X-Message-Number: 9833
From: 
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 10:16:30 EDT
Subject: attempts, cost provisions

Saul Kent (#9825) mentions (as have one or two others) the possibility of
needing more than one attempt to revive a particular patient. This might alarm
some readers, with visions of botched experiments and maybe even pain or
insanity combined with total helplessness.

I don't believe that more than one attempt will ever be needed. No attempts
will be made with humans until (a) there has been full success with other
animals, and (b) there has been full success via computer simulations, and (c)
it will be possible to monitor consciousness/feeling and other brain functions
on a moment-by-moment basis, and abort or "freeze" the process on a moment's
notice. (There will not only be much advanced imaging methods of more or less
traditional kinds, but also nanobot implants at strategic locations sending
continuous status updates.) Consciousness will be suppressed ("anaesthesia"
maintained) until all other functions have been established as normal, and
furthermore until the initial results of consciousness have been established
by computer  simulation. (No, this does not imply that computers can be
conscious.)

Saul also added to the cost-of-reanimation discussion, advocating individual
trusts. That is certainly a plausible approach, and an option available to any
who want it, whether or not stand-alone. But I have strong reservations about
the exclusive value of stand-alone individual trusts.

If you depend solely on your individual trust funds for reanimation (or/and
for suspension), then you are at the mercy of the judgment of your trustees
and of happenstance as it might affect your personal trust. If you are one
nickel short, then you are down the tubes (in theory, at least; in practice,
someone might lend a hand). 

If your funds are pooled with those of others at Cryonics Institute, then your
common fortunes depend on the overall stability and growth of the organization
and the judgment and motivation of its directors. This seems like a better bet
to me. Eventually, with the general trend of a richer organization and
declining relative costs, it should be feasible to revive and rehabilitate all
patients.

We should also include a reminder of the CI policy regarding levels of funding
and service priorities. The standard contract says that those who fund at
higher than minimum levels may (MAY) under some circumstances receive priority
consideration. Please notice very carefully what this means:

First, even if we wanted to, we could not offer dollar-for-dollar allocations,
because CI is not a trust company and suspension fees are not trust funds. The
contract specifically notes this. But we can, nevertheless, consider rough
categories of funding levels, and give SOME kinds of priority consideration to
those who fund at higher levels, although with no guarantees.

Second, this policy does NOT mean that, if things get tough, those with lower
funding levels will be jettisoned. Rather, it means that certain non-critical
aspects of service can, if the directors so decide, be biased toward those
with more funding. The main example might be the date of revival. If, at a
certain date, the state of technology and the assets of CI allow the
reanimation and rehabilitation of some patients, but not all, then those
funded at higher levels might be revived first.  

A few people want their eggs in more than one basket, e.g. an individual trust
fund in addition to a suspension contract with an organization. The separate
trust might be used for personal benefit after revival, or it might be used to
move the patient to another organization if the first one were to founder.
This plan has both obvious possible benefits and obvious possible drawbacks.
Personally, all my money is going to CI.

Certainly I agree with Saul and with Steve Bridge that members of all
organizations should make every effort to fund at levels above the minimum. At
the same time, those who can only afford the minimum (old people of limited
means, for example) should not hesitate to commit. All new members contribute
to our overall srength, as well as securing their own opportunity. We intend
to bring everyone through, and we believe our resources will eventually
suffice.

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society
http://www.cryonics.org

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9833