X-Message-Number: 6804 From: (Thomas Donaldson) Subject: Re: CryoNet #6801 - #6803 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 07:06:01 -0700 (PDT) Hi! This posting is partly a response to Bob Ettinger's comments about possible use of the money for Prometheus, and partly in response to similar postings about Prometheus from other organizations. It seems to me that when we think about funding Prometheus we should consider one major PROPOSITION: Claim: Funding for Prometheus will/will not decrease funding for all other cryonics projects. Though there may be a paradox involved, I myself believe that Prometheus will either leave funding for other projects the same, or even increase it. I do so because it would increase the willingness of many cryonicists and other interested parties to donate: one donation produces more. Clearly Bob does not think that, and therefore quite rightly worries that our activities will become too one-sided. A bit of explanation of my point: Basically, the current pool of donors is not large. If we increase it, we will get more donations; in order to succeed, Prometheus will have to increase the pool of donors. My own donation to Prometheus does not mean that I will not donate added money for other things; I hope (in the future) to have more money to donate, and that can go to these other purposes. (Yes, hope is not bankable, but that is how I am thinking). I would be very interested to read the comments of others on the above Claim.. including those of Bob Ettinger and Paul Wakfer. Basically, I do not see the pool of money available to support cryonics as anywhere close to being exhausted. Am I wrong or right? What do you say? Long long life, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6804