Rather than trying to convince people that cryonics works and they should sign up, it might be better to phrase your approach in terms of tolerant compliance with the wishes of the dying.
"Sure, folks, cryonics is kind of weird, but it's not harmful to other people. If you don't believe cryonics patients will be successfully revived, then you should consider cryonics to just be an unusual funerary practice. And 'it's unusual' is not a good enough reason to prohibit a funerary practice.
"We prohibit funerary practices which are harmful to other people, for instance by spreading disease — if someone wants to dispose of their grandfather's corpse in the reservoir we drink from, or throw it from an airplane, we have reason to object to that. But we don't prohibit those which are merely unusual. For instance, cremation is unusual to the point of offending some people (notably many Catholics and Jews) and was once extremely rare in Western culture, but is now common.
"Cryonics patients aren't asking you to pay for their preferred treatment; they're not asking to subject you or your loved ones to it. They just want to deal with dying in a different way from other folks — one that is in line with their beliefs. Their beliefs may well be completely wrong, but we don't have evidence of that; and even if they were, we should tolerate them rather than forcing them to bury or cremate someone whom they believe is not yet permanently dead."
I appreciate your point. I actually didn't mean trying to do a hard sell of cryonics, but just to present it in the most sympathetic way possible (which I'm sure was not at all clear, since this piece is still a draft and I never meant to post it).
Appeals to justice and fair treatment are far more effective when the suffering parties are seen sympathetically.
I remember this one time I read an article about an issue with the Anglican church here. This church as a whole is very socially liberal in Canada, a-ok with gay marriages or whatever, that kind of thing. But there was this one local congregation that was socially conservative, and they were all, "we wanna leave cuz that's morally wrong" or whatever. And the main church is like, "Fine, but our organization owns the building, so we're taking our ball and going home," and the local congregation goes, "But that church is our community's. Our ancestors were the ones who originally paid for it, and they'd agree with us about this!"
And I go, "Hm, yup, my sense of justice and fair treatment say the local congregation is in the right. If the decision was my responsibility, I'd have to give the building to them."
But it's not my responsibility, and I certainly never felt any impulse to try to make it. Because those homophobic nutjobs are a bunch of jerks and I can't wait to see the historical back of them, so... how much can I really bring myself to care?
And I'm pretty sure I'm much better than the average individual at applying consistent standards of fairness even to people I don't like.
Anyway yeah, a simple elegant sympathetic presentation of cryonics should be best for appealing to anyone who'd listen to the ''tolerant compliance" angle, as well as planting seeds for full support of cryonics in a fair portion of those people.
Owen, you may not already be aware, but there is a group of BC cryonicists and cryo-enthusiasts operating under the name cryoBC. Those of us in the Vancouver/Lower Mainland area meet in Vancouver every other month, and we are incorporating a non-profit entity to help tackle this very issue (among others relevant to cryonics in the province, such as developing local stabilization capabilities).
Having a facebook page for the non-profit organization will be a no-brainer once it's up and running, but a 'cause' page specific to the prohibition on the marketing and sale of cryonics arrangements in the province is a neat idea.
There are a number of undefined terms in the statutory provision (s.14 of the BC Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act) which need to be researched before we can really know exactly how to tackle it. For instance, the prohibition specifically targets cryonics (or other) arrangements sold "on the expectation of the resuscitation of human remains at a future time" - Well, what constitutes an "expectation"? Does it matter whether a consumer holds a particular expectation in spite of clear language from the service provider that no such expectation is being sold? And further, what constitutes resuscitation? If a person "expects" that their way out of cryopreservation will involve some or another form of mind-uploading, is the statute avoided entirely? On the other hand, "human remains" is defined specifically as a "dead human body." Perhaps neuros don't have to worry, provided that separation is carried out in BC, at which point the whole transaction might fall instead under the Human Tissue Gift Act.
In any case, we cannot fight what we do not understand, so legal research is a necessary first step, IMO. I assume you're still in Victoria, Owen? I used to live there, and visit with some regularity. If you can't make it to the next cryoBC meeting (late July, exact date TBD), then we should grab a coffee on the island soon.
[Once again, accidentally posted this draft before I finished it blah blah.]
It sounds like you guys have already got this, then. I wasn't aware of any of the work you're doing, so thanks for telling me.
I was just feeling, ya know, my parents are getting older, and I've worked at a 'care home' (a heart-rendingly insane institution, a house of unnecessary death and despair), and the voices in my head wouldn't stop screaming to do something, so.
I think I'll keep working on this when I get the time, but I'll make sure to run what I get by you first to make sure it doesn't complicate your strategy.
I got your facebook message, by the way (otherwise I would still be unaware I'd accidentally posted this draft!), and I'll respond to that too.
I hope others don't come away from my reply thinking that "we got this," cause that's not at all what I meant. We need all the help we can get, and I think a facebook cause page is a really good idea, one that I would love to help with. I appreciate that it's an idea that you meant to massage a little further before releasing it into the interwebs, so I hope that you will continue to work on it and that others will join in as well.
I'm sure I speak for other LW-ers: I'm not in BC and I'm not interested in cryonics personally, but I'm definitely in favour of this effort as a human rights thing. I'd "like" the Facebook group or sign an online petition.
I am willing to help, in addition to the help you are getting from the documents I have written on the subject.
[Edit: I did not mean to post this, just save it as a draft (I only remember pressing the 'save and continue' button, not the 'submit' button. That shouldn't've posted it, right?).
Anyway, that's why it dissolves into slightly cryptic point form notes to myself at the end. Don't have the time right the now to flesh it out, so I'm just leaving it as is.]
I just noticed that there is no facebook group with this aim. I would like to create one. I feel that it *might* be a way to finally get enough 'special interest/human rights' force concentrated on the problem to fix it, if the presentation is done well.
Would anyone like to help me write the group description and accompanying information, optimizing for effectiveness?
Such a group would have two main audiences, and two main purposes:
1 - For those who already understand and support cryonics, it would be a means to coordinate action and share information.
2 - For those who have never really thought about cryonics before, but may well be open to the idea, it would serve as an introduction and hopefully cause them to join the first group.
As regards the first group, the only major point to stress that springs to my mind is the importance of keeping their *effectiveness* foremost in mind when taking their actions, which mostly just means reminding them to be very friendly, polite, and pleasant while pestering and trying to educate the bureaucrats and politicians.
But for the second group, well, I don't need to describe the difficulty in leading people to understanding across this particular inferential distance. How to do it in a snappy, engaging way?
- The essential human issues at the root here: Hope and love, and freedom.
- That the group is intended for people in BC and people with friends and family here put in danger by the law.
- technical skepticism
- moral confusion
- image. Narrative, short story
Resources I am thinking of drawing on are:
Scientists' Open Letter on Cryonics
This page on BC's anti-cryonics law at the Canadian Cryonics Society
letter to mom after Sandy's death