X-Message-Number: 1912
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 93 01:43:45 CST
From: fnordbox! (Steve Jackson)
Subject: Hope this gets here -

my usual gateway is down. 

Charles Platt points out the conflict between Alcor's role as a
"membership" organization and its (perhaps) desired role as a
"mere" medical service. Interesting.
 
It seems to me that, like it or not, Alcor is more than a "mere"
service right now, because without a certain amount of faith in
the idea of cryonics, nobody signs up for this service. Right?
 
Here's another "criminal member" hypothetical for you, working the
other side of the coin. This has little to do with the membership-
revocation question - it's just interesting.
 
Suppose an Alcor member is sentenced to death - it doesn't matter why.
Suppose Alcor announces that it will be standing by to recover the
body immediately after execution, for standard suspension. Now, isn't
the State in an interesting position? If it refuses to let Alcor have
the body, we have what amounts to an official endorsement of cryonics:
"We can't let him freeze this guy . . . he's supposed to stay dead!"
On the other hand, if the State takes the position that cryonics is
bunk and the executed member is just meat, the MEDIA will provide lots
of speculation and lots of publicity. There's got to be a good story
here. If the member is revived somewhere down the line, what's his
status? Did he pay his "debt to society" when he was killed the
first time? And so on, and so on!
 
********
 
Mike Darwin -
 
I followed your note to me - not necessarily agreed, but followed it -
right up to the paragraph that ended with the line about how you were
"deeply suspicious." I'm sorry, but that whole paragraph literally did
not make sense to me. Who is in a hurry to do what to who, please?
And who do you think I am trying to get into a totally helpless 
position, and what DO you think I am concerned about? I think we are
heavily into total mutual incomprehension here.
 
*********
 
Steve Harris -
 
says (forgive lack of fancy quote function): "I fully second
Mike's idea that Alcor should not attempt to be the Holly Office
of the Inquisition, offering eternal life to those who tread the
straight gate and the narrow way of organizational righteousness,
and permanent high temperature attitude correction to those who
deviate."
 
Excuse me? You obviously enjoyed writing that, but I don't *think*
you are seconding anything Mike said. I didn't hear him accuse anybody
of requiring a "straight gate and a narrow way." And I sure haven't
heard anybody ADVOCATE that. Several people, including me, have said
that an extraordinary circumstance could arise under which Alcor would
be justified in revoking a membership. You're not just exaggerating
that - you've distorted it past recognition. You've created a straw
man, and you're making fun of it effectively, but none of the points
you're scoring on Mr. Straw have anything to do with the discussion.
 
*********
Thomas Donaldson -
 
RIGHT ON THE MONEY!
 
(discussing the kind of event that would justify exclusion of a
member) - "when and if such an event ever happens, WE WILL ALL KNOW
THAT IT HAS HAPPENED, and WE WILL ALL KNOW THE CHOICE WE ARE FACING."
 
As a matter of fact, that observation fully justifies a by-law (or
whatever) PROHIBITING member exclusion. Perhaps we should add one.
What changed my mind?
 
The clause Keith was considering would have said, more or less, "A
majority of Alcor directors can revoke a membership."
 
Suppose we have a by-law which prohibits revocation of a membership.
Unless California law is amazingly different from Texas law, a majority
of directors can change a by-law.
 
So if and when we have the kind of screaming, obvious emergency situation
that justifies a member exclusion, the directors will hold an emergency
meeting, and the ones who violently oppose any exclusion now will say
"Boy, I never thought this could happen!" And they'll do what they have
to do, because it will clearly be the necessary thing at the time.
 
OR NOT. And if the need isn't so obvious that a majority of Alcor
directors, WHO HATE THE IDEA OF EXCLUSION, will vote for it . . . well,
then it won't happen. Which is fine with me. Which, I think, is fine
with everyone who has argued that there could be a need someday.
None of us want Alcor to become a (Darwin definition) cult, or even
to look like one. 
 
So if a No-Member-Exclusions bylaw will make anybody feel more 
comfortable, and end this particular bickerfest, I say go for it!
 
If I'm wrong in my belief that the Directors will *always* be able
to change a by-law under California law, I trust that an officer or
director of Alcor will correct me.

-- Via DLG Pro v0.995

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1912