X-Message-Number: 990
Date: 15 Jul 92 10:59:13 EDT
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: CRYONICS
Brian Wowk has a valid point when he says that cryonics
organizations will be reviving people in the future, and
therefore my concerns about "Who will bother to revive us?"
are not justified. However, I think that there is still some
reason to think that generally speaking, one's chances of
coming back are slightly greater if there are fewer people
frozen.
There are many scenarios. I could imagine, for instance, that
cryonics might become regulated by a federal agency, which
would impose a limit on the number of resuscitations per
year. I can also imagine that some cryonics organizations
could go out of business before all of their patients were
revived.
There are dozens of other scenarios. They all share the same
two propositions: 1) It is impossible to predict the future,
and 2) Generally speaking, a resource in short supply is more
valuable than a resource that is plentiful.
As for the very good quote from Mike Darwin, pointing out
that there is strength in numbers: yes, it would be nice to
reach a point where cryonics is so big and so widely
accepted, we actually have some clout. It would definitely be
nice to have some control over autopsies. But how big would
cryonics have to be to accomplish this? I suggest it would
have to be an option chosen by at least, say, 1 person in 10.
If my rough calculations are correct, that would translate
into more than 3 million freezings per year. It is hard to
imagine the kind of social upheaval that would be necessary
to create, and to accommodate, that implementation of
cryonics. I certainly believe it would cause more problems
than it would solve.
Lastly, Brian dismisses my concerns about growth making
cryonics organizations less flexible and more bureaucratic,
because these general concerns apply to any organization.
Yes--precisely! And we see their effects. Who would you
rather be frozen by, Alcor or General Motors?
Personally, I would like to see some cryonics growth, because
I would feel safer if the organizations were stronger
financially, and I would like to see more people trained to
perform the various special tasks involved. To this end, I am
writing a book which has the potential to attract more
cryonics members, and I am still pursuing the possibility of
a cryonics contest in OMNI. I have also signed up to take
Mike Darwin's introductory course in September.
But I start to feel ambivalent when I imagine Alcor more than
ten times as big as it is today.
Meanwhile, Saul Kent replied to my points by phone rather
than by email, and made the excellent point that there are
two kinds of membership growth:
1. People in good health who are planning ahead, and who
have a general belief in cryonics.
2. People who don't have long to live and join out of
desperation.
The second group (Saul points out) are a drain on the system.
They don't live long enough to become activists who will help
cryonics; instead, very quickly, they need to *be* helped.
They do bring money in, but (if one believes the calculations
that Mike Darwin made a year or two ago) the fees charged by
Alcor do not properly cover all aspects of a suspension,
especially if there is remote standby. Thus, each new
suspension is a net financial drain on the organization. In
addition, remote standbys totally disrupt everyday operations
at Riverside, for a week or more in each case.
It's worth noting that in several recent suspensions, the
patients only joined when they knew they had life-threatening
conditions. Saul feels it would be sensible to apply a
surcharge to cases such as these, and I find his argument
persuasive. Otherwise, the same small staff is going to find
itself overwhelmed with endless "last minute" cases.
Ultimately these dedicated activists will burn out and there
will beno one to replace them.
If growth is going to benefit us at all, the growth has to be
primarily in the number of living members, not frozen ones!
--Charles Platt
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=990