CryoNet #32986 - #32990

CryoNet - Wed 27 Oct 2010

    #32986: Re: CryoNet #32983 - #32985 [Gerald Monroe]
    #32987: Re: Cosmism [John de Rivaz]
    #32988: What we need is not TECHnology, but SOCIOlogy  [un person]
    #32989: Unperson needs to get out of Texas more often. [MARK PLUS]
    #32990: response to gerald monroe [Charles in Arizona]

Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32986%2D32990

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.
Send questions, comments, or feedback to [email protected]
with "CryoNet" or "cryonics" somewhere in the Subject line.


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

Message #32986
References: <[email protected]>
From: Gerald Monroe <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:33:33 -0500
Subject: Re: CryoNet #32983 - #32985

--000e0cd348644136ac049382a5f3

Charles, let me see if I've got your viewpoint correct.  Let's talk
specifics.  Right now there are some elderly Alcor members who signed up
when the fees were lower.  These particular individuals, some of whom
probably are reading this list, may not have the financial means to increase
their contribution now that they are out of the workforce and retired.
 Perhaps if they had known the fees were going to triple *before* they did
the funding, they could have done something.  But it might be too late now.
 You're basically saying that because Alcor *might* lose a few thousand
dollars on some of these cases, it should refuse to help these people when
they die unless they pony up another $50,000 for the more recent fees.
 Condemning people to certain death is generally a bad idea.

Furthermore, your financial view is short sighted and ignorant.  From an
economic perspective, there are *other *factors than just pure dollars and
cents.  First of all, if Alcor continues to treat people honorably and to
help people that it might lose money on, it builds upon the reputation of
the organization.  This in turn means that people are more likely to trust
the organization will do the right thing, even if it costs money.  This
increases the likelihood that they will have more folks willing to pay the
$85k or $150k fee and to sign up at that price, and feel comfortable knowing
that the organization won't screw them over if they come up a few bucks
short decades later.

Finally, the more cryonics patients that are preserved, with living families
of these patients advocating for their restoration, the better everyone's
chances become.  To maximize the odds of survival, cryonics needs to grow
massively.  It would really help if there were hundreds of thousands of
cryonics patients instead of a few hundred.  At a certain point, there would
be enough lobbyists that the government would probably protect the patients
directly, and there would be a lot more interest in researching the
technology needed to rebuild everyone.

Given how few patients there are today, even a few 'low-profit' cases help
to increase the number of folks that are part of this movement.

Your view is the reason many corporations have failed.  Lots of firms have
tried the strategy of providing no support for their products and trying to
nickel and dime their customers to death with trivial fees.  In the long
run, a lot of these firms fail unless they occupy a monopoly.  (this is why
the companies you probably immediately think of that try to screw their
customers tend to be banks, wireless companies, etc)  Your view is why
modern business often tries to inflate next quarter's earnings rather than
trying to run an efficient business that provides legitimate value to it's
customers.  You can't fake quality in the long term.

Note that I am not going to benefit from grandfathering, and I have little
vested interest.  I intend to significantly overfund my cryonics policy.  I
am not particularly concerned that some of the funds will be used to help
others, so long as this lifeboat we're all boarding makes it to the other
end.

If the actual long term cost to keep a patient chilled is closer to
$100/year than $1000, a few extra "low profit" cases in the freezer are not
going to harm Alcor's fiscal stability.  (note I said long-term.  If right
now, today, Alcor spends more like $1000/year, it doesn't mean that Alcor
cannot upgrade it's equipment over the next century to benefit from lower
operating costs)

One final thought on this : it sure would be helpful if one of the world's
billionaires would get on board.  I've wondered about this : a billionaire,
one would think, would have the most to gain from cryonics.  Think about the
most enjoyable experiences that money can buy.  Fast cars, trips around the
world, private jets, and other things.  Now consider that a billionaire will
die from old age before they could spend even a tiny fraction of their
wealth buying such experiences.  All of their money cannot protect them from
death, and all of the wonderful experiences they enjoyed in life will be
destroyed as if they never happened at all.

Yet just one billionaire helping cryonics could create an institution to
research it, could create an armored facility to place the patients, could
fund enough scientists to build working demonstrations of nanotechnology,
and could make sure that when they die they get the best platinum quality
cryonics treatment possible.  All the rest of us folks would benefit from
the research the billionaire would fund to (selfishly) extend his own life.

Any rational billionaire would be on this in a heartbeat.  Nothing else
makes any sense from a rational view.  What irrational reasons are
preventing this from happening?

--000e0cd348644136ac049382a5f3

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

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32986

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

Message #32987
From: "John de Rivaz" <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Cosmism
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 12:42:16 +0100

A detailed article about Fedorov can be found here:

http://www.quantium.plus.com/venturist/fyodorov.htm

-- 
Sincerely, John de Rivaz:  http://John.deRivaz.com for websites including
Cryonics Europe, Longevity Report, The Venturists, Porthtowan, Alec Harley
Reeves - inventor, Arthur Bowker - potter, de Rivaz genealogy,  Nomad .. and
more

----- Original Message ----- 
From: CryoNet
From: Mike Perry <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Cosmism

Cosmism got started in Russia, its principal
founder being Nikolai Fedorov (name variously spelled), who d.1903.
So cosmism has ostensibly been going for more than a century in its
homeland, however conditions were tough there for a long time, which
no doubt impeded its growth. In the U.S. and elsewhere similar
philosophies and movements have arisen and are growing. 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32987

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

Message #32988
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:16:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: un person <[email protected]>
Subject: What we need is not TECHnology, but SOCIOlogy 

over on his blog, mark plus wrote:


>Cryonics needs some fresh minds. 



yes!



>Cryonicists spend too much time talking amongst ourselves, 



Yes!



>and I think that has led to the reinforcement of some probably untenable ideas in several areas, 



Yes!


>notable revival scenarios based on Drexler's nanotechnological fantasies. 




Fantasies now, but maybe not fantasies in the distant future. Who knows? Not me. 




>What would it take to organize regular, invitation-only conferences where we sought the perspectives of knowledgeable people outside of cryonics who express a willingness to study the project and offer suggestions for improving it?




More tech-heads, more gearheads? Maybe we need more randroids, more Heinlein-worshippers?





>Or conversely, what about giving talks to groups of capable people outside of the cryonics community and then soliciting their constructive criticism? 




Capable in WHAT? It is technology and science experts we need? Or is it people who understand sociology?

The fact that only a tiny of one percent of the population has adopted cryonics is a huge problem for cryonics. We counted on a rapidly increasing curve of technology, a singularity soon to come. I guess the internet boom gave us hope. Now we see that there are likely going to be many decades before science gives us the power to demonstrate to the masses that cryonics can work. But how do we get cryonics to that future time, decades from now, when science will let us win mass numbers of convert. More scientists are not going to help. The current state of science is our enemy, not our friend. 

We need to understand sociology in order to market cryonics. We need experts in people, not experts in science.



>For example, many major cities, including metro Phoenix, have inventors' groups. 



Groups of preachers would win us far more converts.

In order to get the cryonics industry to a future where science is advanced enough to win us mass numbers of new members, we need to "fake it till we make it."  And that means using religion to market cryonics, not science. 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32988

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

Message #32989
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 07:28:25 -0700
Subject: Unperson needs to get out of Texas more often.
From: MARK PLUS <[email protected]>

Unperson thinks we need to use a religious framework for promoting
cryonics. Why would that work in American regions like New England or
the Pacific Northwest, where only half the population or less
considers religion important?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114022/state-states-importance-religion.aspx

Why would that work in all the other developed countries, and even
many lesser developed ones, where religion has declined to become a
minority preoccupation?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114211/alabamians-iranians-common.aspx

Religiosity in the American South does not represent the social
reality in much of the world now.

-- 
Mark Plus
Life is short: Freeze hard!

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32989

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

Message #32990
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:57:46 -0700
Subject: response to gerald monroe
From: Charles in Arizona <[email protected]>

It was the honorable desire to save lives, even of people who couldn't
afford the true costs, that created the current situation. Your answer
appears to be: Do even more of the same.

In an argument between someone who is "compassionate" (i.e. advocating
the expenditure of other people's money) and someone who is fiscally
responsible, the "compassionate" person naturally seems more
appealing. In the long term, however, I believe companies fare better
if they are run on a responsible basis; and a strong company is much
more useful, in the world, than one that becomes crippled by its own
"generosity."

As for your description of billionaires as being "irrational," this is
an attitude which is not going to get you very far. People with a lot
of money are, in my experience, highly sensitive to the desire of
other people to spend some of that money. The first step in signing up
wealthy people is to respect their right to keep their money for
themselves.

Charles Platt

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32990

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

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