X-Message-Number: 1842
Date: 28 Feb 93 15:46:18 EST
From: Clarissa Wells <>
Subject: CRYONICS Miscellaneous Topics
To: >INTERNET:
Regarding: Regulation and safety
It so happens that a member of my family has done some hang gliding, which is
relevant, because there are some parallels with cryonics. Hang gliding appeals
to a small minority of individualists, and the general public tends to think
they're slightly crazy. Also, hang gliding has escaped government regulation
(unlike powered flight, which is heavily regulated). How did the hang gliding
people preserve their freedom from red tape? They got together and started the
US Hang Gliding Association, so they could REGULATE THEMSELVES, e.g. with
safety standards that everyone observes. Therefore I suggest that instead of
asking for legislation to control cryonics, as one person has suggested, there
is a much more attractive alternative: cryonics groups could form a trade
association (like a small version of the Americal Medical Association), and
regulate themselves. If the bureaucrats decide to take an interest in this
field, if you could then show them your "code of professional ethics,"
administered by a body of your own. Possibly this has already been attempted,
or possibly the cryonics groups would have trouble agreeing on how it should
be done. But surely, it would be worth trying.
Regarding: Finances
I don't know if anyone is interested, but for what it's worth, here's the
point of view of someone relatively new to cryonics. I can't think of any
other business that would publicly proclaim its own cash crisis. I admire the
candor, but I wonder if people are really as candid as they seem. David Pizer
tells us that Alcor is losing $100,000 per year, and there are no economies of
scale. Consequently losses will be even greater in future. But Carlos
Mondragon tells us that "we do not have a deficit problem," and "expenses will
be lower," and "even marginal growth will result in a clear, indisputable,
across-the-board SURPLUS in 1993 even AFTER extraordinary income and expenses
get eliminated." Meanwhile, Steven Bridge is asking for donations to pay his
employees! Now, Mr. Pizer mentions he is "speaking personally, and not as
treasurer of Alcor." From this it seems clear that he is in fact the
treasurer. I understand that Mr. Mondragon was President of Alcor during 1992,
and Mr. Bridge is the current president. I have dealt with some small amateur
groups in my life, but I have never seen such a case of the left hand not
knowing what the right hand is (or was) doing. When the president, the ex-
president, and the treasurer can't agree within a margin of $100,000, it is
hard to believe that all of them are sincere (unless the book keeping is in
VERY strange condition). Is the new president deliberately being an alarmist
because he wants to make the old president look bad? Is the old president
trying to say there's no problem so he WON'T look bad? What's going on?
I assume that regular members of Alcor are in the same position as non-
members--i.e. they have no way of verifying financial details. However, in one
area at least, there seems to be evidence of creative accounting. Mr.
Mondragon says he didn't "really" touch a block of money in an endowment fund.
Alarm bells should sound when statements like that are made! Imagine a change
of context: a kid and a cookie jar. "Did you touch those cookies?" "Well, not
really." Any mother knows immediately that SOMETHING has happened. Maybe there
are still as many cookies as before--but you can bet that one of them has had
a few corners nibbled off. Am I right?
Mr. Mondragon goes on to say that he doesn't want to reduce the fund by "one
thin dime." Then in the next paragraph he says the new president should be
freer to borrow money from it. But even after the money is borrowed, he says
the "capital will be intact." It seems to me, without being too simpleminded
about this, if you borrow from a fund, that must be because you want to spend
the money, and after you have spent the money, the capital is NOT intact.
Incidentally, Mr. Mondragon, I am an individual who enjoys the sense of having
something original to say. I don't like your implication that I am just a
mouthpiece, and your suggestion that you may have "known me for many years" is
absolutely untrue. All I am doing, here, is critically examining text that
other people (including you) have written. Perhaps you find this harder to
accept from an outsider than from an insider?
This leads me to Steve Jackson, who also questions my sincerity, though he
disagrees with Mr. Mondragon that I sound like somebody else, and he says my
writing style has "an aura that's hard to miss," which presumably means it
ISN'T like anyone else, though he finds my style offensive.
Mr. Jackson, this is how I generally express myself. I think I make my points
clearly. I agree that when I feel strongly about an issue, I may express my
feelings in a roundabout way. (Would you prefer me to be rude?) But since you
ask, yes, I find Mr. Henson's outlook on some issues probably more offensive
than you find my "polite" style, and this is why I took issue with him. If I
found other people's attitudes offensive I might take issue with them too.
As for my style sounding "phony," frankly, YOUR letter seems a bit phony to
me. In fact, if you were one of my students, I would suspect you of cheating
on your homework.
Here you are, suddenly jumping into a discussion that has already gone to and
fro a couple of times. I wonder what prompts you to do so, because frankly,
you don't seem very INTERESTED in the discussion. If you were interested, you
might have said something earlier, and you would have paid attention to what
was said. But you spend almost all your time replying to things I didn't say
at all. (I never said anything about constitutional rights, and I never said
anything about cults. That was Brian Wowk, I believe. All I said was that in
my personal opinion, it would be wrong if a cryonics organization excluded a
paying member just because he said some things they didn't like.)
Mr. Jackson, you have read my letters so carelessly, it looks to me as if you
might have been doing it as a favor to a friend. Am I right in thinking that
Keith Henson asked you to reply to me? And am I also correct that Keith Henson
asked you to discredit me by suggesting I did not really write my own
comments? Bearing in mind the evasiveness of Mr. Henson's letters, it seems
likely he would not want to come right out and accuse me of something himself.
Much more convenient to get someone else to do it!
Of course, I may be wrong. This being so, I will still try to answer your
letter. Following Mr. Henson's cue, you argue mainly that an organization CAN
kick people out at will. Of course it can! I never said it couldn't. Whether
it SHOULD was my question. Is it right, or is it wrong?
This is an ethical question, but it can also be a practical question. Like Mr.
Henson, you seem happier dealing in practical terms, so I'll try again to show
that it can be not only wrong, but self-defeating, to discriminate. Suppose a
journalist did a lot of muckraking about a city hospital. Suppose the articles
contained some factual inaccuracies, and the journalist refused to apologize.
Now suppose the journalist just happens to have a serious accident near that
hospital. What should the hospital do: refuse him treatment, and endanger his
life? Or make a point of giving him the very best medical care? If they choose
the first option, the hospital will "protect" itself, but it will seem callous
in a way that is inappropriate for a health-care institution. By comparison,
if the hospital chooses the second option, people will be very impressed by
the hospital's high principles. As a result, they will feel safe about being
treated at that hospital, and the hospital will prosper. The journalist may
even write nicer things in future. It seems to me, in this sort of case, good
ethics and common sense happen to coincide.
Originally I thought I was making a small point about ethics. I still think of
it this way. If people are getting tired of this whole discussion, I will
happily let it drop. In fact, since I seem to be spending more and more time
here, I may take a week off anyway.
At the risk of being condemned by Mr. Jackson for being "sugary," I have found
the various exchanges here enlightening, and I thank people for bothering to
answer me.
Yours sincerely
Clarissa Wells
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1842