You notice I made no effort to define or operationalize "badness"? The scenario in which the "bad" people aren't reanimated is an edge case, a concession to the fact that some people are generally agreed to be "bad", but a consistent and widely agreeable definition of badness is difficult to get right. I don't know what it is, but If anyone does, I'm all ears!
You notice I made no effort to define or operationalize "badness"?
Yes, but the point is that people who characterize somebody as "bad" or "good" and people who decide which bodies to jettison are different people who don't necessarily share a vocabulary, never mind a common value system.
If you don't define "bad", then I don't understand what does this mean:
I'm entirely comfortable with considering a person's "badness" as a factor in the decision of whether or not to jettison them.
This month's media thread includes a short article on some people's idea to have Ayn Rand frozen, which ultimately didn't happen. My first reaction was a shudder. I thought, I definitely wouldn't want Ayn Rand preserved forever. My second thought was, What right do I have to say who can and who can't get frozen?
Whatever your thoughts on Ayn Rand, I think this can spark an interesting conversation: What, if anything, should humankind do about people who are widely seen as harmful for the whole? For example, if the Castro dynasty in Cuba or the Kim dynasty in North Korea decide to freeze themselves to ensure they will continue oppressing their countries forever, should that be prevented? (And yes, my opinion of Ayn Rand is such that these examples came to mind.)