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