CryoNet #32470 - #32473

CryoNet - Wed 10 Mar 2010

    #32470: I stand corrected [Rudi Hoffman]
    #32471: Re: Some cryonicists just don't underestand. [david pizer] [David Stodolsky]
    #32472: Re: #32465: No Subject [Mathew Sullivan]
    #32473: Re: Some cryonicists just don't underestand. [david pizer] [Jordan Sparks]

Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32470%2D32473

Administrivia

To subscribe to CryoNet, send email to:
    [email protected]
with the subject line (not message _body_):
    subscribe
To unsubscribe, use the subject line:
    unsubscribe
To post a message to CryoNet, send your message to:
    [email protected]
from the same address to which you are aubscribed.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32470
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 09:39:04 -0500
Subject: I stand corrected
From: Rudi Hoffman <[email protected]>

--00163630f1a7b7ffc304815f2465

Kitty--you are right.  I am wrong.  I stand corrected.


Rudi

-- 
Rudi Richard Hoffman CFP CLU ChFC

World's Leading Cryonics Insuror rudihoffman.com
Former Board Member Financial Planning Association fpafla.com
Board Member Salvation Army salvationarmy.org
Member Alcor Life Extension Foundation alcor.org,
Member Cryonics Institute cryonics.org
Certified Financial Planner(TM) CFP Board of Standards
Member World Transhumanist Association http://transhumanism.org/

--00163630f1a7b7ffc304815f2465

 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32470

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32471
From: David Stodolsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Some cryonicists just don't underestand. [david pizer]
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 22:41:36 +0100
References: <[email protected]>

On 9 Mar 2010, at 11:00 AM, CryoNet wrote:

> I am in a position to hear of reasons why people
> either drop membership or won't sign up in the first place at Alcor.
> I have so far never heard "because you do neuros" as a reason given.

It could be that people who hear about the neuro option simply write  
off cryonics as a cult and they never contact any provider. If I hear  
about some religious group that refuses blood transfusions or other  
standard medical treatments, I am not going to contact them to tell  
them I favor transfusions.



> I won't say it doesn't happen. But logically it seems reasonable that
> people who don't want neuro for themselves would be satisfied as long
> as *they* could sign up for whole body, whatever choice someone else
> might make.

Haven't we gotten past the idea that decision making in this area is  
logical? Logical arguments have been provided for 40+ years and the  
overwhelming majority of people that could sign up don't.


dss

David Stodolsky
[email protected]  Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32471

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32472
From: Mathew Sullivan <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 18:02:44 -0500
Subject: Re: #32465: No Subject

--000e0cd6ed8a2034160481662f05

Dave, the principle issue from which you have spun out on is simply
an administrative issue, not the alleged fear of neuro preservation and your
erroneous notions about the prospect I would cancel my membership.  The fact
of the matter is, this is about paperwork, contracts, and ensuring Alcor
stays in the loop if efforts are made to change funding arrangements and
membership status.  In my particular case, Alcor is both the owner and
beneficiary of my insurance policy, and members of my immediate family have
signed a relative's affidavit.  In the event of my non-suspension, my
funding is evenly divided up between Alcor operations, research, and the
PCT.  As a result, any attempt from my family to interfere with my cryonics
arrangements will likely result in them having to appear in court, and not
only will they loose such a court battle, they will not profit financially.
If every Alcor member had their arrangements as secure as mine, the
probability of having these types of discussions would be significantly
reduced.  At the end of the day, both Alcor and individual members have a
responsibility to work together to figure out how best to secure
their funding arrangements to avoid complications later on.

Mathew

--000e0cd6ed8a2034160481662f05

 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32472

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32473
From: "Jordan Sparks" <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Some cryonicists just don't underestand. [david pizer]
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 22:05:44 -0800

HoooRahh, Mike!  I've been pushing for fixation as a lower quality last
resort for the destitute.  But Aschwin's idea is sort of an intermediate
between room temp fixation and neuro.  It has taken me months to warm up to
the idea, but I am steadily growing more supportive of it.  I am curious to
see what the electricity might cost.  The equipment seems to be available at
a few hundred dollars per patient.  Very doable.  The sticky point is that
neither Alcor nor CI will touch this option.  Their reasons are valid given
their business models and political environments.  It will require a third
cryonics company to see this idea to fruition.

As for David's concerns, I'm convinced for now that our current form of
government provides enough protection from tyranny of the majority.  And
even the majority is very sympathetic to supporting a person's last wishes.
In some families neuro can be a problem, but in others it simply isn't.

Jordan Sparks

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32473

----------------------------------------------------------------------

End of CryoNet Digest
*********************