• You know I love the idea of cryostasis, and the idea of reanimating people after death is great.

    But why the fuck would future humans bother bringing all these people back, even if they could? Even if they have a utopian society free of scarcity and inequality, they would be bringing back mostly rich people who lived in a super different and bad time and have literally nothing positive to contribute to the utopian future, since they were a large part of the problems of today in the first place. Plus the vast majority of them are almost certainly elitist assholes who nobody in a utopia would want to be around.

    Maybe it would be a humanitarian thing, but if these people are dead and frozen there’s no real imperative to do this to end suffering or something. Or I guess maybe bringing them back to try and figure out what the hell their damage is that they felt ruining everything was a better option than working toward the betterment of all… but they’d only need a few brains in vats for that, no bodies, so sucks to suck, cryofolks.

    If future humans don’t have a utopian society, the only real use for people from so long ago that I can come up with would be research subjects or slaves. And frankly there are easier ways to go about getting those…

    So I see no possible future where people who cryopreserve get brought back en masse. Even if it’s entirely possible to surmount the technical hurdles.

    •  clara   ( @clara@feddit.uk ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      452 months ago

      why would future humans bother bringing all these people back

      i think it’s worth reminding why doctors treat people now, in this time and space. they do it mostly because they want to save people. maybe a few do it for money, but past a certain point, the money isn’t why you do it. i think it’s a safe bet that doctors of a future would see these corpses as patients, and act accordingly. an analogy - think how we see heart attack victims as patients, and not how our medieval ancestors would have seen them (as corpses)

      …literally nothing positive to contribute to the utopian future…

      true, but, a good chunk of patients in hopsital today have nothing to contribute to society, and cannot contribute any more, whatsoever. we treat them anyway, because that’s what we do. humans have consistently cared for others that are sick and have “nothing to contribute” throughout history, and that shows no sign of going away anytime soon

    • I think they’re frozen before they’re dead, so the reason to bring them back would be to not do that murder thing, and also to fulfill contractual obligations, and as a business showcase to the world that you’re ready to receive more customers for a freeze and bring you back service instead of a freeze and kill you service.

      • Admittedly I don’t know much about cryopreservation (looked into it many years ago as a curiosity) but my understanding, and the article says the same, is that they clinically die first and then it’s a rush to preserve them before too much breakdown happens. Since it’s quite expensive, most people only preserve their brain or head, which is removed before being frozen. I’m not sure legally they would be able to do this pre-death, since the harvesting/preserving would directly cause death as we currently understand and classify it, and assisted euthanasia of any flavor is illegal in most places.

    • That’s because you’re thinking in term of a society that views most people as a burdensome and undesirable liability. Something we wish we could get rid of faster if possible. It might be tgat in the future, human minds aren’t as poisoned by clubofrome population omb neoliberal billionaire thinking.

    •  dev_null   ( @dev_null@lemmy.ml ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      9
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      But why the fuck would future humans bother bringing all these people back, even if they could?

      There are many valid issues to raise with this bring unlikely to work, but this point seems silly. Why would a road maintenance worker fix a pothole, he’s not from around and will never benefit from it? Because it’s his job he’s paid to do, and he’s not having a philosophical discussion about it. Whatever future lab technician will be just going to work in the morning as well, paid by their company, funded by the money the preserved people paid. There isn’t much to it.

      But it’s interesting you said that future humans would kill these people because the preserved people are useless assholes. I’m not that sure you labeled the assholes right in your scenario. Your future humans seem ageist and elitist, thinking only they deserve to live.

      There is at least one example I remember from the news of a 20-something girl with cancer being preserved, paid for by pooling money from the family and donations. Unlikely to work but she would have died anyway. So what did she do wrong that she doesn’t deserve to be woken up, in your future where the technology is there?

    •  SkyNTP   ( @SkyNTP@lemmy.ml ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      A financial, legal, or even just a tit-for-tat incentive is realistically all it would take. You assume that some utopia that has shed those ideas is the only one capable of such technology.

      In reality, it’s greed and self-preservation that is running this show, and this is all that is needed to produce awe-inspiring feats.

      • okay but how do you establish any of those incentives with people who simply don’t exist? eventually the agreements fall apart as all parties involved are either dead or cryostatic, and the agreements will have to compel someone who was never party to them to take some sort of action. Like, I guess you could put a reward in trust but even then you’d need some sort of legal entity to manage and distribute it that would, itself, need an incentive in trust in order to continue, and so on in an infinite regression.

      • I certainly don’t think a utopia is the only option and even have a bit in there about non-utopian societies.

        Utopian societies that are post-scarcity are just the most likely to have the resources and desire, and even then I’m not seeing it as realistic.

        And how are you going to incentivize something decades or centuries down the line? I’m not seeing that one working either.

    •  Umbrias   ( @Umbrias@beehaw.org ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12 months ago

      “Why would a society bring people back to life when they [describes why you think they deserve to die]”

      Happy to know you’re not going to be solely responsible for bringing them back!