X-Message-Number: 1842
Date: 28 Feb 93 15:46:18 EST
From: Clarissa Wells <>
Subject: CRYONICS Miscellaneous Topics

To: >INTERNET: 
 
 
Regarding: Regulation and safety 
 
It so happens that a member of my family has done some hang gliding, which is 
relevant, because there are some parallels with cryonics. Hang gliding appeals 
to a small minority of individualists, and the general public tends to think 
they're slightly crazy. Also, hang gliding has escaped government regulation 
(unlike powered flight, which is heavily regulated). How did the hang gliding 
people preserve their freedom from red tape? They got together and started the 
US Hang Gliding Association, so they could REGULATE THEMSELVES, e.g. with 
safety standards that everyone observes. Therefore I suggest that instead of 
asking for legislation to control cryonics, as one person has suggested, there 
is a much more attractive alternative: cryonics groups could form a trade 
association (like a small version of the Americal Medical Association), and 
regulate themselves. If the bureaucrats decide to take an interest in this 
field, if you could then show them your "code of professional ethics," 
administered by a body of your own. Possibly this has already been attempted, 
or possibly the cryonics groups would have trouble agreeing on how it should 
be done. But surely, it would be worth trying. 
 
 
Regarding: Finances 
 
I don't know if anyone is interested, but for what it's worth, here's the 
point of view of someone relatively new to cryonics. I can't think of any 
other business that would publicly proclaim its own cash crisis. I admire the 
candor, but I wonder if people are really as candid as they seem. David Pizer 
tells us that Alcor is losing $100,000 per year, and there are no economies of 
scale. Consequently losses will be even greater in future. But Carlos 
Mondragon tells us that "we do not have a deficit problem," and "expenses will 
be lower," and "even marginal growth will result in a clear, indisputable, 
across-the-board SURPLUS in 1993 even AFTER extraordinary income and expenses 
get eliminated." Meanwhile, Steven Bridge is asking for donations to pay his 
employees! Now, Mr. Pizer mentions he is "speaking personally, and not as 
treasurer of Alcor." From this it seems clear that he is in fact the 
treasurer. I understand that Mr. Mondragon was President of Alcor during 1992, 
and Mr. Bridge is the current president. I have dealt with some small amateur 
groups in my life, but I have never seen such a case of the left hand not 
knowing what the right hand is (or was) doing. When the president, the ex-
president, and the treasurer can't agree within a margin of $100,000, it is 
hard to believe that all of them are sincere (unless the book keeping is in 
VERY strange condition). Is the new president deliberately being an alarmist 
because he wants to make the old president look bad? Is the old president 
trying to say there's no problem so he WON'T look bad? What's going on? 
 
I assume that regular members of Alcor are in the same position as non-
members--i.e. they have no way of verifying financial details. However, in one 
area at least, there seems to be evidence of creative accounting. Mr. 
Mondragon says he didn't "really" touch a block of money in an endowment fund. 
Alarm bells should sound when statements like that are made! Imagine a change 
of context: a kid and a cookie jar. "Did you touch those cookies?" "Well, not 
really." Any mother knows immediately that SOMETHING has happened. Maybe there 
are still as many cookies as before--but you can bet that one of them has had 
a few corners nibbled off. Am I right? 
 
Mr. Mondragon goes on to say that he doesn't want to reduce the fund by "one 
thin dime." Then in the next paragraph he says the new president should be 
freer to borrow money from it. But even after the money is borrowed, he says 
the "capital will be intact." It seems to me, without being too simpleminded 
about this, if you borrow from a fund, that must be because you want to spend 
the money, and after you have spent the money, the capital is NOT intact. 
 
Incidentally, Mr. Mondragon, I am an individual who enjoys the sense of having 
something original to say. I don't like your implication that I am just a 
mouthpiece, and your suggestion that you may have "known me for many years" is 
absolutely untrue. All I am doing, here, is critically examining text that 
other people (including you) have written. Perhaps you find this harder to 
accept from an outsider than from an insider? 
 
This leads me to Steve Jackson, who also questions my sincerity, though he 
disagrees with Mr. Mondragon that I sound like somebody else, and he says my 
writing style has "an aura that's hard to miss," which presumably means it 
ISN'T like anyone else, though he finds my style offensive. 
 
Mr. Jackson, this is how I generally express myself. I think I make my points 
clearly. I agree that when I feel strongly about an issue, I may express my 
feelings in a roundabout way. (Would you prefer me to be rude?) But since you 
ask, yes, I find Mr. Henson's outlook on some issues probably more offensive 
than you find my "polite" style, and this is why I took issue with him. If I 
found other people's attitudes offensive I might take issue with them too. 
 
As for my style sounding "phony," frankly, YOUR letter seems a bit phony to 
me. In fact, if you were one of my students, I would suspect you of cheating 
on your homework. 
 
Here you are, suddenly jumping into a discussion that has already gone to and 
fro a couple of times. I wonder what prompts you to do so, because frankly, 
you don't seem very INTERESTED in the discussion. If you were interested, you 
might have said something earlier, and you would have paid attention to what 
was said. But you spend almost all your time replying to things I didn't say 
at all. (I never said anything about constitutional rights, and I never said 
anything about cults. That was Brian Wowk, I believe. All I said was that in 
my personal opinion, it would be wrong if a cryonics organization excluded a 
paying member just because he said some things they didn't like.) 
 
Mr. Jackson, you have read my letters so carelessly, it looks to me as if you 
might have been doing it as a favor to a friend. Am I right in thinking that 
Keith Henson asked you to reply to me? And am I also correct that Keith Henson 
asked you to discredit me by suggesting I did not really write my own 
comments? Bearing in mind the evasiveness of Mr. Henson's letters, it seems 
likely he would not want to come right out and accuse me of something himself. 
Much more convenient to get someone else to do it!  
 
Of course, I may be wrong. This being so, I will still try to answer your 
letter. Following Mr. Henson's cue, you argue mainly that an organization CAN 
kick people out at will. Of course it can! I never said it couldn't. Whether 
it SHOULD was my question. Is it right, or is it wrong? 
 
This is an ethical question, but it can also be a practical question. Like Mr. 
Henson, you seem happier dealing in practical terms, so I'll try again to show 
that it can be not only wrong, but self-defeating, to discriminate. Suppose a 
journalist did a lot of muckraking about a city hospital. Suppose the articles 
contained some factual inaccuracies, and the journalist refused to apologize. 
Now suppose the journalist just happens to have a serious accident near that 
hospital. What should the hospital do: refuse him treatment, and endanger his 
life? Or make a point of giving him the very best medical care? If they choose 
the first option, the hospital will "protect" itself, but it will seem callous 
in a way that is inappropriate for a health-care institution. By comparison, 
if the hospital chooses the second option, people will be very impressed by 
the hospital's high principles. As a result, they will feel safe about being 
treated at that hospital, and the hospital will prosper. The journalist may 
even write nicer things in future. It seems to me, in this sort of case, good 
ethics and common sense happen to coincide. 
 
Originally I thought I was making a small point about ethics. I still think of 
it this way. If people are getting tired of this whole discussion, I will 
happily let it drop. In fact, since I seem to be spending more and more time 
here, I may take a week off anyway. 
 
At the risk of being condemned by Mr. Jackson for being "sugary," I have found 
the various exchanges here enlightening, and I thank people for bothering to 
answer me. 
 
                              Yours sincerely
                              Clarissa Wells

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1842