Disparaging Allies as a Strategy

Does maligning and denigrating a practice similar to your own help progress?

Suppose you are engaged in a still emerging and highly controversial field. You are proposing a modestly new approach to the field. An approach with the same goal and some of the same procedures but with some differences. Suppose, also, that you want to advance the field by improving public perception and professional acceptance.

Setting aside moral considerations, what is your best approach to the existing (and still developing) practice to which you are proposing some changes? Should you explain the reasons and evidence behind the existing approach and then argue that the proposed new approach is even more promising? Or should you position the existing approach as foolish, dishonest, pseudoscientific, fraudulent, and cultish?

In Ariel Zeleznikow-Johnston’s The Future Loves You: How and Why We Should Abolish Death, the author – I will refer to him at AZJ – chooses the latter strategy. This approach has also been suggested by some comments by Ken Hayworth of the Brain Preservation Foundation. AZJ’s introductory remarks about cryonics—equating it to pseudoscience, cults, and snake-oil scams—are unfortunate in tone and strategically unwise. By dismissing cryonics to elevate his own approach, he risks fragmenting the biostasis community, undermining his credibility, and harming the broader pursuit of life extension. His misrepresentations, as evidenced by specific quotes, ignore cryonics’ scientific basis and shared challenges with his method, while historical parallels illustrate the pitfalls of such divisive tactics.

Let us look at what AZJ says, consider whether any of it is justified, and think about whether it is an effective strategy regardless of its morality, accuracy, or truth.

First of all, what does AZJ say? All of the following quotes are from the introduction to his book.

“The problem is, we’ve seen charlatans try to sell this kind of fantasy before. Ancient priests with magical talismans, medieval alchemists with rejuvenating elixirs, and now cryonicists promising future resurrection by means of medical miracles. Without acceptance by the medical establishment, little distinguishes cryonics from the snake- oil salesmen of earlier times.”

These statements risk giving a misleading impression and could alienate those already working toward similar goals. Cryonics is grounded in science, not religion, magic, or alchemy. It builds on standard cryobiology and chemistry. Some cryonics organizations were early adopters of the major breakthrough delivered by vitrification. These organizations are advised by some of the leading experts in the field. Moreover, cryonics engages with mainstream medicine through collaborations with cryobiologists and neuroscientists, contrary to Zeleznikow-Johnston’s claims.

Cryonics organizations make no magical or miracle-based claims. They have carefully developed scientific, medical, procedural, legal, and contractual, and institutional structures – a far cry from snake oil salesmen who make impossible promises and then skip town. One could argue that some of the assumptions underlying chemical brain preservation are at least as speculative. These include the plan to scan the brain by means currently unknown, destroying brain tissue on which consciousness has always depended, and the miracle of uploading a mind to an entirely different realm. Many people are not convinced that an emulation of their mind would be them. This requires a huge philosophical assumption that is not needed for cryopreservation.

“This kind of fantasy” could be applied at least as easily to the chemical preservation and uploading approach. The medical establishment does accept cryopreservation. Acceptance of brain scanning and uploading is more remote. An established research program exists for perfecting cryopreservation and improving the ability to successfully rewarm increasingly large volumes of tissue. No such established research program exists for scanning an entire human brain and creating a sufficiently detailed emulation.

“Indeed, cryonics as practiced has many of the hallmarks of a pseudoscience or cult, including quasi- religious claims of an afterlife for those who perform arcane rituals, a lack of engagement with mainstream medicine or endorsement by esteemed scientists, and large upfront payments required for services that have no guarantee of success. None of these features inspire confidence that the frozen clients of cryonics will ever see another spring.”

Comparing cryonics to a cult is deeply problematic and difficult to justify, especially given the care many organizations have taken to ground their practices in science and transparency. In a podcast interview by Max Marty, “Is Cryonics a Pseudoscience?”, AZJ pulls back on that assertion and apologizes for using it. Unfortunately, that does not change the fact that this statement is in his book. There are no claims of an “afterlife” in a religious sense. If the claim is that “afterlife” is not meant to imply a supernatural realm – contrary to the clear implications – then chemical preservation and uploading would be subject to exactly the same critique.

Both cryopreservation and chemical preservation approaches require an unprovable (but reasonable) projection of future technological capabilities. Both require realistic funding. By ignoring these parallels, AZJ creates a false dichotomy, implying his method is inherently superior without evidence that it overcomes cryonics’ challenges, such as neural integrity or revival feasibility. This risks confusing readers and weakening trust in biostasis as a whole.

Even the weaker claim that cryonics is a pseudoscience is asserted without justification. I have examined this assertion in The False Claim of Cryonics as Pseudoscience. It is one of the laziest accusations made by critics. An actual argument to support this drastic claim would look at the qualities of pseudoscience and consider to what extent, if any, cryonics shares those qualities. These include lack of empirical evidence; absence of scientific method; excessive resistance to criticism; reliance on anecdotal evidence; failure to change with new evidence; use of vague, unfalsifiable claims; appeal to authority or tradition; and lack of progress. In my essay, I show that these qualities do not fit cryonics.

In the Cryosphere podcast, AZJ tries to say that he wrote that cryonics appears to be like pseudoscience but doesn’t say that it actually is a pseudoscience. Despite later clarifications, the introduction gives readers the strong impression that cryonics is being dismissed as pseudoscience.

It is clearly false to say that cryonics has a lack of engagement with mainstream medicine. Anyone knowledgeable about the history and practice of cryonics knows this to be untrue. Not only does standard cryobiology very much inform cryonics practice, so does medicine in the form of the specific medications used in cryonics stabilization and in the form of surgical practice. Cryonics not only engages with mainstream medicine, it should be seen as an extension of it. The responsiveness of biostasis organizations to evidence and new options can be seen in recent work to minimize brain shrinkage using agents to modify the blood-brain barrier.

The critical comment about “large upfront payments required for services that have no guarantee of success” is disingenuous. As shown in the podcast referred to above, AZJ equivocates on the meaning of “upfront payments.” People typically fund cryonics with life insurance payments rather than a large initial payment. They can back out of the arrangement at any time, in which case the cryonics organization will not receive any payment.

Brain preservation also requires upfront payments otherwise you are taking another leap of faith that someone, somehow, for some reason will keep you preserved for however many decades and then upload you and help you with the transition – all without funding or a plan. Cryonics correctly presents itself as a grand experiment, not a guarantee. As an experiment, it costs money. Does AZJ expect cryonics organizations to provide this service at no charge? Is everyone to work for free? Are all expenses somehow to be magically covered without fees?

“But for the rest of us, cryonics looks likely to be just another case of swindlers tricking people out of their money with impossible promises of longer, healthier lives.”

This statement verges on character assassination and risks unfairly poisoning the well for readers unfamiliar with cryonics. If readers did not have a particularly negative view of cryonics before, they certainly will after reading this book. This statement is highly misleading, and at best reflects a serious misunderstanding of how cryonics is actually practiced. No promises are being made. Cryonics organizations are very explicit about this. Take a look at the contracts and you will find numerous warnings about many ways that cryonics might not work either in general or for the individual.

The claim of “impossible” is also completely unsupported. I have examined this claim in more detail elsewhere. AZJ does not even show that cryonics is less plausible than his own preferred approach to biostasis. In the interview, he tries to justify this by claiming that he doesn’t mean that he thinks it is impossible. But this is the clear impression that readers will get. He says it is a bit weaselly worded but it’s worse than that.

“Still, the fact that cryonics is unscientific and its claims are unsubstantiated…”

“The fact that chemical brain preservation and uploading is unscientific and its claims are unsubstantiated.” This version makes at least as much sense. In reality, cryonics is scientific. It draws on several sciences and technologies, it is open to critical evaluation in the form of public review of case reports, CT scans, and electron microscope evaluations of cryopreserved brain tissue. Again, the revival end does require speculation – but that is just as true of chemical brain preservation (CBP) and whole body emulation/uploading.

A major factor that AZJ does not consider is that human cryopreservation necessarily takes places in the real world with all its complications and challenges. CBP may present itself as more scientific because advocates do experiments in a laboratory. But if CBP is to be used practically, it will face the same real-world constraints as cryonics: delays in notification, old age and chronic conditions leading to deterioration of the brain; interference by coroners; delays due to transport requirements; and so on. To make a genuine comparison, let CBP advocates show us the results of their preferred approach in the world outside the lab.

Why cryo rather than chemo?

AZJ’s treatment of cryonics risks pushing readers away from considering chemical preservation on its merits. I will resist that reactive response but others may not. However, I am an advocate of biostasis, not necessarily of any specific approach. Whatever works is what I want. Given current knowledge, biostasis organizations have sound reasons for being cautious about offering harder-to-reverse chemical preservation. One reason for this is the philosophical concern over whether personal identity survives a change from a biological to non-biological substrate. Personally, I do not find this an obstacle or objection but many, perhaps most people involved in preservation do.

Secondly, good biostasis organizations do their best to maintain a patient’s biological viability – according to contemporary medical criteria – as far into preservation procedures as can be achieved. What we ultimately care about is preserving all the essential identity-carrying structures. But how do we know if we are doing that? The most obvious and direct way is to be able to restore function after reversing preservation procedures. Without that, no matter how excellent the evidence is for structural preservation, it will always be possible for determined doubters to claim that something crucial is being missed. Chemical preservation appears likely to be considerably more difficult to reverse.

Most CBP advocates don’t care about this since they expect their brains to be scanned and emulated rather than biologically restored. Regardless, the increased level of apparent irreversibility may make CBP look less scientific and more reliant on heroic assumptions about future technological capabilities.

Thirdly, there is the major factor of framing and perception. I frame biostasis as an extension of emergency medicine. By maintaining brain viability for as far into our procedures as possible we are fitting into the standard medical paradigm. Chemopreservation methods that use cross-linking of proteins have the appearance of killing the brain (deliberately rendering it non-function in a way that is – currently – irreversible) in order to preserve it. From a medical perspective we should not cause unnecessary damage.

Bad strategy?

I have argued that AZJ, in his book’s introduction, makes a series of anti-cryonics statements that are, in my view, misleading and disparaging. Let us set that aside. Regardless of fairness, accuracy, or morality, is the disparaging approach an effective one? Will it help boost the fortunes of biostasis in general? Or just chemical preservation? What about combinations of the two? If the perception of cryo approaches has been poisoned, will that not affect combinations such as AZJ’s favored aldehyde-stabilized cryopreservation? Here are several reasons why I think AZJ’s strategy is counterproductive.

Undermining a Shared Goal: As Max Marty commented during the podcast discussion, even if readers didn’t have strong existing views before reading the book, they will certainly form anti-biostasis views after reading it. Their first thoughts about cryonics – and perhaps other forms of biostasis – will be that “cryonics is going to be pseudoscience, a cult or religion stealing your money and swindling you with claims of magical properties and resurrection of the dead.

By denigrating cryonics, AZJ risks alienating a community that shares his broader aim of advancing biostasis and brain preservation. Cryonics, while imperfect, has built a foundation of public awareness, research, and infrastructure (through the work of Alcor, Cryonics Institute, Tomorrow Biostasis and others). Criticizing it dismissively could fragment the biostasis movement, reducing collaboration and support for his own approach. For example, cryonicists might view his work as antagonistic rather than complementary, limiting cross-pollination of ideas or funding.

Weakening Credibility Through Polarization: Dismissing cryonics as flawed or inferior may come across as unprofessional or overly competitive, undermining Zeleznikow-Johnston’s credibility. The scientific community values constructive critique over disparagement. If his approach lacks robust evidence to distinguish itself from cryonics (e.g., superior preservation outcomes), his criticism may appear speculative, inviting skepticism about his own claims. This could deter serious researchers or investors from engaging with his work.

Alienating Potential Supporters: Cryonics has a dedicated if small niche following of advocates, researchers, and funders. By framing cryonics negatively, Zeleznikow-Johnston risks losing support from these stakeholders who might otherwise be open to his ideas. Public perception of biostasis is already skeptical; his approach may reinforce doubts about the entire field rather than build trust in his alternative. He risks the existing cryonics community reacting defensively, amplifying criticism of his book.

Overstating Differences: If AZJ’s brain preservation method shares similarities with cryonics (e.g., preserving neural structures for future revival), denigrating cryonics may exaggerate differences that are minor or theoretical. This risks confusing readers or creating a false dichotomy, making it harder for the public to grasp the continuum of biostasis research. It could also invite countercriticism that his method faces similar challenges (e.g., technical feasibility, ethical concerns), weakening his position.

Historical Precedent for Backlash: Denigrating a predecessor idea often backfires when the new idea fails to deliver promised improvements. If Zeleznikow-Johnston’s approach doesn’t achieve breakthroughs (e.g., reversible preservation), his criticism of cryonics may be seen as premature or hollow, harming the broader biostasis movement’s reputation. This could stall progress by discouraging investment or public interest.

Historical parallels

Edison vs. gas: History warns against denigrating predecessor ideas, as it often sows division and delays progress. Thomas Edison’s campaign against gas lighting in the late 19th century exemplifies this. To promote his incandescent bulb, Edison demonized gas lighting as dangerous, staging public demonstrations of its risks. While successful, this approach alienated gas industry stakeholders who could have collaborated on hybrid systems, slowing adoption in conservative markets. Similarly, Zeleznikow-Johnston’s dismissal of cryonics risks isolating allies who share his vision, hindering cooperative advancements in biostasis.

Tesla vs. Edison (AC vs. DC current): Edison tried to discredit Tesla’s alternating current system with fearmongering (e.g., electrocuting animals in public demonstrations). This “war of the currents” backfired—Tesla’s system won—but the smear campaign tarnished Edison’s reputation.

Freud vs. other psychotherapists: Freud belittled many contemporaries and successors, including Adler, Jung, and Pierre Janet who preceded Freud with his ideas of the unconscious, dissociation, and hysteria, framing them as deviants from his own doctrine. This fostered sectarianism in psychology, limited cross-fertilization among early theories of the mind, and delayed a unified approach to mental health research.

Wilhelm Röntgen vs. Early Radiology Pioneers (Late 19th Century): Röntgen, discoverer of X-rays, criticized earlier imaging techniques (e.g., photography-based medical diagnostics) as primitive, positioning X-rays as revolutionary. He downplayed contributions from contemporaries like Nikola Tesla, who explored similar radiation. Röntgen’s dismissive stance slowed collaboration in radiology, as early pioneers felt sidelined. This delayed refinements in imaging safety and application. Zeleznikow-Johnston’s approach mirrors this risk of stunting cooperative progress in brain preservation.

Renewables vs. nuclear advocates: Many renewable energy proponents have historically demonized nuclear power, ignoring its low-carbon advantages. This division arguably delayed coherent climate action, as the public received a fractured message about viable solutions.

Steve Jobs vs. Microsoft: In the tech world, Steve Jobs’ denigration of IBM and Microsoft in the 1980s, portraying their PCs as uninspired, won Apple a loyal niche but limited its market share. Apple’s near bankruptcy in the 1990s partly stemmed from this divisiveness, which alienated potential partners. Zeleznikow-Johnston’s approach could similarly isolate him in a field where collaboration is critical.

To conclude, I suggest that a better approach would be a more constructive and collaborative one that builds bridges. Critical evaluation of any and all proposed biostasis methods is valuable and to be encouraged. But critical evaluation is not disparagement or denigration. It does not call for misleading and misrepresenting.

We all have in common the desire and need to preserve the brain. We can work together to investigate the most effective ways to do this. New entrants who emphasize chemical preservation – or a combination of cryo and chemo – can learn from the decades-long efforts made by cryonics organization to track their members, respond quickly and effectively, and to maintain them in preservation for the long term through careful thinking about organization and financing.