X-Message-Number: 22508
From: 
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 15:17:25 EDT
Subject: Comments on volunteers and "illegal" organizations

To CryoNet
From Steve Bridge
September 12, 2003

My, what a lot of unfounded speculation and short-sighted opinions in the 
last two days' posts, even from long-time activists.  If I were still a paid 
cryonicist, I would be able to spend several hours on replies.  But, perhaps 
fortunately, I don't that kind of time for education and discussion.  

Let's start with the volunteers vs. paid discussion.

>Message #22489
>From: "John Bull" <>
>Subject: Follow the money
>Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 13:35:54 -0400
>
>I've read Steve Bridges and Tim Freeman's speculation about the cause of
>the turnover of people at Alcor. But I think a more interesting way to look
>at the problem is "why is there such turnover at Alcor when compared to CI?"
>On the surface, the biggest difference between the organizations is the use
>of salaried employees vs. volunteers. I believe CI has 1 full time and 1
>part time employee, whereas Alcor has, I've heard, as many as 10.  Implicit
>in this case is the fact that volunteers have a cryonics commitment, they
>believe in the organization's goals, whereas salaried employees have another
>motivation. It would take someone smarter than me to dissect all the motives
>of salaried and volunteer workers.

I think it is silly and defensive to turn this discussion into "volunteers 
are better than employees."  Alcor has lots of volunteers, too.  Some of them 
have been around for decades; some of them get tired or disillusioned or over 
their heads -- and they leave.  Some come back, even multiple times.  I was a 
full-time Alcor employee for four years, being a volunteer for about 12 years 

before that (and a cryonics volunteer in other ways since 1977).  After leaving
Alcor's employment, I have remained a volunteer Director or Advisor for the 
last six years.  There are three Alcor employees who have been there for more 
than 12 years and one for six years.  Other former Alcor employees like Carlos 
Mondragon and Tanya Jones continue to volunteer in many ways.  I can list at 
least a dozen others who have been steady volunteers for many years.

I think that the reasons Charles and I gave for turnover are realistic ones.  
I would also note that for many years pay at Alcor was low enough that even 
the employees were essentially volunteers.  While I was President from 

1993-1997, I made $22,500 for two years and then managed to persuade the 
Directors to 
up that $25,000 for my last two years.  And I was the highest paid employee.  
When you are working 60 hours a week for that kind of salary, burnout can 

occur a bit faster.  Considering I had left a job in Indiana paying nearly 
$20,000 
a year more than I made at Alcor, I considered myself to be more or less a 
volunteer even as President.  Several younger people left Alcor's employment 

during that time because they wanted to be cryonicists and still make a living.
Only in the last couple of years have Alcor salaries come up to a point where 
a living wage could be paid.

We're in an in-between time now.  We can pay enough to attract more people; 
but we haven't learned how to attract, hire, and train the people with the 
right combination of steadiness, professionalism, and commitment to cryonics.  

Instead of going into full job searches over the past several years, too often a
hire as been made by elevating a volunteer to paid status.  Sometimes this 
works but sometimes the person was a better volunteer.  We'll learn.  Cryonics 

has to become professional someday or it will never be able to handle success if
we really get popular or if we ever prove our technical case.

I also think that perhaps different people have been attracted to Alcor at 

different periods of its existence, partly depending on the leaders at the time.
 Equally, it appears to me that somewhat different personalities were 

attracted to CI than Alcor over the years, probably at least partly a function 
of Bob 
Ettinger's steady personality over the years and the initially Midwestern 

focus of CI, when most of the early leaders were from the center of the country,
no more than a state away from Michigan.  Alcor being in California and 

Arizona may have attracted more contentious members and leaders.  It appears 
that 
way to me.  I kind of like the mix of ideas that comes from that, but no one 
will tell you it is always smooth.

This rambles a bit, but I think we could come up with a handful of other 
reasons, too.  I don't believe the turnover question can be simply answered by 
"follow the money."

>So, my simplistic way of thinking leads me to two old proverbs, as the
>source of Alcor's problems, OK, one old and one new:  "Money is the root of
>all evil" and "Follow the money trail!"

Actually, the quote is "The *love* of money is the root of all evil."  The 
meaning is not about salaries; it is about greed.  Anyone who has ever joined 

cryonics because he loved money was an incompetent fool and easily discovered.
Only someone very naive would think they could get rich at cryonics.  And 
there are so many easier ways to make a living.

>Message #22498
>Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:33:41 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Doug Skrecky <>
>Subject: absence of Cryonic storage service in Canada
>
>Below is an edited message, orginally sent to the Cryonics Society
>of Canada mailing list, which might be of some small interest to members
>of this list.

I'm guessing this message was not intended for publication on Cryonet, Doug.  
One usually doesn't voice opinions like this publicly:

>  Further thoughts regarding government regulation: CI was an illegal
>operation for 27 years before being caught,and shut down. IMHO, it is
>likely only a matter of time before Alcor suffers the same fate. 

That opinion is blunt, wrong, short-sighted, and completely lacking in any 
understanding of law.

If an individual in a government agency says an organization or company is 
operating "illegally," that doesn't mean he is right.  Doesn't everyone 

understand that an accusation is not the same thing as *guilt*?   That's why 
Alcor 
went to court in California, and the courts there in at least two cases ruled 

that Alcor was NOT operating illegally.  Nothing has been proven or determined 
in 
the CI case yet, and for anyone to make a statement like that is completely 
irresponsible.  I certainly would not want that writer on a jury, because he 
accepts accusations as guilt.

In addition, probably every business in the world is doing *something* 
outside of some law or regulation, even in highly regulated industries like 

mortuaries or hospitals.  Very few people can know all of the applicable laws.  
Even 

if there were eventually a determination that CI or some other organization has
failed to follow some regulations, it would not mean they were an "illegal 
operation."  It would mean they had some things to fix in order to satisfy the 

government.  So?  Alcor has had to do that many times over the years.  Cryonics
is still a new field and both we and governmental agencies are still trying 
to understand how it fits in.

Further, the statement is naive because it appears to assume that the 

government alone determines when a law or regulation applies to a particular 
company. 
 Sometimes it does and the rule is obvious; but often the answer is only 

determined in court where judges usually make the final determination.  Cryonics
is not "obvious" and a lot of legal discussion has occurred over the years.

And the "IMHO" ("in my humble opinion") line about Alcor is laughable.  There 
is nothing "humble" about such an opinion, nor is it rendered with any degree 
of knowledge.  The various leaders of Alcor for 30 years have worked hard to 
find and understand applicable laws, and to operate within them.  How else 

could we attempt to be an organization that will survive for a century or more 
if 
necessary?  The nature of cryonics is still controversial; so we expect 

further challenges, and we expect to find ways to accomplish our goals within 
the 
law.

>Any prospective Canadian facility would have to be scrupulous in observing 
the
>letter of the law. Addition section in the BC act states: "48. No person
>shall dispose of human remains at any place in the Province other than (a)
>in a cemetary or mausoleum, (b) by cremation, or (c) as prescribed" IMHO,
>all other political jurisdictions are likely to have similar sections to
>their acts.

Of course, but one has to determine in various ways (sometimes in court) 

which laws apply to which companies in which situation.  With this BC law, I 
would 
not give up at all.  There is a major legal opening.  What does "dispose of" 
mean?  Alcor does not "dispose" of its patients.  It stores them in liquid 
nitrogen, with their ultimate fate to be determined in the future.  When Alcor 

does dispose of a part of the patient's remains (as in neuropreservation), it is
done following local regulations for such disposal.  The law is about words 
and what they mean, and how they apply in new situations.  It is absurd to 
throw in the towel over this set of regulations.


And finally:

>Message #22502
>Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 22:45:07 -0400
>From: 
>Subject: Charles Platt, Please Explain ...
>
>News reporters seldom get everything right; some get few things right.  So 
>it is up to Charles Platt to confirm if the below is true, that he wrote 
>the 27-page document that has been elsewhere characterized as a 
>petition.  And if so, it is up to him to now fully address the obvious 
>questions that arise from this.  He is brilliant enough to know what they 
>are, before people start asking in public.

Nonsense.  Because someone stole a confidential letter and released it to a 
news magazine, why does that release Charles of his own obligation and desire 
for confidentiality?  Your desire to know everything does not equal a 
requirement for others to tell you everything.

Steve Bridge
Writing for myself and not an official opinion or statement of Alcor


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

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22508