X-Message-Number: 26479
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 06:27:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: "D. den Otter" <>
Subject: Cheap cryonics alternatives instead of lawsuits 

> On Jul 2, 2005, at 7:18 AM, Mike Perry wrote:

<<Another issue raised is that many cannot afford
cryonics anyway. In more developed countries this
problem is not so acute because there are ways 
that persons of modest means but in good health can
make arrangements--mainly through life insurance.>>

Yes, but what about those who are *not* in good
health, and the elderly? Let's face it; if you're an
old or sick "person of modest means" who (for whatever
reason) doesn't already have life insurance, you're
pretty much screwed regardless of where you live. It
doesn't have to be that way, though...

<<Still, it certainly is an issue. Litigation as has
been proposed would be expensive--perhaps some 
of the funds could be used in some way to help the
needy who would choose cryonics but are financially
unable.>>

Exactly! For example, some of these funds could be
used to develop alternative preservation protocols
(neuroplastination, neuro freeze drying, or some
hybrid procedure). This could probably be done with
just a very modest initial investment, possibly less
than the cost of a single CI suspension, and the
service could potentially be offered as cheap as
$500-$1,000; especially if the effort is periodically
supported by (modest, but tax-deductible) donations
from within the cryonics community.

If you want to save lives, start by lowering the
preservation threshold. At such low (but realistic,
mind you!) prices a lot of people might think "hey,
why not? What's there to lose?" 

I still think the lawsuit idea is kinda 'interesting',
but imo offering cheap cryonics alternatives would be
a bit more constructive (and considerably less
offensive to the religionists, Joe Blows & The Powers
That Be, if you care about that sort of thing).

And NO, I'm not saying freeze drying & plastination
are, or should be presented as, cryonics' "equals",
preservation-wise. They're not (presumably). What I
*am* saying is that even lo-tek preservation is better
than burial, let alone cremation. Always preserve as
much as you can afford -- it really is that simple.
Future reconstruction techniques will probably more
than suffice to 'bring back' someone who has been
straight frozen, freeze dried or plastinated. And if
not (and remember, 'never' is a very, *very* long
time), preserving them was still the moral and
rational course of action.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26479