>what value is there in reviving the dead and frozen rather than preserving the living? Counterpoint: if we had the technology to reanimate someone who died on

>what value is there in reviving the dead and frozen rather than preserving the living? Counterpoint: if we had the technology to reanimate someone who died only 100 years ago (say, born in 1860), don't you think we'd find a hell of a lot of value in that from historical utility alone? >And unlike some other faiths, it's a very expensive option to partake in. If you're healthy and young, and you fund it with life insurance, the cost is on the order of $50/month. I'm not really willing to spend much time doing a rigorous comparison to "other faiths", since this line of thought is spurious, but according to one source[0], the average Protestant in the US gave about $1100 to their church in 2001. [0] http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/religious-people-donate-more-to-church-and-charity/ http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/religious-people-donate...