CryoNet #32997 - #33001

CryoNet - Fri 29 Oct 2010

    #32997: Re: irrationality of the rich [John de Rivaz]
    #32998: Re: borrowing from religion [David Stodolsky]
    #32999: Re: CryoNet #32991 - #32996 [Gerald Monroe]
    #33000: Re: CryoNet #32991 - #32996 [Gerald Monroe]
    #33001: the mentality of wealth [Charles in Arizona]

Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32997%2D33001

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 #32997
From: "John de Rivaz" <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: irrationality of the rich
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:13:50 +0100

Are there examples of seriously rich people deciding that "at their age" 
they will just lie down and die, in order to make room for new people, 
despite assurances from the medical authorities that whatever ails them can 
be "cured". If so what age? 65? 95? 125?

(Bear in mind that although seriously rich people may get the same medicines 
and procedures, they will not be stressed to or even beyond the limit during 
treatment as are ordinary people.)

Is there one instance of anyone deciding at or near retirement to kill 
himself for the sole reason that he wants to make room for more people?

The above questions are really rhetorical -- obviously the answers are "no".

So where do most of the world's 7 billion people draw the line? Somewhere 
below cryonics, obviously, but where and why?

-- 
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 ----- 
Subject: Re: CryoNet #32983 - #32985 [Gerald Monroe]
From: David Stodolsky <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 21:53:31 +0200
References: <[email protected]>

<del>
Finally, many believe in overpopulation, global warming, energy and resource 
shortages, etc. and feel that it would be immoral not to 'make room' for the 
new generation.


So, there are several factors that can account for the seeming irrationality 
of the rich.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32997

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

Message #32998
Subject: Re: borrowing from religion
From: David Stodolsky <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 18:21:55 +0200
References: <[email protected]>

On 28 Oct 2010, at 11:00 AM, CryoNet wrote:

> What makes some religions succeed, and what movements or institutions have  
> some features of religion and succeed? 

This has been extensively studied. Primary academic areas are the History of Religion and Social Movement Theory. 

My guess is that a formal study would show that no current effort actually supports cryonics in a meaningful way. Requiring members to be cryonicists doesn't qualify, since it is the function of a religion to help followers achieve salvation, not the other way around. 


> 
> Currently, oddball notions such as Cosmism and Terasem attempt something  
> similar, but we know that relatively few people would welcome radical change, 
> and I am pretty sure that these ideas can't go far. 

Lumping these together doesn't make much sense. Cosmism has a hundred year history and served as the ideological foundation for the Soviet space program. Terasem is recent attempt to ritualize a cryonics friendly worldview. 

This observation fails to recognize that current dominant religious beliefs promote oddball notions of an extreme sort, eg. ritual cannibalism. So, the question is not whether people will adopt oddball notions, but how can we make it attractive to accept a cryonics friendly 'oddball notion.'


> 
> To make the cryonics organizations provide more in the way of social  
> support has been suggested many times and occasionally even tried a little, e.g.  
> with meetings at CI that Ben organized.  Lack of success can be  attributed 
> to various things, including small numbers of local  members and a tendency 
> of cryonicists to be loners.  

In an earlier analysis posted here, I concluded that suspension organizations were not appropriate vehicles for providing social support. Legally, they are sharply limited in what they can claim to provide. A separate organization is better placed to compete in the religious marketplace were just about any claim is acceptable. 

However, the first formal marketing study of the problem has yet to be undertaken. (Until that happens, we will have no basis on which to proceed except for the speculation which has had no effect on signups. The current stagnation in signups is an indication that such speculation is inadequate.) In fact, thus far none of the suspension organizations are even systematically collecting the data that already is available to them. Data on web activity, telephone and mail inquiries, and cancelled memberships, etc. could throw some light on what it takes to achieve a successful signup. Given that collecting this type of data would be virtually cost free, the failure to do so amounts to marketing negligence by the current organizations. 


dss


David Stodolsky
[email protected]  Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32998

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

Message #32999
References: <[email protected]>
From: Gerald Monroe <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:02:25 -0500
Subject: Re: CryoNet #32991 - #32996

--0016e6460746be63890493b1fc86

> 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?
>
> First, the idea that this is a predominantly rational process should be
> dismissed. Except for atheists, the balancing of costs vs. benefits will
> never occur. The person will have an emotional response to any thought
> related to their own death and that will suppress any further consideration.
> My reanalysis of the Badger data posted here earlier explains this in
> detail. The conclusion was that current marketing targets atheist
> millionaires.
>
> We also know that existential concerns are resolved in middle age. Since
> wealth tends to increase with age, it is likely that many billionaires have
> already made up their minds on the issue.
>
> Second, the individual-oriented marketing strategy fails to take into
> account what guides most people's decisionmaking process in this area. The
> approach fails to deal with the relational objections - loss of friends and
> family, etc.- and doesn't consider the role of sub(culture) in influencing
> decisions of this type.
>
> Finally, many believe in overpopulation, global warming, energy and
> resource shortages, etc. and feel that it would be immoral not to 'make
> room' for the new generation.
>
>
> So, there are several factors that can account for the seeming
> irrationality of the rich.
>
>
> dss
>
>
It just seems like a form of Pascal's dilemma that is supported by direct
scientific evidence.  While we have no decent evidence showing an afterlife
does exist, we can readily see that death is permanent and not a desirable
state of affairs.  10 minutes in the presence of a human 'cadavar' will
convince almost anyone of that.  While the 'experience' of being dead might
not be that bad, it also precludes any future good experiences.  Death is
hugely bad, and cryonics has a non-zero chance of mitigating this bad thing.
 Thus, it's safer to invest in cryonics than not, even if the probability of
success were extremely small.  That's why a rational billionaire would at
least buy a minimum policy, because the cost to a billionaire is vanishingly
small and the potential rewards are huge.

The reason the potential rewards are huge is that a world that has the
technology to revive a cryonics patient and the motivation to do revivals
would almost certainly have other related technology that could result in
enjoyable life experiences.  Virtual reality, space travel, and the ability
to swap entire bodies around for cosmetic reasons would all be technically
possible.  I will say that on the down-side, if you were to be 'reborn' into
a randomly chosen resident of this planet today, the odds are that you would
end up among the majority of the world's population : poor and without good
prospects for advancement.  It's quite plausible that the successful
cryonics patients might awaken into a world where wonderful things exist,
but they cannot afford any of them and they lack the mental capacity as a
mere unmodified human to earn the resources needed to pay for them.

Overpopulation and energy shortages are all based upon the capacity of old,
cheap methods for extracting energy and making living space.  A gargantuan
amount of energy and available matter in total is available, and it only
takes a few hundred watts of energy to keep a human alive, or the output of
a solar panel less than square meter.  (photosynthesis is a lot less
efficient than that, which is why it takes quite a bit more cropland than
that with today's methods)

So essentially you're saying that older humans stop fearing death due to
genetically programmed neurological mechanism, and they use (irrational)
mechanisms to prevent serious thought on the subject as well.

The rare person that does consider cryonics has difficulty signing up any of
their friends and relatives, putting a stop to their personal consideration
of the subject.  Thus, mainly loners end up actually staying signed up?

--0016e6460746be63890493b1fc86

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

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32999

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

Message #33000
References: <[email protected]>
From: Gerald Monroe <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:14:55 -0500
Subject: Re: CryoNet #32991 - #32996

--001485f91b0c7a40390493b22960

>
>
> It is therefore particularly dissapointing that none of them seem to have
> taken up the cryonics idea. Of course they could have done with an
> organisation like the Institute for Preservation of Lenin - just for one
> person. It would be no different to having a provate jet or yacht.
>
> That didn't turn out so well for Lenin.  Problem 1 is that the soviets
didn't have a freezer to put him in in 1924, and they didn't get one built
before his body started to visibly decay.  They also dissected his brain.
 But the real problem that is applicable today is that while this Institute
has a staff of 15 people, Lenin is so unpopular in the modern age that the
Russian government plans to hold a referendum that will result in burial of
the body.  A billionaire who founds an institute used to preserve other
people as well won't be as easily singled out, even if public opinion turns
against that person 50 years later.  I think the billionaire would be much
safer if they were 1 patient in thousands.  Kind of analogous to how flying
commercial is actually safer than flying on a private jet, despite needing
to share the plane with the rest of us.  (and ironically, in most airplane
crashes with fatalities the passengers most likely to survive are near the
back, in coach class)

--001485f91b0c7a40390493b22960

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

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33000

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

Message #33001
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 18:08:43 -0700
Subject: the mentality of wealth
From: Charles in Arizona <[email protected]>

I will address the "billionaires" topic within my very limited
experience. I have spent a few hours with a guy who is among, I think,
the 1,000 richest people in the world. I think I calculated that if he
put $10 million into cryonics, that would be the equivalent of me
spending around ten dollars. I have also been present at meetings with
Don Laughlin, the casino owner, who is said to be worth at least $500
million.

Both of these men are SIGNED UP. (Don Laughlin makes no secret of
this.) They understand the cryonics paradigm and they want it. But
they are still extremely reluctant about parting with money for
cryonics-related purposes. Below I will try to suggest some reasons
why.

Most seriously wealthy people are very serious about wealth. It is
their measure of success. So, they will pay the minimum unless someone
can prove to them that spending more will buy them more. In Alcor's
case, just the opposite. Putting more money into the Patient Care
Trust will dilute it by a factor of at least a few hundred, as it is
spread among other people whom the wealthy person has never met and
doesn't care about. They have also learned to be cautious about
donations, even for purposes such as employee salaries or public
relations, although these are areas of cryonics where donations have
been applied occasionally. Experience has taught them (rightly) that
if you donate money to an organization which is run by
business-amateurs who may not follow sound fiscal principles, the
money may not be well used. If the organization offers the wealthy
person a seat on the board, or some other measure of control, then
maybe there will be a better chance of attracting his involvement; but
what cryonics organization wants to do that?

As for research: The wealthy person has to understand why the research
is necessary. He thought he already bought cryopreservation. Now
explain to him how you sold him something that doesn't work yet, and
you need more of his money to make it work. Probably a lot more;
certainly millions. Now make this sound legitimate and credible.

Even if some hypothetical wealthy person fully buys into the need for
research, once again we have the risk of people abusing donations. How
does a wealthy person know if the scientists are for real? How can he
trust them to get results? He probably thinks of research as a
sink-hole which tends to consume unlimited amounts of money while
always promising results tomorrow, and never quite delivering them
today. There's a lot of truth in this.

Of course, a wealthy person could allocate time to getting personally
involved. But that would take him away from his primary occupation:
Sustaining and increasing his wealth. It would mean that he would have
to turn into a completely different type of person. I once asked the
president of Gateway Computer why he didn't just sell all his stock,
take the money, quit the company, and live the rest of his life in
luxury, never needing to work again. Apparently no one had ever asked
him this. He had had quick answers to all my other questions, but now
he just stared at me. He had no answer at all. Then he said--"But
we've only just started here!" gesturing at his office and the huge
factory beyond. (This was at a time when Gateway was more successful
than Dell, incidentally, and probably bigger than Compaq, which had
not yet merged with HP.) Like many successful business people, he was
obsessed with being more successful. The idea of just opting out would
be like suggesting to a football player that he walk off the field in
the middle of the game.

Overall, when someone says, "A rational wealthy problem could solve
all our problems," what he really means is, "If *I* were a wealthy
person I would know how to spend the money." But he is not a wealthy
person, he will never be a wealthy person, he does not think like a
wealthy person, and probably he has not proposed his ideas to any
seriously wealthy people.

In addition there is the issue of protective colleagues, family, or
friends. Wealthy people are besieged with scammers wanting money, so,
naturally they have a protective entourage including accountants,
partners, or relatives who form a protective barrier. Whether people
in the entourage are self-interested (trying to maintain the wealth
for themselves in some way) or genuinely concerned about fiscal
responsibility, is a matter for debate. But this is something that I
have seen in action. If the wealthy person is signed up, the entourage
may tolerate it as a harmless eccentricity--but they are likely to
intervene if the cryonoids start trying to get more of the money.

Then there is the whole plausibility problem. About 15 years ago I
attended a meeting of investors raising money for cold fusion
research. I've told this story before, but it can never be told too
often. I spoke at length with a man who was putting several million
into the supposedly discredited process of cold fusion. I mentioned
the subject of cryonics, outlined the reasons why it might work, and
suggested he might be interested. "No," he said, without hesitation.
"It's far too speculative." In other words: Implausible.

I have also made a one-hour presentation on cryonics to Jeff Bezos,
founder of Amazon. The founders of Facebook were also there, but I
didn't recognize them back then, and they didn't say much. Bezos was a
wonderful guy, super-smart, full of sharp questions, and he had a
great sense of humor. He was so interested, he followed me out into
the hallway to talk more. But when he had learned as much as he needed
to know, he just smiled, thanked me very much, and walked away. Like
so many other people I have dealt with over the years, he could see
that cryonics had a chance of working, but he never imagined applying
it to *himself.* This may be the biggest problem of all.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33001

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

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