X-Message-Number: 9360
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 11:56:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: Growth in Cryonics

On Fri, 27 Mar 1998, Stephen Bogner wrote:
> I would also like to see more discussion about the growth rate of cryonics. 

I feel that a different discussion should precede the discussion about
growth: will any cryonics organization be able to cope with the
CONSEQUENCES of growth? 

Standby/transport teams burn out. It's an emotionally gruelling, time
consuming job, and no one receives proper payment. In the past, Alcor has
lost team members. At BioPreservation, it's no secret that team members
would rather do research than cryonics at this time. 

I believe that each "standby activist" has "emotional capital" that is
consumed during a standby. Maybe rest and relaxation can replenish some of
this resource, and relatively easy cryonics cases use less of it than
others. But ultimately it does seem to be finite, because it is a tough 
business, watching people die.

What do you do with a scarce finite resource? You try to exploit it more 
efficiently, you go looking for fresh reserves, and in the meantime you 
try to conserve it. I'll consider these options.

Efficiency: Standbys are inherently inefficient to a horrifying degree,
because we cannot legally control when people die. Therefore, the team may
spend days or weeks just sitting and waiting, while trying to reassure the
patient and ease the pain as much as possible. I see no easy way around
this. 

Fresh reserves of personnel: Fred and Linda Chamberlain of Alcor are
tackling this problem right now, looking for new victims (I mean,
volunteers) who are willing to learn the complexities of modern techniques
and apply them in the field. It's too early to tell whether this 
initiative will be successful.

Conservation: This is the least satisfactory solution, but does have the
virtue of being easy to implement. Again, Alcor has taken steps in this
direction, by imposing more stringent conditions on last-minute cases,
where the dying person is not a member. Obviously, the scarce resource of
standby personnel should be reserved primarily for people who had the
foresight to sign up ahead of time. At CryoCare, we have followed this 
policy for 2 or 3 years, though it has been less formally articulated. We 
prefer to avoid last-minute cases.

But this amounts to a rationing system. Any free-market economist will
tell you that rationing is not the best way to extend a scarce resource; 
the first essential is to PRICE IT APPROPRIATELY, because underpriced 
resources will be squandered. 

After a great deal of thought I have come to the conclusion that cryonics 
services are priced at about 1/10th of their true value. The difference 
has been made up from donations and bequests, and by finding people who are 
willing to do the job for free. This is not a viable longterm situation, 
anymore than federally funded social security is viable in the long term 
(because it pays out more than it takes in).

The people applying modern techniques of human cryopreservation
constitute, with a few exceptions, an aging minority of cryonicists. As
people age, sooner or later they tend to guard their time more jealously.
They are less willing to make sacrifices. They perceive that they have
fewer years left to live, and they want to make the most of those years.
Thus, burnout occurs more rapidly.

What I'm saying is that in my opinion, Alcor, CryoCare, and ACS are facing
a neartime shortage of cryopreservation personnel, caused by a combination
of demographic, economic, and psychological factors. (I cannot speak for
CI because I know less about that organization, and in any case the
procedures it uses are relatively simple, typically implemented by a local
mortician. Large amounts of purpose-built cryonics equipment, and
specially trained staff, are not deployed during a CI standby.)

Bearing all this in mind, I believe that growth is not the first priority
right now. We need to rebuild the teams that are supposed to do the actual
work of cryopreservation. Otherwise, we're making a promise that we may
not be able to fulfill. 

So far as I know, currently no cryonics organization would be able to
respond properly if two members die simultaneously. This has never
happened, but sooner or later it will happen, and I believe the chances of
it happening increase more than linearly with membership growth
(especially if the average membership age increases--which is likely,
since people tend to sign up in their 30s or 40s and then REMAIN signed up
as the decades pass). 

Perhaps someone whose math is fresher than mine could calculate the odds. 
(Ralph Merkle?) In the meantime, standby capability should concern anyone 
who is hoping, one day, to be frozen. Alcor is offering a training course
next week, as part of its effort to improve capability. Anyone who is
interested should call the Alcor 800 number. 

In the longer term, as research develops better techniques of
cryopreservation that require additional training and more expensive
equipment, the cost of cryopreservation will be even higher than it is
now. We might consider the typical consequences of ignoring an escalation
in costs and retaining fees that are already far below the real value of
cryonics services. You don't need to be an economist to figure this out. 

--Charles Platt, President, CryoCare

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9360