MichaelAnissimov comments on Charitable Cryonics - Less Wrong

8 Post author: RobertLumley 04 August 2011 12:42AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (18)

Comments (18)

Sort By: Best

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: MichaelAnissimov comment score below threshold [+] (6 children)

Comment author: gwern 27 January 2013 02:31:18AM * 8 points [-]

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.)

Comment author: MichaelAnissimov 27 January 2013 07:46:37PM 0 points [-]

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.

Comment author: gwern 27 January 2013 11:22:24PM 4 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Tenoke 28 January 2013 10:31:54PM 2 points [-]

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?

Comment author: MichaelAnissimov 29 January 2013 08:26:17AM 0 points [-]

I am agreeing with that claim. Maybe what I'm really disagreeing with is the implication that the shortfall is some kind of issue?

Comment author: Tenoke 29 January 2013 10:33:25AM 1 point [-]

I am agreeing with that claim.

Certainly didn't seem that way when you said:

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.

MichaelAnissimov comments on Charitable Cryonics - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (18)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (18)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login