From: ChuckKuecker (ckuecker@mcs.net)
Date: Sat Jun 06 1998 - 06:32:15 MDT
At 07:11 PM 6/5/98 -0400, you wrote:
>
>How much more resources are needed to support
>a suspended body thatn a buried corpse? In the US,
>each corpse gets its own plot (many variations, but this
>is the norm) while a cryonaut gets shelf-space. At a
>guess, the cryonaut's real-estate usage will average less
>than the usage of the typical US corpse. Furthermore, the
>cryonaut is financially responsible for the maintanence
>expenses, so there should additional burden to society.
>
Cemetary plots are priced so as to provide 'perpetual maintainance', so the
owners get a good enough return on the original plot purchase to make a
profit and mow the lawns 'forever' Sooner or later the cemetary will be
recycled into a housing development and the former occupants moved into a
mass grave somewhere. I believe we will see a trend towards the cremation
of uprooted bodies in the future, to avoid the reburial. Possibly even
legislation forcing cremation if land use pressures run high enough.
At least cryonic suspension can reuse the storage space once the suspendee
is revived, assuming there are still conditions that technology cannot
remedy in the future. Density of cryonic suspension should be much higher
than a mauoleum, etc.
If cryonics goes to mass storage, I hope sufficient thought is lent to
keeping the remains identified such that the revived person can be given
the proper identity on reawakening. Visions of massive bureaucratic
screwups arise..
Chuck Kuecker
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:10 MST