X-Message-Number: 1869
Date: 02 Mar 93 14:33:50 EST
From: Paul Wakfer <>
Subject: CRYONICS Cults

From: Mike Darwin
To: Steve Jackson, All
Re: Cults
Date: 1 March, 1993

     Mr. Jackson has recourse to the dictionary in defining cults and this 
is all very well and good.  However, I am not willing to let the matter 
drop so easily as Brian Wowk.  I have several reasons for persisting in 
this matter not the least of which are that I was once involved in a 
classic, Eric Hoffer-style cult, and I am the person who established the 
Alcor policy of not terminating people's suspension memberships except in 
the carefully laid out cases (violation of contract) that Steve Bridge has 
discussed.

     I established this policy for two reasons: First the experience was a 
very painful one and I wished to spare others from undergoing such 
*purposeless* pain.  Second, it was a purposeless, senseless thing that 
accomplished NOTHING POSITIVE as far as the organization that inflicted it 
was concerned.  Indeed, it destroyed that organization.  The only 
constructive thing it achieved was to make me NEVER want to have anyone 
experience such a thing again.

     The hallmark of a cult, any cult, in the sense in which the word is 
commonly used today (not the dictionary definition) is authoritarian 
control.  Tyranny is the more precise adjective.  Religion does not have 
to be at the root of a cult -- in the case of the one in which I was 
involved capitalism and freedom were the core beliefs.  Indeed, the 
tenets of the cult do not necessarily have to be irrational in and of 
themselves.  Rather, it is is the way in which these things are 
implemented that is at the root of it.  The core element of such a cult is 
a fundamental intolerance on the part of its leadership for any 
significant disagreement with the party line.  This is usually enforced by 
expelling the member.  It is important to point out here that expelling 
the member usually has a greater impact than telling him or her that they 
can't eat at your restaurant any more.  Why?  Because the member is 
usually getting something more than a commercial service out of the cult. 
Religious survival (i.e., salvation), social life, even economic viability 
may all hinge on access to the cult.

     Now lets look at Alcor.  For many people, myself included, the choice 
between Alcor and other cryonics organizations is currently not much of a 
choice at all.  If I can't get suspended with Alcor my chances aren't very 
good...  Similarly, it might be argued that a good part of my social and 
even my business life is critically dependent upon my access to the 
cryonics community.  Leaving aside the social and business considerations, 
the fact remains that Alcor is the only provider of cryonics services with 
remote standby capability, the only provider offering any degree of 
protection against reperfusion injury, and the only provider with a number 
of other critical advantages.  While I *am* in a unique position to "go 
start another cryonics society" (since I am fully equipped to do so) it is 
not that easy, even for me.  (And believe me, I have recently been sorely 
tempted to do just that.)  It is certainly not that easy for most others 
in Alcor.  There are MANY hurdles to overcome.

     So, the bottom line is that if Alcor chooses to terminate someone's 
suspension arrangements they are terminating their access to something 
that is arguably every bit as important as access to medical care.  This 
is analogous to terminating someone's access to freedom, religious 
salvation, and so on.  Indeed, I have argued in the past that the only 
difference between a cult and full-blown tyranny is size and power.  The 
Soviet Union, and the Catholic Church during the Inquisition, were not 
content merely with expelling the wayward: they killed and tortured them!  
I have no illusions that many of those in cryonics will behave any 
differently if they feel their personal survival or personal power are 
threatened.

     Let's look at the situation which first prompted Keith to launch his 
attempts at various witch-hunt clauses: Michael Paulle.  Keith has 
privately (to me) accused Michael Paulle of calling up Don Laughlin and 
causing him to withdraw his financial support for the Phoenix building.  
This may well have been the case.  Keith has further argued that this 
jeopardized the safety and survival of the patients since they are now 
continuing to be exposed to earthquake risks, and other hazards that they 
might not otherwise have been exposed to.  This may also be true.  Keith's 
proposed solution to this problem was to cancel Mr. Paulle's suspension 
membership.

     This sets an ugly precedent.  Perhaps Mr. Paulle said things which 
were libelous, slanderous, and so on, which caused Mr. Laughlin to 
withdraw his support.  In that case Mr. Paulle should be taken to court or 
be denied access to information which allows him to libel and slander.  Or 
perhaps Mr. Paulle just expressed his opinions (which might very well have 
been good opinions, given what I know of the project).  In either case how 
does canceling his suspension arrangements accomplish ANYTHING other than 
to further piss off Mr. Paulle and make everyone else deeply suspicious of 
Alcor?  Indeed, in a tit for tat world you have now given Mr. Paulle good 
reason to try to REALLY harm you since you have just tried your best to 
really harm him.  And to what end?  I am not an Alcor suspension member 
anymore and I assure you the change has done nothing to shut me up.  In 
fact, if anything, it has made me feel more free to be vocal about my 
disgust with Alcor management.

     Ms. Wells is quite right when she points to the *punitive* nature of 
what Keith is trying to do.  It is punitive and mean-spirited.  Yanking 
someone's suspension membership or refusing to renew it is the best way I 
can think of to make a REALLY serious enemy.  (Just try it with me if I 
ever decide to renew and watch what happens.)

     Since the days of the Alcor Board approving each membership have been 
brought up I feel that I should also make some comment.  Board approval 
was required not to keep out social undesirables but rather to insure that 
ALL the requirements (i.e., legal and financial) were met.  This was a 
major problem (and still is) for most cryonics organizations.  Indeed, it 
has recently become a problem again for Alcor.  When I first took over as 
Alcor's president I discovered that just over half the members HAD NO 
FUNDING AT ALL.  Some had 5K of funding for whole body.  The paperwork was 
a mess.  Hard and fast requirements were put in place and Board Approval 
was instituted as a method of insuring that those requirements were 
dispassionately implemented without favoritism.  (There were accusations 
that I was unfairly picking on some people by requiring them to have 
little nonessentials like life insurance or other evidence of funding.)

     From day-one it was Alcor's policy that we would not terminate 
anyone's suspension membership regardless of their behavior unless they 
violated the terms of the contract.  This was so that people could feel 
free to dissent and to be vocal in that dissent without fear of 
compromise.  And keep in mind that the situation is not as simple as Mr. 
Jackson would have you believe.  Leaving aside one's personal welfare, 
many of us (dissenters) have friends, lovers, parents, and companion 
animals in Alcor's care.  I would point out to Mr. Jackson that in the 
case of the former (i.e., human patients) it is not possible for us to 
pick them up and go elsewhere since Alcor could hold them virtually 
hostage.  Furthermore, being cut off from suspension with an organization 
where your mother or brother or friends are being cared for, is no trivial 
matter: either emotionally or practically.

     As I can attest from first-hand experience, cults use these kinds of 
critical dependencies, both emotional and practical, to great advantage to 
get silence or compliance from their members.  Having been through that 
experience first-hand I wanted to be sure that Alcor would have a greatly 
reduced chance of falling prey to it, and that is why protections were 
built into the CSA and why Alcor should modify its Bylaws to further 
encode those protections into its corporate culture and corporate 
identity.  I only regret that I failed to do this when I revised the 
Bylaws using Nolo Press boilerplate.  How I missed that one I'll never 
know.  Aside from all these things there is the matter of compassion and 
decency.  I did not think it likely that *I* would ever be on the outside 
of Alcor looking in.  But alas it has come to pass.  That is perhaps the 
best reason of all for principles such as this one: There but for the 
grace of God, go I.
                         --Mike Darwin

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1869