X-Message-Number: 10867
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 07:22:48 -0500
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: CryoNet #10862 - #10866

Hi everyone!
To Rudi Hoffman: the rule against perpetuities IS a problem. I've 
never claimed that it was unsolvable, only that in most jurisdictions,
even in the US, we can't simply go out and set up a Trust with the
expectation that it will last long enough to give us money after
our revival.

I even agree that many cryonicists want control. But if they REALLY
want control they've got a problem with suspension itself: they'll
hardly be able to control anything while they lie suspended in their
capsule. For that matter, they can't even control their Trust, even
if it's set up in a jurisdiction which allows trusts to last for
indefinitely long. 

Frankly I'd choose revival in (RELATIVE!) poverty over nonrevival
at any time. After all, if you're frozen and then revived, you'll
have lots of time to work your way out of the poverty, while if you 
haven't been frozen, you won't even continue to live. And incidentally,
grumblings about collectivism aside, if you're frozen you're going to
have to trust your cryonics society with your life. My life is far
more valuable to me than my money; it just isn't that big a step to
set things up so that your cryonics society takes care of your money
too. So don't be hard on Bob Ettinger.

To John de Rivas: Even if we worked out how to live forever, that would
hardly end all our wants. There will continue to be an economy. Just
how it would evolve past our own I can't say, but it looks VERY unlikely
to me that actions such as saving or entrepreneurship would simply
disappear. Sure, they'd deal with other things, while many things we
pay for now may be as cheap as air. But there will always be SOMETHING.
Even elementary economics tells us that.

			Best and long long life to all,

				Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10867