X-Message-Number: 985
Date: 14 Jul 92 02:13:04 EDT
From: Brian Wowk <>
Subject: CRYONICS growth

To: >INTERNET: 
 
        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