support it.
What it comes down to is marketing; while a lot of the more scientifically-
minded individuals often dismiss marketing and public reaction as a
secondary concern, it is probably as important as the science itself.
Regardless, there will always be a large number of people opposed to
certain forms of technology such as cryonics, but to what extent this
opposition is based upon misunderstanding and misinterpretation is
something that we *can* affect. It is also something I may have the
opportunity to do personally within the next year.
How we, as extropians are perceived and how individual technologies are
perceived is mutable, and all it takes is a bit of organization and
financial support to alter that perception to some degree.
Currently, with the concept of cryonics, the knee-jerk reaction is
generally that of being viewed as "science-fiction," "unethical," or "too
expensive." While the middle one of those three reactions is the toughest
to argue, factual representation of the former and the latter to various
media can surely augment public opinion to some extent. It is simply a
case of getting the correct information out to the right people. Perhaps
that is easier said than done, but I have yet to see it convincingly
attempted.
By the way, I did not see the ABC news story on cryonics, so my apologies
if some of my above comments are redundant.
_____________________________________________________________
E. Shaun Russell Operations Officer, Extropy Institute
e_shaun@extropy.org http://www.extropy.org
-------------------------------------------------------------
~K i n e t i c i z e Y o u r P o t e n t i a l~
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:38 MDT