Ok, but if someone is subsidising successful revivals (which is what a prize on each one is), quality of the result will still matter.
No, a prize is a specific way to subsidize. In particular a subsidy based on goals set when the price is formulated.
Having a foundation with a budget to invest into reviving people makes more sense if you care about quality.
No, a prize is a specific way to subsidize. In particular a subsidy based on goals set when the price is formulated.
There’s nothing to stop the foundation paying it from raising its standards over time.
People—at least, the ones sharing the transhumanist worldview—want revival. The people who work on revival want revival. Revival is the goal, not a few piddling millions or billions of dollars. Industrial-scale revival won’t happen until people are satisfied that it really is revival; then and not before will that huge market exist. When prizes are involved, you’re looking at early-stage technology, whose only reason for existing is to become mature technology.
No, a prize is a specific way to subsidize. In particular a subsidy based on goals set when the price is formulated. Having a foundation with a budget to invest into reviving people makes more sense if you care about quality.
There’s nothing to stop the foundation paying it from raising its standards over time.
People—at least, the ones sharing the transhumanist worldview—want revival. The people who work on revival want revival. Revival is the goal, not a few piddling millions or billions of dollars. Industrial-scale revival won’t happen until people are satisfied that it really is revival; then and not before will that huge market exist. When prizes are involved, you’re looking at early-stage technology, whose only reason for existing is to become mature technology.