Sure! I'm glad it was appreciated! Thanks for the feedback, and your thoughts and comments, Chris. Assuming you read it all, I imagine it was quite a doozycr1776 wrote:
Thanks for that nice long posting.
I think that the service Alcor provides is *enormously* valuable (assuming it results in reanimation at some later time), which is why I spent as much time thinking and writing about this topic as I did.
Re: (1) I'm glad we're in agreement. I also agree with your estimation of the increase in risk (i.e. that it's fairly low) to shift from 90 days to 6 month notice, when you said:
Re: (2) Thanks for clarifying this a bit. I'm familiar with some important aspects of contracts, having had a few law courses which required a considerable amount of analysis of contracts. But I've not had much experience with very large, complex contracts, so hadn't explicitly known this was something to consider.cr1776 wrote:
I do not believe an extra 90 days would greatly increase the risk to Alcor, particularly if the planning to increase minimums occurred over the longer term. (e.g. Alcor doesn't wake up one morning and say "we need to raise minimums" but has to have been considering it for some time. Just raise them three months sooner.)
Re: (3) I'd like to reply to your comment:
While I agree that there needs nothing explicitly stated in the cryo-agreement about ceasing grandfathering, I'm highly confident that a public statement of admission and regret would go a *long* way in the organizations long term reputation. Consider the following observation (from my experience):cr1776 wrote:
Alcor's acknowledgement of past de facto grandfathering does not seem worthwhile from an organizational standpoint and as an attorney, I'd advise them that they should not do so. I do not think it adds anything to their decision going forward.
The value of admitting guilt with regard to earning forgiveness not only applies to Alcor in this situation, but more generally to *any* similar interaction with any human. That is: if a person openly expresses sincere regret, and communicates a strong desire to act better in the future (including describing exactly *how* one intends to act "better"), forgiveness and understanding by others is much more likely than in any other possible scenario I can think of.
I think that, after reading such an admission from Alcor, reasonable people will conclude that Alcor is fully aware of mistakes that were made, and are proactively and responsibly addressing them, which is exactly how I *want* others (including myself) to judge Alcor.
I understand that doing so may be complicated by how some (immature, IMO) people, after reading such an admission, would point and scream: "See! They *did* screw up! They're bad, bad, bad!" This is my perception of much of the posturing in the U.S. (and other) political systems. But I suspect (and could be wrong) that the small proportion of people who are currently, and will soon be, Members w/ Alcor are more reasonable than the "average" person (if there is such a thing), and appealing to *those*, more reasonable people (i.e. those more likely to join Alcor early, and increase the awareness about, and popularity of, cryopreservation) is highly important (in my estimation).
In other words: I suspect that 10 or 20 years from the point in time Alcor makes this public admission (if it does), most people will not even be aware of it, and if they are, they'll likely reflect on it and say: "boy, that was a responsible thing for them to say and do".
So the real question to answer regarding this is: "will a public admission *now* make people *less likely* to consider becoming Alcor members"? My estimation is that it will *not*, and will, on the contrary, tend to cause (these more rational) people to be *more* likely to consider becoming a Member.
Further regarding (3): I'm glad we're in agreement that at least a little rewording of the agreement for clarity would be beneficial.
Re: (4) I'm highly pleased that you think I "hit the nail on the head". I have very limited experience in the cryonics field, and limited knowledge of its history. My conjecture was based largely on abstract reasoning and intuition. Assuming you've been involved in, and knowledgeable of, cryonics much longer and more than I have, it's very good to hear that I had the right idea here.
Further re: (4) I may end up preferring the "one-stop shop" at Alcor regarding CMS, if the cost-savings and CMS discussions yield considerable decreases in the annual fees. I mean, it's true that this service could in theory be absolutely life-saving and of ultimate importance to sustaining one's life. But my current cryopreservation fees are my 4th or 5th highest cost item in my budget (after rent, food, property taxes, and whole life insurance for my cyropreservation, the *fees* are #5 - When #'s 4 and 5 are combined, they exceed everything else except my rent, which is so high at this time only because I live in Silicon Valley).
Here's a short description of these top five items in my budget:
#1 Rent ~$11,400/yr
#2 Food ~$ 1,825/yr
#3 Prop taxes (Toledo, Ohio): $1,050/yr
#4 Whole life ins. for Alcor whole-body ~$1,080/yr
#5 Alcor fees ~$800
When I lived in Toledo (where I own a house), my comparable "rent" was ~$400/yr (which included only insurance on the house, as taxes are a separate line-item above, although it would be reasonable to lump those together to compare to "rent", which would still only be ~$1,450/yr vs. $1,880 for all Alcor-related expenses, although I'm very near converting to term-insurance and becoming a neuro).
Chris, I'm also encouraged by your comment:
And from what Brian Wowk said (thanks Brian for the note here on the forum! More on that below):cr1776 wrote:
Paul, Kitty, you, RM and others have added a lot of detailed analysis to the discussions here, I believe the Board will look at them all.
That's a relief!bwowk wrote:
Your post did come to the board's attention.
I was concerned, when writing my "essay", that the more I wrote, the less likely someone would read it all I was also concerned it was so close to the decision deadline that it wouldn't be known of until after-the-fact.
So I'm glad to hear my post was known of to the board, and to hear thanks from Chris and Brian.
Brian, you said:
Without stipulating to any inadequacy of the Cryopreservation Agreement wording in the strictly legal sense, it is agreed that the wording could be made clearer. Pursuant to the comments here, I believe it will be changed in the near future.
That, too, is good to hear. I think that'll clarify this point to all current and future members.
With respect to the broader question of the Underfunding Proposal (Option #10) and modifications thereof, there has been some very vigorous board discussion about it,"
This is encouraging, too, that it's being "vigorously" discussed. Thanks for sharing, Brian.