X-Message-Number: 29630
References: <>
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re: More on marketing
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 10:14:59 +0200

On 30 Jun 2007, at 12:15, John de Rivaz wrote:

> re a church like organisation for cryonics:
>
>> However, no financial support for even exploring this concept has
>> ever materialized.
>
> No one ever got rich over cryonics, and probably never will. The  
> Venturists,
> I should have thought, fill the specification of being a church like
> organisation, and that only survives through the enthusiasm of its two
> founders. http://www.venturist.org

That was set up with the idea of servicing those signed-up already.  
What I am talking about is servicing those not yet signed-up. Another  
difference is that it is a service to individuals, while the group  
aspect is inherent in the idea I am proposing.


>
> I don't think any proposal that involves members sending the  
> proposer money
> to fulfil his idea is likely to amass enough money to be worthwhile.

You are still thinking in individual terms. People are perfectly  
happy to part with 1/10 of their income to churches that promise them  
eternal life and provide a social environment that reinforces the  
approach.



>
> The only money that will change hands in cryonics is from  
> cryonicists to
> their cryonics service providers, either directly or via life  
> insurance
> companies. The latter, of course, are making money from cryonics  
> but the
> amount in relation to their other business is so small as to be
> insignificant. Likewise any fees earned by members of the legal  
> professions
> in relation to cryonics will loom large in the accounts of the  
> individual
> involved, but again are trivial in relation to the income of these
> professions as a whole.

The thought here is still within the cryonics provider box, not full  
service.


>
> Many churches accrete a relatively large membership before they start
> collecting money.

There has to be a enough support to get a group going and self- 
financing. Once there is a model that works, it can be duplicated  
indefinitely.


>
> In the meantime, cryonics service providers get finance from  
> bequests above
> the minimum cryopreservation fees. As many cryonicists are single  
> people, or
> signed as couples, this inward flow will not abate. Funds sent to  
> publicity
> or other support organisations, whether by bequest or otherwise,  
> will only
> detract from this important funding to service providers.  There is  
> no point
> in having funded some other project to have your CSP go bust whilst  
> you are
> under cryopreservation.

The biggest threat in the medium to long term is political. It may  
not be tractable without much greater numbers of supporters.

A much repeated figure is that 1/3 of all medical expenses go into  
the last year/months of life. As medical technology continues to  
advance, these expenses will explode. A cheaper option would be  
suspension, probably already true at the most advanced facilities.  
How do we get suspension accepted when it is economically justified?  
This is the key to resolving potential political problems, the bad  
suspensions due to last-minute signups problem, the funding problem,  
and the delay in cool-down problem due to unexpected deanimation.


It looks like in England, the expense limit is well within range of a  
decent suspension. Seems like putting suspension under the National  
Health Service would already save money:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article1844501.ece

My surreal slide: doctor to patient
This is because for each year of (quality-adjusted) life it brings it  
costs too much, more than  30,000. Diagnosed with a mesothelioma in  
Scotland, Australia and many European countries, you will receive the  
drug   but not in England. Nice (which should perhaps stand for the  
National Institute for Curtailing Expenditure rather than the  
National Institute for Clinical Excellence) has made a ruling on cost- 
effectiveness grounds that the only drug that has been shown to have  
effectiveness, albeit of a limited nature, will not be available.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with limiting treatment on cost  
grounds, but we need to be honest and open that that is what we are  
doing. It might seem reasonable to limit how much might be spent but  
I am not at death's door yet, nor are many mesothelioma sufferers.  
Politicians will often come out with the old chestnut,  you cannot  
put a price on life , well, they do put a price on it. In my case, a  
year is not worth spending more than  30,000.


dss


>

David Stodolsky    Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=29630