[ExI] Multiple subjects.

Keith Henson hkeithhenson at gmail.com
Sat May 22 15:57:51 UTC 2010


On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:00 AM,
<extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> From: Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>
>
> On 18 May 2010 19:42, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>> Which makes me wonder how this works when for decades you have paid an
>> insurance company for the specific purpose of having Alcor freeze your head,
>> then that is prevented (your body is lost at sea, or your head crushed by a
>> trip hammer, or your dearly beloved relatives have your remains buried)--is
>> the company no longer obliged to pay anyone anything, or does the loot go to
>> the estate, or to Alcor's coffers, or what?

Insurance companies pay the named beneficiary when presented evidence
of death (such as a death certificate).

> Most of sensible contracts (possibly integrated  by last wills) would
> provide for such events, and most reasonable jurisdictions would honor
> both.

Alcor paperwork is comprehensive.

> If nothing has been provided? I would say that the insurer would be in
> the position to profit from the turn of  events which made the
> fulfilment of its obligation impossible.

No, with named exceptions, such as suicide in the first two years,
insurance must pay off.

> From: John Grigg <possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com>

> Subject: [ExI] Ilsa Bartlett comments about our cryonics thread

> Hello everyone,
>
> My friend Ilsa Bartlett (currently studying to be a Buddhist Chaplain)
> wanted me to share these thoughts of hers with the list...
>
> Ilsa Bartlett wrote:
> I so want to add that from a chaplain's point of view the dead person
> has no say after he or she dies and that unless there is a tight power
> of attorney who will shepard the dead man's wishes, the living
> relatives have the right to do whatever they want.

Or a contract.

>And legally can
> both retain the money paid and do with the body according to their
> desires.  Imagine that you have no legal say once you are DEAD!
>
> My daughter told me that I can say anything I want, but that she would
> do what she wants, once I am dead.  But in my hospice training I was
> taught the actual law that makes my daughter's words the legal truth!
> You can check this on the Zen hospice website or with any hospital.
> How is it that the Extropes think Alcor is beyond the same laws that
> makes the power of attorney stronger than a will or contract?

You might note that a court just agreed with Alcor.

> From: AlgaeNymph <algaenymph at gmail.com>

> Subject: Re: [ExI] Those crazy-eyed optimists!

> Let me sum up most of the comments:
> http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/science/18tier.html
>
> "Ridley's an ignoramus!  He's a running dog of the bourgeoisie
> imperialists!  His so-called progress is really that devil Consumerism!

The comments were anything but uniform.  The comments on the article
were closed or I would have mentioned that there are two energy
proposals that displace fossil fuels by being less expensive, so much
so that reasonable priced synthetic gasoline can be expected.

> (Boooooo!)  Have Nature and non-whites benefited?  Huh, have they?"

Take a look at figure 1 here:
http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/Capitalism%20Genes.pdf

snip

> P.P.S. I've got nothing against libertarianism, I just think it has
> negative political clout.

It has more clout than you might think.  Most of the political change
in the world is driven by technical innovation.  The majority of the
people doing the innovation have libertarian attitudes even if they
seldom talk about politics.  I know a few of these people such as the
ones who invented public key encryption.

Keith




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list