X-Message-Number: 2844 Subject: More on CRYONICS for Profit From: (Ben Best) Date: Sun, 3 Jul 1994 03:15:00 -0400 Mike Darwin began his comments on my "Cryonics and the Profit Motive" posting by asking about what provoked it. Since he asked point-blank, I will answer. The primary stimuli were many comments I have heard about plans for CryoCare's operation, as well as Michael Soloviov's plans to start a cryonics company in Russia. There were also many secondary stimuli which had been stewing in my mind for a while. The net was quiet, so I decided to "bolt from the blue". I preferred to stay philosophical and abstract because I did not want to instigate a "political" fight. I also expected that Mike Darwin would have more to say on this subject than anyone, but I have been surprised that more people have not had something to say. I had heard that Mike has had some very good experiences working with non-cryonicists -- highly skilled people who take professional pride in a job well done. I had also heard about "Dr. X" and I still have my doubts whether any non-cryonicist would make a good surgeon for cryopreservation procedures. Unfortunately, however, it does NOT follow that there exists a cryonicist who would make a good surgeon for cryopreservation procedures. I believe that the task requires both competence and a commitment to performing a potentially life-saving procedure. In this case, it may be that the competence is more essential than the commitment. But I would greatly prefer to have both. In representing cryonics to the public, however, I would want a cryonicist. This does not mean, however, that I would want ANY cryonicist. The sign-up process requires commitment, patience, human relation skills, articulateness and even an ability to counsel. I don't believe that Arthur McCombs was well suited to that job, but I believe that even he would be far preferable to someone who is working 9-5 and has no personal interest in cryonics. For most other "employee" roles, I would have no objection to "hired help". Banks and many other businesses with employees handling large cash amounts (as well as other assets and responsibilities) have developed adequate control structures to ensure that employees do not run-off with the assets. The other problem is the ownership, management and decision-making positions. Here again, being a cryonicist is no assurance that these jobs will be done competently. But noncryonicist managers will only be concerned about the success of the organization within a 10 or 20-year period, not a 100 or 200-year period. Procapitalist cryonicists forget that we live in a non-capitalist society governed by laws that might not honor the contracts of "dead" people. The disturbing similarity between a celibate woman running a gay sex phone business and a noncryonicist running a cryonics operation is that profits must be very good or they may be inclined to drop the business. Move the operation to British Columbia, liquidate the assets and bury the liabilities. A cryonicist, however, may be willing to weather the bad times knowing that they are not just motivated by profits, but by concern for the lives of the patients -- and concern for his/her own life. Not only do I reject the formula cryonicist=competence, but I also reject the formula cryonicist=integrity. For positions of responsibility and decision-making I want to see competent cryonicists with integrity in all cryonics organizations. I believe that being a cryonicist is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for these positions. "Ideological purity" is not what I have in mind when I use the word "cryonicist". What I have in mind is a person who believes that lives are at stake in cryonics -- including his/her own life -- and that those lives are important. Robert Nelson's actions only make sense to me if he was incompetent (as Robert Ettinger believes) or not committed to saving lives (including his own) -- as Mike Darwin implies. My guess is that Mike Darwin would cryopreserve Robert Nelson if sufficient funds were provided. Nonetheless, if Robert Nelson were truly competent, and if he were truly concerned that the loss of his patients might endanger his own chances of being cryopreserved -- and this MATTERED to him -- would he have acted as he did? The same question goes for the guy who ran-off with Alcor's 100K. On the other hand, I believe that Jerry Leaf was a cryonicist, even if he "did not think cryonics (as currently practiced) would work". The critical phrase here is the "as currently practiced". My guess is that Jerry was driven by a desire to practice cryonics until the practice of cryonics proved practicable. This is very different from thinking cryonics is a hopeless hoax. Also, I spoke to Jerry Leaf on the phone during my own sign-up with Alcor, and he discussed the merits of whole-body as opposed to neurosuspension. Why would he make whole body arrangements for himself if neuro would more cheaply demonstrate his "commitment"? Why would he speak so critically of permafrost burial in contrast to liquid nitrogen if he thought all methods were equally futile? To me, the evidence indicates that even if Jerry "did not think cryonics would work", he was not 100% convinced it had a 0% chance of working -- even with current methods. Like Mike, he may have set the chances at 2-3% (or 0.2-0.3%), but been less inclined to publicize such a low estimate. Of course, only "Jerry Leaf speaks for Jerry Leaf". And I hope he does exactly that -- someday. -- Ben Best (ben.best%) Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2844