X-Message-Number: 30080
References: <>
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re: Cryonics marketing, worth our continual hand-wringing IMO...
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:20:01 +0100

On 27 Nov 2007, at 05:13, Chris Manning wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "CryoNet" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 9:00 PM
> Subject: CryoNet #30060 - #30063
>
>
>> Message #30061
>> From: 
>> Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 09:10:50 EST
>> Subject: Cryonics marketing, worth our continual hand-wringing IMO
>
> This email is amazing. You speak of the need 'to learn to work  
> together as
> mutually respectful adults.' But you also say that you find some of  
> David's
> references 'downright loony'. Also, you speak of his 'blatant
> self-promotion' but your email ends by describing yourself as the  
> "World's
> Leading Cryonics Insurance Provider".
>
> It seems to me that what it comes down to is that David seeks to  
> promote
> cryonics in ways of which you disapprove. Writing for academic  
> journals
> *may* achieve some effect, so we can at least say that it is no  
> worse than
> doing nothing. Don't you think your criticism might be better directed
> against the many people who do nothing to promote cryonics, or,  
> worse still,
> would seek to oppose it?

A more direct problem for Rudi is my current proposal, because it  
assumes that suspensions would be prepaid through a collective  
agreement. That is, a Fellowship would routinely set aside part of  
each donation to cover eventual suspension cases. This is a type of  
self-insurance which takes the insurance companies and Rudi out of  
the loop.

If Rudi wants to support this type of arrangement, then he has to  
come up with a policy that insures a Fellowship against running out  
of money, because a number of people need suspension around the same  
time. If the different cases had independent causes, then the need  
for insurance would be limited. However, an accident in which an  
entire family was killed in a car crash, for example, could impose an  
overwhelming economic burden. So, at least in the beginning phases of  
my plan, there would be a need for insurance.

Insurance would be very useful in the startup phase. If a new  
Fellowship wasn't allocated a prepaid suspension, then it could  
insure itself against the possibility that funding would be needed  
before enough of a reserve was accumulated. This would reduce the  
need for startup funding. The need for insurance would drop as  
reserves were accumulated. On the other hand, we would expect a very  
rapid increase in the number of new startups, so the total market for  
this type of insurance would continue to expand for a long time.


dss


David Stodolsky    Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30080