X-Message-Number: 9840 Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 00:37:09 -0400 From: "Stephen W. Bridge" <> Subject: More on reanimation cost To Cryonet From Steve Bridge, Alcor June 1, 1998 In reply to: Message #9825 Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 13:13:43 -0400 From: Saul Kent <> Subject: Reanimation Costs Saul suggests that my relative optimism about the ability of Alcor to pay for reanimation is misplaced. > I think this kind of vague optimism about >reanimation costs is not good enough. The future >holds many unknowns. Downturns in economic >growth are just one of them. There may be costly >legal and political challenges to cryonics that will >have to be fought. There may be natural and >man-made catastrophes that are very costly to >deal with. And there may be very high costs >required for attempts at reanimation. While I didn't go into the details that Saul did, each of which is a potential problem, I also spent a large portion of my post stating that people should provide as much money as possible to their suspension organizations. Toward the end of my post I said: >In any case, we are not going to go after your estate or your relatives >for more money in the future. Your cryonics provider will be stuck with >whatever amount of money you give them. I think it is prudent to make >sure they are stuck with *more*, rather than less. My main point was to show that we had begun to think about these problems already. The main reason Alcor's costs are high is not so much the technology up front, but because we feel that a LOT of money is needed in the Patient Care Trust, which is also responsible for funding reanimation. > I think the only prudent thing to do is >to start estimating and charging for reanimation, >and to set up specific reanimation funds. But how in the world could this be done? As Thomas pointed out in his message, it is difficult to even BEGIN to estimate these kinds of costs except to say that the first reanimation will be the most expensive. >Cryonicists spend considerable time discussing >and arguing about the prospect of reanimation. >Given that, I don't think we should ignore (or only >offer vague hopes for) the costs of reanimation. And I don't think Alcor has ignored it. Beyond that, I agree with Saul that we need to make progress in understanding the problem of reanimation costs. However, I don't think we have ANY basis on which to do that right now in any meaningful way. Steve Bridge Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9840