ISSN 0964-5659

LONGEVITY REPORT 88

Click box below for the Life Extension Foundation Louis Epstein's tables of the oldest people. Click here to track emerging epidemics. Exterminate the The Norwalk "Winter Vomiting" Virus. Click here to read the web site Unraveling the Secrets of Human Longevity by Dr. Leonid Gavrilov, Ph. D. and Dr. Natalia Gavrilova, Ph. D. Join our mailing list to discuss articles and for news of web postings! To e-mail: Click here. Join Longevity Report's discussion list Powered by groups.yahoo.com I use and recommend this system which bounces spam and viruses using your own and web based blacklists. You can have a free month's trial. Click box below. Search this site

The Cryonics Summit and

Proposed New Umbrella Organisation

by Ron Havelock < RonHave@aol.com >

I would like to pursue the issue of a summit agenda further, responding to Bob Ettinger's comments on Cryonet and expand further on my own.

He says: "I believe all the extant organizations are capable of protecting their current patients even if future business falls off to zero, which is unlikely. Even if our relative share decreases, as it certainly will, our absolute numbers should increase." I agree to the extent that both organizations have done just about all that they could do to protect their preserved patients, perhaps for the foreseeable future, but there is also a much longer and more tortuous unforeseeable future.

That future will very likely include legal, religious, and 'ethical' attacks, including demands that all frozen patients be immediately brought to room temperature and given a 'proper' burial. We should also keep in mind that those now frozen and being frozen with today's technology will have to be maintained in that state not only for many decades, perhaps centuries, during which time freezing technology will have advanced well beyond the present. I already detect a sentiment among some members that those not preserved through the latest vitrification procedure are worthless chunks of ice. Indeed, it has been suggested that some sort of malpractice action should be taken against those using more primitive methods. On the other hand, most of us realize, I think, that there is a certain principal at work here of 'first' and 'last', namely that the first [cryopreserved] shall be last [revived], and the last [preserved cryo or through some heretofore unknown technology biostaticized] shall be first [revived.] We cannot accept the alternative formulation that the last shall be first and the first never. Our debt and obligation to pioneers such as Dr Bedford must be sustained and as near absolute as possible. This, I think should be a collective burden of cryonicists, not one carried only by a particular service provider.

Ettinger also writes: "Umbrella organizations have been frequently suggested but have never come near realization. At the projected summer meeting in Michigan, and by agenda-building correspondence before then, CI and Alcor and ACS and perhaps others will review many options. Cooperation in various areas does not necessarily require creation of new entities. Dr. Havelock suggests an umbrella organization might be accorded more respect and create a better public image, and of course most industries have their own professional associations, but cost/benefit calculations are difficult."

I hear a concern for strained and overextended resources and talent. However, there are these needs that the current organizations can't or won't meet.

1. Objective, unaligned information clearinghouse.

Helping users understand their options and make intelligent choices. When I decided that it was time to reconnect a long-standing relationship with the movement, my first encounters were only with Alcor. From their publicity it was difficult to figure out what the whole field looked like and no way to realize that there was an alternative service provider. I could imagine myself moving to Arizona to take advantage of their facilities but it would require leaving my job, perhaps my wife, my friends and everything I valued about my present life except the life itself. Not an attractive prospect.

2. A charitable foundation. I have followed with interest Mr Swayze's situation and the gathering momentum to give him a paid-up membership in CI on a charitable basis. He will only be the first such case of many, and his special circumstances elicit much sympathy, but it is easy to see that a flood of such cases would produce a financial sinkhole for the service providers. There clearly must be a wall of separation between the service providers of today and the future, and the organizations promoting cryopreservation as a charitable endeavour. This wall must include the requirement that no one representing the charity also sit on the board or have any decision-making power with a service provider.

There are many issues to be sorted out here and there is a crying need both for some firm policies that make sense but don't do us PR damage by sounding too cruel, and enough of a financial base to follow through. One consideration is the need to have a budget strong enough to support carefully selected 'free' or 'discount' freezings when there is a clear public relations benefit such as a terminally ill child, strong parental support for cryonics, a willingness to fully publicize the event, and no other financial resources. It is also possible [who knows?] that an organization with a more purely charitable and non-selfish purpose might attract deep pocket donors in a way that our current service providers cannot.

3. A persistently pounding public relations office: pursuit of every opportunity to appear on radio and television and the print media. The purpose of this unit is to make us appear much larger and more important than we really are at present. [Bob, I seem to recall that your appearances on the Carson show were set up by endlessly repeated calls by Elaine, in effect, bugging the show to death, and it worked! Even when you were bumped, we got some free publicity.] We have come a long way since then and have done a lot that many can be proud of. The recent past ABC news item was a real gem. But there is still no time for sitting on laurels.

4. An organizational home base for those who have serious interest but are unwilling or unable to commit to one or the other of the service providers at this time. I know we make a big thing about signing up, and if you aren't signed up you aren't real, etc. I am glad I made that plunge a few months ago, but I dithered for reasons other than psychological commitment. I really didn't know which organization was best for me. I just loaded up my life insurance to make sure I could make the best choice when the time seemed right. I suspect that there are many others in that boat, and I think they need and deserve an organizational base in the cryonics movement. Perhaps the cryonet is it but I think there could be more. I am not sure what ACS is at this point so I don't know if they fill the bill and I am troubled that their home base and prime activities seem to be west coast only. This leads into my final point.

5. We need an organizational home base for those who are so geographically remote from either Arizona or Michigan to have a realistic chance of cryopreservation. There are many such, a whole group in Australia, a very active member in Alaska, some number in Japan, many in Canada [excepting southern Ontario which is well positioned for CI if they can deal with US customs and get across the bridge at Detroit. As a native born Torontonian, I can tell you it is more than a hop skip and jump from Toronto to Edmonton]. I can hear the howls of protest from Alcor and CI on this point. Please save me! I know you have members all over the place, but Alcor can't provide bio-transport, especially international and intercontinental, and CI doesn't yet have an international network of cooperating funeral directors [Bob, please tell me it aint so!]. Furthermore, there is no east coast cryonics entity, a sensitive point for me in Maryland, but where do you guys think everybody lives? At one time the Cryonics Society of New York looked like it would lead the way, especially when they were able to cryopreserve a young man with a fatal condition. I infer from sporadic Cryonet comments that that case and CSNY all ended in disaster but that seems to leave a big vacuum all along the eastern seaboard.

To my suggestion that it is time to have more serious and extensive discussions with the funeral industry, Bob Ettinger replies, "This is an ongoing effort, although it has been sporadic, and there have been many small successes. As for the big time, one of our CI members is a long-time golfing buddy of the CEO of the world's biggest funeral/cemetery operation, but so far has aroused no interest. It's just a numbers game, and our numbers so far are insignificant to large operators. But he (and we) will keep working."

My reply: good news all round, but I picked up on the key word, "sporadic." I think we have to be very persistent about this, especially in attending their professional meetings, whatever they are, and making presentations and trying to generate panel discussions and so forth again and again. Get them to start thinking about it and to keep them thinking about it. I also think this should be done not from the point of view of a service provider with a direct stake as a potential competitor or collaborator with a proprietary stake. Such presentations should make it much easier for individuals in different localities to approach their local funeral directors to set up personal plans.

We also need a third type of organization which can step in to assist new service providers who will eventually have to be developed in different regions, certainly one for Japan, one for Australia and one for Europe and or UK. This incubator function could be undertaken by CI or Alcor but they have their hands full already and they have a built-in conflict of interest, fearing a loss of memberships and a stretching of thin resources.

My apologies to all for such a long post but I think you will agree that it is all on-topic.

Ron Havelock,

CI member, Ettinger loyalist, but always open

Effect of Ascorbic Acid on Longevity In the Nematoda Caenorhabditis elegans

The Peril of Unchallenged Authority

It is difficult to be objective when writing about National Socialist history, as anything which could be interpreted as being aimed to show the Nazis in a more benign light may draw furious opposition. The British appear to be more open minded about this, than many other nations. As soon as the early 1950s, the film The Desert Fox (UK readers click here.) was produced in the UK, with James Mason playing the part of Erwin Rommel. That film was as free of anti German prejudice as you could only expect from a completely neutral source. I doubt that Americans could come up with a similarly unbiased production even today, half a century later. There are other examples of British maturity in assessing WWII action, the treatment in the British press of the ("Bomber") Harris plan to bomb predominantly residential areas as a means to demoralize the German troops. (See the Len Deighton novel and play Bomber)

I felt confident enough to discuss such matters on Cryonet before a rather sophisticated audience, relatively free of red necks. I trust, that the readership of the Longevity Report is of similar niveau. The Nazis had obviously a lot going for them, otherwise they would never have been elected. Some of it was good even by today's standard (that is part of the stuff that is dangerous to mention); some was good by the standards of the time, but frowned upon today; some of it was not so good, but simply expedient, given the economic and political climate in the country at the time; and - after they came to power - some was outright evil, crime against humanity and worse.

This was the basic fiscal situation in Germany at that time:

• The Weimar Republic was in shambles, giving rise to radical elements, the Communists on the left and the Nazis on the right. The Communist motto 'Take it from the rich and give it to the poor' had great mass appeal. Since between 60 and 70% were unemployed, there were a lot of the poor around. You can guess whose side the big money was on.

• The Nazi agenda of law and order clearly drew less votes (the members of the financial community only had a vote apiece).

Now consider the preceding period of years of hyperinflation: wheel-barrows full of those by the government so copiously printed 'Million Rentenmark' bills were virtually worthless. If you wanted to do business you sooner or later needed hard currency, if just to preserve your liquidity. There was only one population group, which had access to hard currency: the Jews. Most of them had relatives in Britain, France, the US and elsewhere ready to do business. So when you were desperate for money, you went to a Jew and arranged a loan. Of course you had to post a collateral, usually your business. There was no usury. The rates were usually fair, around 2%. The problem was, that as soon as a German has spent some of it, he had no way to replace it. The Jews were no cutthroats. When the loan was up, there was usually little problem to get an extension. - But - sooner or later ... The inevitable consequences, although perfectly within the realm of fair business practice created an enormous resentment against the Jewish citizenry, which Hitler subsequently exploited as one of the main issues in his quest to gain power.

The Communists took assets from the rich as a matter of policy, forgetting that it only worked once. Once you have stripped the wealthy clean, you are not only left with an exhausted source, but have also removed the incentive for replenishment of it.

The Nazis on the other hand had a clear understanding of economics. They abandoned gold as a base for the security of the currency and based it instead on the gross national wealth. Part of that philosophy was to put able-bodied welfare recipients to work building roads or draining swamps, thereby adding to the pool of national wealth rather than draining resources away from it. I believe that if the Jews had cleared out as soon as the harassment started with the picketing of their businesses, they might have gotten away with most of their liquid assets. Enrichment by confiscating Jewish property was not the prime purpose, although it might have been a welcome side benefit. The prime purpose was solidifying the domestic power base, by eliminating millions of potential enemies within (as preparation for war) and by fulfilling the campaign promises of "returning German businesses to Germans". The Jewish incursion affected mainly small businesses and predominantly those that dealt in art, jewellery, oriental carpets, porcelain and crystal (hence Kristallnacht). There was still an enormous base of wealth in the form of ownership of land, industrial plant, livestock etc. That is what the Communists had their eyes on.

Comparing the Past and the Present

It is difficult to avoid the consequences of 11 September 2001 and the moral issues involved in any forum.

America has never had the intellectual insights, which come with losing a war to the extent, that the incumbent structure of government is eliminated. The American public has therefore never been exposed to the assessment of their conduct as seen from the perspective of their enemies.

I was a child in Germany during WWII and do have some perceptions to share.

One of the finest people I have ever met was my own father. He was also a Captain in the German Army and a member of the NSDAP (National Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei -, ie National Socialist German Workers Party) or as you all know it, the "Nazi Party".

Not all is noble in the "Land of the Brave". Sir Arthur Harris developed the strategy to concentrate bombing raids on civilian targets in order to demoralize the German army. This was fully supported by Churchill and executed by all Allies. Case in point the bombing of Dresden on February 14, 1945, potentially, depending on which of the below figures you believe, the biggest killing of civilian population in one night in world history. There were no military targets other than hospitals in Dresden. German figures (still during the war) put the casualties of indigenous Dresdeners at 225,000 with an estimated equal number of refugees from the eastern parts of the country, who had camped in the parks along the Elbe river for a total of over 400,000. Soviet reports after the war basically jibed with those figures. However in the western press they were quoted at 125,000 to 150,000.-. The truth lies probably somewhere in between, although I see little strategic purpose for the Germans in inflating these figures, since impact on the morale of Germans had become an issue in those last days of the war.

However the Soviets clearly had an interest in inflating the figures, while the West had one in deflating them. Bombing raids by the Soviets were negligible and almost exclusively limited to support for their ground troops

It is clear that atrocities have been committed by all parties, and they will continue to be committed until the denial of our own guilt ends; in history and ongoing. Unfortunately national fervour, as it is fostered during times of war and emergencies contributes to the glorification of the image of "our guys" and to the denial that "we Germans" or "we Americans" or "we Whoevers" do such things.

America has the opportunity to take the high road and set new standards by refraining from "news management" and pursue a policy of openness of reporting and civility of conduct, due to the fact that although it was hurt in this "War on Terror", it was and is in no danger of being destroyed . A good start would be to abolish that notion of trying anybody in the relative secrecy of military courts, with limited due procedure. Democracy is difficult. But isn't that exactly what we want to export? Don't we purport, to be fighting for civil rights? Can we deny others those rights, when it suits us and then expect them to respect our system? The Bush administration claims that it is fighting international terrorism, therefore, in my opinion, the culprits belong to The Hague, alongside with Slobodan Milosevic et al. But that would run counter the American (and Bush's) passion to kill everybody who is convicted (rightly or wrongly) of a capital crime. That will be interesting, when the extradition procedures for those start, who are caught in other countries in connection with the 9/11 atrocity and no European country will extradite, because the culprits would face the death penalty in the US. But that is another story.

How the Nazis created euphoria in the German Population

Mike Darwin posted articles on Cryonet concerning the significant achievements of Leni Riefenstahl in cinematic opinion forming. I am without the benefit of having read any of the books about her. However I have personally been exposed to the euphoric atmosphere her film productions created among the German public. Even though I was just a small child at the time, I sensed the powerful, uplifting impact they had on the adults in my life.

Albert Speer, Hitler's architect, is credited with bringing the German war production into high gear and condemned for using slave labour to achieve that. In 1942, when he took over and when the bombing of industrial plants in the from Britain easy to reach Rhein/Rhur areas by the Allies started in earnest, the monthly production of tanks (the smallish P4) was under 100. By 1944 it had risen to 400 of the much bigger Königstiger, despite the relentless bombing.

While the architect Albert Speer designed the monumental setting of the parade grounds featured in Triumph of the Will, he was not the founder of the propaganda technique used in her films. That was clearly the creation of Reichspropagandaminister Dr. Joseph Goebbels, an unequalled genius in mass manipulation. His technique was later also widely used by the communist leadership. I was exposed to it on both sides, as an enthusiastic and willing target by the Nazis and later as a hostile exposed to communist propaganda. The power of it is enormous.

Just a quick introduction to my situation at the time: In 1950 I was one of only seven students in my school, who were still refusing to join the FDJ, the communist youth organization, and found myself under immense pressure to do so. Instead I changed schools and ended up in a class, where there were 6 of us still on the outside. Only a couple of month thereafter I was again the lone resisting student in my class. I was clearly no friend of the system.

On occasion of the May 1st 1951 Workers Day parade, we were marching in true totalitarian style, ten or fifteen abreast, past a stage occupied by the then president of the GDR, Wilhelm Pieck, and his entourage. Chanting all around us, the loudspeaker proclaimed: "The president of the German Democratic Republic salutes the students of the Goethe Schule (our school)". Around me everybody was clapping with hands raised above their heads. It was mass frenzy and although I resented the guy, as I have resented few in my life, my impulse at the time was to raise my hands and join in the clapping. I resisted and clenched my briefcase instead, but I realized then how powerful the impact of mass manipulation can be.

It does not work in our present situation, because the profound concept of building of a new world by a new generation is missing or no longer credible as a mass movement setting. In Communism it was the new world, where everybody has equal rights and shares in the collective wealth for a better and brighter future. With the Nazis it was the prosperous future achieved through healthy living and strengthening of body and mind in order to evolve into a better, stronger people .

Those, who were not there, and know of Nazi atrocities will have difficulty understanding the mind set of the German people of the time. The 6 or 7 % of the population, who were directly exposed to those atrocities mostly disappeared quietly over night and faded from the memories of the general population. 99% of the rest of us had absolutely no idea, what was happening to them afterwards and the fraction of one percent, who were directly involved in those atrocities, did well for themselves by not talking about it, unless they wanted to share the fate of their victims.

The rest of us (the then adults anyway) have experienced in the years prior to Hitler's election in 1932: 60 to 70% unemployment, galloping inflation, during which you started in the morning after negotiating a wage, which would feed the family for a day, and in the evening, when you got paid, it was barely enough to buy one cigarette. Tumults in the streets fist fights between Nazis and Communists, the Weimar Republic out of control. Then in just six short years Germany rose from being the economically most devastated industrialized country to the one with the highest living standard and with full employment. That was the foundation for the fanatic enthusiasm, with which the people supported the Nazis, and why their believe in the final victory of Germany was unwavering for so long.

Afterword

I have posted parts of the above in Cryonet. Somebody repeated those posts in a different forum, with out obtaining my consent first (I would have strongly advised against it). This promptly drew accusations of aiding the dissemination of ideas of an unrepenting Nazi. I can respond to that only as follows:

• Was I a Nazi as an 11 year old in 1945? Absolutely! So were many people at the time, whom I respect highly.
• Am I a Nazi now? - Absolutely not! Neither is anybody I respect.
• Was everything about the Nazis bad and evil? - Certainly not, otherwise they wouldnever have been elected in the first place or retained power for as long a they have.

• Did the good make up for the atrocities? - Not even worth giving consideration to.
• Should we learn from the horrendous mistakes of that time? - I am glad you asked!

Click here for a web site about Alec Harley Reeves, a WW2 inventor that is just gaining some recognition as old records come to light.

Fly Longevity Experiments 48-55

As Others See us

New Hope International Review - http ://www.nhi.clara.net/online.htm

NHI Review, 20 Werneth Avenue, Gee Cross, Hyde, Cheshire SK14 5NL

Longevity Report #87

Longevity Report is described as the Newsletter of Longevity Books. This seems to be an organisation dedicated to the promotion of Cryonics -- the deep freezing of people, usually suffering from illness, in the expectation that in the future they would be able to be thawed and cured.

Robert Ettinger starts this issue with a piece about the possible problems of different members of the same family having different views on being frozen. Science fiction readers might know Ettinger's name (as I did) from the publication in the 1960s of his The Prospect of Immortality in Worlds of Tomorrow by editor Frederik Pohl.

I did not find much of Longevity Report very interesting, as I am not interested in being frozen and then (hopefully) revived. The contributors seem to look on this uncertain process as the gateway to immortality -- the only way in there would be, presumably, if you don't believe in any form of afterlife apart from the body. At least Cryonics seems to be good secular stuff. But there is the issue that it could be arrogant to assume that there is any sort of right to the prolonging of life by such (currently) unnatural means.

I was prompted to visit some of the websites and links mentioned in the magazine, and I was surprised that you can be frozen for as little as $28,000, all costs included. Presumably that at least ensures that it won't only be the rich who gain immortality. But will the future want the burden of reviving and curing people from the past, who will presumably need a lot of mental adjustment as well? And expect to live for ever?

As a long-time science fiction reader I found that reading Longevity Report produced the frisson of classic sf ideas being discussed as if they were at least a partly realised fact of life. (Although spelling Sir Arthur Clarke's name wrong spoilt the newsletter's credibility somewhat!)

Longevity Report is designed for enthusiasts for this particular "sfnal" notion, Cryonics -- an enthusiasm that I don't share, interesting though it is. There is too much of the evangelical crusade to convert, too much of the reliance on a secular heaven (the future) which is no replacement for the only heaven there can be, the here and now.

reviewer: John Howard.

Comment on "the issue that it could be arrogant to assume that there is any sort of right to the prolonging of life by such (currently) unnatural means."

What is arrogance is to impose your views on anyone else by force. It is not arrogant to have those views and implement them upon one's self. To suggest "Everyone should by cryopreserved. It is for their own good. They will thank us in the end." That is arrogance.

Unfortunately this isn't as easy as it sounds, because, for example, most children would prefer not to go to school, go to the dentist and so on. Is it arrogant for their parents to impose these things on them? Probably not, because we observe that if someone is not educated they have less of a life than someone who is, similarly with looking after your teeth.

But with matters such as whether there is a natural continuance of existence of consciousness somewhere else after death or whether cryopreserved people can be restored by a future (and therefore only conjectured) technology no one person or even group can say with absolute certainty. Therefore it is arrogant to impose views about these subjects on anyone else. It is not arrogant to express your own views. It is only arrogant to say someone else is stupid not to agree, or to use force to impose your own ideas.

There are arguments with cryonics, of course, that it does not provide immortality, only expended life. No one can know they are immortal until that have lived an infinite time. Therefore cryonics does not oppose religion quite as much as popularly supposed. After all, Jesus went around raising those given up for dead and healing the sick. What are cryonics patients but people given up for dead? Jesus told his followers to copy his actions. The cryonics societies are trying to do just that. The other argument is that if you forced someone into cryonics and they were reanimated and didn't want to be, then they could easily end their lives in a manner of their choice.

If one the other hand reality is that consciousness ceases with annihilation of the body, then there is a simple world for forcing someone away from cryonics against their will.

It is "murder".

Click arrow to get back to main contents page.