Good question. Here are some possible answers: * Better social networking for cryonics participants. * More persuasive essays on the topic. * New blood in th

Good question. Here are some possible answers: * Better social networking for cryonics participants. * More persuasive essays on the topic. * New blood in the movement. * Stronger associations to stronger movements. * Different or more aggressive marketing/promotion tactics. * Prizes similar to the X-Prize for demonstrating reversible cryopreservation on a small scale (e.g. organs) * (Maybe unrealistic?) Government funding for cryobiology, specifically as pertains to brain preservation, and secondarily as pertains to whole organisms. One major thing I'm noticing is that cryonics frequently seems to be seen as a low-status thing, despite being popularly associated with wealthy billionaires. There seems to be a paleo-humanistic (as I call it) tendency to rationalize and even glorify death as part of the grand cycle of life, and cryonics seems to be directly set against that. This may be why so many of the old sci-fi greats (Asimov, Heinlein, Clarke, etc.) opted out. AFACT most living sci-fi and great humanistic writers of the aging generation (Terry Pratchett, David Brin, and so forth) are not signed up nor particularly supportive. I'm not sure how to change this narrative but I strongly feel there is a problem with it. Another big problem I see is that cryonics tends to be popularly associated with selfishness -- yet it is compatible with altruism, and in fact has exceptional potential to save billions of lives if pursued aggressively (and if it works). Technically, it seems like one need not be concerned with one's own survival at all to be in favor of cryopreserving the world (particularly when economies of scale are factored in).