3 ms·

> I hate that. I fully understand. This was my initial reaction too. Thinking about this for a while, I have a different view: If rich people pay for this, it

by mo_42 3y ago

> I hate that. I fully understand. This was my initial reaction too. Thinking about this for a while, I have a different view: If rich people pay for this, it means their money goes into the pockets of people who operate (and own) such storage places. The alternative would be to pass their wealth to their few and already privileged descendants.

patall 3y ago
I think that is entirely the point: to keep the decision what to do with that wealth with those living. Imagine if the people of Egypt would still have to sacrifice one lamb each year for some ancient pharao. Sure, he pays for it, but only by still owing a flock of sheep somewhere that could very well also feed someone. I reality, the situation is so that we could nowadays place solar cells on the pyramids and use them to make money. We do not do that, but we (as a society and by our own rules) would be allowed to do that.
charles_f 3y ago
> it means their money goes into the pockets of people who operate (and own) such storage places. This is thinking too much within system. I don't know why you should need to keep frozen meat to get those resources > The alternative would be to pass their wealth to their few and already privileged descendants. There are alternatives (and more egalitarian and less useless) to the existing system of mostly unbounded inheritance.
JKCalhoun 3y ago
I love the curious irony that, were they to be resurrected, they will enter the world penniless as their assets were already dispersed at the time of their death. I believe the COO in the video alluded to expenses at the time of "resurrection" but I can't imagine any more than a stipend is there for the "Sleeper".
- creer 3y ago
  I would certainly expect that, if you have the means, the money you pay for preservation and resurrection is only part of your genius plan - and it's the only part this company needs to be involved with. After that it's a technical issue of how you would attempt to transmit money to someone who died and was resurrected. Ideas in this directions would be things like trusts or foundations which purpose would be your potential eventual benefit. No idea what's the current goto method for this. For example very long term such entities are illegal in some parts of the world, but legal elsewhere.
creer 3y ago
There is also very little "money at rest" or idle in the current world. Even if you consider real estate, a small fraction of the total and often held through loans, producing taxes and employing people to maintain it. We often hear this notion of "useless use of money" and there is truly very little of that. Same about this "wealth" scary object being passed from one person to un-deserving heirs to the possible detriment of the rest of humanity. Who owns that wealth is very irrelevant: most of it is invested and very productive.

by mo_42 3y ago

patall 3y ago

I think that is entirely the point: to keep the decision what to do with that wealth with those living. Imagine if the people of Egypt would still have to sacrifice one lamb each year for some ancient pharao. Sure, he pays for it, but only by still owing a flock of sheep somewhere that could very well also feed someone. I reality, the situation is so that we could nowadays place solar cells on the pyramids and use them to make money. We do not do that, but we (as a society and by our own rules) would be allowed to do that.

charles_f 3y ago

> it means their money goes into the pockets of people who operate (and own) such storage places. This is thinking too much within system. I don't know why you should need to keep frozen meat to get those resources > The alternative would be to pass their wealth to their few and already privileged descendants. There are alternatives (and more egalitarian and less useless) to the existing system of mostly unbounded inheritance.

JKCalhoun 3y ago

I love the curious irony that, were they to be resurrected, they will enter the world penniless as their assets were already dispersed at the time of their death. I believe the COO in the video alluded to expenses at the time of "resurrection" but I can't imagine any more than a stipend is there for the "Sleeper".

creer 3y ago
I would certainly expect that, if you have the means, the money you pay for preservation and resurrection is only part of your genius plan - and it's the only part this company needs to be involved with. After that it's a technical issue of how you would attempt to transmit money to someone who died and was resurrected. Ideas in this directions would be things like trusts or foundations which purpose would be your potential eventual benefit. No idea what's the current goto method for this. For example very long term such entities are illegal in some parts of the world, but legal elsewhere.

creer 3y ago

There is also very little "money at rest" or idle in the current world. Even if you consider real estate, a small fraction of the total and often held through loans, producing taxes and employing people to maintain it. We often hear this notion of "useless use of money" and there is truly very little of that. Same about this "wealth" scary object being passed from one person to un-deserving heirs to the possible detriment of the rest of humanity. Who owns that wealth is very irrelevant: most of it is invested and very productive.