Slashdot Mirror


Wealthy 'Cryonauts' Put Assets on Ice

Carl Bialik writes "'You can't take it with you. So Arizona resort operator David Pizer has a plan to come back and get it,' the Wall Street Journal reports. Pizer is one of about about 1,000 members of the "cryonics" movement who plan to put their bodies on ice soon after death so that in the future, medical advances can save them. A small, wealthy subset of these cryonauts is exploring ways to leave their money to themselves. 'With the help of an estate planner, Mr. Pizer has created legal arrangements for a financial trust that will manage his roughly $10 million in land and stock holdings until he is re-animated,' the Journal reports. 'Mr. Pizer says that with his money earning interest while he is frozen, he could wake up in 100 years the richest man in the world.'"

26 of 538 comments (clear)

  1. You read it here first by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Three words for you my friends: tax evasion scam.
    Good night.

    1. Re:You read it here first by Al+Mutasim · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It does seem to be a way to avoid estate taxes. However, I doubt most people are doing it for this reason. The article suggests that the "so-called dynasty trusts" are typically used to "pay out funds to a person's children, grandchildren and future generations" and do not need to have anything to do with cryogenics. You can get the tax scam without the cryo.

      These people are doing it to avoid the dread of death. I don't think it should be legal. What if everyone who died just tied up their assets this way? We would have a "Trustee Economy" (you read it here first). This would not be good. Trustees are not motivated to optimize the use of assets the way owners are.

  2. What will actually happen is..... by EGSonikku · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Duh, he'll just wake up in a few hundred years after his consciousness is transferred into the memrouy wiped body of a convict, and recieve RNA memory injections and learn to pilot interstellar world seeding ships.

    --
    - "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
  3. Comical ethics of advance technology... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There was a horror comic in the early 80's that has a story that I still remember.

    A rich man who was dying had enough money to develop the technology to put himself on ice until medical technology was advance enough to cure his disease. He wakes up about 50 years later to find out that medical technology did indeed advance greatly over the years. But there was no cure for his disease. Instead, he was revived so the doctors could harvest his limbs for the veterans of the last World War who lost their arms and legs. Since he was beyond cure, the doctors figured his limbs were still useful to humanity. Advance technology rendered the rich man a basketcase.

  4. Re:Before any says... by c_forq · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The banks yes, but also everyone that uses the same currency as him. Taking that much money out of circulation should help increase the value of the bills in your wallet right now.

    --
    Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
  5. Re:Before any says... by Eightyford · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The banks yes, but also everyone that uses the same currency as him. Taking that much money out of circulation should help increase the value of the bills in your wallet right now.

    Bingo! I had a friend once who saw the movie Dead Presidents and he could not understand that printing money and giving it away would be a bad thing. On a side note, I was shocked recently when I found out that the US government or Alan Greenspan or whatever does this very thing.

  6. You don't have to be rich. by f1r3br4nd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Perhaps rich people are the ones worrying about preserving their assets for the future, but I don't want people to get the impression that you have to be rich to be a cryonicist.

    That mistaken assumption is what caused me to take so long to take the plunge.

    I'm a grad student, I make 20k/year, and I have a cryo contract. As a full-time student I pay $199 annually and my life insurance policy ($90k coverage) premiums cost about $1k per annually. If I wanted to, I could have taken out a term life insurance policy and I'd be paying in the low hundreds, but since by definition this is an arrangement you'd want to make for the duration of your life, I thought it would be better to lock in a good whole life insurance rate while I'm still young and healthy. Plus my policy has a safety margin of $10k over the $80k neurosuspension fee.

    And that's me, a starving PhD student. Some of you people with real jobs can fund your cryo policy, and toss some money into a trust fund for yourself, and have some left over for charity and heirs.

    Cryonics is a long-shot, but unlike many other beliefs about life after death, it doesn't contradict the observed laws of physics. I don't ridicule those beliefs or take any action to restrict them, no matter how alien to my way of thinking they may seem. I therefore expect a free and pluralistic society to reciprocate this courtesy toward my own beliefs.

    1. Re:You don't have to be rich. by f1r3br4nd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It never ceases to astound me how many things there are out there that people think are worse than death. To me, death is the one definite way to lose whatever game we're playing. Maybe people have a more literal belief in heaven than I do. Maybe people are in deep denial about the implacable finality of death. It's none of my business, though. Some people would rather be dead than stupid and broke, and I respect their beliefs.

      Call me a throwback then, because I'd rather be alive and keep on struggling to stay that way as long as possible. And the further in the future, the better. To put this into perspective, I'd rather be a homeless guy today than a medieval noble. Again, to each their own.

    2. Re:You don't have to be rich. by zcat_NZ · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No job skills? I dispute that. He'd be the ultimate authority on our current period of 'history', and considering the amount of information being stored in DRM-locked formats on short-term digital media, he might wake up in a future that knows almost nothing about this time.

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
    3. Re:You don't have to be rich. by f1r3br4nd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It depends on when you're thawed. There's a theory in cryonics circles, though, that the reviving will proceed in a LIFO manner because the later someone gets frozen, the better the available technology will be, and the easier they will be to revive. The "early adopters" might get revived last, after the medicine of the time has had plenty of practice with the easy cases.

      If this is correct, it would mean that the handfull of people frozen now will be the authoritative source of information about the late 20th century... but they'll get revived after you do, so you'll get your time in the sun with your knowledge of the early -to-mid 21st century with the still relatively small number of people who will be frozen at the same time you are.

    4. Re:You don't have to be rich. by pontifier · · Score: 2, Interesting

      After I signed up with alcor I felt a kind of future-historical perspective shape the way I look at issues and events in our time. sometimes I'll think about a person from the future obsessed with the past, and think "They would realy like to be where I am right now", and it makes me feel good to be here in our primitive times, still arguing about this or that when it probably doesn't matter that much to the far future how things go, just that they do.

      by the way.. I've found price to be the biggest limiting factor among people I know as to why they havn't signed up. most people I've talked to about cryonics can see that any chance to be revived is better than none.

      --
      -John Fenley
    5. Re:You don't have to be rich. by Rakishi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It depends on how advanced society is and how it advances. Intelligence is influenced by genetics/womb, childhood experiences and learning.

      An advanced society may have altered the first so much that they are now super-humans compared to us and the changes go so deep they cannot "upgrade" a present-day person without destroying who they are. Assuming they have immortality this one must have a solution already present.

      The second would probably cause less drastic changes, although again you'd be at a disadvantage compared to those people who grow up in that time period (more so if they use some advanced child rearing practices designed to maximize intelligence). Also I believe with time intelligence becomes more dependent on genetics/womb than childhood experiences, although differences may still exist. In reality the greatest problem in this case may be that their society is so alien to us we are unable to cope with it. Assuming they have immortality this one must have a solution already present.

      The last one, learning, is probably the easiest to fix. Combined with some advanced drugs you can probably get up to pace in terms of sheer knowledge rather quickly, may even be able to change things which currently are in many ways hard wired.

    6. Re:You don't have to be rich. by typical · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think if such a person were plopped into our modern day they would, after a degree of struggle, they'd be able to make sense of it.

      The problem is that you're ignoring a lot of learning (and *unlearning* that will have to be done).

      One of the largest tasks I can think of that a linguist could face is to be confronted with a totally unknown language with no Rosetta Stone and have to work it out from scratch. I think that it would be a staggering achievement for most linguists to be able to write "Created the first dictionary to translate to and from this language".

      And yet nearly every person in the world has done this *as a child*. They started out with no common ground -- they can't think "Okay, what's 'rock' in this language?". They figured out not only the language but all the concepts that it attempts to express. Even the guy that pumps gas at the gas station did that. That's an amazing intellectual accomplishment.

      How long does it take to learn to use a computer effectively? I mean, ground zero, a computer newbie to the level that an power user on Slashdot has? Three years? Four years? Surely at least that.

      You've spent a lot of time learning all this. If you get frozen at age sixty, that is *sixty years* of learning and training that you've expended on building yourself. Sure, some things stay the same -- the laws of physics are probably going to remain the same, and throwing a ball in the future is probably going to be similar to doing so in the present. But language shifts quickly -- English from a few hundred years ago is totally incomprehensible to an English speaker today. All the locations and things that you've learned -- how to drive a car, etc -- are useless. And there's knowledge to be *unlearned*, as well -- maybe there are no toilets in the future. Maybe cooking knowledge is obsolete in the future because we have automated food production devices that everyone uses.

      Maybe for a young child, this wouldn't be so drastic, but I think that it would be quite a shift for a senior citizen.

      I mean, honestly, suppose Benjamin Franklin was around today. In his time, he was a learned man in many fields and a scientist, as well as a diplomat. But today, we've shot so far by him in the fields he student that he wouldn't have much more applicable knowledge than a teen would. Mathematics is still the same, but the ability to rapidly do arithmetic is no longer a crucial skill. You don't ride horses, you don't use an outhouse, we have childproof caps on medicine bottles. Our aesthetics have changed -- the comfortable styles that he grew up with will be gone, replaced by smooth, simple, artificial structures. His political knowledge would be out of date and useless. Social norms are quite different from his day. Heck, he didn't have *railroads* in his time. I'm sure that based on who he is and the fact that he was exceptional for his time, he'd find a way to get along...but I don't think that it would be all that easy. And the question really is -- would society be better off with an aging man with a good knowledge from 250 years ago, or someone who has learned from the start to live in current societyy.

      I also wouldn't trust the cryo-storage companies. They plan to keep you frozen for, what, a hundred years? No company worries about anything one hundred years in the future. Four is usually pushing it. Nobody except for maybe your great-great-grandkids will have an interest in ensuring that you are safely revived.

      --
      Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
  7. Who would want you? by bhhenry · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Funny to see this article so soon after viewing Final, a movie about a man who wakes up in a mental ward after being cryogenically frozen and then finds himself a ward of the state in more than one way. Or the Philip K. Dick story I just read about a man who travels into the future, but isn't worried about making his way, because he is a doctor, and society can always use a doctor, right?

    Seriously, if the technology worked as planned, what would you do after being thawed? Go back to grade school to catch up on the basics? Would any of your skills be useful to anyone? Unless you were a popular historical icon, who would want to bother with you? An archeologist or historian?

    Add to all of this the fact that the population of Earth is already expanding at an alarming rate.

    --
    signature not found
  8. Re:Family members by pmancini · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The estate could claim that his state of inanimation does not constitute death and that the freezing process is part of a long medical procedure.

    Of course his greedier heirs would then have themselves frozen with orders to be revived when he wakes or is declared dead!

  9. Re:Before any says... by GigsVT · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If he spent that money, the companies and people he bought products from would be richer (as would all their suppliers), and he would get a product that he enjoyed more than the idea of having that much money in the bank. Win-win.

    The economy doesn't work if no one spends money.

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  10. Re:Rule against perpetuities by CmdrPorno · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Do you have any idea what you are talking about? The rule against perpetuities applies to future interests in any property--land, objects, or money. Upon your death, you can not set up a trust to devise all of your estate to your descendants 200 years down the line, none of whom have been born yet.

    link

    --
    Sent from my iPhone
  11. Re:Rule against perpetuities by agibbs · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The rule against perpetuities, in most states, has an exemption for reversions to the original grantor. Furthermore, the original grantor fills in all the gaps created by grants that violate the rule against perpetuities. This means that it would present no bar to a person's estate retaining money even hundreds of years in the future. That said it would likely raise some very interesting legal issues.

    Furthermore, many states have recently effectively eviserated the old common law rule against perpetuities so, while it is an interesting and mind bending exercise for first-year law students, there is little real applicability of it today (or so my Property professor told me...)

  12. you talk about something you know nothing about by Cryofan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    as a signed up Alcor member, please allow me to disabuse you of some of your mistaken ideas:

    1. "all that money": Alcor is the best cryonics organization in the world. And there are only two...
    But Alcor is a nonprofit, and no one working there makes much money at all. In fact, almost everyone working there is either poor or independently wealthy.

    Also Alcor does not take in enough money to even cover its expenses. Most members are middle class, but some can afford to donate large sums, which is how Alcor stays solvent.

    2. Cryonics, for cryonicists, ties into the hardwired religious-epiphany-ectascy circuitry in our brains. You know that many people (most?) get a rush from religion? Well, that same religious feeling is what makes cryonics tick. It gives us an "out" just as does religion. Except of course our "out" is something that depends on real world physics and human nature.

    So, cryonicists who work at cryonics organizations are sort of like monks.They do it for the love of cryoncis, and in the hope that if they can build up cryonics enough so that society accepts it and we get a lot more members, we can make it a self sufficient enterprise.

    So if cryonicists working at Alcor do something bad, they screw up their own chances to be revived in the future.

    Do you now understand one of the major strengths of cryonics?

    --
    eat shiat and bark at the moon
    1. Re:you talk about something you know nothing about by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Also Alcor does not take in enough money to even cover its expenses. Most members are middle class, but some can afford to donate large sums, which is how Alcor stays solvent.

      So they can't cover their expenses well? So what is there to assure a person that Alcor will still be around in even 100 years? What happens to the corpsicles if they go bankrupt?

      Well, that same religious feeling is what makes cryonics tick.

      I can understand that, at least understand that to one who does not understand faith would think that. Faith and religion is something much deeper. I, and others I know who are quite rational, have seen things that cannot always be explained by science. You've given the basic non-believer view of religion and/or spirituality. In your words, you talk about something you know nothing about. I've given up on trying to explain any matters of faith or religion or spirituality to a non-believer. Trying to explain faith to one who puts it in such logical, scientific terms is like trying to explain color to a blind man, or sex to a virgin. Sure, you can say, "You do this and this, and it feels good and the man does this and the woman does this," but there is no way you can describe the actual emotional connection with another person to someone who has never experienced it. That only comes to those willing to love and get close to someone and to take that "leap of faith."

      So, please, don't criticize others for speaking in ignorance when you are doing the same thing.

    2. Re:you talk about something you know nothing about by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm not. I had very deep faith and gave it up for Lent one year. I spent years as an athiest, then felt called in another direction. I've seen both sides of the fence. I've also learned that those who don't believe have never really felt that extra connection that is true faith -- if a person has felt it, they know. If not, well, then, they just might drop faith and turn 100% scientific.

      That's something someone who thinks they believe, or has learned to act like the believe, or who takes a religious text literally and doesn't question it -- then one day learns something they never expected, can do, but someone who has had a true faith connection is not someone who can drop it and say that only the logical exists. And that is also one of those things that those who don't have it just don't get -- again, like trying to explain the bond you get having sex with someone you love to a virgin who hasn't even dated someone regularly.

  13. Alimony by knapper_tech · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Some woman is going to find a way to marry this guy while he's under and bleed him dry...unless of course there's a constitutional ammendment defining marriage as between a fully animate man and a fully animate woman.

    --
    "There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell them." ~ Louis Armstrong
  14. Re:Or.... by Jim+Hall · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Or he could wake up in 300 years in sick bay with no money at all.

    Wasn't there a Niven short story on this topic? I don't have the reference handy, but a guy with some terminal disease had his body frozen, expecting that a future generation would thaw him out when a cure had been discovered.

    Thing was, he was revived thousands of years later, and while they had long since found a cure for his disease, he suddenly found himself with no money or rights. Hundreds of years before, the courts had established it was unfair to the economy (I think) to let a clinically dead person retain a bank account (which was still accumulating compound interest) and so had those accounts turned over to the State. Similarly, it was decided a dead person has no rights, as he has not participated in government.

    So this guy wakes up to discover he's being tested/trained to be a space pilot, by way of paying back his debt to society. Or something.

    Kind of puts a new perspective on things: What makes you so darn sure that future generations will want to thaw you out, and why should you expect to just pick up where you left off?

  15. Useless bit of Red Dwarf trivia... by Gildersleeve · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The joke was originaly from a radio sketch comedy show from the early 80s called 'Son of Cliche', with the Red Dwarf writers and Chris Barrie among the cast. Barrie was the original Dave Lister.

  16. Synaptic degeneration by TheSync · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think the big problem in cryonics is that after 5 minutes of hypoxia, synapses start to degenerate. I really think this is a significant information loss, not something repairable. Even if you could put some of the neurons back together, you will have a hard time figuring out which neuron is connected to which and with what strength.

    Perhaps your body could come back, but unless you are frozen pretty much immediately upon onset of lethal hypoxia, the brain you come back with will not be much like your own.

  17. Re:STTNG by MagicDude · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The food replicators actually make sense, even if they are more energy intensive than cooking your own food. The replicators mean you don't have to keep large food stores on the ship which can rot. I don't know for certain what the stock material for the food replication is, but I'd imagine it's easily stored in small areas, and with the same material can be used to make steaks or self-sealing-stembolts, so it's very utilitarian. You also get a large variety of meals that can be prepared, which can help keep morale up on long missions, compared to how the crew would feel about having their selection of 6 flavors of rehyrdated gruel 3 times a day. There's also the part of not needing kitchen facilities or cooking personel on the ship. We've all seen how the Enterprise is a ship full of officers and no enlisted personel. Consider that most of the menial tasks on the Enterprise are automated; cooking, cleaning (The enterprise has been called a "self cleaning ship" in a few episodes), probably other things like laundry and stuff too. I'm don't have any experience with naval operations, but I think that modern ships have mainly enlisted men doing all the drugdery necessary for ship operations like cooking cleaning, and the like. With the enterprise having those things automated, they need fewer enlisted and thus have room for more officers for things like the dozen or so science departments on the enterprise.