Some people claim that wealth preservation trusts will make cryonics look even more ridiculous. I am not so sure about that. One of the reasons why some people reject cryonics is because of its futurism. Some cryonicists leave their family (sometimes even their wife or husband) behind to jump into a distant, unknown, future. Taking your pets and/or money with you makes the whole undertaking more conventional and recognizable to people.
As Robert Ettinger has recently pointed out, most people are not interested in some unknown and exotic future. They just want to survive with what they know and (I think) WHAT THEY OWN, but better. If we want to present cryonics as a form of (advanced) medicine, we would do well by keeping other aspects of it normal as well. Some people are attracted to cryonics because it's "strange" and appeals to their desire to overcome the limits of humanity. But most people do not operate like that at all. The option for people to keep their money will make cryonics look less bizarre, and more conventional.
I do agree that wealth preservation trusts should be set up as independent entities. This also has the advantage that the needs of long term wealth preservation will not dictate the operations of other aspects of cryonics. We do not need other another "long term stability"-excuse to tolerate incompetence and waste at cryonics organizations.
Wealth Preservation Trusts, USA and Mainstream Media
March 19 2008, 2:14 PM
Cytosine: “Some people claim that wealth preservation trusts will make cryonics look even more ridiculous. I am not so sure about that.”
COMMENT: There is nothing ridiculous nor sinister if someone saves for the future. It is The American Way. According to the Wall Street Journal, David Pizer years ago established a 10-million Dollars trust, which he will have when he (and his family) are reanimated in the future. His 10-million Dollar trust and other such multi-million Dollar trusts did not create a wave of outrage and wealth confiscation across America. Cryo preservation in this country was possible only because wealthy individuals supported it. Deny them this option and cryo support declines considerably.
Most income is being taxed. Trusts are no exception. As for the claim that Germany and/or France confiscates wealth by taxing wealth, it is an utter BULL. Both Germany and France have and will continue to have plenty of billionaires who do not feel threatened, or liquidated by their country’s tax systems. Even if those countries in the future would change their tax systems, US will not adapt their tax laws.
I thing that for example wealthy Dave Pizer would be extremely neglect if he failed to provide living resources for himself and his family after their reanimation.
Here is the link to the Wall Street Journal article about cryo trusts:
Silly George misses the point again, Here it is, yet again:
March 19 2008, 2:41 PM
George, for the last time, will you realize I'm talking about the future? In the future if some of the richest people in the world were dead people it would make us look like crooks & force people to regulate us.
No one takes us seriously now - we have no credibility to lose. We couldn't look more silly & ideas like "reanimation trusts" will continue to make us look silly.
They'll prevent us from being taken seriously.
This message has been edited by Edward-M on Mar 19, 2008 2:42 PM
Comment: Really? No one? Not a single soul? When that happened? Stop chasing your tail and support your claim if you can, or not if you cannot.
Edward-M: “we have no credibility to lose.”
Comment: It would be true only if you call yourself by the royal “we”.
Wealth preservation trusts exists and new such trusts will continue to be created. Simply because it is possible legally to create them (in USA alone in about 20 states). So stop chasing your tail and get used to it. That should end it, unless you have something constructive to contribute.
Re: Wealth Preservation Trusts, USA and Mainstream Media
March 19 2008, 3:16 PM
>Cryopreservation in this country was possible only because wealthy individuals supported it. Deny them this option and cryo support declines considerably.
"That is an excellent point" No it isn't: it's completely unrelated
March 19 2008, 3:39 PM
The debate here is about "reanimation trusts:" whether they could prevent us from being taken seriously, embarrass cryonics, & just end up being tax revenue for a future government. It's about if they could make us look like crooks & force future generations to regulate us. What wasted money that would be!
And Cytosine, what weird issue will you bring up next that has nothing to do with what's actually debated?
No one's denying that wealthy people helped cryonics.
But do take in mind, before you guys start ranting about the greatness of the private sector, that the government played a huge role in technology - it funded the internet, medical research, & countless sciences through universities. The government has helped fund almost every technology you can think of.
I'm not attacking the private economy, but don't give it too much credit. Really the private economy tends to explode after the government accelerates an upcomming technology.
This message has been edited by Edward-M on Mar 19, 2008 3:56 PM
Your post is about society - it's about what type of behavior will attract people to cryonics.
#1 First it misses the point - that trust funds would embarrass cryonics & just end up being tax revenue for a future government.
#2 I've been writing about money. If you wanted to keep a small house & some objects I wouldn't really care, although cryonics groups could still use those resources better...
But if you created a fund full of cash to profit over hundreds of years someday it would make us look like crooks.
#3 Your view of society is just wrong. You expect that the culture of "owning big objects" to continue & therefore attract people to cryonics. Really if you'd look at Europe & the rest of the world you'd see it's not, it's dying. You're supporting old ideas that are disappearing.
Around the world liberalism is winning: meaning equal opportunity & basic fairness. So you can expect taxes to be used to further make economics fairer - you can expect more taxes on work-free fortunes & less taxes on food.
In other words your fund wouldn't just end up as tax revenue, but your views for attracting people to cryonics are just old ideas that are disapearing.
It seems obvious to me, & I think most people, that after all these years of Bush & the "deregulation" of Enron, home loans, & such, that people are sick of all the economic corruption. We're mad as hell & we're not going to take it anymore. We're sick of the CEO robbing people's pensions & walking away with billions. We're sick of seeing so many simple idiots & crooks with tons of money.
"Some people are attracted to cryonics because it's 'strange' and appeals to their desire to overcome the limits of humanity. But most people do not operate like that at all."
You don't know this. You're just guessing. Frankly if the economy was better & more people could afford experiments like cryonics we'd see who was actually interested. Maybe it's people who'd volunteer more but have less money. Which frankly could be exactly what cryonics needs because the money system of today might not last forever.
This message has been edited by Edward-M on Mar 19, 2008 3:12 PM This message has been edited by Edward-M on Mar 19, 2008 3:05 PM
>>Some people are attracted to cryonics because it's 'strange' and appeals to their desire to overcome the limits of humanity. But most people do not operate like that at all.
>You don't know this. You're just guessing.
I am quite sure that most people are not futurists or transhumanists. It's quite likely to me that cryonics will benefit from adding all the bells and whistles that people associate with real life.
>Frankly if the economy was better & more people could afford experiments like cryonics we'd see who was actually interested.
C'mon. Cryonics is not that expensive if you fund it with (term)life insurance. The only group of people who could really benefit from more affordable cryonics are the elderly who cannot execute life insurance any longer.
Offering an inexpensive neuro option, as Jordan Sparks seems to be thinking about for Oregon Cryonics, may help a lot in this regard. I hope he reconsiders his "next of kin" funding option though. That worries me a lot more than establishing individual trusts (which I support).
Out of all the points I made, the only one you respond to is the one I didn't care about?
March 19 2008, 3:18 PM
Cytosine: Some people are attracted to cryonics because it's 'strange' and appeals to their desire to overcome the limits of humanity. But most people do not operate like that at all.
Edward-M: You don't know this. You're just guessing. Frankly if the economy was better & more people could afford experiments like cryonics we'd see who was actually interested.
I simply noted that you declared your opinions as facts, yet you repeat your opinions!
"I simply noted that you declared your opinions as facts, yet you repeat your opinions!"
That's too dogmatic and binary. I stated that most people are not futurists. Yes, that is an opinion but I believe it is close to fact. Cryonics should appeal to as many people as possible. Telling them to leave there life-time savings and investments behind is suicide for cryonics.
I also stated that most people can afford cryonics. This is close to, if not being, a fact as well.
This raises a broader point about cryonics: CRYONICS SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A VEHICLE TO PROMOTE OTHER CAUSES. No religion, objectivism, libertarianism, socialism, egalitarianism, transhumanism etc. Suggesting that cryonics is intrinsically (let alone, exclusively) bound to any philosophy about life is contra-productive. Speculation about what the future (or the monetary system in the future) will look like when patients are resuscitated is contra-productive as well. Since we just don't have a freaking clue, we will only alienate potential sign-ups.
There have been a number of media items on cryonics and wealth preservation in the press and all of them were neutral or positive. To suggest that if people will actually do this, it will backfire and hurt cryonics is speculation of the wildest sort. What is not wild speculation is that most normal human beings have a strong desire to keep what they have. So if there will be any consequence, it's more likely that it will lead to broader acceptance of cryonics.
To those who would say that it would be better to spend such money on research and resuscitation I say this: most people would like to strike a balance between those objectives. And in light of the abysmal reporting about the fate of research donations (or any donations) in cryonics, it might be more prudent to choose wealth preservation over research until you more transparent reporting on donations for research.
Cytosine: speculation about what the future will look like when patients are resuscitated is contra-productive as well. Since we just don't have a freaking clue.
That's not true. History is a long trend in the favor of equality, tolerance, & bringing down the establishment. It will continue. Every year more incompetent nepotists will be removed from rule due to competition (fairness laws) & equal opportunity laws.
Cytosine: I stated that most people are not futurists.
No you didn't, you said: "Some people are attracted to cryonics because it's 'strange' and appeals to their desire to overcome the limits of humanity. But most people do not operate like that at all."
Maybe most people just don't believe it will work? Haven't you seen society's willingness to spend crazy amounts of money on herbs to live longer? (To overcome the limits of humanity?)
Cytosine: There have been a number of media items on cryonics and wealth preservation in the press and all of them were neutral or positive.
Maybe they were laughing at us & you couldn't tell?
Your opinions seem like complete guesses, while my opinions seem rather obvious: that 100+ year old trust funds making dead people some of earth's richest people could have us deemed crooked & in response taxed & regulated.
Cytosine: And in light of the abysmal reporting about the fate of research donations (or any donations) in cryonics, it might be more prudent to choose wealth preservation
That's because you're giving money to *Alcor,* which is ruled by tyrants. CI spends money much more wisely. Why not offer money to start an emergency transportation non-profit organization? Lots of people simply on this forum are interested in it.
This message has been edited by Edward-M on Mar 19, 2008 4:56 PM
>>Cytosine: And in light of the abysmal reporting about the fate of research donations (or any donations) in cryonics, it might be more prudent to choose wealth preservation
>That's because you're giving money to *Alcor,* which is ruled by tyrants. CI spends money much more wisely.
I agree with that. It's very embarrassing to see that Alcor members are so naive about Alcor's research program and readiness.
I hope CI will make an attempt to resuscitate its research program in the near future. CI's research program produced one monumental result: its own vitrification solution. Alcor's vitrification solution is completely the result of 21CM research (but how many Alcor members understand this).
>Why not offer money to start an emergency transportation non-profit organization? Lots of people simply on this forum are interested in it.
Jordan Sparks seems the only game in town right now. I praise him for actually engaging in arguments with other cryonicists. Let's help him in getting his stuff right.