Alcor is already a charity, funded by people who wish to see cryonics spread—Alcor runs at an annual loss of hundreds of thousands, made up by donations and other such charitable generosity. As it happens, they also choose to spend their extremely limited cryonics slots on their most generous donors; what’s the problem?
So Alcor runs at a loss and doesn’t actually freeze that many people because it can’t afford to?
This seems extremely misleading. Unless I’m very much mistaken, Alcor cryopreserves every one of its members upon their legal death to the absolute best of its ability, as indeed they are contractually obligated to do. They even now have an arrangement with Suspended Animation so that an SA team can provide SST (standby, stabilization, and transport) in cases where Alcor cannot easily get there in time. (SA is a for-profit company founded to provide exactly this type of service; they also have a working relationship with Cryonics Institute of a different sort.)
To my understanding, Alcor runs at a “loss” (in quotes because donations are just as much a source of revenue as membership and cryopreservation fees) for similar reasons that any small-but-growing business would: because growth is the best way to ensure long-term stability, and keeping the price of cryopreservation as low as possible given the other constraints promotes growth.
Finally, I think it’s worth mentioning Alcor created the Patient Care Trust fund and gave it legal independence specifically to prevent funds from being usurped that are intended to go toward the care and eventual resuscitation of Alcor’s patients, regardless of Alcor’s future financial situation. Even if Alcor collapses financially, these funds are contractually mandated to be used toward protecting Alcor’s patients, and maximizing their continued chances of being successfully revived (for example, by transferring them to another cryonics organization).
They’re non-profits, I wouldn’t necessarily call them charities, as I meant it. But that’s a semantic point. I think people are disinclined to trust them, because they’re still asking for people’s money. If you could build a system where cryonics would be funded by someone (or someones) else and then donated to another recipient, I think that would make people give it far more serious consideration.
Also, I don’t necessarily think Alcor and CI are perceived (which is what matters) as non-profits. I thought they were for profit companies until I started researching this post and read otherwise.
Alcor Life Extension Foundation and the American Cryonics Society (ACS) are organized as 501(c)3 charitable organizations, whereas the Cryonics Institute (CI) is simply a non-profit corporation. Although Suspended Animation, Inc. (SA) is ostensibly a for-profit company, it is mainly engaged in research and development of cryonics capabilities financed by the principals of the Life Extension Foundation.
I heard it from their filings: http://lesswrong.com/lw/1mc/normal_cryonics/1hmp As of 2008, they had an annual shortfall of ~0.6m, and did not go bankrupt thanks to contributions, gifts, and grants which filled the gap. Which is what I said above.
(I don’t believe this included the actuarial shortfalls but IIRC they plan to push that onto members, so it’s probably not an issue for ALCOR itself.)
Since they are getting contributions, gifts, and grants, I don’t see that as a shortfall. That’s like saying the SI has a huge shortfall because they get all their support through contributions. Many supporters of cryonics are ultra-wealthy. The second the material existence of Alcor is threatened, they’ll contribute. I understand that you are following Alcor’s public materials, but try attending a cryonics conference.
Since they are getting contributions, gifts, and grants, I don’t see that as a shortfall...That’s like saying the SI has a huge shortfall because they get all their support through contributions.
Yes. It’s pretty much exactly like saying that. If you had read the OP then maybe you would understand why I made the point I did, or indeed why Merkle made the comment he did....
Many supporters of cryonics are ultra-wealthy. The second the material existence of Alcor is threatened, they’ll contribute.
One would hope so, as opposed to switch to CI or wait just a little too long in the game of chicken or anything else.
Since they are getting contributions, gifts, and grants, I don’t see that as a shortfall
I’m sorry but how does this not agree fully with the claim that:
Alcor runs at an annual loss of hundreds of thousands, made up by donations and other such charitable generosity
Are you not agreeing that except for the ‘contributions, gifts, and grants’ which is mostly synonymous with ‘donations and other such charitable generosity’ Alcor is operated at an annual loss?
Gwern—Alcor is not “run at an annual loss of hundreds of thousands”. I can’t imagine where you heard this.
It seems to me like you were clearly implying that at least part of his claim was not true when the claim was stated quite clearly.
Otherwise your judgement whether the shortfall is an issue was conveyed clearly and I haven’t said anything about that. I don’t disagree with you on that and to be fair I haven’t really noticed why you think that gwern is implying that it is an issue. Seems to me like he is explaining to someone who thinks that cryonics should be ‘charitable’ that Alcor is in fact a charity.
Alcor is already a charity, funded by people who wish to see cryonics spread—Alcor runs at an annual loss of hundreds of thousands, made up by donations and other such charitable generosity. As it happens, they also choose to spend their extremely limited cryonics slots on their most generous donors; what’s the problem?
So Alcor runs at a loss and doesn’t actually freeze that many people because it can’t afford to?
Maybe the reason there’s not much freezing going on is that the major players in it aren’t very aggressive.
This seems extremely misleading. Unless I’m very much mistaken, Alcor cryopreserves every one of its members upon their legal death to the absolute best of its ability, as indeed they are contractually obligated to do. They even now have an arrangement with Suspended Animation so that an SA team can provide SST (standby, stabilization, and transport) in cases where Alcor cannot easily get there in time. (SA is a for-profit company founded to provide exactly this type of service; they also have a working relationship with Cryonics Institute of a different sort.)
To my understanding, Alcor runs at a “loss” (in quotes because donations are just as much a source of revenue as membership and cryopreservation fees) for similar reasons that any small-but-growing business would: because growth is the best way to ensure long-term stability, and keeping the price of cryopreservation as low as possible given the other constraints promotes growth.
Finally, I think it’s worth mentioning Alcor created the Patient Care Trust fund and gave it legal independence specifically to prevent funds from being usurped that are intended to go toward the care and eventual resuscitation of Alcor’s patients, regardless of Alcor’s future financial situation. Even if Alcor collapses financially, these funds are contractually mandated to be used toward protecting Alcor’s patients, and maximizing their continued chances of being successfully revived (for example, by transferring them to another cryonics organization).
They’re non-profits, I wouldn’t necessarily call them charities, as I meant it. But that’s a semantic point. I think people are disinclined to trust them, because they’re still asking for people’s money. If you could build a system where cryonics would be funded by someone (or someones) else and then donated to another recipient, I think that would make people give it far more serious consideration.
Also, I don’t necessarily think Alcor and CI are perceived (which is what matters) as non-profits. I thought they were for profit companies until I started researching this post and read otherwise.
Specifically:
— http://www.cryonics.org/comparisons.html
Gwern—Alcor is not “run at an annual loss of hundreds of thousands”. I can’t imagine where you heard this.
I heard it from their filings: http://lesswrong.com/lw/1mc/normal_cryonics/1hmp As of 2008, they had an annual shortfall of ~0.6m, and did not go bankrupt thanks to contributions, gifts, and grants which filled the gap. Which is what I said above.
(I don’t believe this included the actuarial shortfalls but IIRC they plan to push that onto members, so it’s probably not an issue for ALCOR itself.)
Since they are getting contributions, gifts, and grants, I don’t see that as a shortfall. That’s like saying the SI has a huge shortfall because they get all their support through contributions. Many supporters of cryonics are ultra-wealthy. The second the material existence of Alcor is threatened, they’ll contribute. I understand that you are following Alcor’s public materials, but try attending a cryonics conference.
Yes. It’s pretty much exactly like saying that. If you had read the OP then maybe you would understand why I made the point I did, or indeed why Merkle made the comment he did....
One would hope so, as opposed to switch to CI or wait just a little too long in the game of chicken or anything else.
I’m sorry but how does this not agree fully with the claim that:
Are you not agreeing that except for the ‘contributions, gifts, and grants’ which is mostly synonymous with ‘donations and other such charitable generosity’ Alcor is operated at an annual loss?
I am agreeing with that claim. Maybe what I’m really disagreeing with is the implication that the shortfall is some kind of issue?
Certainly didn’t seem that way when you said:
It seems to me like you were clearly implying that at least part of his claim was not true when the claim was stated quite clearly.
Otherwise your judgement whether the shortfall is an issue was conveyed clearly and I haven’t said anything about that. I don’t disagree with you on that and to be fair I haven’t really noticed why you think that gwern is implying that it is an issue. Seems to me like he is explaining to someone who thinks that cryonics should be ‘charitable’ that Alcor is in fact a charity.