X-Message-Number: 349
From att!gorm.ruc.dk!david Mon Jun  3 20:16:48 +0200 1991
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 91 20:16:48 +0200
From:  (David Stodolsky)
Message-Id: <>
To: 
Subject: CRYONICS


I think that the competition between different organizations within the cryonics
movement ought to be toned down. Arguments about different organizational forms
should continue, however, because organizational survival will be a crucial
factor in whether the benefits of cryonics will ever be attained. I hope those
involved in this argument will continue to put forward their points of view
(based upon the facts, as they see them). If cryonicists can't talk to each
other, then their ability to convince others of the correctness of their ideas
is thrown into doubt.

Off hand, it does appear that the apparent singleness of purpose of a nonprofit
offers certain advantages. However, in studies of healthcare organizations,
nonprofits have had no clear advantage over profit making corporations. On the

other hand, if a majority of stock ends up in hands of people who do not believe
that anyone will ever be reanimated, cashing in accumulated capital could
improve the bottom line remarkably - for a while. There is always a risk, even

in a nonprofit, that the "management" will spend to much on operational expenses
(decorating their offices, etc.) This certainly will (unfortunately?) not be a
problem for some time, however. 

A more important consideration is the cryonics movement vs other organizations

that set the agenda in society. Seems to me we live in a death oriented culture,
and this is the real threat to the movement. Nobody had much to say when Bush

decided it would be good politics to spend about a billion dollars a day to turn

part of the middle east into a hell on earth. Where could cryonics go if this 20
billion or so was pumped into research? It might be wise that the movement have

all institutional forms available, so that if laws are changed giving advantages
to profit, nonprofit, or church institutions, the movement is not suddenly put
at a disadvantage.

It appears from the argument, so far, that profit making organizations have
generated cash based upon inflated expectations. Investors could do worse then
throwing their money away on cryonics research. The persons involved, however,

may suffer severe stress if the expectations collapse and law suits result. This
seems to be an important risk. Another potential risk is the damage to the
credibility of the whole movement. Having said this, however, it does seem that
there are unexploited possibilities for generating capital.

At the last moment of life, most persons will spend an arbitrarily large amount
of cash for one more moment (assuming they do not their cryo arrangements in
order and that they do not feel a better life awaits in heaven). There ought to
be some way to translate this rather late consideration into investment at some
earlier time. Does the for-profit corporation form offer any possibilities here

that are otherwise unavailable? This is one question that the proponents of that
organizational form have yet to answer. Odd as it may seem, immediate reward of
some small amount of cash seems to have a stronger influence upon the mind then
the distant reality that cash will be totally useless (to the unsuspended
person).

For the person who does feel their place in heaven is secure, it may be that
investment for a profit is the only way they would ever consider supporting
cryonics.

David S. Stodolsky                Messages: + 45 46 75 77 11 x 24 41
Department of Computer Science                 Tel: + 45 31 95 92 82
Bldg. 20.1, Roskilde University Center        Internet: 
Post Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark        Fax: + 45 46 75 74 01

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=349