[btmorex]

If you're going to invent scenarios, you should invent realistic one's. For example, I'm fairly confident that you couldn't solve the problem of brain duplication for a trillion dollars. The NIH budget in 2010 was ~32 billion which isn't close to a trillion, but it's a lot closer to a trillion than we are to duplicating a brain.

On a philosophical level though, a lot of people would probably disagree with your proposed actions. For me, personally, I wouldn't want to "influence" (vaguely kill, but also any of these "duplication" scenarios) someone else's mortality for any amount of money.

[chancho]

You could cure a lot of cancer for $1 trillion. By turning the offer down, are you sure you're not "influencing" someone else's mortality? (That's a rhetorical question, of course. I don't have an answer.)

[btmorex]

So, I did say "any amount of money", not any amount of lives. I do think it's morally okay to trade one life for many (definitely ambiguous in terms of amounts because I don't feel like trying to figure that one out). In fact, I don't think you could justify war without also justifying this moral decision so I don't think it's very rare even if people don't often think about it.

[jimbokun]

"I do think it's morally okay to trade one life for many"

So you're a Spock, not a Kirk.

[JoeAltmaier]

CLoning would be cheaper/possible

[MichaelSalib]

You couldn't replicate memories and consciousness though. And cloning involves a long lead time since we only know how to clone embryos. So from your family and friends' perspective, it would be like you died, since they're not going to enjoy the company of your clone for a few decades and even then it won't have your memory or much of your personality.