X-Message-Number: 22322
From: 
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:31:07 EDT
Subject: community

--part1_1e9.ea6c913.2c68f49b_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

David Pizer wrote in part:


> In my opinion, if someone falls into this category they should consider the 
> option of just leaving the money to the cryonics company that suspends them. 
>  There should not be an expectation of financial return in these cases, but 

> there would be the expectation that if all of us leave some extra money (when
> we can) to our suspension organizations that will enable them to do a better 
> job and increase the odds that we will be reanimated some day.  This might 
> far and away be the most bang anyone can get for their buck?
> 
> I know in Alcor's case (and I'm pretty sure this holds for CI) a lot of good 
> and additional benefits were obtained for all the patients because of the 
> additional bequests left by certain far-thinking members who also helped 
> themselves in the process.
> 

Yes, Alcor got its big early boost from the Dick Jones legacy, with others to 
follow, and CI got a big boost from the Fred Sherrill bequest, and others 
later. In fact, probably the total of large bequests in each case is at least 
equal to the present net assets of the organizations.

Some prospective members see this as a danger signal. A prospective member 
recently told me that he was wary of Alcor because it depended on bequests for 
financial viability, and it is therefore on shaky ground. This is a 
misperception.

First of all, a significant number of members, in all organizations, have 
uncommitted reserves of money and effort which would become available in any 

emergency. The organizations are also responsive and adaptable, and can move to
meet changing circumstances--if necessary by drastic cuts in expenses. The 
"instinct" for self-preservation is strong both in the individuals and in the 
organizations.
  
   At risk of having my motives questioned, I might also mention the cases of 
two organizations organized on very different models. Trans Time was 

organized for profit, with an eye to the high end market, and offering (I 
believe) 
only short term contracts. It is now, I believe, essentially out of business, 
although it could conceivably revive. As far as I know, its only remaining 
patient is Paul Segall.

CryoCare also aimed for the high end, and with a strictly each-for-himself, 
stand-alone outlook, apparently more or less ideally suited to the Libertarian 
viewpoint. It subcontracted physical services to other companies. The other 
companies folded, and so did CryoCare. There was not a total lack of community 

spirit, and for a while their morale was high as a self-perceived elite, but in
the end it was another case of a "beautiful theory mugged by a gang of ugly 
facts." 

"Communism" on a national scale is an error and a horror, but policies that 

sound vaguely communistic can work on a smaller scale. Familes are in many ways
communistic. The kibbutzim in Israel are communistic, but have enjoyed long 
term success for their relatively few people. Private philanthropy has played 
an important role in this country, and "philanthropists" within cryonics 
organizations can help both themselves and the organizations. 

As to the specific question of individual trusts, I might add that having 
professional trustees (banks etc.) virtually guarantees mediocre financial 
results at substantial expense, and, more importantly, guarantees a lack of 

expertise in the cryonics area, which could at some point be crucial for the 
patient. 
It also guarantees a conflict of interest, since the trustees will be 
motivated never to pay out. 

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society
www.cryonics.org

--part1_1e9.ea6c913.2c68f49b_boundary

 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22322