Richard Baker wrote:
Suppose that we've more or less perfected cryogenic suspension. People
can be deep frozen and held in that state indefinitely. Thawing is more
problematic. Some percentage of frozen "people" fail to be revivified
at all. Of those who are, all require five to ten years of intensive and
expensive rehabilitation before the vast majority resume a normal life.
While suspended, a "person" has no functional characteristics of being
human at all: "their" metabolism is entirely inactive.
Now, given this, under what circumstances would it be morally acceptable
to pull the plug on a freezer and allow the "person" inside to thaw
without further intervention to a state in which return to life is
impossible? Is it ever acceptable to keep a "person" suspended
indefinitely?
For example, suppose Alice's husband Bob has become frozen in an
accident and Alice can't afford to pay for his rehabilitation without
major changes to her lifestyle. Is it acceptable for her to
destructively thaw him or keep him in suspension for many decades?
Rich
So what, the rest of us don't get to answer it?
I'd say a lot depends on what people's expectations
were of being frozen. One could argue that being frozen
beat being dead, so that people had no business complaining
if they were thawed destructively. They still would be
no worse off than before.
This does seem a bit silly from the point of view of the
society as a whole, though. Why bother to freeze people
at all unless there was a good chance they'd be
rehabilitated eventually? Although I guess you could
plan to freeze them all for 500 years, and let future
medicine and robot therapists deal with the problems.
The way I see it, what is "acceptable" depends on what
is usually done. Do you want to fill this part in, our
leave us to it?
Good question, though.
---David
ROU In the simulation spaces of the Unborn God
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
