X-Message-Number: 30336
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:23:44 -0800 (PST)
From: david pizer <>
Subject: How to avoid eternal death
How to help avoid eternal Death
By: David Pizer
The more we can think of ways to increase Alcor's odds
for survival over time, the more we people who are
trusting Alcor to help us survive increase our own
odds of survival. What is good for Alcor is good for
us. What is bad for Alcor is bad for us. The present
system of Directors electing Directors and then
re-electing themselves is bad for Alcor.
But there is one flaw in their plan that almost
insures Alcor will go under right before it is time to
re-animate the patients. I will explain that to you
in this work.
The Directors have mentioned the two checks and
balances they feel are in the
Director-Elected-Directors system. I think the main
thing they have mentioned is the good intent of the
Directors to do things to protect themselves. The
Directors say they know they are going to be in the
tanks themselves someday, so knowing this why would
they want to do anything bad, or why would they want
to make any mistakes? I will explain in this work why
their main protection expressed above will not be in
play when it is time to reanimate the patients in the
future.
The other protection they claim in the dictatorship
model they advocate for is that the small group of
Directors are the sort of "Cream of the Crop" of Alcor
members. (I hope this doesn't sound rude I don't mean
it to be. But many of us have heard them say, [in so
many words], they are smarter then regular members
and so they are best people to run Alcor.). They
claim that when you have the best people in Alcor
picking the leaders you will get the best leaders. (we
can - and I will show later - that is a circular
argument).
And, of course this method of a dictatorship
re-electing itself hasn't produced good results or
brought Alcor better leaders. Of the last 3
presidents they picked after Bridge and I left, they
also had to cause each of the presidents they chose
to then be removed or fired because some Board members
thought they were doing a very bad job. In fact most
presidents of Alcor have been forced out. The one who
resigned and was missed was Bridge and he was picked
by the membership and forced on the Board by the
membership as a way of trying to unite Alcor after
some Board members made the regular members so angry.
So the Directors claim that the existing dictator
system is best in our case, but the evidence shows a
completely different thing. Member chosen presidents
have done better jobs then director chosen leaders if
you count being fired as a sign of being a bad leader.
As far as putting in checks and balances in a
Member-Elected-Director system. I have presented many
of them that we can put in a member-electing system
that cannot be in a director-electing system in my
previously posts and I won't repeat them all here.
Here are some of the protections we can implement that
I feel most important:
Having the members elect the Board Members and elect
the Advisers (who will be trainees) A person must be
an Alcor member for 2 years before he/she can vote in
any elections.
A candidate for an Adviser position has to go through
the election, and therefore political, process for a
lower position before he runs for a seat as a
Director. He must stand for election and re-election
before the membership. This allows a candidate for
leadership at Alcor to get some experience in the
politics at Alcor to see if he wants to get even more
involved. But it also gives the membership, (who
will be the voters) some information they don't get
now in the present system about a candidate for a
Board position. A candidate for a Board position,
under the Members' plan, has to serve on the Advisers'
Board for 2 years before he can run for a Board seat.
During that time the Adviser has to vote on each issue
that the Board members vote on. The Adviser's vote
does not count, but it is recorded and published in
the magazine each month. Also at Board election time,
a candidate's opponent can talk about his opponent's
record. This forces Board candidates to have to
explain their record and positions. It may force them
to change some positions. This whole process makes
the members become much more involved in Alcor.
members don't seem too interested in things at HQ now,
but that is because they know they can't do anything
about it anyhow. In the old days the members felt
they had more say in how Alcor was run and they
participated more.
There are many other protections that we can build
into the Member Elected system, some which cannot be
built into the Board Elected system. The two biggest
advantages of the Member Elected system are:
1. It makes the Board Members held more accountable
for their actions. If the Board members have to stand
for re-election on their record every year, their
record will improve. Many members feel it could not
be much worse then it is now. The Board memebers will
have to be more polite to the membership, including
those loyal and beneficial members whom they don't
agree with. You won't hear Directors telling members
anymore "If you don't like the way we elect ourselves
go join CI."
2. The second advantage a Member-elected system has
over ANY Director-elected system is that any
Director-elected system sends a message to the
membership that the Directors feel superior in
intelligence to the Members. In fact I have even
heard Directors make statements like that.
I have given the example of black Africans in South
Africa who the whites told them they loved and
respected them but they won't let them vote. Nothing
a dictatorship can say to a group of it's intelligent
citizens can remove this feeling of snobbery except
when the citizens have the vote.
So here is where we are so far:
ARGUMENTS FOR THE MEMBER-ELECTING SYSTEM
1. Member elected system has more built-in
accountability.
2. Member elected system allows for more support from
the membership. When they "feel" a part of the
organization they are more likely to contribute money,
ideas and time for research and other things.
3. Any checks and balances that can be put in a
Director elected system can also be put in a Member
elected system but the Director elected system does
not have the protection of accountability to the
members and does not do as well creating membership
support for Alcor.
ARGUMENTS FOR THE DIRECTOR-ELECTING SYSTEM
1. Director elected system claims that the Directors
are going to be patients some day and that is all the
motivation that is needed. (that must change over time
as I will explain)
2. The other argument is obviously circular. It is
similar to a religions argument that goes like this
argument that Christ is God.
Christ is God
The Bible says so.
The Bible is the word of God
So, Christ is God.
The version the Directors use:
Directors are smarter people
Being on the Board is proof that you are smarter.
Directors are elected by Directors so they are elected
by smarter people.
So, only Directors should elect Directors.
The Directors do have a point in their number one
claim above where they say since they know they will
be a patient some day that motivates them to want to
do a good job. . But knowing you are going into the
tank someday doesn't mean you *Will* do a good job as
a Director. All it means is that you *Want* to do a
good job as a Director. Some Directors want to do a
good job but they don't or can t. They might not be
as capable as some other member in running a business
like Alcor. In fact you could make the argument that
ALL Alcor members know they are going to be patients
some day so that ALL Alcor members, not just
Directors, have the exact same motivation to want to
do a good job. So Directors, in knowing they are
going to be patients someday, don't have any
additional motivation that regular members don't have.
But all Alcor members do not have the same business
managing abilities. So we need another layer of
accountability to remove those who wanted to do a good
job for Alcor but it was later found they were not
able to. We need to be able to remove the less
competent people and replace them with those who are
more competent. (even though they all *want* to do
good things equally). This way, eventually the best
qualified in Alcor will evolve to management. This is
the way the human race got this far. It is called
survival of the fittest. When a organism comes along
with better qualities it replaces less qualified
individuals. The species as a whole advances.
Lastly, there is one terrible thing wrong with the
Directors assumption above in their #1 claim for
the Director-Electing System: "We are going to be in
those tanks someday and that is all the accountability
that is needed."
HERE IS WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT ASSUMPTION:
A time may come when we can begin to revive the
patients. The technology to revive patients will
probably include some technology to reverse aging.
Even if it doesn't, most of our patients, who are old
people when they die, don't want to be revived until
we can reverse aging. Who wants to come back at the
age of 97 and live 2 years to be 99?
So there will come a time when the technology to
revive patients is here, and so is the technology to
reverse aging. At that time, the Directors, (whoever
they are at the time), will no longer have that single
motivation to do a good job: "We are going to be in
those tanks someday and that is all the accountability
that is needed." Because those future Directors will
feel like they are NOT going to be in those tanks
someday!
Let me recap this:
1. At reanimation time there is reversal of aging.
People are no longer dying.
2. People no longer need cryonics in the way that they
do now. Sure, there may be a few people killed by
accident or disease or whatever. But most people who
are cryonicists now feel they need the protection of
Alcor because the know for sure they are going to die
someday. That won't be the case in the future when it
is possible to reanimate the patients.
3. The main motivation to be accountable, that the
present Directors claim is all that is needed, may not
be in place at the time we need it most.
4. This will also be the time when the fund that holds
the patients' money is huge.
5. Just before reanimation time the temptation and
amount of loot at risk will be the most ever and the
single motivation in the Director-Electing System to
be accountable will be the least ever.
In my opinion this is a recipe for eternal death for
us all.
The main people who will want to see the patients
revived will then be the relatives. There will be
thousands of relatives IN the membership. At most
there will only be 9 relatives on the Board, and there
may not be any relatives on the Board. Even if there
are no relatives on the Board at reanimation time,
there still will be thousands of relatives in the
membership pool!
The only way I can think of to put as much protection
possible into play for Alcor, the members and the
patients is a Member elected system -- with as many
other checks and balances possible. Once it is agreed
to go to the member-elected system we can begin to
discuss them.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30336