X-Message-Number: 29632
From: "John de Rivaz" <>
References: <>
Subject: Re: More on marketing 
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 11:37:16 +0100

> What I am talking about is [a church] servicing those not yet signed-up. 
> Another
> difference is that it is a service to individuals, while the group
> aspect is inherent in the idea I am proposing.

Most if not all "group orientated" people are content with the idea of the 
group surviving, and are not concerned with individuals within it.  They 
don't seem attracted to the cryonics concept. They are happy to live on in 
their works or their children and grandchildren. They don't see the need to 
live on in their apartment. (neither did Woody Allen really, unless he 
signed up secretly.)

> You are still thinking in individual terms. People are perfectly
> happy to part with 1/10 of their income to churches that promise them
> eternal life and provide a social environment that reinforces the
> approach.

Really? Why is their such an "industry" of accountants and lawyers around 
avoiding taxes legally? I would be very surprised if this 10% tithe has ever 
been taken seriously, unless enforced by violence of some sort. It is just 
something that was written down a long time ago and perpetuated in 
literature.

> There has to be a enough support to get a group going and self-
> financing. Once there is a model that works, it can be duplicated
> indefinitely.

Clearly this has not happened for cryonics.

Many religions started as rebel movements of outlaws who by definition would 
have had no assets to tithe. Obviously a time comes when the religion moves 
inside the law (as with Constantine and the Christians) but that was 
hundreds of years later.

> National Institute for Curtailing Expenditure

excellent!!

Yes, the economic advantages of offering cryopreservation for elderly or 
sick people with no chance of recovery and a poor quality of life are clear. 
However I cannot see it being acceptable ethically, however illogical this 
is. The New Scientist poll suggested that a significant number of people 
would take up free cryopreservation if it was offered voluntarily. Group 
minded people could be motivated to take this up to benefit the group, but 
those left would worry that they had been coerced into it.

However these considerations have not prevented the dissection of organs 
from live people for transplant purposes. This was fiercely debated at one 
time. At present the practise appears to be accepted as long as the person 
losing the organ is not paid for it.

-- 
Sincerely, John de Rivaz:  http://John.deRivaz.com for websites including
Cryonics Europe, Longevity Report, The Venturists, Porthtowan, Alec Harley
Reeves - inventor, Arthur Bowker - potter, de Rivaz genealogy,  Nomad .. and
more

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=29632