X-Message-Number: 13052
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 20:57:10 -0800
From: James Bryan Gustafson-Swayze <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #13038 - #13044
References: <>

RE: Gracious response I have received 

First let me say sorry for being silent so long. The New Year and fatigue and a
computer mishap
(locked up and wiped an entire letter I was working on to post) got in the way.
I am humbled and awed by the caring response I have received from you all to my
post. I Have written some of you individually so forgive me if I repeat myself
here. I am feeling a bit silly for the antagonistic tone of my post. Not one of
you has criticized me for that. I have great hope for humanity and faith in
humanism and you all reinforce that for me so incredibly much. I also want to
apologize for mistakenly giving the impression that I may be actively suicidal
presently. In my effort to make my point I chose the wrong words. I should have
said that it is something that given no better alternative is everyday in the
back of my mind. However, I don't brood over it constantly and I would not
describe myself as clinically depressed. I like to consider that my depression
could easily be cured with a job and a girlfriend, in other words a real life. 

I must also say when I wrote my first post I had no intention to solicit help
from you all toward the
goal of cryonic suspension. I was surprised and frankly flabbergasted from this
result. That being

said I want you all to know I definitely would accept any help I could get. Only
a fool would refuse

if under my circumstances. After all, in my belief, it would be the saving of my
life and hopefully
so much more. Not three weeks ago I contacted one of the contacts for acquiring
insurance policies to cover suspension contracts that was listed on Alcor's

site. They were compassionate towards me but did not know of any company willing
to take the risk with all of my ailments. I admit I did feel some despair from
that and perhaps it came out in my post here that day. 

I have been in touch with some of you individually where I proposed my wish to
do what I can to do my part. As I mentioned in my post I am inventive. I have
been seeking for some time any who could, for a full partnership, help me in
obtaining patents and such as needed to bring my ideas to fruition. In this way
the help will be in helping me help myself. I am not in any way refusing the
pledges I just want to be a part and do what I can. I and those of you I am in
contact with are discussing several ideas even a book about my life, which is
actually considered quite a story. Further I am an artist and can paint (when

the muse is kind to me) and wish to try sculpture for which I have several ideas
floating around for quite some time. One of my biggest problems is too many
ideas for time and ability to accomplish. I have also been known to build model

airplanes using special rubber band and paper clip clamps I designed which I can
grab with my teeth and a thumb and clasp around a part to hold while gluing.
Perhaps I could do art or crafts (I build clocks out of old pc hard drives and
motherboards) for commissions. 

Some may be wondering how a quad can do all I have mentioned. Though I am a
quad, meaning four extremities paralyzed, I am not as impaired as Chris Reeves
when it comes to the use of my hands and arms and breathing. My level of injury

is C5/C6, where C means cervical. Chris's injury is higher than that and thus he
has more impairment. My triceps muscles and many others in my arms do not work
but my biceps and shoulder muscles do. My hands are clinched into a semi rigid
fist. I type by stuffing two sticks with rubber tips between my fingers and can
manage maybe 30 words per minute for a short stint as I get fatigued quickly. 

Since I am able to do the things I mentioned and more that I haven't one may
fairly ask why can't he work a job? Some may already know the answer to
this--disincentives. Now I have heard a rumor that legislation was signed by
Clinton that would change some rules that make it impossible for a lot of
disabled people to work but I have not seen any news reports of it. I already

planned on looking further into it though. However, this may only be federal and
not affect the local level much. So far for all of my life as a disabled person
the rules have been prohibitive. 

For instance I am not allowed to own anything over $500 in value so, technically
I can't own my pc or my TV or my stereo, etc., etc.  I am not allowed to have
more than $1500 in liquidible assets or savings. I cannot own a home in which I
do not also live in. I cannot own stocks or bonds. I may
only own one vehicle. I must report any income over $25 and that which I report
gets taken away from what I receive so the net gain is zero. These rules were

devised to stop welfare fraud and when applied to the able bodied are justified.

Now there is some allowed extra income for Social Security Disability pensioners
to earn up to a certain amount but it is totally unrealistic in the real world.
This also doesn't take into account the way it meshes with the state portion of
the equation. 

The biggest disincentive is losing medical coverage. I get $516.55 per month
social security disability (SDI) and supplemental security income (SSI)
combined. Of that the supplemental security income is $36.55. That is my entire
income unless you include free rent in my folks' home. If I got more from SDI I

would get less SSI. SSI pays my Medicare premium and qualifies me for state paid
Chore Service or my care attendant, which by the way has been my step brother
mostly for these twenty years. If I earned more I would lose SSI and thus lose
the chore service and have to pay for that myself which I could begin to do. 

My medical costs for supplies, drugs, nursing service fees and wheelchair
service was $41,000 last year. This did not take into account doctors fees, the
chore service of $1229 per month and

hospital costs. My wheelchair cost $25,000 and is 8 years old. I haven't been as
active as I could
be or would have to be if employed but when I was I wore out wheelchairs at a
rate of one every

three years. A vehicle for me to drive would be in the neighborhood of $50,000.

If I were employed, away from home, I would need more than one chore person to
manage me and my household chores. Right now the state has me at the highest

rate of pay for my step brother and for this he is supposed to cover my needs 24
hours a day 7 days a week. It's ludicrous and would be illegal for minimum wage
alone if they didn't get around it by making him an independent contractor.
Something can happen that requires assistance at any time of the day or night
and there is no planning it. Often it is the type of thing that if not dealt
with right away can cause injury or even death. The two most dangerous and
common are bowel and urinary difficulties. I already described what can happen
if either cannot be emptied. In the case of an accident the skin is immediately
in danger of break down which if occurs takes months to heal and can lead to

costly surgeries with skin grafts. The only way we manage is that I am fortunate
enough to have a loving family that pitches in when my step brother is away at
his other job or living his own life. 

This is all probably more than you all wanted to know. I apologize for rambling
on. I do not mind
telling what life this way is like. If more people knew perhaps the government
would be compelled to better remove the barriers and let us do something to
contribute. Even if we couldn't reach break even point I think the overall cost
for the country would be less. Once about ten years ago I calculated what I
would need as starting out pay to sever the umbilical chord attached to Uncle

Sam. To provide enough to pay for the medical and the care and the equipment and

the trappings that one needs to stay within the social level of ones peers would
take at least $125,000 per year and that's conservative and half of it is chore

and household care. Why the social level part? Does anyone trust a salesman that
drives a junker? How many successful executives compete very well in the ladder

climb wearing cheap clothes living in run down quarters or otherwise not showing
the signs of success? Are there a lot of $125,000 a year jobs out there? Not
many I assume. Should the figure be adjusted upwards for 10 years inflation? I
would be glad to work if it comes about either through realistic removal of
disincentives or some end around that would allow me to work without losing my
medical coverage and pay for a care attendant. I would of course be very happy
and would really love working as a volunteer for any of the Cryonics groups 

These disincentives are why I have for many years pinned my hopes on one of my

inventions one day paying off. If I were able somehow to provide for myself with

the aid of some opened doors the pledges made on my behalf could be nullified or
provided for someone else. That of course is not up to me. However, I want to
pledge that should the fruit of my newly shot in the arm endeavors end up being
beyond expectation, in other words should we make a pile from one of my
inventions or a book or what ever, I will sponsor someone of need as well

In closing I wish to say I would eagerly welcome and invite anyone to contact me

in any manner. If anyone is near my area or passing through please do stop in. I
crave intellectual conversation and the company of like minded thinkers. My
family though I love them dearly do not all share my beliefs. Fortunately my
best friend and step brother does. Here is my contact information. 

James Swayze 
11316 NE 189th Street 
Battle Ground, WA 98604 
Ph# 1-360-666-0936 

Thank you all again, 


CryoNet wrote:
> CryoNet - Mon 3 Jan 2000
>     #13038: Cryonics Charity [John de Rivaz]
>     #13039: some neuroscientific comments on consciousness [Thomas Donaldson]
>     #13040: James Swayze [Halperin, Jim - 255]
>     #13041: Mr. Swayze [Scott Badger]
>     #13042: The Life-Extension Meme [Scott Badger]
>     #13043: Being John Malkovich [John Clark]
>     #13044: Re: CryoNet #13028 - #13032 [david pizer]
> Administrivia
> To subscribe to CryoNet, send email to:
> with the subject line (not message _body_):
>     subscribe
> To unsubscribe, use the subject line:
>     unsubscribe
> To post a message to CryoNet, send your message to:
> (Note: A "Subject:" line starting the message body replaces
> the "Subject:" line in the header.  This gives a second
> opportunity to provide a meaningful subject line.)
> To retrieve past messages, send email to:
> with the message numbers in the subject line.
> (Message 0003 describes the advanced syntax.)
> You also can retrieve them via the CryoNet web page at URL:
>     http://www.cryonet.org/
> or Keith Lynch's _complete_ archives at:
>     http://www.clark.net/pub/kfl/les/cryonet/
> For administrative or other questions/suggestions, send email
> to me at "".
>     - Kevin Q. Brown
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Message #13038
> From: "John de Rivaz" <>
> Subject: Cryonics Charity
> Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 12:01:14 -0000
> In response to the debate about possible  charity cryopreservations, I have
> composed the following.
> It starts off by discussing problems, and then suggests a solution. If the
> proposed charity only started with $5k and performed no cryopreservation for
> ten years, then it could be a going concern according to my calculations.
> This is not supposed to be a hard and fast recipe, but the starting point
> for a debate that may produce further problems and solution I have not seen.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> World Cryonics Service (WCS)
> There has been a little interest in the concept of offering charity to
> cryonics patients who are unable to afford or get life insurance. The fact
> is that charity frequently begins at home and should end there if there are
> no surplus funds. You should not put strangers before friends, or you lose
> your friends! If you give cryopreservations to people living near you, you
> are not being totally charitable. You are generating local interest and are
> creating a local cryonics community. This may one day save you life - some
> of these people may be around when you deanimate and be willing to engage
> the local officials in the battle for your life.
> However, the concept of charity today is really a form of business, those
> who operate charities well are in a win-win situation - they get some
> benefit themselves whilst helping others. Indeed some people who operate
> charities get word wide recognition, which seems to be something that many
> people crave. "Give till it hurts" Bob Geldorf comes to mind. Those who
> contribute to charities are buying a sense of belonging to the world
> community.
> Also, it should be borne in mind that the best way to help total strangers
> is to contribute to research that betters the human condition generally.
> Cancer research charities would benefit more strangers per dollar that
> cancer relief charities, for example. Research into ageing would benefit
> more people than cancer research because research into ageing would lead to
> cancer prevention *and* prevention of other causes of suffering.
> Contributing to a cryonics research project run by your cryonics provider
> will help more strangers than contributing to a project that offers free
> cryopreservations.
> The results of all research projects could also benefit people who give them
> money, but usually any individual giver is unlikely to influence progress,
> so this effect is negligible.
> But, how might a cryonics charity benefit the progress of cryonics?
> * It could focus public opinion on the benefits of cryonics if done
> publicly.
> * People who use concepts such as "selfishness" to impose their own opinions
> about cryonics could be made to look foolish.
> * It could influence individuals, employed by official bodies, who may want
> to act against cryopreservations if they are doing so under the glare of
> media disapproval. Suppose a local community in England had collected enough
> money to send one of their number to America for a life saving operation and
> an English customs official prevented the person leaving the country because
> of some legality. I doubt whether any customs official who valued his
> security and that of his family would dare to take such action even if the
> law required it. A "blind eye" would be turned.
> Therefore there are some benefits from an organisation such as WCS. But how
> might it detract from the progress of cryonics?
> * It could divert money that would otherwise be spent on research.
> * It will divert money that will otherwise be used as an "overpayment" for
> someone's cryopreservation. (Unless the money was given by someone not
> themselves signed up - apparently a possible scenario.)
> I think that these problems can be reduced if certain arrangements are made
> in the constitution of any proposed charity, namely that it buys memberships
> in advance and makes periodic pre-payments in advance to the cryonic
> organisation.
> On the basis that the Cryonics Institute is the least expensive of the main
> providers, that neuropreservation is more expensive than CI's
> cryopreservation, and that neuropreservation is not publicly acceptable,
> then CI is the only logical choice to be the provider for a World Cryonics
> Service (WCS). If one of the other providers were to offer a cheaper service
> to WCS clients then this would be totally unacceptable to their members most
> of whose funding arrangements will form a substantial part of their
> finances.
> WCS would receive income from:
> 1. People who have given it money
> 2. People who are cryopreserved and have some money but not enough for a
> cryopreservation, who bequest it to WCS.
> 3. The growth in its assets as a result of the world's technology progress.
> As long as it has capital, no 3 will predominate as the major source of its
> income.
> It will in addition receive benefit in kind from members of the cryonics
> community who have professional  skills they can give to it. However once
> set up it should not require much time. It should never pay professional
> fees or retainers - that is not what people will give it money for. (And
> which people criticise conventional charities for.) However this benefit in
> kind is not part of the basic equation - it is merely necessary to keep the
> rest of society from taxing or otherwise attacking it.
> WCS would incorporate as a charity in all the worlds major economies,
> enabling people to give it capital without the penalties of capital
> taxation. If the cryonics movement feels that it is a worthwhile project,
> lawyers and accountants within the movement will give it the necessary time
> to do this. In some countries I understand that private individuals can
> sometimes deal with government agencies that incorporate charities, although
> success is unlikely. "If you want to give money to charity, there are plenty
> to chose from. There is no need for your crackpot scheme" is what a private
> individual is likely to be told, maybe not in these exact words. An attempt
> by a UK life extensionist to set up a life extension research charity
> failed, yet a few months later someone else who was part of the
> establishment managed to set up something very similar, according to what I
> remember hearing on a radio program. (Sorry, no more details.)
> WCS will invest its money in technology stocks - there is no other sensible
> investment: without technology advancement, there will be no cryonics
> advancement. This can be achieved by a mutual fund such as the technology
> fund run by Invesco or a technology index tracker fund such as QQQ.
> Once WCS has achieved about $35k, it will buy one CI membership, entitling
> it to buy one cryopreservation at the lower rate of $28k plus transport.
> Once it has that membership it is ready for any deserving case requiring
> cryopreservation. Hopefully it won't get any, and its funds will grow as
> long as technology goes on growing. Spectacular advances in electronics,
> computers, genomics and later on nanotechnology will ensure this growth.
> Once the WCS fund reaches about $300k it can start pre-paying
> cryopreservations for use as needed at a rate of about $10k/yr. This might
> seem an odd suggestion, but it is to address the problem that it is
> diverting funds from cryonics that may otherwise be used for overpayments or
> other gifts. It also has the advantage to the WCS fund that once
> cryopreservations are prepaid, the risk of having to realise investments at
> a bad time in the market is reduced. (I recommend that anyone relying on a
> technology trust fund to pay for a cryopreservation always has 30% more than
> is needed in the fund to allow for market drops.) The relatively low rate of
> prepayments ensure that the overall growth of the fund is not adversely
> affected. At that rate, initially it will prepay one cryopreservation every
> three years. But as the fund will still grow it will soon afford to prepay
> at a faster rate.
> Of course WCS  is more likely to get calls on the funds, before any growth
> can occur. If it has not attained enough to prepay a membership, then it
> will have to pay the $35k instead of $28k. If there are insufficient funds
> then it will not be able to cryopreserve whoever dies at that time. That is
> tough, but if the fund did not exist then the unfortunate individual would
> not get cryopreserved anyway. Once WCS has used up its membership it has to
> buy another, of course.
> It should be remembered that the vast majority of people will not chose
> cryopreservation however ill they are even if it is free. Many disabled
> people would love the chance of a new body but would still balk at cryonics.
> They are too indoctrinated by historical perspectives on reality. The
> chances are that if WCS is initially well endowed and the one or two
> patients that have been suggested live for another decade or so, then it
> will be financially capable of meeting its demands. Also it should be
> remembered that as it requires people who are cryopreserved to make some
> contribution from their estates, the cost to WCS per cryopreservation need
> not be the full amount.
> <<<<<<<<<<<<
> --
> Sincerely, John de Rivaz
> my homepage links to Longevity Report, Fractal Report, my singles club for
> people in Cornwall, music, Inventors' report, an autobio and various other
> projects:       http://geocities.yahoo.com/longevityrpt
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Message #13039
> From: Thomas Donaldson <>
> Subject: some neuroscientific comments on consciousness
> Date: Mon, 3 Jan 100 00:31:01 +1100 (EST)
> About consciousness of lobotomy patients:
> There HAS been, by now, considerable thought and work by neuroscientists
> on the issue of just how consciousness may work. An interesting book by
> Damasio, THE FEELING OF WHAT HAPPENS, proposes (as do many
> neuroscientists) that consciousness is a matter of degree. Many animals
> are conscious, but their consciousness isnt the same kind as ours.
> This relates quite closely to lobotomies, since Damasio proposes that
> our frontal lobes are involved not in our consciousness as such but in
> our higher levels of consciousness. It would therefore be reasonable to
> say that lobotomy patients continue to be conscious, but only at the low
> level at which a dog or cat (say) is conscious.
> Since our consciousness is clearly something we want to keep, this subject
> has lots of bearing on its preservation. If you lose your frontal lobes
> due to accident or poor suspension, can your consciousness be FULLY
> revived? Ive discussed some of this work in PERIASTRON, but hardly all
> of it.
>                         Best and long long life to all,
>                                 Thomas Donaldson
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Message #13040
> From: "Halperin, Jim - 255" <>
> Subject: James Swayze
> Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 08:35:59 -0600
> I'll pledge $2500 U.S.
> Has anyone agreed to take charge of the logistics and any decision-making?
> Best wishes, and a happy and healthy 2000 (and beyond) to all.
> Jim Halperin
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Message #13041
> From: "Scott Badger" <>
> References: <>
> Subject: Mr. Swayze
> Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 09:50:31 -0600
> Hello all,
> Re:  Mr. Swayze
> Like many of you, I was transfixed as I read Mr. Swayze's last message.  I'm
> sorry James, if it seemed that we were in a word contest,
> over-intellectualizing over the kind of suffering that is so real for
> someone like yourself.  Our $10 dollar words, were not meant to trivialize.
> But I agree that we cannot know your experience.  We can only attempt to
> empathize to some small degree.  Your input to the debate was very useful.
> At the same time, I do wonder what Mr. Swayze's perspective is on all this.
> Making these arrangements on a public forum may well be uncomfortable for
> him.  Perhaps he's open to our help and perhaps he's not.  How much would a
> life insurance policy  cost/month vs. trying to purchase a cryonics contract
> outright?  Is there work of some kind that Mr. Swayze could provide in
> exchange for considerations offered by a cryonics organization?  There are
> lots of questions here that require Mr. Swayze's feedback.  I suggest
> someone from Alcor or CI offer to communicate directly with Mr. Swayze to
> determine if and how the cryonics community might be of service.
> Best regards,
> Scott Badger
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Message #13042
> From: "Scott Badger" <>
> References: <>
> Subject: The Life-Extension Meme
> Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 09:52:59 -0600
> I just noticed something that struck me as an optimistic note for
> cryonicists and life-extensionists in general.  MSNBC online maintains a top
> 10 list of their articles.  That is, at the end of every article readers are
> asked to provide a rating from 1 to 7.  Currently, the #1 article is titled,
> "How long will you live -- Really?".
>  http://www.msnbc.com/modules/quizzes/lifex.asp
> And yesterday, I was standing at the info desk in Barnes & Noble waiting my
> turn behind a gentleman who appeared to be in his seventies looking for a
> book on life-extension.  It seems to me this meme has really taken off over
> the last couple years.  No big surprise, I guess, with the string of
> breakthroughs and the subsequent media coverage and the many books written
> on the subject.  I'm just pleased with the increased potential for interest
> in and acceptance of cryonics.
> Best regards,
> Scott Badger
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Message #13043
> From: "John Clark" <>
> Subject: Being John Malkovich
> Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 18:06:08 -0500

> I just saw the film "Being John Malkovich" and highly recommend it. We've 
talked about

> qualia, identity, and immortality on this list but I was surprised that a 
Hollywood movie would

> use such subjects as the focus for the entire plot; we may have done into a 
little more detail

> but the movie was much, much, funnier. No fancy special effects, just great 
writing acting and

> direction; I think it may be the best movie of the year, it's certainly the 
>     John K Clark       
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Message #13044
> Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2000 18:55:12 -0500
> From: david pizer <>
> Subject: Re: CryoNet #13028 - #13032
> At 05:00 AM 1/1/00 -0500, CryoNet wrote:
> From: Mike Perry <>
> >Subject: Helping James Swayze
> >
> >I'll join Gary Tripp in pledging $1000 (U.S. for me)  toward the suspension
> >of James Swayze. This pledge I will make toward whatever cryonics
> >organization may be the one that handles the arrangements. (CI is one
> >possibility but not the only one. Some forms of neurosuspension may be
> >preferred, depending on Mr. Swayze's wishes.) Someone also suggested the
> >possibility of giving Alcor's "free freeze" to Mr. Swayze. I don't know if
> >this is doable (probably not I think), but various options should be
> >explored in a timely manner and a decision made accordingly.
> >
> >Mike Perry
> When I saw the pledge the other day, somehow I knew that I would see a
> similar pledge from Mike Perry.
> Mike:  The person who won the free freeze may not want it at this time.
> With permission from The new Powers at Alcor you might want to contact that
> person and see if he wants to donate to someone else.  You might explain
> the situation.
> I remember talking to the winner several years ago, although he did not
> seem that interested in cryonics at the time (maybe I got a wrong
> impression), he did seem like a very nice person.
> Let us know what transpires.
> Good luck.
> Dave Pizer
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> End of CryoNet Digest
> *********************

"Quod de futuris non est determinata omnino veritas"
			    NOSTRADAMUS 15TH Century

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=13052