X-Message-Number: 985
Date: 14 Jul 92 02:13:04 EDT
From: Brian Wowk <73337.2723@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: CRYONICS growth
To: >INTERNET:kqb@whscad1.att.com
Charles Platt recently asked whether it might be in our best
interests for Alcor to remain small. I recall scattered thoughts about
this question being exchanged in Cryonics magazine back in the mid 80's
(when Alcor was some 20% of its current size). I would particularly
like to quote Mike Darwin from his interview in the May, 1986 issue.
Interviewer:
Thomas Donaldson has argued that cryonics can survive
and succeed while staying very small, and virtually unnoticed by
the majority. What's you're position on that?
Mike Darwin:
I feel that he's very likely mistaken. It's very simple.
There are very few "states" in the universe that are favorable to
life. And very few of the possible political and economic states
that could arise in this country in the future are going to be
favorable to cryonics. Unless you have the resources to manipulate
the environment-- to defend yourself --then sooner or later you're
liable to be stepped on like a bug. The amount of resources
required to do that is significant.
We've just been lucky so far that we haven't become an
issue, that no one gives a damn. To some extent that's because we
*are* small. However, it's also because we take fierce beatings in
silence. "You want to autopsy her? Well, yessir Mr. Coroner sir!
But please, Mr. Coroner sir, would you give us your leavings?"
When I think of how we are forced to suffer hideously and die right
now it makes me ill. What can I say to someone lying in a nursing
home smelling themselves rot away, feeling their mind slipping
away, knowing that their resources are being consumed? How do I
reassure them there's going to be anything of their mind left worth
freezing by the time "natural" death intervenes? What can I do but
hope and pray that same thing doesn't happen to me? That's what
staying the same size means.
One of the major marketing barriers we face is the
tremendous uncertainty surrounding our long term survival, which
relates greatly to our small size and the limited reserves of money
and talent available to us. If we had the resources of
Scientology, or the political clout of the Catholic Church or
General Motors, we'd be able to deal with the problems like
compulsory autopsy, or the issue of people whose brains are slowly
falling apart from Alzheimer's while they're still alive. These are
not trivial problems: as things stand today, twenty percent of our
members will be subject to compulsory autopsy. We need to have the
political muscle to change this, or the economic resources to
insulate ourselves from the way the rest of society is structured.
The idea that we can survive while staying the same size is
very attractive, because it means that we can just sit on our
fannies and not worry about the fact that we're going to die and
disappear forever. This is the approach that has been followed by
every cryonics group but Alcor, to some extent. The idea of growth
was always there, and was paid lip service, but in reality it
hasn't been pursued vigorously or realistically.
Look at the situation we're in now: single individuals have
a tremendous impact on the function and stability of the various
cryonics organizations. That's a dangerous thing....
We've vulnerable right now; if we lose a key individual, we
lose a big hunk of our resources. That's an untenable situation.
We need a far larger pool of people to draw from, for general
talent, technical talent, financial expertise, and leadership.
Leadership is a critical element, and it only emerges when you have
a reasonably large sized pool of people to pull from. The pool is
just too small right now. Many of the people who are doing this
work, including myself, are doing it on the basis of necessity
rather than competence. There are certainly more qualified people
out there to do financial management, more qualified researchers,
and probably more qualified leaders, strategists, and planners.
It's absurd to believe that we represent the best that's available.
We need to attract more people.
--------
In response to some of Charles' specific negative points about
growth, such as:
> c) Errors and failures resulting from breakdowns in
> communication, which will be more frequent as the size of
> organizations increases.
> d) Bureaucratization of hitherto tight-knit
> organizations, so that they tend to become impersonal and
> inefficient.
I would suggest that these points could be used as excuses for keeping
all companies small, yet there are still many successful large companies
in the world. More to the point, there are some companies that *must*
be large (such as insurance companies) for long-term success in their
business.
Charles also writes:
> e) Less incentive for people in the far future to take
> the trouble to revive any one patient. One revived relic from
> the past is a thrilling novelty; 100 are interesting; 10,000
> are tiresome; a million might constitute an unwelcome
> intrusion, especially if the world of the future is
> overpopulated.
I've written about this before (as have others), and it is not
the "people" of the future that will revive cryonics patients for
amusement, but rather the *cryonics organizations* of the future that
will revive patients because it is part of their dedicated mission.
--- Brian Wowk
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=985