A long and interesting post at Chronosphere: "I think that most who seriously study the history of cryonics will conclude that there appear to be cycles of activism and interest. There is nothing remarkable in this: the same is true in almost any area of human undertaking. ... . What can be learned from a careful analysis of [Alcor membership from 1972 to 2010]? Is there a discernible reason why growth in membership became nearly exponential, briefly, during the early 1980s? ... there is now nearly 50 years of cryonics history. That's a substantial baseline, and if you chart the progress of cryonics over that time by almost any measure, and you look at the primary historical record, you'll immediately notice that in no way has cryonics behaved as it was predicted to do by the first generation of cryonicists (or for that matter, by any subsequent generation). ... Beyond these basic observations, if we want to understand if there are any reasons for 'bad' or 'good' intervals on these, or other indices of how cryonics has performed over time, we will necessarily have to have recourse to history. Did anything happen of historical note to jump start Alcor's growth in the 1980s? If so, what was it, and can anything be learned from examining the historical record in detail that might prove useful in assisting the growth of Alcor, and more generally the growth of cryonics, today? Do the pauses in growth and the occasional downturns that are in evidence to varying degrees in all of these charts mean anything? If so, are there lessons for us?"