X-Message-Number: 10841
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 15:34:18 +0100
From:  (John de Rivaz)
Subject: Re: Reanimation Trusts

May I draw attention to the fact that I suggested a system whereby a
relatively modest amount could be invested in the reanimation trust to
produce a substantial amount at revival. This would be separate from funds 
actually used for the revival. I cannot imagine any surplus from these being 
refunded to a particular patient beyond perhaps a few days worth of "pocket 
money". What would be benefit be to the cryonics organisation to do this 
unless that patient had any skills that they could offer back? More likely 
the surplus funds would be used to fund people whose provision was 
inadequate, or to fund research into methods for currently unrecoverable 
cases.

Under my proposal, the bulk of the patient's assets could still be 
bequeathed to the cryonics organisation. The above average growth of 
technology would still make this modest amount be enough for either a frugal 
lifestyle without much work, or a good quality university level re-education 
into a professional life in the new society. If the fund does not grow by a 
very substantial amount over and above inflation, then it is likely that the 
technology for revival will not have appeared.

Such a program is only possible if a reanimation program can be organised
where all of the funds are in a conventional technology based mutual fund
enjoying the full amount of its growth, with volunteer trustees for the
reanimation trust.


In article: <>  
writes:
> From: 
> What Mae and I plan to do, as others in CI have done or plan to do, is
> leave the bulk of our estate to CI. This will not be a "trust" and will
> not be earmarked for our personal separate benefit, but nevertheless will
> have several advantages over setting up either a personal trust or a
> pooled "reanimation" trust.
> 
This is of course a special case, as obviously these two people will still 
have a great deal to offer CI. Even so, it if was $1000 less and the 
personal investment resulted in them having $1m personal money in the 
future, surely it would not be too high a price to pay? 

Note: Although I anticipate real growth, $1m in 60 years would be worth 
rather less than it is now, though. It would still buy a lot of what will 
pass for PCs then and possibly basic food, but it is unlikely to buy much in 
the way of services as it would today, unless the market value of services 
has fallen by then. I have elsehwere, however, suggested that if today's 
emphasis on the value of legal services (ie the value placed on bickering 
and arguing over trivia) does not decline, ultimately there could be a limit 
to technological advance. This could mean no revivals and no investment 
growth. If this happens, none of us will know. But the outcome of the 
Microsoft case may be a pointer.

> From: "Olaf Henny" <>
> If I understand both, Thomas Nord and John de Rivaz correctly, John is
> addressing an entirely different subject, namely that of a fund, which is
> set up for the express purpose of funding the revival of the suspendees.

no, that would be done by the funds bequeathed to the cryonics organisation 
- this initially small fund would provide initial living, re-education etc 
expenses for the patient after reanimation.

> From: "Dan -Iosif Pop" <>
> I  am  interested  to find  a  business - partner  who is  interested to  
> invest  in  Real   Estate in  Romania.

I doubt whether that would be as good an investment as technology funds over 
the long term :-)

-- 
Sincerely,     * Longevity Report:  http://www.longevb.demon.co.uk/lr.htm
John de Rivaz  * Fractal Report:    http://www.longevb.demon.co.uk/fr.htm
**************** Homepage:http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JohndeR
    In the information age, sharing can increase world wealth enormously,
        because giving information does not decrease your information.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10841