X-Message-Number: 4702
Date: 01 Aug 95 05:15:38 EDT
From: Mike Darwin <>
Subject: Hocus Pocus

Steve Bridge's response to my postings on the10% Rule have provided me with 
more amusement and insight than anything I've downloaded in at least 48 
hours.  That may be a testimonial to the richness of the net in conveying 
human wit and intelligence, a testimonial to the ease with which I am 
amused, or a testimonial to something else altogether.  Whatever, I can't 
resist responding to a first-class piece of political rhetoric like this. 
(Personal to Steve: Bill and Hillary need you NOW and need you more than 
you know!)

Steve writes:

>It is obvious that patient care and survival into the future has 
>always been an emotional checkpoint for you, and rightly so.  It might 
>surprise you to discover, however, that even many of the people you have 
>disagreed with most over the years have the same concern. 

What a piece of clever insight there!  As far as I know, this attribute of 
mine "that patient care and survival into the future has always been an  
emotional checkpoint" should hardly be a revelation.  In fact, I would go 
so far to say that in any of the positions of responsibility I've occupied 
in cryonics it has not only been present and obvious, it is unarguably a 
prerequisite to do the job at all, let alone well.

As to others sharing my concern, well I've no doubt of it.  But so what?  
Of course others feel the same way.  I don't recall having questioned that 
point at all in any of my posts.  At issue here is not just how people feel 
(although I acknowledge that this is very important) but what they do, and 
whether what they do is wise or foolish, intelligent or stupid, a shade of 
gray better or a shade worse, or the difference between darkness and light.

Steve knows my Mother well, and has heard me quote her on this point 
before, namely that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."  Mom 
was right.  
  
Steve goes on to say:   

>You say, "Don't argue with me: I made it!"  OK, Mike, I won't argue 
>with you about it.  I will merely note that we disagree on this particular 

>issue, and that other people who disagree with you also are extremely 
>concerned and involved with long-term survival of their own friends and 
>relatives in suspension.  We are all trying to make the best decisions we 
>can to make Alcor and the patients survive.  That's why I have spent 
>hundreds of hours in the past two years working on a Patient Care Trust 
>Fund and other exhausting projects.

Steve misses the point here completely, or perhaps just doesn't want to 
acknowledge it since he leaves out the preceding sentences when he quotes 
me.  Debate or argument about the utility of the 10% Rule, debate about how 
it's implemented, whether it should be 10% or 5% or O% is NOT what I was 
referring to when I said "Don't argue with me: I made it!"  What I was 
saying was "don't argue with me about the PURPOSE or INTENDED PURPOSE of 
the 10% Rule because not only was I a witness to its implementation, I was 
the person who thought of it, persuaded others of it, and so on." Here I 
was trying to head off the historical revisionism I anticipated.  And I 
would add, I had every reason to anticipate such revisionism since I sat 
through countless meetings where I was lectured on the REAL reasons for 
implementation of the 10% Rule.  

Indeed I watched the transformation of the 10% Rule from being used as a 
point of responsibility, pride and advantage into its dilution, dimunition 
and discontinuation.  All of this would not be an issue if we were faced 
with problems beyond our control (war, economic crisis, legal crisis) which 
prudence and reason would dictate get top-drawer attention.  In fact, 
crises *did* occur and the 10% Rule (even to my astonishment) remained 
intact through it.

What I was saying, and I thought saying quite clearly is that people should 
ask themselves why they can't or don't choose to save money?  Cryopreserved 
people are, well, hopefully just that: cryopreserved PEOPLE.  They need 
income too.  And they need an organizational commitment to generating that 
income over and above interest dollars and investment payoff on (Patient 
Care Fund) PCF monies.  That is my opinion.  It could be wrong.  It is, 
however, not addressed at all by Steve who merely repeats his mantra of 
reassuring everyone that everyone is is concerned and we all feel real 
strong about taking care of the patients and golly gee that means 
everything's gonna be OK.

Then for the clincher:

>I think I explained pretty well why Alcor's Board made the decision 
>it did.  I think, under the circumstances, it was a rational decision.  An 

>organization which cannot progress in membership and in research is a bad 
>bet to survive long enough to revive patients.  You and I disagree on the 
>particular steps we might have taken.  I hope you do not think that only 
>people who agree with you 100% on the subjects you feel strongly about can 

>care about the interests of the patients.


The part I like the best is: "An organization which cannot progress in 
membership and in research is a bad bet to survive long enough to revive 
patients."

I like this part best because Alcor's period of greatest combined growth in 
technology, membership, financial security and first class research occured 
with the 10% Rule in place.  Indeed money for those other projects was 
raised from voluntary giving at an unprecedented ratio of members to 
dollars.  Am I missing something here? I don't think so.

And then:

>I hope you do not think that only people who agree with you 100% on the 
subjects you >feel strongly about can care about the interests of the 
patients.


I love it!  A first class piece of political writing here! This can be 
translated many ways, but the one I think most representantive of true 
intent goes something like this:

"Gosh Mr. Jones, I hope you and your friends in Guyana don't think that 
only people who agree with you 100% on things you feel/care strongly about 
are good people."

What am I supposed to say in response to this?:

"No, that was not my intent at all.  By no means.  I think everybody ought 
to have a cup full of the Kool-Aid.. I'm an equal opportunity tyrant!"

Steve, BTW, have you stopped beating your girlfriend yet?

Of course I don't feel that way.  The issues for debate are 
straightforward: should people have savings and should organizations 
responsible for people who can't save, save money for them?  How have 
cemeteries and others with both conservatively and aggressively managed 
fixed-sum trusts fared over the reasonable and prudent estimated 
time-course to resuscitation of patients in cryopreservation NOW? (1) 

Perhaps Steve and others of us "old-timers" would like to reflect on how 
the minimums for cryopreservation (which reflect marginal costs) have risen 
since we first got involved. And please, no hocus pocus from the bean 
counters about proving how much the PCF is growing over real costs, 
inflation, future costs and so on.  I've heard it all before. (BTW when I 
first signed up in the 1970's the amount was 15K for whole-body.  (When I 
came on board with Alcor I think it was in 30K range for neuros). I think 
it is currently about 55K for neuro with Alcor (I trust I'll be corrected 
if I'm wrong)).

Almost every day I walk or drive by Evergreen Cemetery in Uptown Riverside 
and chuckle over the names people have given it in recent years:

Ever Dry
Ever Brown
Never Green

Got any guesses as to why such names?  Got any guesses as to how many OTHER 
cemeteries in California are in the same position? Evergreen shows signs of 
pulling out of their woeful state of near financial ruin.  But it is close. 
 They will no doubt get support from the City of Riverside since what the 
State Cemetery Board does to to cemeteries who run out of money is simply 
to fence them off and let the weeds grow (at its worst, in Evergreen's 
case, this would merely mean adding a fence). I wonder how cryonics 
patients with no money will be handled?  Perhaps a deal with Evergreen can 
be cut and the state can bury two mistakes in the same plot and save on 
fencing costs?

On Steve's wording point about Icon versus Grail: Mea culpa, Mea maxima 
culpa!  Humor aside, it's a valid point.


And finally:

>Survival of the patients is the object, not survival of the 10% Rule.  
There are many 
>possible routes to that end, and the 10% Rule is not the only sacred path. 
 
>I can't read your mind, of course, Mike and I won't try to analyze you for 

>your feelings.  I simply believe that there may be more practical ways of 
>ensuring patient survival than by starving the growth of membership and 
>research.  As you always said, an cryonics board has to make tough 
>decisions.  That hasn't changed.  As always, we won't know how correct or 
>meaningful any particular decision was for a very long time.

Steve, you don't need to analyze my feelings.  First of all because you 
already know them, secondly because I've already publically stated them, 
and thirdly because they are not what is fundamentally at issue here.  Of 
course my feelings are germaine and relevant to the arguments and policy in 
question.  But they are not the be all and end all of things and I never 
said they were.

And yes, I have always said "any cryonics board has to make tough 
decisions."

And I would add "they also have to make the RIGHT decisions."


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4702