X-Message-Number: 6532
From:  (Thomas Donaldson)
Subject: Prometheus and the Japanese
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 10:25:21 -0700 (PDT)

Hi again!

Sorry, but whether I am a talker or not isn't relevant here. One major obstacle
which both Alcor and the Cryonics Institute see to investing in Prometheus 
has NOT been answered by most of the replies by Saul, Brian, and others. Paul
Wakfer DID give a reply, but unfortunately only by pointing to "lawyers he
has consulted". 

The problem is that both Steve Bridge and Bob Ettinger see the possible loss of
their tax-free status if they became associated with Prometheus. As someone
who agrees that vitrification will very likely produce a big advance in our
ability to preserve patients, and who basically wants Prometheus to succeed

(whether or not I can really afford $1000 a year for 10 years), I see that 
issueas THE major obstacle to any of the (nonprofit-making) organizations doing

anything as organizations about Prometheus. (I have already suggested that they 
might help in other ways even if they cannot contribute directly).  So: if Paul 
Wakfer has decided that loss of tax-free status will not happen,
I'd like him to be much more specific as to why--- including citations of the
lawyers he's consulted and suggestions as to where a cryonics society might
go for assurance on this point. In the present state of cryonics, loss of
tax-free status by CI or Alcor would be a disaster for either, so much a 
disaster that it would probably wipe them out.... and with them, all the
patients in their care. As someone who may end up frozen sooner than most
I think both Steve and Bob are being highly responsible here. 

I note also that Saul Kent fails to discuss this issue entirely. Saul, you
are in a position to hire the necessary lawyers and get as good an opinion as
possible on this point. It is the most substantive reason why CI and Alcor
have not simply accepted Prometheus with open arms. Yes, Steve and Bob may
have other doubts, but they can be dealt with by simple arguments --- and
I hope that Greg Fahy will explain vitrification IN DETAIL to all those 
who wonder about its prospects. Yet IF this tax problem becomes unsolvable,
you aren't going to get any response from either Alcor or CI. (I do hope 
that you will still get a response from members). And unless you not only
"know" but can PUBLICLY PROVE that this issue won't be relevant, please, Paul,
cease to denigrate these organizations.

So far, no amount of bellringing and trumpet playing has really answered 
this question. Please LISTEN and answer it as well as you can.

AND ABOUT THE JAPANESE:

I've personally been to Japan several times, and lived there for periods of
a month or more. There is a really major legal obstacle to developing cryonics
in Japan: Japanese law says that for all but foreigners ("gaijin") CREMATION IS
MANDATORY. They are simply not allowed to choose the way by which their 
bodies will be disposed. I have one Japanese subscriber to my own newsletter,
PERIASTRON, and apparently there are 3 Japanese who subscribe to Alcor's 
material. But mandatory cremation puts a very high barrier in front of all
of these people. US Immigration laws are hardly a help, either. 

Yes, if someone tried to pass such a law in the US, lots of screams would 
ensue. But the US isn't Japan. Nor, for that matter, do we have the beliefs 
about death of "normal Americans", and I really doubt that we'll understand 
why or why not cryonics is viable (or not) in a country simply on the basis
of the attitudes of "most people" there. (Some people may even react to those
attitudes: Spain, for instance, has some of the strongest and most proselyt-
izing atheists I've met). 

I am sorry for the Japanese who want cryonics but find that it is very hard
for them to get. Perhaps Alcor could at least put them in touch with one 
another. But it is also true that we only have so many resources, and first of
all we want to assure our own survival and that of those we love.

			Long long life,

				Thomas Donaldson


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6532