TELLING THE FAMILY ABOUT YOUR CRYONICS ARRANGEMENTS

As many will remember from my previous posts, I currently travel full time in an RV around the USA, destressing from my last career, seeing and photographing natural wonders not found on most maps, and visiting family I could not afford enough time with before.

I had never mentioned much about cryonics to family members before, never to some, except for my youngest son who lived with me until he turned 18 and is now in college. I guess it is natural that he shares many of my philosophical views and understands and accepts cryonics very well. It is an awkward subject to try to bring up in a pleasant and natural way, to folks such as my two daughters who lived 900 miles away, on brief visits filled with other activity, and it is not something conducive to mail or phone.

I had the perfect entry point for discussion recently though, while visiting them recently. I shared lunch with each of them at separate times. Each asked me where I was going in my RV next. I described a route through Missouri for a music event, then north to Michigan for
the Cryonics Institute Open House. That of course led to me explaining the bare outline of what cryonics is, and more importantly that I have arrangements for myself for cryonics services when they are needed.

Both of my daughters are heavily influenced by the "Bible Belt" area in which they grew up, and have varying levels of activity in their Baptist churches. I was pleasantly surprised to sense no negative attitude or feedback from them at all, from what I said. I am thinking it might have been in the way I presented it. My brief discussion of cryonics focused entirely on my own plans for it, not as a great new idea they should consider. The latter is often perceived as preaching, and defenses get immediately raised. Also to each of them I said "Everyone has the right to decide how their bodies will be disposed of at death, right?" I got nods of agreement from each. Then I said "Some people choose cremation, others burial. Mine is cryonic preservation - that's my choice and I want all of my children to respect and support that when I no longer have the ability to help myself." More nods of agreement! I also mentioned that the arrangements would be finalized so there would be no money issues, and that all my children would inherit from me separate from that.

I had, in my brief explanation of cryonics, included that the preservation at freezing temperatures is for the possibility that science may develop methods to bring one back without damage, and also cures for why one died in the first place, and that the chances were slim but to me it was worth trying. My jaw dropped when one of my daughters then, with no coaxing from me, said "Well, it's a lot better chance than the grave or cremation - that's zero chance." Wow, I may eventually have another cryonicist in the family!

There's the story, so that perhaps if there are others here who are reluctant to discuss cryonics with their next of kin, you might have some ideas on how it can be smoothed into. A lot better to do it the way I did, I think, than to try to convince them cryonics is good, hand out literature, etc. Now later on when I ask them to sign the next-of-kin waiver forms (whatever they are called) they should know what it is about and remember they nodded their heads in agreement already.

Guy Gipson

I think that you presented it well. Cryonicists often adopt their views because of a lack of religious belief, and therefore assume themselves that their position is anti-religious. That greatly affects how they present their views to religious people. Conversely, religious people hearing of cryonics immediately assume that it is atheistic because it is centered on preserving the body. (You would
think that "Thou shalt not practice cryonics" were the 11th commandment.)

But if preserving the body is carnal and atheistic, then such body preserving medical procedures such as heart transplanation and the use of antibiotics could as easily be regarded as atheistic. As has been observed more than once, David Pascal (who promotes cryonics for the Cryonics Society) is Roman Catholic, Joe Kowalsky (a CI Director) is an Orthodox Jew and Joe Waynick (previous President of Alcor) is a Seventh-Day Adventist. None of these men see cryonics as being essentially atheistic. It can be viewed as medicine. But it is rarely
viewed as medicine -- the conflict with religion is assumed in most cases.

I have observed this many times in speaking with CI Members and other cryonicists. Family members will have a knee-jerk antipathy for the "sacrilegious" practice of cryonics. One CI Member who I spoke to during my phoning is living with his parents and mostly housebound by a rare and deadly illness. The subject of cryonics is too upsetting for him to even discuss with his parents and it would be too upsetting for him to attend a Cryonics Institute Open House.

Another CI Member who had cryopreserved her cat with CI would not want to attend the CI Open House because she prefers to keep her distance from the subject of death and does not want to confront her mortality. She cannot see cryonics in the same terms as obtaining health insurance.


I have come to the conclusion that the great majority of CI Members have no one amongst their family or friends who is sympathetic to their cryonics beliefs. In the best cases family members tolerate the eccentric family member with the eccentric cryonics ideas. Many CI Members have long ago abandoned attempting to discuss the subject with friends for fear of being regarded as weird, freaky or spooky. Cryonicists for the most part have a greater capacity to tolerate or deal with social alienation that the average person. I believe I have dealt with this problem by making cryonicists my friends, but this is not an option for most cryonicists.

-- Ben Best


I told three family members about my arrangements, namely my father, brother and sister. I did this in an email and requested an acknowledgement of receipt. My sister did not reply. When I rang her sometime later and pressed her for a reaction, she described cryonics as 'strange'. My father and brother replied. My brother said 'Hope it works!' and initially said he was willing to sign any form. I sent copies of the two CI forms to him and to my father. My father initially reacted by saying:

"I could not sign the form in good faith. Not that I am opposing your plan for cryonic suspension. But all sorts of circumstances could arise that could totally change what your plan would actually do. No matter what the form says, it cannot mention every eventuality. Horrible examples need not be spelled out, but they are endless." He did later relent to the extent of signing form 1. My brother went in the opposite direction and instead of signing both forms, also just signed form 1. His explanation went: "I have signed one form but not the other. There are too many unknowns in this one and so I choose caution. It refers to a contract, Michigan law, and right of legal enforcement. It is also very unclear what additional purpose it served. I see that one is enough, so that is what I signed"

I gave my father a copy of 'The First Immortal' for his birthday late last year and he said he was reading it sporadically. More recently though he told me that he wanted to send it back to me! As of now he hasn't done this. He wrote:

'Why we have to die is not a question of preference, just statement of the way things are, as I see it. It's not as though we have a choice. I don't think cryogenics [sic] is realistic, so I don't want to read about it, especially since it is about an unwelcome topic.' If you think this statement is illogical, I agree with you. Like Dr Bedford, it appears that where immediate family is concerned, I will be making the journey into tomorrow alone.

I might also mention that it was my mother who gave me (as an adolescent 30 years ago) a copy of 'The Prospect of Immortality'. She is now in a nursing home and I have not told her of my plans. My relatives are mostly university educated in various fields and are
not religious.

Chris Manning