Return to Index  

CPlatts' article part 2-- not published in Cryonics mag - pointing to EKlein's analysis

December 22 2010 at 12:08 PM
Rick  (Login recreation)
from IP address

Response to ERIC KLEIN - drew attention to funding gap in early 1990's - Alcor deflected attn.

Charles Platt - A feature that won't appear in Cryonics magazine part 2
A feature that won't appear in Cryonics magazine-2

Search Cryonet for eric klein
eric klein site:www.cryonet.org - Google Search

>>>I don't see any posts by Klein about the topic that Platt says Klein published on. In addition Cryonet has removed all author listings !?

>>>Eric Klein, as Platt points out, drew attention to this in the early 1990s...

As Alcor started accepting more members, there was a conscience-driven
move to encourage the newcomers to buy more than the minimum life
insurance. "Twice the minimum" was sometimes suggested as a safe hedge
against inflation. Was this multiple based on a calculation of the
likely cost increase of procedures during the member's likely
lifetime? I don't think so. In fact, so far as I can tell, that
calculation was never performed until the 1990s, when an Alcor member
named Eric Klien did the math and started posting messages about it on
CryoNet. Klien showed beyond any doubt that doubling the minimum would
not be sufficient if (a) a member was likely to live for another 40 or
50 years and (b) the cost of cryopreservation was likely to grow by a
modest annual inflation rate.
A feature that won't appear in Cryonics magazine-2

Platt writes
No one could prove Klien wrong, but his message was not welcome, and
Alcor did not revise its policies.

>>>My comment... Isn't this anti-intellectual? Should not Alcor and the rest of us have faced this "interesting paradox" head on? I think I would have... but I was blinded by optimism... I guess... I don't understand what happened to MY own thinking at that time.... Dave Pizer, who I was working with at the time, never pointed it out...and never revealed to me his own cryonics funding amount or plan... so what does that tell me?

>>>C Platt calls those of us who are "under funded" -- "improvident"..which doesn't seem accurate to me. "Improvident" assumes a sort of willingnesss... but the situation was encouraged by Alcor so we were blinded... blinded by the light... of immortality...

The members who are overfunded will help to compensate for those who
are underfunded, but I see two problems with this. First, I find it
ethically unacceptable that provident people should subsidize
improvident people.
A feature that won't appear in Cryonics magazine-2

>>>Platt goes on to suggest a financial test... which amazingly no cryonics millionnaire --- millionnaires presumably are "smart about money".... has done....

3. Add up all the funding gaps, subtract the total of
surpluses, and the result would be Alcor's total
probable unfunded liability for performing

Unfortunately, so far as I know, no one has ever done this
calculation. Therefore, the likely future dimensions of the
underfunding problem remain unknown.

>>>The funding gap is a very interesting number... this is excellent thinking...

>>>I started this session with a google search as follows
funding minimums site:www.cryonet.org - Google Search

Funny rant by Rudi Hoffman
Funding minimums clarified, for Alan and others, and bonus rant!

You can respond to this entry without logging in but you won't see it unless or until I approve it.

 Respond to this message   
Find more forums on Network54Create your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2018 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement