←back to thread

55 points arielzj | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
michaelt ◴[] No.46198721[source]
When it comes to cryopreservation the thing I find infeasible is the idea a provider would bother with the preservation, under the incentives of capitalism.

If someone pays millions of dollars to a company that promises to freeze their corpse for 200 years, the company can simply freeze the corpse for a decade or two, take the millions of dollars as dividends and executive bonuses, then declare bankruptcy. The dead can't sue.

replies(8): >>46198876 #>>46198898 #>>46198909 #>>46198935 #>>46198967 #>>46198974 #>>46199539 #>>46205255 #
DennisP ◴[] No.46198967[source]
One way to mitigate that would be to put the money in a trust which pays the preservation company a monthly dividend. If the trust stops paying, the company can sue it. If the company goes out of business despite its ongoing revenue, the trust can try to find someone else to take over the storage. We already have trusts that manage wealth for multiple generations.
replies(3): >>46199023 #>>46199751 #>>46203837 #
michaelt ◴[] No.46199751[source]
Let's say there was a power cut and the backup generator failed. The corpse is gone.

What happens to the money in the trust?

replies(1): >>46200058 #
1. DennisP ◴[] No.46200058{3}[source]
Whatever you define when you set it up. Donate to charity, give to your descendants, etc.

Preferably the company would also have liability, giving the trust standing to sue. Then the trust spends some of their money on the lawsuit, and if they win, applies the proceeds as above.