X-Message-Number: 3269
From:
Subject: CRYONICS Re: CSNY
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 1994 00:54:11 -0700 (PDT)
Mike Darwin :
> I am continuing to post here on the main net about this subject (objections
> noted) because I believe the issues at hand, issues first raised here, go
> beyond politics. They concern mens' reputations, the very fabric of
> cryonics, past present and future, and the history of what happended to
> human beings who, like us, hoped for a future life. I regret if some of
> you find this unpleasant.
I agree that this is the right place for this, it's an important subject.
>
> Since Steve Bridge responded to me in the political forum, I will respond to
> him there, and I urge those interested in this matter to look there and read
> what both Steve and I have to say.
The gist of that politics posting was that "we owe them" (Saul and Curtis)
for having pioneered a bunch of poor slobs into the ground. It couldn't
have been more wrong. It's my contention that cryonics survived *in spite
of* outfits like CSC & CSNY.
[omitted]
>
> However, I hasten to add that I do not think Curtis was responsible in the
> way Cosenza et al. wish to imply. Here I quote Cosenza:
>
> >Your post (i.e., Mike Darwin's)was quite literate as always, and further
> sustained my >contention
> >that the principals (at least of CSNY & CryoSpan) KNEW ahead of time that
> >the costs of storing a patient over the long haul would be exorbitant. As
> >you said, they depended on future business revenues to bail them out since
> >they knew nobody had lots of money to put into cryonics, which leads me to
> >believe that they must have contemplated disaster at the outset at least as
> >a possibility.
>
> The above statement echoes earlier ones Cosenza made essentially accusing
> Saul (and thus Curtis) of operating a Ponzi racket. Let us spend a little
> time defining a Ponzi racket and see if the behavior of anyone at CSNY or
> Cryo-Span qualifies. Further, let us deal with the accusation in Cosenza's
> statement "that they must have contemplated disaster at the outset at least
> as a possibility."
No, for the *third* time, what I actually said was that had things been a
little different, it would have been a Ponzi scheme. Not that it was. I
DID say it was the moral equivalent, though.
>
> First, the Ponzi racket: A Ponzi scheme (named after the fellow who
> invented it) is not simply a pyramid operation (by that broad definition
> Am-Way is a Ponzi operation). Rather, it is a conscious and intentional
> scheme to *defraud* people by promising them a return on their investment,
> or goods or services for their payments, which cannot be delivered, and
> then using some of the subsequent investors' or customers' money to pay
> off the interest or deliver the services to the first group of suckers
> while using the principal for personal gain. Obviously, someone at the end
> get's left holding the bag since the principal is being spent for personal
> gain by the Ponzi racketeers.
It's the mechanics of the Ponzi scheme described that fits CSC and CSNY,
not necessarily the motives or goals.
>
> How does a Ponzi scheme differ from a legitimate business which borrows
> capital or offers services at a price contingent upon gaining future
> customers? Here I will have recourse to an example I often use with
> regards to cryonics.
Oh no, not again. :-)
>
> Let's say you want to open a McDonalds to sell food. You will have
> substantial capital and overhead costs before you sell your first hamburger.
> Indeed, my guess would be that an average McDonalds today costs well over
> one million US dollars to franchise and construct. Now, when the first
> customer comes in the door and orders a hamburger, fries and a coke s/he
> does not expect that the smiling attendant in the paper hat will say
> "Here's your food, that will be $1,675,000.00!
This analogy is getting VERY tired. It doesn't take a business major to
see the differences between cryonics and a fast food chain.
[omitted]
>
> So what's the difference? The McDonalds owner has to spread his costs out
> over time and to make a profit both so that he can live and so that he
> can pay his shareholders or leinholders. This is known as capitalism.
> It differs from a Ponzi racket in that:
>
> a) The businessman has a reasonable expectation of delivering a product or
> service which will generate a real return in terms of capital growth.
They key word here is "reasonable", a new fast food chain has mountains
of experience on which to build its assumptions. I've been reading up a
little on starting my own business, and the one basic thing everyone says
is that you HAVE to have enough working capital to get you through until
the customers start coming in. Considering the price and importance of
the product, a housing development would be the more appropriate analogy
to the cryonics business. A bit more serious than buying and selling
hamburgers!
[omitted]
>
> Curtis, Saul, Fred Horn, Richard Vingiello (the attorney) and the other
> investors in Cryo-Span knew these business risks. Furthermore, and much
> more to the point, *so did all of Cryo-Span's customers (the next of kin
> of the patients).* Indeed, the CSNY paperwork and the Cryo-Span contracts
> that I saw were all at pains to point out the following:
>
> a) cryonics was new, experimental, and unproven.
>
> b) no guarantees could be made about revival or storage duration.
>
> c) no guarantees could be made about long-term costs.
>
> In fact, some of the original language from those first documents survives
> almost intact in the CURRENT Alcor paperwork!
In other words they *KNEW* what they were doing, just as I said in the
paragraph quoted above.
[omitted]
>
> Now, let's go back to Pizer and Cosenza's arguments and look at the hidden
> agendas (and assumptions) and see how they stack up to reality in
> consideration of the foregoing:
>
> 1) To my knowledge neither Curtis nor Saul promised to keep ANY of the
> patient's frozen long term. In fact, to my certain knowledge they engaged
> in brutal frankness about the problems and repeatedly advised the next of
> kin about the likely outcome if long-term funding *as well growth in
> customer base* did not occur.
>
> 2) As far as I know neither Curtis or Saul ever coerced, lied to, or
> otherwise encouraged the next-of-kin to freeze their loved ones. In fact,
> in the cases of Cummings, Dastal, Mihok, and Hurst I have either direct
> knowledge (from personal communication with the principals) or indirect
> evidence that they actively discouraged these people from pursuing that
> course of action. Indeed, as I have often pointed out, I learned this
> approach (and practiced it at Alcor) in dealing with last minute cases
> from both Curtis (primarily) and Saul.
This directly contradicts what Saul himself said in the interview Mike Perry
posted the other day! He said they "couldn't wait" to start freezing people,
and he gave no indication that they tried to discourage family members from
proceeding. (Speaking of not being able to wait to freeze people.....)
[omitted]
>
> 5) Implied in Pizer's and Cosenza's positions is that "having frozen someone
> it is somehow immoral to thaw them out and bury or otherwise conventionally
> dispose of them WHETHER THEY CAN PAY OR NOT OR WHETHER THEIR RELATIVES CAN
> PAY OR NOT."
>
> While it may not be very good business, I can see nothing wrong with the
> following: Person A comes along and says: " I have $10,000, please freeze my
> dad". Company B says: "O.K., we can do that, but it will cost you 10K just to
> get your dad frozen and then you'll have to pay 3K *each and every year to
> keep him frozen.* And, if you can't come up with the 3K (an amount which
> may, incidentally go up at any time for any reason) then Dad get's thawed
> out."
>
> As long as everybody agrees to this transaction there is nothing morally or
> legally wrong with it.
Of course there's a moral problem with it! Even after 25 years of publicity
it is still quite hard to get "informed" consent from grief stricken
relatives. "Not very good business" is the understatement of the year, even
if you grant all the good intentions in the world, this was indescribably
BAD judgment.
[rest omitted]
>
> Curtis Henderson and Saul Kent deserve not blame, but rather thanks for
> teaching us so much and suffering so long and hard trying to do the
> impossible.
>
> Mike Darwin
By this logic, all I have to do to teach the cryonics movement a lesson is
to bang myself on the head with a hammer until I keel over. Clearly there's
no disagreement *anywhere* over the historical facts. As I said on the second
day of this thread, the controversy is over how to interpret the history. It
is people like Fred & Linda Chamberlain, Jerry Leaf, Bob Ettinger, Art Qaife,
and yes, Mike Darwin who deserve credit for picking up the pieces and getting
it right. I respect the difference between "trying" and "doing".
You can learn from failures in lab experiments. The "lesson" in the demise
of CSC & CSNY was not new to anyone but them: self immolation, even for a
"good cause" is never productive. Lack of the simplest planning gives rise
to small disaters in small enterprises, big ones in those that involve life
and death. After reading Mike's tale, I can't help but wonder if perhaps
CSNY hadn't been in such a hurry to freeze people, and Mrs. Dastal "(who DID
have a trust with "long-term" funding)" had been the *first* instead of the
*last* CSNY patient, she would still be in suspension somewhere.
Ever forward,
David
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Cosenza
PGP 2.3a Public Key available by finger _or_ ftp.netcom.com:/pub/dcosenza
PGP 2.3a Key fingerprint = BF 6C AA 44 C6 CA 13 3F 4A EC 0A 90 AE F3 74 6D
"When encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption."
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3269