X-Message-Number: 12904
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 17:04:27 -0500
From: david pizer <>
Subject: More on cryonics community

A few comments from Dave on Thomas's comments


Thomas wrote:

>Message #12899
>From: Thomas Donaldson <>
>Subject: Re: CryoNet #12897
>Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 00:35:34 +1100 (EST)
>
>Hi to everyone!
>
>This is my reply to Ettinger. 
>
>Yes, a community for cryonicists would be nice, but many cryonicists would
>also think of it as too ambitious for now. 
>
>Furthermore, it's far from obvious to me that a NORMAL hospice would serve
>our purposes. They're trying to get the people who live there to adjust to
>their coming death while they also care for them.
>
>A cryonics hospice would be different. The facilities for suspension would
>be within easy reach, and so far as the patient is conscious he can be
>asked questions (and ask questions) which may relate to how he is to be
>treated in the future --- not to mention that once he's in the hospice, 
>there is no serious problem likely to arise with his suspension. As for
>the questions, he's there to clear up any uncertainty or lack of
>specification in his suspension papers, too. And he'll know that he is
>staying with cryonicists and being cared for by cryonicists, something 
>which may be important.
>
>I do want to state, too, that a community would be nice, too. 

I really think we need a complete community with a hospice within that
community.
Why?  see below.


>But I'm
>bringing up the hospice idea specifically because it looks to me to be
>more reachable in the near future than a general community. So far, for
>instance, those cryonicists who have grown old have NOT gathered together
>with others, but instead try to maintain their old routines as much as
>possible.


And that brings us full circle to what started this discussion.  I had
noticed that Alcor recently had another problem with an ex-member who had
let his suspension arrangements lapse and then wanted back when he was
terminal.

This reminded me of the SO MANY times members (as they got older or lived
alone, or away from cryonics-support) have made very bad decisions
regarding their suspensions or missed out on being suspended.  I think that
a community where people go BEFORE  they need a hospice is what is needed
most to eliminate this problem, and also a cryonics hospice.


> Sure, a big enough community would start to draw people in;
>but then how do we get to such a community in the first place.

This is the problem.  We need money to make a nice community that people
will move to and we need the nice community to get people to invest the
money to built it.

>As I understand it, Dave has already attempted such a thing on his own. It
>didn't seem to work. A hospice just might.

This is true.  But the attempt that I made had many problems that would not
be present in an upscale community.  What I attempted to do was start in an
underfunded manner.  We had one old house, it was not very modern.  What we
need are new and exciting various types of houses for people to live in.
Some small and more affordable and some big and more comforatble.

It would be nice to also have a resort or motel there so people could visit
there ahead of time and get comfortable with the location.  I have noticed
that when people get old and especially terminal, they don't want to
relocate anywhere out of their existing house.  Even thought they could get
a much better suspension if they moved closer to the service provider, they
just don't want to move.  Perhaps if they had been vacationing at the
resort part of the community, enjoyed the ammenities, met some of the
people who live there, then they might be more willing to move when they
became terminal.


>			Best wishes and long long life to all,
>
>				Thomas Donaldson
>

For now, there does not seem to be enough interest from large potential
investors, so we are all at the same peril that has existed.  I hope there
can be some other solution to help prevent the bad and missed suspensions
from continuing.

Dave

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=12904