[ExI] Cryonics is getting weird

[spike]

Excellent reply Stuart, thanks! 

> ...On Behalf Of 
> The Avantguardian
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> > From: spike <spike66 at att.net>
> > To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> > Sent: Mon, May 17, 2010 6:19:21 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ExI] Cryonics is getting weird
> 
> Spike wrote:
> 
> Avant, which quadrant and why? 
> 
> Quadrant four. Exactly what Alcor did. For several reasons.
> 
> First and foremost, it was what the customer wanted and paid 
> me for...

Contractual obligation, OK got that.

> 
> Secondly, most cultures take great pains that funerary 
> practices are performed according to the respective 
> traditions...

OK cool, new one.  Societal obligation regarding funerary tradition.

 
> ... For example if a Christian dies in an explosion in 
> Afghanistan and the only remains that are recovered are his 
> foot, they will send his foot to the US and hold a funeral 
> for and bury his foot...

What if the foot is amputated for being an unbeliever, and the infidel
lives.  Then what do they do with the infidel's foot?  Make a foot stool?

Sorry, just a little amputation humor there.  Back to our regular
programming:

> ...The family  was wrong and they needed 
> to be humbled.

I think everyone agrees on that, which is why Alcor gets at least some good
PR along with the bad.
 
> Thirdly, this case needed to go to court so as to establish 
> precedent for all future conflicts of interest between a 
> cryonicist and his heirs...

Good, I didn't have this in the map of the thoughtspace.  Mr. Richardson
might have lost himself in the process of saving countless others in the
future.
...
> 
> Now as to what I would do as "Benevolent Dictator" of Alcor 
> to prevent this kind of debacle in the future is that I would 
> recommend clients sign a limited power of attorney granting 
> Alcor the right to sue for damages...  Stuart LaForge 
> 

Excellent Stuart!  Good thinking.  Not only did you produce a well-reasoned
response, but also a suggestion to prevent a similar situation in the
future.

There is a wild new frontier opened up if one gives Alcor limited power of
attorney.  If this is done, a family who wasn't informed about an Alcor
client's status could be liable as all hell if they didn't know what they
were supposed to do.  

What if the family were *slightly* guilty, for dismissing the client's talk
of cryonics as the ramblings of a sick mind?  I have family members who
treat my talk of cryonics as the natural insanity-inducing result of
rejecting god.  In their minds, this is rejecting the perfectly obvious
truth, which is clear evidence of mental illness.  I don't know how I will
work around that, but I do not want them held legally liable for their
religious views, even if I disagree and suffer as a result.  So I probably
wouldn't give Alcor limited power of attorney, but would look for some
reasonable alternative.

spike



For estimating a score, I gave a point for first choice, half a point for
second, a quarter of a point for third, if they offered these.  I don't know
if that is a logical way to score them, so I am open to suggestion.  Alcor
should be worth more than one point too.  How much?  Should we take the
number of people who participated in the Alcor decision and give it one more
than half that number?

Do feel free to discuss this matter with your spouse or partner, and add
their input even if they never hang out here.

Here's the thoughtspace map with Stuart's input:
 
> 	Quad 1) refund, no dig
> 	Quad 2) no refund, no dig
> 	Quad 3) refund, dig
> 	Quad 4) no refund, dig.

Scoreboard:

Quad 1) 	0.75: spike's 2nd, Brent’s 3rd

Quad 2)	3.75: BillK?, spike's 3rd, Damien, Samantha, David Lubkin’s 2nd.

Quad 3)	1.0:  Tim Halterman's 2nd, Brent’s 2nd 

Quad 4)	13.0: Alcor, Mirco, Dave Sill, spike, Shelly Jones, Holly Gray, Tim
Halterman, Jeff Davis, Stefano(?), David Lubkin, Brent Allsop, Adrian,
Avantguardian.

> 	Quad 1) refund, no dig
> 	Quad 2) no refund, no dig
> 	Quad 3) refund, dig
> 	Quad 4) no refund, dig

Reasoning:

Quad 1, for:  	best for Alcor PR.  Helps the siblings of the deceased?
ref: Brent Allsop 3rd(?) 

Quad 1, against:  motivates relatives to burn or bury you. ref: spike, Brent


Quad 2, for:   	better PR for Alcor than 4.  ref: BillK, Damien, Samantha.

Quad 2, against:	breaks legally binding contract, opens Alcor to
liability.  Ref: Jeff Davis(?)


Quad 3, for:	Helps the siblings of the deceased?  Brent Allsop 2nd(?).

Quad 3, against:	Alcor goes broke, risks the currently suspended.
Might motivate the siblings to burn or bury.  Ref: spike, Brent.


Quad 4, for:	Alcor carries out what it agreed to do contractually, Alcor
may be legally required to dig.   Western society honors dying wishes, even
if unreasonable.  Establishes legal roadmap for future cases.  refs:  Alcor,
Mirco, Dave Sill, spike, Holly Gray, Tim Halterman, Jeff Davis, Stefano(?),
David Lubkin, Brent Allsop, Stuart LaForge.

Quad 4, against:	bad PR for Alcor, hopeless for the patient, silly,
gross, etc.  refs:  Damien, BillK(?), Samantha