(replying to this so long after the comment was made because of seeing other recent comments on this thread) I don’t see it as a personal insult, but I don’t see it as novel either. I see it as part of the “why would people in the future bother reviving anyone from the 21st century?”. Its a standard objection, and the standard answer is that it isn’t very different from asking why people in the future would bother to give medical care to unknown people arriving at a hospital in an ambulance. If the society is rich enough, and humane enough, it will probably do both. If the society is either too poor or too inhumane, it will probably do neither. (I’m folding the technological capability of reviving a cryonicist in with measuring the wealth of the society) This isn’t fruitless iconoclasm, it is rehashing of decades-old discussions.
(replying to this so long after the comment was made because of seeing other recent comments on this thread) I don’t see it as a personal insult, but I don’t see it as novel either. I see it as part of the “why would people in the future bother reviving anyone from the 21st century?”. Its a standard objection, and the standard answer is that it isn’t very different from asking why people in the future would bother to give medical care to unknown people arriving at a hospital in an ambulance. If the society is rich enough, and humane enough, it will probably do both. If the society is either too poor or too inhumane, it will probably do neither. (I’m folding the technological capability of reviving a cryonicist in with measuring the wealth of the society) This isn’t fruitless iconoclasm, it is rehashing of decades-old discussions.