X-Message-Number: 1869 Date: 02 Mar 93 14:33:50 EST From: Paul Wakfer <> Subject: CRYONICS Cults From: Mike Darwin To: Steve Jackson, All Re: Cults Date: 1 March, 1993 Mr. Jackson has recourse to the dictionary in defining cults and this is all very well and good. However, I am not willing to let the matter drop so easily as Brian Wowk. I have several reasons for persisting in this matter not the least of which are that I was once involved in a classic, Eric Hoffer-style cult, and I am the person who established the Alcor policy of not terminating people's suspension memberships except in the carefully laid out cases (violation of contract) that Steve Bridge has discussed. I established this policy for two reasons: First the experience was a very painful one and I wished to spare others from undergoing such *purposeless* pain. Second, it was a purposeless, senseless thing that accomplished NOTHING POSITIVE as far as the organization that inflicted it was concerned. Indeed, it destroyed that organization. The only constructive thing it achieved was to make me NEVER want to have anyone experience such a thing again. The hallmark of a cult, any cult, in the sense in which the word is commonly used today (not the dictionary definition) is authoritarian control. Tyranny is the more precise adjective. Religion does not have to be at the root of a cult -- in the case of the one in which I was involved capitalism and freedom were the core beliefs. Indeed, the tenets of the cult do not necessarily have to be irrational in and of themselves. Rather, it is is the way in which these things are implemented that is at the root of it. The core element of such a cult is a fundamental intolerance on the part of its leadership for any significant disagreement with the party line. This is usually enforced by expelling the member. It is important to point out here that expelling the member usually has a greater impact than telling him or her that they can't eat at your restaurant any more. Why? Because the member is usually getting something more than a commercial service out of the cult. Religious survival (i.e., salvation), social life, even economic viability may all hinge on access to the cult. Now lets look at Alcor. For many people, myself included, the choice between Alcor and other cryonics organizations is currently not much of a choice at all. If I can't get suspended with Alcor my chances aren't very good... Similarly, it might be argued that a good part of my social and even my business life is critically dependent upon my access to the cryonics community. Leaving aside the social and business considerations, the fact remains that Alcor is the only provider of cryonics services with remote standby capability, the only provider offering any degree of protection against reperfusion injury, and the only provider with a number of other critical advantages. While I *am* in a unique position to "go start another cryonics society" (since I am fully equipped to do so) it is not that easy, even for me. (And believe me, I have recently been sorely tempted to do just that.) It is certainly not that easy for most others in Alcor. There are MANY hurdles to overcome. So, the bottom line is that if Alcor chooses to terminate someone's suspension arrangements they are terminating their access to something that is arguably every bit as important as access to medical care. This is analogous to terminating someone's access to freedom, religious salvation, and so on. Indeed, I have argued in the past that the only difference between a cult and full-blown tyranny is size and power. The Soviet Union, and the Catholic Church during the Inquisition, were not content merely with expelling the wayward: they killed and tortured them! I have no illusions that many of those in cryonics will behave any differently if they feel their personal survival or personal power are threatened. Let's look at the situation which first prompted Keith to launch his attempts at various witch-hunt clauses: Michael Paulle. Keith has privately (to me) accused Michael Paulle of calling up Don Laughlin and causing him to withdraw his financial support for the Phoenix building. This may well have been the case. Keith has further argued that this jeopardized the safety and survival of the patients since they are now continuing to be exposed to earthquake risks, and other hazards that they might not otherwise have been exposed to. This may also be true. Keith's proposed solution to this problem was to cancel Mr. Paulle's suspension membership. This sets an ugly precedent. Perhaps Mr. Paulle said things which were libelous, slanderous, and so on, which caused Mr. Laughlin to withdraw his support. In that case Mr. Paulle should be taken to court or be denied access to information which allows him to libel and slander. Or perhaps Mr. Paulle just expressed his opinions (which might very well have been good opinions, given what I know of the project). In either case how does canceling his suspension arrangements accomplish ANYTHING other than to further piss off Mr. Paulle and make everyone else deeply suspicious of Alcor? Indeed, in a tit for tat world you have now given Mr. Paulle good reason to try to REALLY harm you since you have just tried your best to really harm him. And to what end? I am not an Alcor suspension member anymore and I assure you the change has done nothing to shut me up. In fact, if anything, it has made me feel more free to be vocal about my disgust with Alcor management. Ms. Wells is quite right when she points to the *punitive* nature of what Keith is trying to do. It is punitive and mean-spirited. Yanking someone's suspension membership or refusing to renew it is the best way I can think of to make a REALLY serious enemy. (Just try it with me if I ever decide to renew and watch what happens.) Since the days of the Alcor Board approving each membership have been brought up I feel that I should also make some comment. Board approval was required not to keep out social undesirables but rather to insure that ALL the requirements (i.e., legal and financial) were met. This was a major problem (and still is) for most cryonics organizations. Indeed, it has recently become a problem again for Alcor. When I first took over as Alcor's president I discovered that just over half the members HAD NO FUNDING AT ALL. Some had 5K of funding for whole body. The paperwork was a mess. Hard and fast requirements were put in place and Board Approval was instituted as a method of insuring that those requirements were dispassionately implemented without favoritism. (There were accusations that I was unfairly picking on some people by requiring them to have little nonessentials like life insurance or other evidence of funding.) From day-one it was Alcor's policy that we would not terminate anyone's suspension membership regardless of their behavior unless they violated the terms of the contract. This was so that people could feel free to dissent and to be vocal in that dissent without fear of compromise. And keep in mind that the situation is not as simple as Mr. Jackson would have you believe. Leaving aside one's personal welfare, many of us (dissenters) have friends, lovers, parents, and companion animals in Alcor's care. I would point out to Mr. Jackson that in the case of the former (i.e., human patients) it is not possible for us to pick them up and go elsewhere since Alcor could hold them virtually hostage. Furthermore, being cut off from suspension with an organization where your mother or brother or friends are being cared for, is no trivial matter: either emotionally or practically. As I can attest from first-hand experience, cults use these kinds of critical dependencies, both emotional and practical, to great advantage to get silence or compliance from their members. Having been through that experience first-hand I wanted to be sure that Alcor would have a greatly reduced chance of falling prey to it, and that is why protections were built into the CSA and why Alcor should modify its Bylaws to further encode those protections into its corporate culture and corporate identity. I only regret that I failed to do this when I revised the Bylaws using Nolo Press boilerplate. How I missed that one I'll never know. Aside from all these things there is the matter of compassion and decency. I did not think it likely that *I* would ever be on the outside of Alcor looking in. But alas it has come to pass. That is perhaps the best reason of all for principles such as this one: There but for the grace of God, go I. --Mike Darwin Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1869