X-Message-Number: 4679
Date: 27 Jul 95 18:57:22 EDT
From: Mike Darwin <>
Subject: 10% Rule

Steve Bridge writes regarding the 10% rule:

>"Eroded" and "abandoned" are pretty loaded words, here; so I want to 
>briefly state Alcor's current position. 

I have the following responses:

1) regarding the word eroded.  I stand by my use of   "eroded" and the loaded

connotation it carriers, this  wasn't accidental although neither was it "aimed"
or pointed particularly at Alcor.  I note that no other cryonics organization
has such a rule or ever had one.  Thus, any criticism of Alcor applies equally
to all other cryonics organizations.


2) I don't considered abandoned a loaded word unless one is discussing newborns,
colleagues stranded on the ice, or leaving wives with 6 children and failing to
provide a forwarding address.  People abandon approaches all the time, with or
without prejudice.

However, since I am in such a nice compromising mood today I will concede that
abandon was the wrong word  to use and hereby withdraw it to be replaced with
"discontinued."  Does that make people feel a tad bit better?

Steve then goes on to say:

>It is true that placing *extra* funds into the PCF is an excellent 
>way to provide more security for the patients.  It is JUST as true that an 
>organization which cannot keep its normal operations in business is not a 
>secure place to place patients.  Going out of business while the PCF grows 
>is not "sound policy."

I respond: 

These arguments are perfectly true, but can also be construed as incomplete.  A
family that drops health insurance in order to eat is certainly acting

rationally.  However, the given rational act under consideration (food=immediate
need, vs medical care =less certain/delayed need) the question arises as to

*why* there had to be a choice?  This is, after all, the critical question which
needs answering here.  It is much like trying to get to the root (on a personal
basis) of why when you were once comfortably banking 10% of your income as
savings, you now find you can't bank any at all, perhaps a rising cocaine bill

is at the root of the problem, or 3K a night hookers if you're Charlie Sheen :).

Steve concludes:

>The 10% Rule is not a Holy Icon; it is 
>a tool.  There is nothing unsound about making such decisions; they are 
>part of doing business. 

Define Holy Icon?  That is a throw-away word.  Meaningless to me and thus is
meanigless in evaluating the sentence that flows out of it.

What I am about to say will be incomprehensible to many who read this list.  To

others it will be immediatedly grasped and understood.  In the case of those who

do not understand what I am about to say, please, do yourself a favor and try to
track down a copy of a short little book (aimed at children, oddly enough!)
called The Richest Man In Babylon. Read it.

Not so long ago, before the FDR and LBJ governments (please understand I am not
blaming just these two, it took far more than these two thugs to pull off the
current situation) responsible people used to SAVE money in things called
SAVINGS ACCOUNTS (these are different from checking accounts in that money
actually was LEFT THERE (yes, it's the truth, I'm being honest, scout's honor!)
for very long periods of time to accumulate value and to pay for:

a) Unexpected contingencies
b) Old age
c) Luxuries in later life without going into debt.


People who did not save some reasonable fraction of their income were considered
IRRESPONSIBLE (this means that they were considered not being very reliable or
prudent people who did not accept that their fate was of their own making to at
least some degree).  I feel compelled to define irresponsible because almost no
one is left in this culture who understands the word "responsible" (1)).


The 10% Rule was a savings account for people who couldn't save anymore.  It was
a saving account paid by everybody who was a member of the family with the
understanding that most, if not all, would benefit from it some day.  But most
of all it was an acknowledgement of CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY for the whole
process of long-term patient cryogenic care, revival and its attendant risks.
The 10% Rule was for those who were and are and will be FROZEN but to benefit
them ONLY AFTER being frozen.

Using the 10% Rule money to do research to improve technques now may indirectly
benefit frozen patients.  But then EVERY improvement to a cryonics society from
flashier newsletters to blazers with happy face patches on them could be argued

to do the same.  That was NOT the purpose of the 10% Rule.  Don't argue with me:
I made it!

As to it being a Holy Grail: well I suppose if you define Holy Grails as things

like deeply ingrained survival behavior like don't play in shit, don't eat dirt,
don't have bad manners around people with guns, don't play in traffic, don't
steal; well then I agree wholeheartedly.


I would further note that parents who instruct their children about such matters
by simply RATIONALLY explaining things like this to them once (or even several
times) will not have children who a) are civilized, b) you would want to live
with, c) who have a lot of survival value.  This is precisely why such things

are communicated to human beings on  EMOTIONAL rather than just rational levels.
And this why emotions and drives (sex and food, etc.) so often win out over
rationality.  Reason is evolutionarily new, emotion much older and more
powerful.

One of the weaknesses of cryonics is that it does not have a deep emotional
implementation mode for core principles that will determine its success or
failure.

Rather than pontificate on this I would simply recommend that you go to

Blockbuster  Video and rent Joseph Campbell's THE POWER OF MYTH or, buy the book
or check it out of the library.

If what you learn there is what you mean by the 10% rule being a Holy Grail,
well, then,  by golly I agree!

However, I must respectfully decline to agree that: "There is nothing unsound
about making such (sic dropping the 10% rule) decisions;

I would agree that they are indeed "part of doing business. "  The question is,
what kind of business.?  Good or bad, responsible or responsible?


Mike Darwin

PS: THIS IS INTENDED FOR ALL CRYONICS SOCIETIES.

(1) When successfully sue McDonald's for spilling hot coffee on their genitals

and then their husband (who is in his mid '70s) sues for for loss of his injured
wife's sexual favors you are definitely in a civilization with major problems.


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4679