X-Message-Number: 14869
From: "John de Rivaz" <>
References: <>
Subject: Re: Cryonics & Europe (various)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:24:24 -0000

> From: "D. den Otter" <>
> Subject: Re: Cryonics & Europe (various)
> Right now, Europeans still appear to be welcome at CI,
> and I certainly appreciate that, but what guarantee do
> we have that we won't be kicked out again in a couple
> of years?

Nothing in this world is perfectly safe, but if you have known CI and Alcor
over the past 20 years their past history would suggest that CI is unlikely
to perform in the same way. You only have to look at the legalese at the
bottom of Linda Chamberlain's message to see the way Alcor works. This is
not necessarily a criticism, maybe that is what they need to do in order to
survive the predations of lawyers in the USA, but there is obviously a
balance between protecting themselves and attracting members, and Alcor set
that balance where they have through their own choice.

On the basis that its members can if they wish go somewhere else and there
may be a method whereby members can change the directorship, a correlation
is likely to exist between the way Alcor works and the wishes of a majority
of its members. Alcor is perfectly free to reject foreign members if it
wishes. It does have to balance this with the negative public relations
aspects of its operation, but just as with the legalese it may well find
that a policy of rejection will enable it to give the best possible service
to the majority of its members. I do not think that laws against nationalism
and its brother racism can be used to enforce a company to trade with people
outside the jurisdiction of the country in which is resides.

The Cryonics Institute has exactly the same freedoms, but it is my personal
opinion that they are unlikely to set the balance in the same way as Alcor.
It is, after all, an older organisation, it is the oldest surviving cryonics
organisation and it carries a torch for the concept of cryonics in a way
Alcor cannot.

> And then what? Besides, I strongly suspect
> that having our own organisation, if only a membership
> organisation that has sub-contracts with CI,
> BioTransport or whatever,

It would be subjected to whatever level of bending over to lawyers the
parent organisation requires. No subsidiary is going to offer an easier
route to life insurance, for example, than the parent.

> A European membership organisation could streamline
> the sign-up process,

It couldn't, for the reason given above.

>  as the bigbooster site suggests

"Bigbooster" sounds exactly like life money success. It will flourish for a
while, and any profits you make you are encouraged to put into other
programs. LMS had the problem that its affiliate programs dropped out and
told members to recruit on their own, not through LMS. Members who had done
as they were told were then faced with far too much recruiting for anyone to
do on their own.

Most if not all of these programs have no real product, just selling
"memberships". If there is a product, it is grossly overpriced to include
the MLM element.

> There *are* people who make big $$ almost
> every time, both as players and as organisers.

as there are in every field of life, whether it is get rich quick schemes,
the legal profession, politics, business, writing, sport, singing and so on.

> We need
> to learn their exact tricks. It may not be "easy as
> pie", but it's well worth the effort IMO.

Cryonics is a hard enough idea to get across without linking it to dubious
programs that always end in losers. Mind you, the most successful program
ever of this type is the legal profession - they make billions from losers,
but that is a *very* special case and cannot be emulated by any old Tom,
Dick or Harry. The fact that many MLMs carry pseudo legalese do not make
them official or have the level of protection (ie you can call in a gang of
government funded supporters with batons or rifles if they go wrong)  as
"real" legal transactions such as house purchase or stock purchase.

Further amplification of this point can be found in The Sovereign
Individual" by Lord Rees-Mogg. Further details are available on
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0684832720/longevitybooksA/  USA

> But if you use MLM programs to get you started and
> then invest part of that money in technology stocks
> etc., then surely you have the best of both worlds?

OK, if you think that this is going to be successful for you, then maybe it
will. Do it as
a private individual and make your fortune and then you can set up a
cryonics facility with whatever rules you consider to be appropriate.

> >>Don't try and spend money promoting gift schemes.
> Hoping you can raise money by persuading people giving
> theirs to you is not going to work.<<
> It works for *some* people, so why couldn't this
> include cryonicists?

Because basically they are self selected as a group to  want to be in
control of their lives and finances.

> In a couple of decades cryonics might be almost a moot
> point...We need something *now*.

It looks as though you think you are too old for my proposals to work for
you. Then join CI, or bend over to Alcor's wishes - these are your only

As to charitable cryonics, you do need a separate charity if that is what
you want. If a cryopreservation provider were to offer charity it could be
sense as being at the expense of its members, as has been said many times by
both Alcor and CI people.

If everyone now signed up for whatever organisation made a one off
subscription of $100 (it would be absurd to suggest any more) to this
supposed charity there could be
of the order of $100,000 available to invest in an independent charitable
fund in an economically free country, if one of the subscribers was able to
provide the legal knowledge necessary to do it. After ten years investment
in a technology mutual fund that would be a million dollars and they could
afford a neuro with Alcor every year or two full bodies with CI every year
on the rough basis of a 5% withdrawal. But the problems of selecting who to
cryopreserve would be horrendous and could give rise to bad publicity rather
than good. Also the existence of a charitable fund may reduce the urgency
for people to sign up.

If people control their own finances, rather than give them away to causes,
they can usually provide their own charitable support for their friends and
relations if they start investing early enough in their lives.

Such charity can be amplified by prepaying for your friend or relation and
getting them to contribute so much a year until they have effectively
prepaid for themselves. You could also prepay for someone who promises to
leave you the sum in their will. That way you can eventually make another
prepayment for someone else. You are still giving something - the risk that
the life company charges so highly for, and also in the case of the will you
are taking on the risks, delays and injustices of the probate system. But
most people are honest, and your charity can that way stretch to many of
your friends and relations. But it is easier said than done to get them to
agree to even this.

Sincerely, John de Rivaz
my homepage links to Longevity Report, Fractal Report, music, Inventors'
report, an autobio and various other projects:
http://www.autopsychoice.com - should you be able to chose autopsy?
