X-Message-Number: 28587
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 09:58:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: growth and obligations

Regina Pancake is of course totally correct. Every new member
of a cryonics organization represents a future obligation,
and if you are not fully prepared to satisfy those
obligations, the capability must be developed first.
Unfortunately building capability is a really difficult,
expensive, and unglamorous task involving a lot of hard work.
It also requires appropriately skilled people, who are in
short supply.

By comparison every cryonicist I have ever met has ideas for
promoting cryonics, because this is a more pleasant activity
which may not seem to require special skills, and a small
expenditure achieves results that are immediately visible in
the form of colorful literature, DVDs, and other items which
make everyone feel good.

In addition there is the unprofitability factor. CI argues
that it makes money out of last-minute cases, but I don't
think anyone is proposing to achieve "growth" in cryonics via
last-minute cases (and Alcor is not very enthusiastic about
them anyway, for reasons which I share).

So, "growth" typically means signing someone who is in 30s or
40s (people over 50 are less likely to sign, according to the
demographics I looked at five years ago). That person is
likely to live for another 35 to 45 years at least. So long
as cryopreservation minimums are not adjusted upward for all
members on a regular basis, and so long as a typical member
does not buy insurance with face value greatly above the
minimum, I think it is a fairly safe bet that when the person
dies, the cryonics organization may lose money on the case. I
believe the costs of cryoprotectant and equipment for
controlling perfusion have outstripped inflation, and of
course the cost of vitrification solution, in particular, has
been hugely subsidized, since none of us pays for the years
of research that went into its development. Saul Kent and
Bill Faloon have taken care of that, and incidentally I do
not see any wealthy benefactors ready to step up and take
their place.

Alcor has tried to address the funding problem with its
standby-fee system, and this has resulted in a "war chest" to
cover standbys, which is a very good thing; but really this
works by having younger members subsidize older members,
because the younger ones are likely to be paying into the
fund for more years than the old ones, before they die.

This system will be viable in the near term but in the long
term it sounds uncomfortably like social security to me. Of
course it is a lot better than nothing, but still I think the
fundamental problem is that we have a "business model" where
the organization says that it will try to perform a procedure
35 or more years in the future for a fee that is established
today--a very unusual proposition. If all cryonics members
were required to pay cash in advance the problem would be
solved, since the organization could earn interest on the
advance payments; but "cash in advance" is the kiss of death
in cryonics, if you will excuse the phrase.

A hospital would never operate on this basis. Imagine a
hospital telling you how much money to set aside at age 35,
for that cancer operation you may need when you are 75! So:
If the financial basis for cryonics involves such major
unknowns in the long term, we may question the wisdom of
signing as many more members as possible in the near term.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28587