X-Message-Number: 29953
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 01:24:32 -0400
From: "Charles Platt" <>
Subject: David Pizer on Democratic Processes

While I am on cordial terms with David these days, and am pleased to
see him endorsing the concept of accountability, I have to note that
this is a remarkable change of outlook. I would be interested if he
can explain what brought it about.

David was a member of the Alcor board himself for (I think) at least
ten years, and so long as he benefited from the self-election process,
I don't remember him saying a word against it.

However, I will assume that David's current views are not just a case
of expedient revisionism. He writes:

"I believe this will eventually lead to other things
that may eventually lead to Alcor going out of
business sometime in the future, unless Alcor changes
this policy and allows it's suspension members to
elect the directors."

I disagree. I see absolutely no reason to think that Alcor may "go out
of business." Even if a competing organization emerges (which I
consider unlikely) experience during the CryoCare years suggests that
Alcor members are extremely cautious about changing their
arrangements. I believe Alcor is secure for the indefinite future,
regardless of its performance.

What I wonder is whether accountability might have made the Alcor
directors slightly more circumspect in the past, especially regarding
high-profile last-minute cases. A group that is not directly
accountable can acquire its own shared set of values, encouraging it
to make decisions that may seem inexplicable in retrospect.

I am not an Alcor member, but I am concerned that cryonics generally
tends to suffer when errors of judgment are made. I speak as someone
who has made errors of his own.

--Charles Platt

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=29953