| Num |
Comments |
Date |
| 1 |
Another nice survey, Ben. This time some of the questions were very thought-provoking. |
2006-03-14 02:05:03 |
| 2 |
#15 -- also Alcor.
#11 -- hard to quantify my answer. In one sense it's true as stated, in another it's merely a free bonus to my continued survival.
#10, #9 -- instead of indifferent, I'd say "unconcerned". To #10, suspending someone who has stated they don't want it is no different than not suspending someone who has said that they do (ignoring momentarily specifics such as whether said person has arrangements in place, etc.). To #9, arranging the means for your suspension is fundamentally your own problem, though I am certainly willing to consider giving charitable aid to persons unable to do so.
#8 -- almost able to answer with a "one so far", but logistics have prevented the execution of the funding in advance of paperwork preparation. Later this year, I hope.
#6 -- answered thusly because I would like to have a grasp of cryobiology sufficient to help the field, but only in the general sense that, eg, I would like to be fluent in various foreign languages -- it is not something presently worth the investment of time.
#2/3 -- encountered the concept at very early time in childhood (middle 1980s). Since I'd already grasped the concept of death and immediately became an immortalist in disgust at the loss/waste, this was of obvious interest should the problem of aging not be solved during my natural lifespan. |
2006-03-14 01:52:24 |
| 3 |
Very good |
2006-03-14 02:29:35 |
| 4 |
|
2006-03-14 02:49:44 |
| 5 |
|
2006-03-14 03:15:42 |
| 6 |
Thanks Ben |
2006-03-14 03:32:40 |
| 7 |
The question about being concerned if I knew I could not live longer than one million years is meaningless, since it presupposes such knowledge could be valid at the present state of humankind's understanding of the universe. Who could you possibily trust, who made such an assertion, as to their understanding of such a limitation? If you had any reasonable understanding of science, you would simply dismiss such a person's ideas as the musings of an arrogant fool! |
2006-03-14 04:13:50 |
| 8 |
|
2006-03-14 04:52:03 |
| 9 |
|
2006-03-14 05:33:25 |
| 10 |
|
2006-03-14 05:42:47 |
| 11 |
|
2006-03-14 06:10:15 |
| 12 |
|
2006-03-14 06:26:12 |
| 13 |
Question #5 is a Red Herring; I think it's probable that there is still damage, but I'm not overly concerned with there being some damage, as future (Nano) technologies should be able to deal with this. |
2006-03-14 06:50:11 |
| 14 |
|
2006-03-14 07:02:12 |
| 15 |
|
2006-03-14 07:11:23 |
| 16 |
You should add an option to #15 - "I made
arrangements but I cancelled them or let them lapse
through inattention" |
2006-03-14 07:16:38 |
| 17 |
|
2006-03-14 07:26:20 |
| 18 |
|
2006-03-14 07:52:55 |
| 19 |
|
2006-03-14 08:16:25 |
| 20 |
|
2006-03-14 08:16:41 |
| 21 |
Interesting survey, Ben. I look forward to now reading results. |
2006-03-14 08:18:41 |
| 22 |
|
2006-03-14 08:45:01 |
| 23 |
I would like some questions designed to know what other cryonicists/life-extentionists think are the best ways to enhance our survival. And I would like to get in touch with people who think along similar lines as i do ( I tend to think that private funding of cryonics is the best bet because all promotional efforts so far have yielded little returns. To enhance private funding one needs to make money through co-operation etc...)
-Dennis |
2006-03-14 09:01:38 |
| 24 |
|
2006-03-14 09:49:57 |
| 25 |
|
2006-03-14 09:51:58 |
| 26 |
Sorry I did not take the old one.
Jack Nixon
Suggested 2 other questions:
1. Does your family support you in your wishes to be cryonically preserved?
1 family member
2 family members
More than 2 family members
No family members
Don't know
Don't Care
2. Have you assigned someone you can depend upon with medical, and or legal Power of atorney to champion your cryonic preservation upon your deanimation?
yes,
no |
2006-03-14 09:57:13 |
| 27 |
|
2006-03-14 10:21:56 |
| 28 |
Initial exposure to the cryonics meme was through sci-fi authors - I'm a strong believer in the pattern notion of identity and think that the ultimate solution will be 'uploading' - cryonics is just a means to get to the point where that is feasible. After that point we have 'backups' and all the multiple incarnation possibilities that uploading allows so infinte timespan is really not a concern anymore (except for the possible eventual heat death of the universe...but i'm pretty sure we'll find a way to step out into another brane by then anyway) |
2006-03-14 10:28:39 |
| 29 |
|
2006-03-14 10:34:00 |
| 30 |
|
2006-03-14 10:51:14 |
| 31 |
|
2006-03-14 10:57:20 |
| 32 |
|
2006-03-14 11:01:43 |
| 33 |
|
2006-03-14 11:00:23 |
| 34 |
|
2006-03-14 11:12:58 |
| 35 |
|
2006-03-14 11:12:48 |
| 36 |
|
2006-03-14 10:56:26 |
| 37 |
my "other" answer for (2) means "at a SF convention". (13) is confusing since the definition of immortality depends on the answer to (12). I don't think anyone can even hope to give a meaningful answer to (14)... but we might be able to get our heads around, say 1000 or maybe even 10,000 years. |
2006-03-14 11:40:49 |
| 38 |
|
2006-03-14 11:54:10 |
| 39 |
|
2006-03-14 12:42:19 |
| 40 |
|
2006-03-14 12:55:53 |
| 41 |
Q 14: A million year timespan is extremely difficult to get a meaningful perspective on, and makes the question of little value. And, my answer "mildly concerned" takes into account the possibility that technology would remove the time limitation. |
2006-03-14 13:03:25 |
| 42 |
|
2006-03-14 13:06:35 |
| 43 |
|
2006-03-14 13:57:15 |
| 44 |
|
2006-03-14 13:57:48 |
| 45 |
|
2006-03-14 14:07:43 |
| 46 |
Question 2 is hard to answer. My awareness of cryonics developed slowly over the years, with more knowledge being added here and there: it's hard to say at what point I had /learned/ about it. I've answered based on my childhood familiarity with the concept, gained largely from science fiction. |
2006-03-14 14:08:02 |
| 47 |
|
2006-03-14 14:19:41 |
| 48 |
|
2006-03-14 19:29:18 |
| 49 |
Instead of "Indifferent" I believe you mean "not concerned". True?
should you ask" do you understand/know the costs of each cryonic organization".? And why the difference? |
2006-03-14 20:11:18 |
| 50 |
I might get more disturbed about not living longer than one million years somewhere around the 995,000-year mark. |
2006-03-14 20:20:49 |
| 51 |
|
2006-03-14 20:20:30 |
| 52 |
On Question 14 - I think the question is so hypothetical that it is almost meaninglesss - It is absurd to think that whatever the limiting factor is that limits life to 1M years would not be overcome in some small fraction of that time. |
2006-03-14 20:45:37 |
| 53 |
|
2006-03-14 20:49:42 |
| 55 |
|
2006-03-14 21:42:13 |
| 57 |
Let's see here,
#11: This is not an exhaustive list. My
motivation happens to be that doing
cryonics is simply right, that death
is simply wrong. Survival (or seeing
the future) may not be possible. But it
is still the right thing to do to make
an effort. How can i set an example and
help others to value their lives if i
do not do what is necessary to show that
i value mine?
#12. I do not use the word
'immortality', and therefore i do not
use it to mean infinite (whose
meaning i do not know in a non-mathematical context?) lifespan. And of course i also do not use the
word 'immortality' in reference
to a long life span.
#14. A "don't know" option would be
useful here. (And maybe a
"relieved" option would be suitable
for some people, although i guess not
cryonicists.)
#16. I think that "sex" is the term
that should be used here --- unless
you're a part of speech, in which case
"gender" might be better.
Anyhow, despite all of my nitpicking,
i really appreciate your efforts here. |
2006-03-15 00:57:17 |
| 58 |
|
2006-03-15 06:11:35 |
| 59 |
|
2006-03-15 06:58:00 |
| 60 |
|
2006-03-15 09:11:52 |
| 61 |
|
2006-03-15 09:55:15 |
| 62 |
|
2006-03-15 13:10:05 |
| 63 |
|
2006-03-15 13:42:07 |
| 64 |
|
2006-03-15 14:03:47 |
| 66 |
I am (still) confused by question 13:
Do I think science will eventually permanently end disease, ageing and death from those causes? Yes.
Do I think science will eventually permanently end all death, including death from accidents, catastrophes, etc? Possibly.
Do I think science can eventually give us infinite life, even beyond the end of the universe? No. |
2006-03-15 15:16:43 |
| 67 |
|
2006-03-15 16:04:45 |
| 68 |
You need a political question if for only the means to get people thinking about which flavor, left or right or indifferent, will be most friendly to Cryonics. In my opinion, the right wingers will be least willing to be friendly to Cryonics. I think Cryonicists need to thnk seriously about thisanddecide more wisely who to support. |
2006-03-15 16:54:58 |
| 69 |
Well, it is a personal decision that I wish to be placed in cryonics. It doesn't bother me when another arranges to have a burial or cremation. That is simply there choice. My choice is to be brought back rather than take the risk that nothing else is out there.
Technology is growing quickly still. I am excited about the future!
Best regards,
Fearless. |
2006-03-15 17:51:37 |
| 70 |
|
2006-03-15 18:11:16 |
| 71 |
|
2006-03-15 18:46:50 |
| 72 |
|
2006-03-15 19:09:34 |
| 73 |
Accidents do happen. There will always be death. |
2006-03-15 19:33:40 |
| 74 |
I would add a possible answer to (15) for "I am actively making arrangements now" for those whose arrangements aren't technically complete, but who have completed the documents and are, perhaps, awaiting confirmation of their suspension arrangements. |
2006-03-15 20:16:08 |
| 75 |
The desire to see the future is big, but survival comes first - seeing the future wil naturally flow from that. |
2006-03-16 05:38:29 |
| 76 |
Q5: Do you mean biochemical freezing injury or that specifically related to water? It doesnt seem clear. |
2006-03-16 06:40:50 |
| 77 |
|
2006-03-16 07:53:24 |
| 78 |
|
2006-03-16 08:43:53 |
| 79 |
|
2006-03-16 08:46:13 |
| 80 |
Hi, Ben.
Question 2 will not allow me to "uncheck" one of the two answers I have currently checked. Both "TV" & "Don't remember" remain checked (as far as my computer screen indicates to me). However, no problem as that may be an appropriate answer(s). My best guess is that it was TV.
There maybe another concern about cryonics that has not been voiced that maybe should not be voiced: The concern that patients may somehow be used experimentally against their will (e.g., because human life may become cheapened in the future by overpopulation and/or competition for resources, and we are already seeing wholesale reneging on pensions, etc. in the "most advanced" country) with fates controlled later on by an unintended group / government; alternatively, some sort of "partial" revival could happen whereby the individual lacks the ability to "end it all" for centuries and beyond.
Concern over "Survivor's guilt" is another reason.
I believe that many or most reasonably informed people are at least 50% convinced personally that cryonics should be explored more as a possible option for themselves, however 50% is still a long way from a "go" decision. Much better to have half as many fully convinced than twice as many half convinced as far as cryonics numbers go... Of course perhaps the biggest reason for low numbers is that people are herd animals. Conformity is prized and rewarded.
One other reason: "If God did not exists, we would have to invent him." OK, and so we have throughout our history and in unending versions; on the other hand, if God DID exist, we might still have to invent him! In other words, as foolish as some world religions maybe, the fact that they are absurdly wrong does not in itself mean that there may not be life after death. If anialation (sp) upon death were 100 percent certain, there would probably be more interest in cryonics, but there is not such a certainty.
Dual forces (pro & con) may be at play which impact current cryonics numbers in opposite directions: Increased awareness of "scientific" (i.e., the "language of God" to many people) advances and possibilities -- versus -- the concern that the future may not be pleasant.
I hope to make cryonics arrangements. I believe I understand some of the resistance to it. Partly it's easier to do nothing. To not think about death at all.
Just some thoughts. Pardon the rambling.
David C. Johnson |
2006-03-16 08:43:03 |
| 81 |
|
2006-03-16 10:05:13 |
| 82 |
|
2006-03-16 10:47:50 |
| 83 |
|
2006-03-16 12:57:11 |
| 84 |
Although I first heard about Cryonics back in the 60's and I made my decision then, I procrastinated until I had a life threatening illnes in 1993, then I signed up.
Ron Selkovitch |
2006-03-16 13:24:02 |
| 85 |
|
2006-03-16 16:46:15 |
| 86 |
I do use the word immortality to describe an infinite lifespan. That is primary because infinity is a hard concept to fully comprehend. It is most likely a mistake on my part because it can leave a bad after taste with most people. It gives the impression of almost god like and people dislike the idea of others wanting that kind of glory or power. I just want to enjoy my life as long as possible and to stay healthy and happy. Using the word immortality should be avoid if I want to be fair. |
2006-03-16 20:27:41 |
| 87 |
I am one of your earlier "dropouts", who made comments without filling out the rest of the survey. I apologize and will send you a direct e-mail to clarify my proposed question. |
2006-03-16 20:46:28 |
| 88 |
Questions 12 and 13 were troublesome because I don't use and don't like the term immortality. It smacks of religion and mythology. Nothing in the material realm gives any indication of being "eternal". The universe itself continues to change -- entropy always increasing -- and logically should come to an end.
so rather than speak of becoming "immortal", I prefer the idea of an indefinitely extended lifespan, mediated by the technical capability to maintain a constant state of health. Or, to put it another way, death is no longer an unavoidable fact of limited medical technology, but rather a matter of choice or the result of accident. |
2006-03-16 22:46:20 |
| 89 |
|
2006-03-17 13:40:47 |
| 90 |
|
2006-03-17 16:25:08 |
| 91 |
|
2006-03-17 20:41:09 |
| 92 |
2 I think I learned some via science fiction, some through an uncle and more on a old phil donahue show...then I read some books and finally the internet.
3/4 I thought it was a 50/50 shot in which I had nothing to loose in a block of ice...then I learned about cryonics and nanotech and the probability improved drove me to spend the money on arrangements
5 probly not but what does the damage matter if it can be reversed completely this I do believe.
9/10 Those who don't prepare financially or care who are strangers bothers me a little but friends and family who who haven't the money or desire bothers me much more.
11 survival and enthusiasm for the future are equal
12/13 immortal=infinite+forever and forever is something I don't think we can understand but do I think we will be able to live a very very long time.......Yes how long? who knows
14 right now a million years seems like alot but I suspect long life spans will make time seem to flow much faster and a million years might not seem like much in the grand scheme of things. |
2006-03-17 20:59:37 |
| 93 |
Q 5 was somewhat unclear. I believe you meant: Can current cryopreservation methods be done without mechanical freezing damage to brain structures. One answer might be it depends on the method used. If you mean ever I increase to probablly. thanks. |
2006-03-18 00:39:05 |
| 94 |
Ben, it would be great if number 13 had a more
vaguely negative answer option like "probably not",
since that is what I would choose. Also, in number
13, do you mean for people to use immortality as
*they* define it in the previous question? This is
how I answered the question. It might be
interesting to ask "How do you define immortality?"
and then give a few different options, so that you
know if the respondent answers No to number 12,
what his/her definition actually is. And, Ben, don't
let people's criticisms prevent more surveys.
Survey results be quite useful, and some of us like
doing them. |
2006-03-18 16:25:40 |
| 95 |
|
2006-03-18 18:36:59 |
| 96 |
|
2006-03-19 10:51:58 |
| 97 |
For a very few people, like me, "9" and "6" are way too small as a mazimum number for people who found out about cryonics and people who signed up through me. But maybe it wouldn't be statistically significant. For me, the first number would be in the thousands at least, and the sedcond number would be at least 50, I think.
Also, while I first learned about cryonics from a magazine, I first became INTERESTED in cryonics when I met a cryonicist several years later. Both steps were required. The magazine prepared me to understand the person; but without the person, I wouldn't have sought cryonics out because I wouldn't have understood it deeply. |
2006-03-19 16:55:27 |
| 98 |
I think you should add "I have arrangements in place but I prefer not to say who my arrangements are with." as an option for #15. I'd have chosen that one. |
2006-03-19 17:04:48 |
| 99 |
|
2006-03-20 11:47:44 |
| 100 |
Questions about experience with people hostile or indifferent to cryonics and the reasons they give |
2006-03-20 19:04:49 |
| 101 |
Somehow the question about freezing damage should distinguish between temporary and permanent.
Very provacative - thanks! R |
2006-03-20 21:11:53 |
| 102 |
Question 5 - freezing damage - I said it probably doesn't cause damage in the sense of permanent, irreparable damage. Obviously it causes some damage (e.g. fracturing). |
2006-03-20 22:20:59 |
| 103 |
|
2006-03-21 06:19:23 |