Dennis (and others) argue: The chances that average frozen body would be tried to be restored are close to zero.
I keep seeing variations of this argument, and it strikes me over and over as a ridiculous argument because it utilizes a number of faulty premises in creating its conclusion: mainly, that an economic or utilitarian model is or will be the driving force behind such a choice; and more deeply flawed, that humans’ choices are or will be some set of monolithic guidelines to which all and sundry do or will subscribe.
That is, the claim arises, “I wouldn’t bring back a bunch of people from the Middle Ages, because I don’t see the value in it,” and to make the argument the speaker assumes, “therefore no one would do so or see value in it.” Ignoring both the logical error and the fact that there are people today, who have such funding, who would like to bring a mammoth back to life, or a Bronze Age man frozen in a glacier—even if it is only (today) through some process of cloning, entirely despite the absolute lack of economic or utilitarian need to do so, or the nay-sayer’s own views of the value of such an attempt.
The frank truth is that the world, its governments, its scientists, its researchers, and so on will not act as one, and any argument founded in any way upon the belief that they will are poor, thoughtless, narrow arguments. The world of the future, like the world of today, will have plenty of individuals who will be fascinated by or even driven to bring back the (frozen) dead for one reason or another.
Thus the claim that no one will ever want to bring back the (frozen) dead is about as much nonsense as the claim that “It is inconceivable that anyone would ever want to give birth to a cloned human baby, much less put any amount of research into such a possibility” or “It is inconceivable that anyone would want to eat or grow cloned meat or genetically altered grains.” A claim clearly disproven by the fact that some groups clearly would like to do this and have been researching the possibility (or even claiming success in such an enterprise) right now today in the face of years of previous skepticism.
So the truth is that SOME people won’t, but SOME people will. And some of those who wish to, will have, find, or create the means to do so.
Dennis (and others) argue: The chances that average frozen body would be tried to be restored are close to zero.
I keep seeing variations of this argument, and it strikes me over and over as a ridiculous argument because it utilizes a number of faulty premises in creating its conclusion: mainly, that an economic or utilitarian model is or will be the driving force behind such a choice; and more deeply flawed, that humans’ choices are or will be some set of monolithic guidelines to which all and sundry do or will subscribe.
That is, the claim arises, “I wouldn’t bring back a bunch of people from the Middle Ages, because I don’t see the value in it,” and to make the argument the speaker assumes, “therefore no one would do so or see value in it.” Ignoring both the logical error and the fact that there are people today, who have such funding, who would like to bring a mammoth back to life, or a Bronze Age man frozen in a glacier—even if it is only (today) through some process of cloning, entirely despite the absolute lack of economic or utilitarian need to do so, or the nay-sayer’s own views of the value of such an attempt.
The frank truth is that the world, its governments, its scientists, its researchers, and so on will not act as one, and any argument founded in any way upon the belief that they will are poor, thoughtless, narrow arguments. The world of the future, like the world of today, will have plenty of individuals who will be fascinated by or even driven to bring back the (frozen) dead for one reason or another.
Thus the claim that no one will ever want to bring back the (frozen) dead is about as much nonsense as the claim that “It is inconceivable that anyone would ever want to give birth to a cloned human baby, much less put any amount of research into such a possibility” or “It is inconceivable that anyone would want to eat or grow cloned meat or genetically altered grains.” A claim clearly disproven by the fact that some groups clearly would like to do this and have been researching the possibility (or even claiming success in such an enterprise) right now today in the face of years of previous skepticism.
So the truth is that SOME people won’t, but SOME people will. And some of those who wish to, will have, find, or create the means to do so.