Re: New to this group.

> > >
> > >    If it was possible to restore one or more people from the past today,
> > > would you not do it?
> > 
> > Absolutely not, what point would it serve other than the study them as
> > you would a lab rat.
> 
>    That's the only outcome you can imagine?

     I'm still waiting for a plausable / rational alternative answer. What    
     purpose would it serve other than "because we can" 

> 
>    And one should note that human beings are 'studied' all the time....

     Still not a justification for attempting to revive a dead body.
> 
> > They would have no marketable skills,
> 
>    (shrug) When we were born, neither did we. And probably not for the
> next 15-20 years, either. Even octogenarians go to college.
> 
    Still not relevant to the question in fact it invites another question.
    Why use valuable resources to retrain a popcicle when there will be people
    from that timeframe who might put that opportunity to better use?

> 
> >  again what would be the point in doing so
> > other than "just because we can" ?
> 
>    Um, because it's saving a life?

      Wrong,  they are legally, clinically and biologically dead and will have 
      been dead for some 25-100 years before science attempts to create their
      new Frankenstein. 
> 
> > >    And there's no reason to assume that major assetts/resources would be
> > > involved. Likely no more than the then-current medical technology
> > > available to anyone.
> > 
> > Really ?  Again what would be the point in reviving someone from
> > 25-100 years
> > in the past ?
> 
>    Um, because it's saving a life?

      Nope again. No ones life is being "saved" in these cases. They already
       meet all of the legal and medical criteria used to define what "dead" is.
> 
> > Any time, money, assets spent on reviving someone who's
> > clinically dead (only in these cases) is better utilized on the
> > living.
> 
>    Whose money or assets are we talking about? I can think of far more
> frivolus uses for it.

   Still doesn't answer the simple question I put forth. 

> > Well, someone who's just died as in your example (mamalian reflex I
> > believe)has the priority as it's usually a small child who's the
> > patient.
> 
>    So, if it happens to an otherwise healthy 50 year old, it's okay to
> let them go? One can only conclude that.
> 
   If all measures available at that time have been used with no success then   
   that "otherwise" healthy 50 year old is SOL. 

> > This person is from that time
> 
>    Right. So?
> 
     Again not much of an answer for a rather simple question.

> > and there is a reasonable
> > expectation that every effort be made to resuscitate them. In the case
> > of cryogenics it's generally an adult well past their prime
> 
>    Hmm. Death on schedule. Who is to judge? I'm rather past the average
> life-expectancy of a few centuries ago, but today, only a teenager might
> consider me 'old.' Standards change, as they well should.

    Again I noticed that you've written hundreds of words with saying much,
    how about a direct answer to a rather simple question. Or do we continue
    playing verbal ping pong. 
> 
> > and there
> > is no legitmate reason to attempt resuscitation of them
> 
>    Um, because it's saving a life?
> 
     Nope yet again.  But is perhaps a rather shallow and vain attempt to
     live past one alloted time on earth.  They are simple questions. What 
     makes a person think that anyone in the future will want to revive you
     considering there would be no legal, ethical or moral obligation to do so?
     What makes you think you would have anything to offer in 50-100 years to 
     justify the reanimation of your legally dead body.

> > especially
> > when you take into consideration the damage done at the cellular level
> > by the freezing process.
> 
>    Which one will hardly try until one knows how to repair such damage.
> At liquid nitrogen tempratures, one can wait as long as necessary.

   Again, why would they bother to to wake the popcicle ?

> > 
> > And what would someone who's been on ice for 100 years have anything
> > to offer
> 
>    One won't know, until one revives each individual. Again, some very
> non-productive people exist today. Yo go into this knowing you're likely
> to have to do a lot of catching up. As said above, quite elderly people
> still engage in formal learning, and I'd expect that the means of
> teaching, in the future, will improve, or at least not get worse.

   Still no reason given as to why one would go to the trouble of reviving you.
> 
> >  in order to justify the expense (however minor) and effort
> > used to resuscite them ?
> 
>    So, your worthiness has to be judged before even one cent (or its
> future equivalent) is spent? Or worse yet, make a blanket judgement that
> you have nothing to 'offer' after X number of years?

  Sigh......... still no answer.
> 
> >  I can only imagine the ego involved in those
> > who think they deserve to be brought back from the dead after a period
> > of years.
> 
>    No, it's called self-preservation. The same reason one gets out of
> the way of a truck.

    In this case it's egotistical. Had one gotten out of the way of the "truck"
    one would have no need to go in the freezer. Self preservation is taking 
    care of your health while your living. Not deciding to freeze yourself
    after you've discovered you're dying of an illness with no current cure. 
> > 
> > That still hasn't answered a fairly simple question. Why bring back
> > someone who died 10 to 100 years ago? What could they possibly have to
> > offer society in the future ?
> 
>    Why must they have something to 'offer,' and by what standard? I
> could stand in a nursery, say the same thing, and get a lot of crazy
> looks...

    The baby in the nursery has it's life ahead of it. The person in the freezer
    already had their shot at life. Live your life in the present rather than 
    hoping to get a 2nd chance in the future. Do you honestly think a frozen
    person from the past with god knows what disease or damage is going to be 
    revived and cured of what ails them for altruistic reasons?  I hardly
    thinks so.
> 
> 
>    If, as you say, you've been an EMT, I doubt you've asked yourself
> that question when you treated someone.

    Yes as I said I was an EMT for 10 years, we treated the living.  Those 
    that were obviously dead did not have man power and supplies used on them.
> 
>    Future (and not all that distant) medicine will give yet more options
> that don't exist today.

   Of that I have no doubt but why not save those resources for the people of 
   that time frame.   I'm not opposed to cryrogenics at all, in fact I see it
   as a potentially useful tool in the preservation of endangered species (which
   man is not). It's your money to do with as you choose, and if that choice
   is to have your body frozen in the hopes of resuscitation years later more
   power to you.  I'm simply trying to understand what makes anyone actually 
   think that future peoples would bother to revive you.
>