Setting aside the scientific barriers of this “Lazarus Project,” let's focus on an ethical issue. If dead humans can be brought back to life, how would we, as a society, prioritize their return? Who gets out of Limbo first? If funds are limited (they always are) who should we initially wrench free from the cold clammy grasp of death?
Here’s four suggestions:
The Honorable Deceased: Kurzweil has said, “if you can bring back life that was valuable in the past, it should be valuable in the future.” Many heroic and intelligent humans had their breath rudely abbreviated; should we haul them back immediately, to utilize their timeless skills? Two examples in this category are Alan Turing, the English computer scientist/mathematician who was persecuted into suicide when he was 41 because of his homosexuality; and Joan of Arc, burned alive at the stake at the age of 19 or 20. Okay, the French maid might have been crazy, but her leadership, managerial, and foresight skills were exemplary.
Dead Babies: Millions of infants have perished in childhood or they’ve succumbed to malnutrition or disease before their fifth birthday. Obviously, they got short-changed. Should we bring back the innocent infants first? Grant them years they never had? One biologist I know disagrees – she believes their failure to survive indicates weaker genes. But this argument is archaic – the nasty germs and mishaps that killed the tots in yesteryear will be incapacitated in the future.
Parents: Sure, this seems sentimental but both Fedorov and Kurzweil would probably vote for this category, due to their filial love. Breeders are not superior to the childless, but there is something symmetrically pleasing about returning to life all those who have bestowed life upon others. Tit for tat? Obviously, descendants would be required to pony up a substantial percentage of the resuscitation fee.
Victims of Genocide: Horrors of history could be partially atoned for if groups who were slaughtered were returned to life via the bank accounts of their executioners. Germany bailed out a bankrupt Greece; can it find funds in the future to resuscitate six million Jews? Turks are in denial, but their economy is healthy and their PR would look better if they resurrected at least one million Armenians. Rwanda’s Hutus can shell out dough to bring back macheted Tutsis, Serbia can pay for ethnically-cleansed Bosnians, and the USA can clean up its own past with resuscitation of Native Americans, and Africans who succumbed on slave ships and plantations.
Ponder the choices, readers. Four options, at least. I conducted a brief survey in my household and my children decided “Parents” were the least deserving. After that, I sought wiser counsel; I interviewed three adults who are professionally-involved in the "resurrection" business.
The first person I queried was Gabriel Rothblatt; he's the Community Organizer of Terasem Movement Transreligion, a "social movement devoted to diversity, unity, and joyful immortality… accomplished by creating consciousness in self-replicating machines that can be distributed throughout the cosmos."
Gabriel's opinion? He said:
Before you begin to prioritize you must first begin with a criterion from which to judge the question. I am inclined to make the decision a "just" one [although] some may feel that "social utility" is most fair… Original Position would be the most just determination… A logical conclusion from this stance is to give life to those who lost it at the earliest stage: babies, children, and on up to centenarians.
However, you may decide Utility is a better tool than Justice... [if so, you'd start with] Humanitarians, Inventors, Engineers, Scientists, Professors / Teachers and [continue] on to Lawyers, Politicians, and other sociopaths at the tail end…
The second authority I sought advice from is the legendary Fred Chamberlain. He was the co-founder of the cryonics organization Alcor Life Extension Foundation (with his wife Linda), and he's presently a "Teacher" of the Terasem Movement Transreligion, and a member of CyBeRev project, which aims to "prevent death by preserving sufficient digital information about a person so that recovery remains possible by forseable technology." Mr. Chamberlinn suggests that:
The individual circumstances of their situations would have to be further delineated. For example, in the case of parents, would we be assuming that their children would be waiting to greet them? As to babies who died and never really got to live, may we assume that the parents whose children they were, were going to 'be there for them' to raise them as they might have? In the case of victims of genocide… wouldn't we expect that others would have formed a support group into which they would fall? Simply the existence of the means 'to bring them back' would be insufficient...
As to highly intelligent people who have immense contributions to make, we are into judgement calls of high selectivity. I identity with this because there is an individual I know who has published such(to me) insightful works that I've scanned and uploaded to a CyBeRev surrogate account works of his which by themselves together with what is known about his personal history would be sufficient (in my judgment) to "get him back in the game"… I'd even commit a "copy" of myself to being his personal guide, for as long as it took for him to fully gain back the immense power I see in his mind. But without a "sponsor" like that, or a group of them, what would be the meaning of just "bringing back" someone? I'm not offering any answers in the above discussion, simply raising questions…"
The third person I interviewed was Lori Rhodes, the Legal Research and Writing Manager of Terasem Movement, Inc., a charity "endowed for the purpose of educating the public on the practicality and necessity of greatly extending human life… via geoethical nanotechnology and personal cyberconsciousness." Lori provided the following observations:
One consideration is an idea espoused in James L. Halperin’s book, The First Immortal, where his characters financially sponsor revivals of friends, loved ones, people of prominence, etc… There is a group formed in 2007 called, "Options for Safe, Secure and Legal Asset Preservation for Post-Resuscitation Access." Many of cryonic's heavy thinkers belong to this group, including several working on plausible revival scenarios.
Of course, there are those who would never be on a list for revival or resuscitation of any nature as they either didn’t desire it or no plans for it were made (i.e. those who were cremated or buried where decay itself affords nothing viable to work from, no DNA or the like). Then there are those who prefer a digital only revival, to be brought back solely in digital form and uploaded into a synthetic or nano-technologically generated body absent the perils or deterioration inherent in biological systems.
Many cryonicists use a prominent figure such as Hitler, Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dommer, Atilla the Hun or Osama bin Laden to emphasize the importance of not allowing certain infamous people to be revived, but they might be missing the big picture on what promises nanotech could hold. Let’s consider Hitler… It was purported that Hitler had neuro-syphilis that affected the brain and very well may have been the reason behind most of his heinous actions. If Hitler were cryopreserved and was to be revived employing nanotech within current scenarios, when his body temperature was sufficiently elevated… swarms of molecular sized nanobots (or foglets) would be inserted into his body and would repair all damaged cells. Upon further warming, and after completing all intended cellular repair, those nanobots could be flushed out of the body... Upon awakening, you might find a person whose leadership capabilities and prowess are geared to do good and not evil as he is no longer afflicted with a neurologic impairment brought on by a sexually transmitted and untreated disease that ravaged his mind and made him the monster he was.
----
Okay readers, now it's your turn. If you want to post your vote or add a new category, just leave it in “Comments” below: