UPDATE: Society of Venturism is spearheading Kim Suozzi’s cryopreservation charity
Hey everyone,
I’m Kim Suozzi, a 23-year old brain cancer patient trying to secure cryopreservation before my death.
I know I haven’t updated in awhile so I just wanted to check in and say how thankful I am for everyone that has been donating and supporting me so far. I’ve gotten way more of a response than I could have ever expected, and it’s hard to find words regarding this whole thing, but I want you know that I am endlessly grateful for the hope you’ve already offered to me.
I have two days of radiation treatment left, then I’m off to hopefully pursue a clinical trial. Things are going well considering the circumstances; I have no big side effects other than being tired.
I updated the other day with a video, if anyone is interested:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lISC8I_IiCg
I also wanted to clarify that though The Society of Venturism is fundraising on my behalf, I also have a direct link to my paypal (https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=4WR8KS68RC6YY) for independent donations. However, I would like to move funds to the Venturists since they are third-party and a non-profit, that way people can be sure the funds go to cryo and nothing else. It looks like setting it up through the Society for Venturism is a better bet than going though CI or Alcor as it can be difficult to move funds in the case that you choose one company over the other or need to change things around with financing.
Anyway the Society for Venturim Charity is located here: http://venturist.info/kim-suozzi-charity.html, Sorry to repost since I know it’s elsewhere already. I just wanted to try to put it all in one message since some others were asking.
I can’t say this enough: thank you for all of you consideration and support through all of this,and to all those who have already donated. Maybe if I achieve reanimation, I can throw a party and show you guys what I’m really like, (not just your run-of-the-mill-dying-patient.)
Hope to meet you/ talk to you soon, whether in this time or much later.
Kim
I just donated $100. I second the request for an update on funding progress. And I’m totally coming to the party on the other side. :)
I donated because I want to support cryonics movement-building, and Kim seems like a great poster child for this purpose.
Kim, I have no idea how much time free time you have, but given that you’re in a little bit of a spotlight right now, you may be able to construct an opportunity to create a larger public discussion about cryonics through the media. Assuming your suspension is funded, that’s probably one of the most impactful things you could do to increase the chances that you and other cryo patients will wake up.
I haven’t met Kim or otherwise communicated with her, but I get the impression that she shows some of the signs of the cryonicist personality, however in a female package. For example, anthropologist Tiffany Romain, an outside observer, studied cryonicists using the tools of social science and wrote the paper, “Extreme Life Extension: Investing in Cryonics for the Long, Long Term,” where she characterizes cryonicists as follows:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01459741003715391
Not all cryonicists fit this profile, of course. But Kim, apparently an atheist libertarian who studies cognitive science at university, would probably fit in well with the cryonicist community even if she didn’t feel such urgency to get her suspension arrangements in place. I would certainly welcome her, even if I probably wont’t have the opportunity to become acquainted with her. I might have to wait to do that if we both make it to The Other Side. ; )
Of course, the cryonics movement needs to find ways to break out of its geek ghetto and appeal to the broader society.. Here evolutionary psychology could work to our advantage, because we have a bias towards helping the vulnerable women in our tribe of reproductive age, but in this case without having to use our bodies to shield them from bullets. I question the propriety of calling Kim cryonics’ “poster child,” but her plight humanizes cryonics in a way which doesn’t come along very often.
Can you be more specific about how you’d mobilize this instinct? Do you see examples of cryonics enthusiasts preferentially funding or pitching “vulnerable women in our tribe of reproductive age?”
cough...objectivist...cough
If that’s your purpose, why don’t fund cryopreservation for some starving African child, instead?
Seriously, I have no objection if Suozzi wants to be cryopreserved because it gives her emotional solace and people want to fund her out of compassion, but using the “poor little cancer girl” to mount an appeal to emotion attack to people’s rationality and further an highly questionable practice is quite sickening.
As a general rule, rationality is not an excuse to be a dick. Go away.
Do you have an argument or just name calling?
The claim is that your statements are offensive or upsetting to some people, and Dolores1984 wants you to leave so that you do not make offensive or upsetting statements in the future. The argument surrounding this claim is that you have incorrectly cloaked your upsetting statements in the terminology of “rationality”.
So it seems that calling a dying person “poster child” and “vulnerable woman in our tribe of reproductive age” and trying to exploit her plight to further a questionable agenda is perfectly fine, while calling them on it is offensive and upsetting. Nice.
And why would my use of the terminology of rationality be incorrect?
Do you disagree that cryonics is a questionable practice?
Or that trying to spin the “poster child” is an appeal to emotion?
There may or may not be good arguments to be made here. You might even be making them.
However, to the extent you are, you are also obscuring them through poor writing, offensive language, and generally “being a dick”. Your writing is not at the level I wish to encourage on Less Wrong, hence I will not reward it by responding to the arguments, and will punish it through downvotes.
Take a constructive approach, assume good faith on the part of the people you are conversing with, and show them the respect of laying out your arguments in a coherent fashion, and I think you might find constructive replies.
Fine, let’s start over assuming good faith:
My claim is that funding Suozzi’s cryopreservation in order to support cryonics movement-building is unethical because:
It uses her instrumentally.
It uses appeal to emotion (a fallacious debating tactic) to further a practice without any scientific support (hence to be considered a faith-based practice until proven otherwise).
Also, speaking of offensive language, I found the expressions “poster child” and “vulnerable woman in our tribe of reproductive age” much more offensive than anything I wrote, but I realize that this is subjective.
I believe both terms (especially “vulnerable woman in our tribe of reproductive age”) are recognising and explicitly indicating that this is an appeal to the emotions. Donors have presumably evaluated the consequences of donating and not simply thrown money at the cause because it pulls on their heartstrings.
Rationality is orthogonal to emotions and is not opposed to appeals of emotion for acts with net positive consequences. I personally think cryonics is net positive despite the uncertainty and I don’t agree with your framing of it as a “questionable practice”.
I believe the offence derives from you implying or stating that the act of donating was net negative when their evaluation was net positive. Naturally, simply opposing a position is not offensive, but it’s rude not to back your point up, and people might be especially predisposed to care about rudeness when they’ve just donated and heightened the activity of morality-sensing brain segments.
This actually seems fairly abnormal for charitable donations in general.
Rationality and emotions are not necessarily opposed, but strong emotions can cloud rational judgment.
Cryonics is expecially prone to appeal to emotion, since mortality and group identity (“our tribe”) are very powerful sources of emotion. Thus, if you want to keep the discussion about cryonics rational, you should recognize this and try keep the emotional charge as small as possible.
People who propose to spin in the public discourse “poster children” optimized to generate the maximum emotional reaction, are trying to do exactly the opposite, which is a tactic I find intellectually dishonest. Even if you think that cryonics is good for those who sign up, making people sign up for irrational reasons is unethical, in my opinion.
The dictionary definition of questionable is: “open to question or dispute; doubtful or uncertain”. If you agree that cryonics has large uncertainty, then you should agree that it is a questionable practice.
I’m not arguing that donating to Suozzi is intrinsically unethical, I’m arguing that donating to Suozzi for PR purposes is unethical. I admit that in my original comment I’ve used a confrontational tone which might not have been optimal to convey my point, but I stand my point and hope that my position is now clear.
I’ve donated $5,000, fulfilling my pledge.
Kim, may I make a small request? If you allow CI to publish your case report (like Robert Ettinger’s, the “father of cryonics”), I and probably everyone else who’s donated would be relieved to know when you’ve been successfully cryopreserved. Without family consent, CI publishes no details.
I truly wish you the best of luck.
I just donated $5,000 to your fund at the Society of Venturism, as promised.
Like Stephan, I really hope you make your goal.
I just donated $100. Thanks for posting the update! I would love to see you continuing to post blog updates and videos. The ones so far have been wonderful.
How much have you collected so far?
According to David Pizer, the Society of Venturism has raised about $7000 as of Aug 27.
Donated $100 - now to sign myself up...
If you want an update on what the Venturists have collected so far, please email David Pizer, President of the Society for Venturism, pizerdavid@yahoo.com .
I will send thank you messages to everyone who has donated through the Google Wallet button on the Venturists’ website:. http://venturist.info/kim-suozzi-charity.html
May science speed you, Kim Suozzi.
Donated $50.
Best of luck.
I’ve contacted David Pizer, who reports $7k raised by the Society for Venturism, in addition to the $7k Kim has already raised herself. Additionally, there is a $10k life insurance policy which may be applicable. So, if everything goes perfectly, that’s $24k right now—just $4k to a CI suspension!
Fun fact! Baptism is cheaper than cryo and more effective!
Presumably people are downvoting this because I’m stating the obvious.
Actually no, the “cheaper” part was not the one that made me downvote. There is an evidence for that one.
You’re so dumb that you think I’m as dumb as you. That’s… really quite dumb. Maybe you should consider looking into nootropics, or other methods of intelligence amplification. EEG is really quite impressive, for example. I just want what’s best for you. <3
Oh, I almost forgot the most effective method of intelligence amplification: read the fucking Bible.
Any sufficiently advanced metatrolling is indistinguishable from trolling.