Eventually cells deprived of the body’s metabolic processes deteriorate to the point that their functions cannot be restored. If you can prove otherwise, then perhaps Walt Disney’s frozen corpsicle could be a legal person. But the technology at that point will be more along the lines of extending the lives and productivity of the living, who are a renewable resource. So regardless of legality, re-animation just doesn’t appear profitable.
You, my friend, are going to die.
Not if they’re frozen - there’s no activity; no deterioration! (Live embryos can be stored indefinitely and reanimated, for example)
I wouldn’t count on that, actually. Even without cryonics, life extension technologies can be expected to pay off within the lifetimes of most readers…
Embryos, sure. Brains … not so much.
First, you need to overcome that pesky law of increasing entropy.
Because…?
Meaning what? That people can’t be expected to live beyond the heat death of the universe? [:)]
Because brains are different than embryos. If you appear in court and say the corpse has a right in its continued deep freeze, you are going to be asked what is the viability of such technology. Your response will be that it is in the future. This is entirely speculative as opposed to the present fact that your corpse is cold and stiff. So in the battle between your corpse and the guy who doesn’t want to pay for the refrigeration anymore, your corpse is going to lose.
And yes, even if we find a way to reverse the aging process, human beings will not last beyond the point where entropy increases to maximum.
Actually, it’ll be when the sun goes red giant.
Colonizing other galaxies is an option too, you know. And by then it should be feasible and even well underway.
-Jon
I thought like you a short while ago. Death isn’t exactly as cut and dry as it seems on first inspection. Many people who we claim are dead look just fine on the cellular level. Hours after “death” most of the things the body needs to function are still in place and ready to be used. Death is more like a social classification for people that we don’t know how to wake up again. Obviously, past a certain point the information in the brain and other organs are destroyed, but that takes time to happen. It used to be the case that people who were in comas were “dead” but now we know that they can be revived in the future if we keep them going with nutrients and various pieces of equipment. In the future we may not consider people dead until much later than we do now. Perhaps, with freezing technology, even years.
Not if we can make it to another star to use as a power source. By “we” I mean people living thousands of years from now.
Are you claiming this as an article of faith, or as a scientific fact?
The guy paying for the refrigeration and the guy being refrigerated should be one and the same. (And it’s not a “corpse” unless it’s dead, which is the point we’re arguing)
You appear to be saying that a will is invalid because at the time it’s executed the testator is dead and therefore has no rights that need to be respected.
Assuming we don’t have technology either to control the sun or to go elsewhere by then, yes…so people alive today could possibly live to be over 5 billion years old 
Can an individual legally assure (while he is alive) that his body becomes the property of whomever he wishes when he dies? If so, how? If not, why not?
"So again, you may find an altruistic person or group of people to safeguard the corpse from generation to generation, but if somebody along the line decides the mass of frozen hamburger meat is too much of a hassle, then the corpse has no legal recourse because it is not a legal person. "
Is it necessary that the person(s) be altruistic? And if there is a group that claims ownership to the corpse, then “if somebody along the line decides” the corpse is too much trouble, how could he legally dispose of it without violating the rights of the individuals within the group? And if this “somebody” is a part of the group, would it be necessary to acquire the consent of the other individuals in the group in order to make said decision about the corpse?
“the investor would have to be assured of the viability of the technology.”
Not necessarily… If an investor didn’t care one bit about the viability of the technology and instead preferred gambling his money away on it, this would be logical as each scenario involves subjective preferences.
“As things presently stand, there is no foreseeable way to reanimate frozen cells and hence, the expense of maintaining corpses in deep freeze is borne solely by people with enough disposable income to engage in this purely altruistic endeavour.”
As we’re well aware, action implies self-interest. If an individual freely engages in this endeavor, we can know that this individual prefers this state of affairs over alternative states of affairs. Hence no “pure altrusim”…
How it works is that the person who wants to be “frozen” pays the cryo company (e.g., Alcor or the Cryonics Institute) a chunk of money (something like $60,000 to $160,000 depending which company and whether you want your whole body or just your brain preserved, etc. - what you do is buy a life insurance policy that pays out to the cryo company, so you don’t have to come with that amount in one chunk), which is invested and the return is used to pay the costs in perpetuity. There is no “altruist” involved.
The biggest reason why cryonics of living tissue has slowed or stopped in research is the fact that no one has come up with a reasonable method to produce an organic “anti-freeze” to prevent the formation of ice crystals which would destroy the specimens in question (whole humans and human parts for long term storage). It’s not a bad idea, but it’s not the best for long term survival of a specimen considering it’s still its own form of death (your biological functions are shut down for the duration of cryonic suspension). Most life extensionists, like myself, are focused on biological preservation through regeneration and possibly cybernetics should regenerative processes fail. Ultimately, it’s good that no one has put all their eggs in one basket on this one since no one procedure to ensure longer, healthier human lives is guaranteed to work. Getting through all those “wrong answers” is better than pissing away on one “wrong answer” for half a century when the next one could have been the “right answer.”
But when the holder of the annuity decides the payout isn’t profitable any more and abandons the enterprise, the corpsicle can’t sue to keep the trust operating.
Earlier on the Cryogenics movement, bodies were donated and their relatives were expected to keep up regular payments. Obviously after a few years the next of kin stopped paying for the frozen stiff and they thawed out. Today the two organisations want cash up front before the customers body gets dumped in the freezer.
As for the legal ownership of the ‘deanimated’ patient (cryonicists word for dead guy), it belong the cryonics corporation as each member signs up for a whole body donation (much like people allow their bodies to be donated for medical students to disect.) The board of this corporation is elected by fee-paying Cryonics members.
The argument for the cryonics is that since the alternative is certain death - isn’t it worthwhile taking the risk. However in my mind its a question of opportunity costs, what do I have to forgoe for this opportunity. My conclusion is I have better things to spend $35K+ on than a leap of faith, so unless the price comes down competitively in line with standard burial charges I’m donating my body to the worms.
It is interesting though that a great deal of Cryonicists are libertarians.