X-Message-Number: 22917
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 12:14:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: pledge/policy [was Ponzi Scheme]

Steve Van Sickle is of course absolutely correct that Alcor
has not made an open-ended pledge to maintain minimum funding
at its current level. Thanks for correcting me, Steve.

However (you knew there would be a "however," didn't you?)
informal commitments have been made which go a little bit
beyond a policy. For instance, a friend of mine contacted
Alcor for information recently (without my prior knowledge)
and says he was told that he should join as soon as possible,
to "lock in" his eligibility for the current funding minimum.
He received the impression, rightly or wrongly, that this was
an open-ended commitment. When I myself joined Alcor, I was
told by a director that a $50,000 insurance policy should be
"ample" for the indefinite future (the neuro minimum at that
time was $35,000). I wish now that I had received some
slightly more cautious advice. I'm too old to get additional
affordable life insurance at this time.

What I'm getting at is that although no formal pledge has
been made, many people have received a strong impression that
they don't have to worry about escalating cryopreservation
costs. This impression has several sources.

First, I have noticed a feeling of entitlement in some
cryonics members, who just naturally assume that their
organization will take care of them, no matter what.

Second, during the past thirty years at Alcor and CI, no
existing member has ever been told, "Your previous funding is
no longer sufficient." This tends to set a precedent in
people's minds.

Third, organizations have been reluctant to warn new members
about possible future funding increases, probably because
it's hard enough to get people to sign up already. Also I
don't remember a single instance where an organization warned
existing members that they might have to increase their
provision for minimum funding. This has been a nontopic.

And fourth, organizations have a genuinely compassionate and
ethical desire to preserve their members (especially longterm
members) in the face of all kinds of obstacles. This is why
underfunded cases have been accepted and have received care
that is just as good as the care given to overfunded
patients.

All of this is very understandable, but as cryonics grows
from a small group of people who know each other and help
each other out, to something that bears more resemblance to a
business, a more hard-headed approach may be necessary. This
is especially true as new factors such as vitrification and
drug licensing fees have already added significantly to the
cost of services at Alcor, and whole-body vitrification may
be very expensive indeed, depending on the vitrification
agent that is used.

Getting back to the original thread, all of these factors
intensify my skepticism about the idea that people could pay
$10 a month each, and the first person who needs a standby
wins the jackpot. To me, this is the direction in which
cryonics should not be heading: Away from individual
responsibility, and back toward a community-based system that
attempts to avoid financial reality.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22917