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.
No one could prove Klien wrong, but his message was not welcome, and
Alcor did not revise its policies. No one wanted to increase minimums
unduly, because this would discourage people from joining.
That might be the crux of the problem... the urgency to create a cryonics organization outweighed the truth. Now in 20/20 hindsight, it seems obvious that the age of the new member would have to be correlated to a rough guess as to what the nominal insurance would have to be...
Kleins' messages are here.
I can't find the articles CPlatt refers to but here's a post that details some financial squabbles...
No log in needed at this time to post. Let's hear your story on your life insurance! The funding gap situation at Alcor is serious and demands everyone's attention.