X-Message-Number: 13815
From: "John de Rivaz" <>
Subject: Cryonics too costly? Not for most
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 12:36:59 +0100
I do not "have a fit" and indeed beleive that this subject should be debated
from time to time so that new people can vote with their currency as to
which method they chose. Mr Hoffman can state the case for spending your
money on life insurance and I can state it for investing it with technology
companies and profiting from the growth in technology that we all need for
cryonics revivals.
I am concerned that the lawyers and life insurance companies are running a
protection racket between them that make it difficult for people to spend
their own money in the most efficient way and the way they most want. Such
a protection racket under any other circumstances would get the opprobrium
of lawyers and result in its perpetrators being sent to prison for very long
periods. I have in fact published in Longevity Report 77 Mike Darwin's
article on the subject which admits that life insurance is an appallingly
bad investment but concludes that it is the safest way of funding
cryopreservation, even at Alcor's prices.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/longevityrpt/lr77.htm
The numbers do indeed speak for themselves - direct investment make you
better of by millions of dollars *provided you live out the term of
investment and your estate if not raped by the legal profession.* If fear of
this rape drives you to whole life insurance, then these millions of dollars
pass instead to those who run the life insurance industry. As Mike Darwin
has pointed out (I am not sure whether in the article or emails) that
collectively people who run the life insurance industry are far richer than
companies like Microsoft and Intel and the up and coming genomics companies,
and this wealth has so far protected them and their customers from the
unwelcome advances of the legal profession. There is a strange symbiosis
here - the lawyers make people too afraid to own their own assets, and the
lawyers are too afraid to attack the colossal wealth of the life companies.
If you look at the little calculator on
http://geocities.yahoo.com/longevityrpt/lifeins.htm
you can make the numbers speak for themselves! Multiply that huge difference
across all the policies issued to people who live out a reasonable number of
years, then you'll see where this wealth is coming from.
Fear of litigation and similar things driving people to life policies
coupled with this difference will lead to other investment products
appearing in a free market, to protect people from theft of their assets.
("Theft" as in common usage, not legal terms.) "The cost of protection" and
"the economic returns of violence" plays a big part in Lord Rees-Mogg's
analysis of the future in "The Sovereign Individual".
Finally I would like to remind readers of Cryonet as to who is actually
losing the difference between life insurance and direct investment. Many
will think it is the individual using one or other of these methods to fund
their cryopreservation, and therefore it is of no importance whatsoever to
the cryonics movement.
*Wrong*
The losers are the cryonics organisations. This is because the quoted
"price" for cryopreservation is not a price, it is a "minimum." If the means
to provide that minimum are more efficient, the cryonics organisations get a
larger amount when their patient requires their services. Everyone is
motivated to get past the goal post of the minimum fast.
Life Insurance gets there very fast, but it never gets any further.
Investment has to be large enough to get there reasonably fast, Eden if
supported by a term policy. But just as a car with quick acceleration can be
driven at multiples of the legal speed limit, so does such an investment
policy get well beyond the minimum cryopreservation fee.
What we should look for is the appearance of a life insurance type trust,
with the protection of the life companies, but which is in fact only
technically life insurance. The sum assured is in such cases is the value of
the trust plus one dollar. The trust should be invested in a technology unit
trust or mutual fund. Such "products" are common in the UK, but as far as I
know are not available yet in a technology flavour. There is also a problem
of moving large mature investment funds into them without punitive capital
taxation based on past profits, and the very substantial commissions charges
on such products compared to just buying investment units.
>>>>>>>>
Message #13809
From:
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 19:22:47 EDT
Subject: Cryonics too costly? Not for most...
Please allow me to reproduce the article I have written for "Cryonics", as
this is on point here. Yes, I know John DeRivas will have a fit, but the
numbers still speak for themselves.
<<<<<<<<
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
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=13815