X-Message-Number: 23188
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:17:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: $ continued
References: <>

> Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:12:26 +0100
> Subject: Re: Read books
> From: David Stodolsky <>
>
> >> A more equitable distribution of incomes would
> >> expand the market for cryonics by probably much more than a factor of
> >> five.

Since we have signed fewer than 1 person in 250,000 in the
United States (0.0004 percent of one of the wealthiest
nations in the world) obviously cost is not the primary
factor. OBVIOUSLY, right, David?

> According to the 1995 CIA Factbook the average World per capita income
> was $5,200:

But your previous statement to me referred to "readers of
CryoNet." If you are now proposing to start marketing
cryonics to the Third World, this raises a few other little
problems.

> World military expenditures are in the range of a trillion a year, and
> with a world government these could be dropped. This would boost
> incomes.

Presumably because everyone would understand the wisdom of
the World Government and therefore we would not have any
nonjoiners or holdouts, no more petty dictators, no more
moslem fanatics, the conflict in the Middle East and other
intransigent areas would be magically resolved, and therefore
no one would need any weapons, and they would use their new
disposable income to join cryonics organizations. Is this
what you call political theory?

> Given that there are a couple of billion people with incomes under a
> couple of dollars a day, there is little doubt that a redistribution of
> wealth would expand the market for cryonics.

According to this vision, if we give, say, $10,000 a year to
every man, woman, and child in, say, Africa, they would
respond, "Great, now we can sign up for cryonics!" This seems
half-baked even for CryoNet.

> Worldwide, the total population living on less than $1 a day has risen
> from 1.2bn in 1987 to around 1.5bn today, and if recent trends
> persists, it will reach 1.9bn by 2015.

I believe aggregate population growth has exceeded the growth
in the number of people "living on less than $1 a day" and
therefore wealth is increasing without any major attempt at
redistribution.

Also as socialists never tire of pointing out, the rich have
been getting richer. Yet my personal experience of meeting
cryonicists is that the proportion of wealthy ones has not
increased. I know many cryonicists who are making very little
money. I myself was able to afford it even when my gross
income was less than $20,000 a year (and my cost of living
was higher then than it is now). I know one Alcor member who
is currently receiving (the contemporary equivalent of) food
stamps.

Lack of money has never been a primary factor affecting the
adoption of cryonics. It has never even been among the top
ten factors. Sometimes when I have been trying to "sell"
cryonics I have heard people object that they can't afford
it, but this objection disappears when I explain how little
it costs. The only persistent financial argument against
cryonics is that people may feel guilty about leaving money
to themselves instead of to their families. But this is not
the same as saying "I can't afford it."

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=23188