X-Message-Number: 4669
Date:  Wed,  Jul 95 17:49:43 
From: Derek Ryan <>
Subject: Long Term Stability of Cryonics Service Providers

In a message entitled "conc. long-term stability of cryonics service
providers" (Cryonet Message #4667), Eugene Leitl writes:

>Dear cryonetters,
>
>It is highly encouraging to hear most cryocorps are striving to achieve
>long term stability, e.g. by using conservative interest figures, etc. 
>
>However, extremely long storage time spans (many decades to centuries)
>taken into account one (or many) appearance of economical disruptions 
>(apart from wars, which cannot be predicted nor countered, apart
>from moving from conflict area) appears not only possible but even 
>highly probable.

Definitely.  Wars will happen.  Governments will fall.  Economies
will change.  We've got to be prepared for the worst.  This is one
of the main reasons that we need to work to achieve reanimation
technology as rapidly as possible.  Your estimate of "many decades
to centuries" seems quite pessimistic to me, but I have been fairly
accused of being an optimist in the past.  In any case, it seems
clear that the longer it takes, the lower our chances of success
will be, for the reasons you cite (among others.)

>Very few commercial companies can boast a continuity in decade range,

Which makes it all the more remarkable that there are FOUR cryonics
service providers (Alcor, ACS, CI, and Trans Time) who have been in
business for more than two decades.

>not speaking of those having persisted for a century or two. Cryocorps 
>being but few, low finance and providing a highly controversial service 
>to a small community of eccentrics (that's how the majority sees it), 
>seem to be easy prey even for minor economical disturbances, thus 
>rendering their services quite worthless, as a patient off storage
>is not a patient anymore but thawed meat.
>
>What mechanisms/policies are currently used to counteract this 
>potentially desastrous emergencies?

Basically, your question seems to be, how do we stay in business
through thick and thin?  How do we insure that our patients have
enough resources over the long haul to remain frozen?  The primary
answer to this question is the same as the answer to individuals and
families who want to insure that they have enough money to support
themselves when they retire:

Diversify.

That is, spread your monetary risk around.  Money has a very good
history over the long run.  On whole, it will continue to earn
interest.  The trick is to avoid being caught by minor and major
fluctuations in certain types of investments.  For example, we might
expect the Stock Market to someday undergo a more radical crash than
any ever seen before.  If that happens, folks who have money
invested in things like real estate will fare better.  On the other
hand, one can also imagine disasters--e.g., environmental--which
might cause some real estate holdings to plummet without affecting
most stocks and bonds.

So funding for patient care should be diversified, and balanced for
both risk and growth.  These questions are standard in investing,
and with enough money, it is possible to make it through just about
any kind of disaster with some wealth left.  Naturally, if something
happens that's bad enough to wipe out wealth of all kinds (i.e.,
some kind of apocalypse), whether we can keep cryonics patients
frozen becomes rather irrelevant.

Beyond diversification, though, there is a more basic level of
security that adds insurance for suspension patients:  living
suspension members.  Even if a cryonics organization manages to
handle its patients' money so poorly as to bankrupt its Patient Care
Fund, there are now around 600 people signed up to be suspended when
they need it, and most of them would not take the thawing of cryonics
patients lightly.

One might say, "But cryonicists aren't generally altruists.  What
motivation would they have to try to save already frozen patients?" 
Well, first of all, many of us have relatives and loved ones in
suspension, and those bonds are indeed very strong.  But more
importantly, saving cryonics patients from thawing appeals strongly
to any thinking cryonicists' long term self interest.  (I.e.,
altruism is not necessary.)  If ANY of our patients are
unnecessarily thawed, our chances for successful cryonic suspension
and reanimation are diminished accordingly.

So in getting ourselves frozen, we're making a number of rational
gambles all at once.  Among others, we're assuming that money will
continue to earn money over the long haul, we're assuming that our
cryonics company will be smart enough to keep the money diversified,
and we're assuming that the network of concerned activists who are
very interested in the ultimate success of cryonics will continue to
grow and thrive.

Eventually, if we keep progressing as a race, cryonics patients will
be as rabidly protected by laws and interest groups as other
patients in more standard hospital settings are today.  The thawing
(i.e., death) of a cryonics patient will be illegal, immoral, and
avoided at all costs.  (A life is a life is a life, and life is
deserving of our protection.  Witness the "Right to Life" movement
of today as testimony to this commonly held sentiment.)  Our task is
to make it to that time, (i.e., when non-eccentrics will look at it
that way), with as much patient wealth and security as possible.

Derek Ryan 
 


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4669