Alcor vs. Cryonics Institute

prespectiveCryonaut

I searched but did not find any discussion comparing the merits of the two major cryonics providers in the US, so I figured it might be productive to start such a discussion myself by posing the question to the community: which provider would you choose, all things being equal: Alcor or the Cryonics Institute?

From my research, Alcor comes across as the flasher, higher-end option, while CI seems more like a Mom-and-Pop operation, having only two full-time employees. Alcor also costs substantially more, with its neurosuspension option alone running ~$80k, compared with CI's whole-body preservation cost of ~$30k. While Alcor has received far more publicity than CI, much of it has been negative. The Ted Williams fiasco is probably the most prominent example, although the accuser in that case seems anything but trustworthy. However, Alcor remains something of a shadowy organization that many within the cryonics community are suspicious of. Mike Darwin, a former Alcor president, has written at length on both organizations at http://www.chronopause.com, and on the whole, at least based on what I've read, Alcor comes across looking less competent, less trustworthy, and less open than CI.

One issue in particular is funding. Even though Alcor costs much more, it has many more expenses, and Darwin and others have questioned the long term financial stability of the organization. Ralph Merkle, an Alcor board member and elder statesman of cryonics who has made significant contributions to other fields like nanotechnology, a field he practically invented, and encryption, with Merkle's Puzzles, has essentially admitted(1) that Alcor hasn't managed its money very well:

"Some Alcor members have wondered why rich Alcor members have not donated more money to Alcor. The major reason is that rich Alcor members are rich because they know how to manage money, and they know that Alcor traditionally has managed money poorly. Why give any significant amount of money to an organization that has no fiscal discipline? It will just spend it, and put itself right back into the same financial hole it’s already in.

As a case in point, consider Alcor’s efforts over the year to create an “endowment fund” to stabilize its operating budget. These efforts have always ended with Alcor spending the money on various useful activities. These range from research projects to subsidizing our existing members — raising dues and minimums is a painful thing to do, and the Board is always reluctant to do this even when the financial data is clear. While each such project is individually worthy and has merit, collectively the result has been to thwart the effort to create a lasting endowment and leave Alcor in a financially weak position."

Such an acknowledgement, though appreciated, is frankly disturbing, considering that members depend utterly on these organizations remaining operational and solvent for decades, perhaps even centuries, after they are deanimated.

Meanwhile, CI carries on merrily, well under the radar, seemingly without any drama or intrigue. And Ben Best seems to have very good credentials in the cryonics community, and Eliezer, one of the most prominent public advocates of cryonics, is signed up with them. Yet the tiny size of the operation still fills me with unease concerning its prospects for long-term survivability.

So with all of that said, besides cost, what factors would lead or have led you to pick one organization over the other?

1: http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/CryopreservationFundingAndInflation.html

I have chose the Cryonics Institute for several reasons. It is not only the price which makes a huge difference to me because I can potentially save my entire family (5 people for less then the cost of 1 person at Alcor) but there is other reasons as well. While I might agree that in some circumstances Alcor can do a better job at profusion they often do not and certainly to me they do not justify the costs. Alcor has huge overhead compared to CI the number one expense being personnel. It only takes 2 people at CI to do what many more take for much more in resources. The costs of such overhead are likely to grow as they are with Alcors price. This is another reason, because rather then bringing prices under control they will be forced to raise prices again and again. This chases away more and more customers until the company cannibalizes itself and collapses. I would rather grow an organization through more members rather then a few rich ones. There is also a moral lesson here as well, because if cryonics works then more people would be save because of the lower price.

I have heard the arguments that no matter what there will be damage and Darwin/ Aschwin and Chanda have claimed this to be the case. I have also heard them all say Alcor is better but at the same time they all seem to be falling back on the nanotechnology will fix things just as much as CI does. After all Alcor throws many body's away as in nueros. What could be a greater hurdle for nanotechnology then a complete neck down rebuild. So Max's argument that CI doesn't profuse the body rings hollow. As for the amount of damage to the brain, it seems to me the biggest factor is neither of the company's procedures, sterile technique, or formulas that make much of a difference but rather speed and quick ice that is all. Both companies vitrify with a good formula so thats a minor issue. Alcor claims that it has a standby service and if a CI member wants to have the same service he can contract with SA so again no difference. In fact, it is still much cheaper even with the SA standby option. I think the fact that CI lets its members have the option rather then being forced into Alcors standby is a huge reason I chose CI. I could take the thousands saved and plan and pay for local standby myself for a fraction of the costs. To me Alcors and SA's standby makes sense only if you live within 50 miles of either company. This standby to me is a huge false sense of security because the member thinks everything is taken care of. Things just don't work that way. The logistics will not allow it. Every member of any cryonics organization must have their own standby unless they have a nice planned death and then standby matters little. You just have someone drive you to CI or Alcor.

For 150+ thousand dollars I could afford a pretty good personal standby and I could share in local training. Its the difference between centralized so called professionals who are too far away and a huge network of good lay people willing to help out. Funeral directors and a few friends and family may not be as good as Alcor's or SA's centralized team but what does it matter if the special team is 8 hours away? It reminds me of the difference between having good enough CPR from a layperson moments away or a team of doctors and equipment 2 hours away! When you need CPR you need it now... not 2 hours from now. So I opt for CI and my own standby. If I was rich and I live very close to Alcor or SA , I might change my mind. For all the fancy talk about this and that, this is the common sense of the matter. I would rather use the money myself to set up a very good local standby that I can trust. All of the talk by Alcor members about superior profusions etc can not even be validated unless we take patients out of their cryostats and actually look at their brain tissues. Both companies have failed with patients in many hours of warm ischemia. The only difference is that CI's failures cost170,000$ less.

I suggest both companies do more to form layperson networks to include funeral directors and more research and development on patient early warning cardiac arrest alerts rather then fancy formulas that attempt to perfuse an already rotten corpse. Centralized standby is a fail from the get go no matter how professional the staff or shinny equipment. That's why the worlds Fire & emergency response teams consist of many lay people that bring the patients to central medical centers. The strength is in the vast network not the central standby professionals. For all the other talk about research and development or patient revival etc. I have to make my feelings clear we are simply an ambulance company to a future hospital. We aren't that future hospital nor should we pretend to be so. We don't have the time, luxury, or money to play that part. The more we drift from the basics of ambulance company to the future the more bogged down we get in irrelevant factors rather then simple fast cooling and fast vitrification! I am not saying we shouldn't strive to improve and use better techniques but there is such a thing as common sense and a point of diminishing returns. Alcor may be a little better if you live in Arizona and are rich but outside of that the costs just don't justify the returns. I will save my money and use CI and form my own standby. If I were an Alcor member outside Arizona you can bet your butt I would have some standby in place my life would depend on it despite all the money I could throw at them. The rest is smoke and mirrors or shinny cryostats.