>> Who's to say that the choice to survive in the distant future is desirable? >Each individual for themselves, obviously. Agreed. Merely pointing out the cho

>> Who's to say that the choice to survive in the distant future is desirable? >Each individual for themselves, obviously. Agreed. Merely pointing out the choice does not have a clear answer. >This obviously contradicts the original assumption that you might actually get revived. Because if you can, so can others. Only those with spare wealth and foresight, which comprises a vanishingly small part of the current population. Most people's loved ones are unlikely to be part of that small population. >But the bottom line is that if the future turns out to be awful, you can always choose to die again. Any society that has mastered the technology necessary to revive you can certainly master the technology necessary to physically or chemically restrain you. >Honestly the bigger question is why the future people would bother to wake you up at all. That is the question. And I fear, upon waking, one may not like the answer...