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