X-Message-Number: 6690
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 96 12:43:28
From: Steve Bridge <>
Subject: On questioning Prometheus
To CryoNet
>From Steve Bridge
August 5, 1996
In reply to: Message #6680
From: (John K. Clark)
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 13:31:44 -0700
Subject: SCI.CRYONICS Why all this Prometheus criticism
>When The Prometheus Project was announced I expected that religious
>fundamentalists wouldn't like it, but the nit picking and downright
>hostility it has produced among members of this list has amazed me.
>Perhaps you don't think Prometheus is perfect, perhaps there is some
>little aspect of the project you dislike, but do you honestly expect a
>better research project to come along in the immediate future, especially
>if you manage to kill off this one. If you don't want to invest your own
>money in this then don't, but why you would want to discourage others
>from doing so with words like "farcical" and "blindly" is a total mystery
>to me. If the project is successful you will benefit too, even if you had
no part in it.
First, John, that is the way of things in e-mail and in cryonics.
Some of the supporters of the Prometheus Project would be (and have been)
the "nitpickers" in other circumstances. Frankly I have been amazed at
the LACK of hostility. Yes, there have been criticisms; but if you look
back at the background of CryoNet (examine the conflicts in 1992 and 1993
if you want to see true "hostility"), it is apparent that the current
situation is one of at least civility and curiosity, even if not the full-
bore enthusiastic fervor Paul no doubt would like to see. But I think you
make a much larger mistake in your perceptions here.
Basically you are saying, "Support this particular project because it
is the only game in town." I think it is more important to support a
project because it is a GOOD idea, not because it is the ONLY idea. It is
extremely important to establish that the Prometheus Plan is workable from
both a business and a scientific viewpoint, and that it is being done in a
legal way. You note that "If the project is successful you will benefit
too, even if you had no part in it." That's not necessarily true, of
course, for any specific individual. But there major losses possible for
an organization which becomes involved in a project like this if it is NOT
successful or is only partly so.
1. As a non-profit corporation, Alcor must make sure that a decision to
participate does not accidentally place its non-profit status in
jeopardy.
2. It would be fruitless for us to invest money in a project where our
members and patients could not benefit from the results. (This was part
of the concerns in the earlier days of discussions, to make sure that any
such benefits would be handled fairly and reasonably. Those discussions,
time-consuming and irritating though they may have seemed at the time, led
to important changes in Paul's approach. That's the point of criticism
and discussion and why Paul chose to put his ideas on the [admittedly
flawed] anvil of CryoNet.)
3. Money from cryonics organizations put into Prometheus may be coming
out of funds that are needed for other projects. This would certainly be
true of Alcor's own money; and might be true of at least some of the
donations that (under Paul's plan) would be given to Alcor for the
purposes of investment. Some of the donors would be giving money that
Alcor would never have seen otherwise; but some would be restricting their
normal donations to Alcor to substitute donations for Prometheus
investment.
It is incumbent on Alcor, for its own purposes, to make sure that the
particular plan that comes out of these discussions is one which has value
for the money greater than the other uses for the money.
4. It is not merely funds which could be misapplied to a flawed project;
but time, energy, and hope. Mis-spent hope is the hardest commodity to
replenish, so the project must be carefully and rationally examined before
a huge amount of hope is expended.
All of these are good reasons to be critical and to ask questions.
And I should point out that it is not merely the answers to the objections
that are important. It is also the *manner* in which the objections are
answered. Answers which are merely huff-and-puff "How dare you question
me?" replies are not likely to generate much confidence in how well the
plan is being thought out. Calm answers, which try to either provide an
answer or admit there might be a problem in that area for which an answer
hasn't been found yet, will go a long way toward assuring the CryoNet
readers that future problems will be handled in a thoughtful, rational
manner.
John, you may have confidence already that the project is developed
enough to worth your investment. That's fine; but other individuals and
organizations may have different concerns that require different
information.
Steve Bridge
Stephen Bridge, President ()
Alcor Life Extension Foundation
Non-profit cryonic suspension services since 1972.
7895 E. Acoma Dr., Suite 110, Scottsdale AZ 85260-6916
Phone (602) 922-9013 (800) 367-2228 FAX (602) 922-9027
for general requests
http://www.alcor.org
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6690