Depressed Metabolism would like to see some distance put between transhumanism and cryonics, which seems to be a common variation on making a field more approachable by jettisoning the visionaries who created it in the first place: "The association of cryonics with 'transhumanism' seems inevitable but is problematic. It seems inevitable because cryonics should be most attractive to people with a very positive perspective on the future capabilities of technology. Barring rapid advances in mitigating aging, cryonics offers the only credible option for transhumanists to become a part of that future. It is unfortunate because it can have adverse effects on the objective of making cryonics a part of conventional medicine, and further alienates people who are open to the idea of human cryopreservation but fear the future." I can't say I agree with this overall strategy. You don't grow by competing for existing, blinkered viewpoints; rather, you grow by creating new viewpoints. Expanding the bounds of the debate and creating acceptance for new possibilities are the best ways forward. Work to push the boundaries out as far as possible, or else you'll settle into the rut of little progress and general mediocrity.