X-Message-Number: 16764
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 19:28:56 -0500
From: david pizer <>
Subject: Why beings of the future *will have to* bring us back

>From: Scott Badger <>
>Subject: Re: Why beings of the future WILL reanimate us.
>Dave Pizer wrote:
>>In this brief work, I wish to 
>>argue that there will be moral 
>>and ethical reasons why beings 
>>of the future will bring us back.  

>I made this same assertion in an earlier post,
>maintaining that the medical community will eventually
>be ethically obliged to reanimate cryonically
>preserved individuals if they have the means to do so.

You did, and you were right. As I remember, there was quite a lot of
discussion about this a while back. In this new post, I was not trying to
show all the real life reasons of bringing back frozen beings, as so many
insightful posters already have, but I was trying to show a new and
unrefutable position that shows *why* the moral philosophy will (in
addition to all the other reasons) support reanimating frozen beings in the
future over doing anything else with them.

Up until now, all the posts that I have reviewed have given utilitarian or
absolute (Kantian-type) philosophical reasons why it will be ethical to
reanimate frozen beings in the future.  The inherent value theory is a new
way of understanding the philosophy that will be popular in a future time
where biological immortality is available for everyone and nanotechnology
is making many things affordable *eventually free* for all.  At this future
time, when utility is no longer needed, when you don't need anything as
payment since you have everything, inherent value items will be what has
true worth.  You won't be able to pay for anything since eveyone has

Actually, this wonderful situation would be now, except that us poor and
mortal beings desire things and that gives them their value. There are only
two ways a thing can have value, by desire or inherent value. So for the
time being, when we give something we want something back, because we have
needs too.  But that will not be the case when we do not have any needs
because we have every thing we could need already.  When the things we
desire are available to everyone at no cost, they will have no value,
because once we have everything we will not desire anything and only desire
give non-inherent things value.  (The value in things that are desired, at
present, is determined by what people will pay for them in a free market
enviornment).  When all you have to pay is nothing to get what you desire,
then nothing will be the value of it, unless it also has inherent value.  

I realize that when people have everything they will not want anything
taken away, but if everyone else has everything, no one will want to take
anything away unless they are just plain mean (and there will be ways of
dealing with that), so the possiblity of something having value because it
may be taken away from you is gone.

Example:  In other words, we take air as not having any value as long as we
have the ability to breathe as much of it as we want for free.  If we can
have all the good air we want for free, then we will not pay for it, and so
it will have no value to someone who has extra is everyone else has all the

Usually we have all the air we want for free.   But if some one taints it
or removes it, then it has value - a lot of value.  But ,if no one is
motivated to remove anything from anyone else (because everyone has
everything already), then only things with inherent value will have value.
If no one could ever take air away from you because you and everyone else
has all the air they want, then air, (since you have all you want for free
and it can never be taken away from you) has no value.

Dave Pizer

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16764