X-Message-Number: 6804
From:  (Thomas Donaldson)
Subject: Re: CryoNet #6801 - #6803
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 07:06:01 -0700 (PDT)

Hi!

This posting is partly a response to Bob Ettinger's comments about possible
use of the money for Prometheus, and partly in response to similar postings
about Prometheus from other organizations. It seems to me that when we think
about funding Prometheus we should consider one major PROPOSITION:

Claim: Funding for Prometheus will/will not decrease funding for all other
       cryonics projects.

Though there may be a paradox involved, I myself believe that Prometheus
will either leave funding for other projects the same, or even increase it.
I do so because it would increase the willingness of many cryonicists and
other interested parties to donate: one donation produces more. Clearly Bob
does not think that, and therefore quite rightly worries that our activities
will become too one-sided. 

A bit of explanation of my point: Basically, the current pool of donors is
not large. If we increase it, we will get more donations; in order to succeed,
Prometheus will have to increase the pool of donors. My own donation to 
Prometheus does not mean that I will not donate added money for other things;
I hope (in the future) to have more money to donate, and that can go to
these other purposes. (Yes, hope is not bankable, but that is how I am 
thinking). 

I would be very interested to read the comments of others on the above
Claim.. including those of Bob Ettinger and Paul Wakfer. Basically, I do not
see the pool of money available to support cryonics as anywhere close to 
being exhausted. Am I wrong or right? What do you say?

			Long long life,

				Thomas Donaldson


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6804