[gus_massa]

Or give the money to your children so they have a small head start that can use to conquer the world (eventually).

Also, what happens if you are revived?

Where are you going to live? Your home was probably sold a long time ago, or you must share it with all the intermediate revived generations. What about money?

Where are you going to work? Imagine the frozen time was only 100 year. It is difficult to predict what will happen in 100 years, but it is easier to look at the past. Medical doctors didn't have penicillin and Electrical Engineers didn't have transistors. You must take most of your university courses again and perhaps part of your high school classes too.

[knorker]

So what?

You're saying life is not worth living if you're not at least middle class with no big struggles?

[biolurker1]

Yes this argument could be repurposed into: if you are born in Africa there is no reason to live

[gus_massa]

Africa is a big continent, there is a wide difference in income and education level, from country to country and even inside each country.

If you have some spare money to pay a refrigerator for 100 years, you are probably spoiled and want nice living conditions afterwards.

Anyway, imagine you live outside a city and have only a small plot of land for subsistence. After the 100 years you don't have even the small plot of land and don't have the small herd that you inherit from your parents. How/where are you going to live? Farming has changed in the last 100 years. Artificial nitrogen fertilizers have slightly more than 100 years, now there are genetically modified crops, the preferred crops have changed. (Do you know how to harvest soy?) The cattle management has also changed, antibiotics, vitamins supplements, the number of free range herds is decreasing,...

[knorker]

> If you have some spare money to pay a refrigerator for 100 years, you are probably spoiled and want nice living conditions afterwards.

You'd want nice living conditions no matter what you're used to. I really don't understand your point.

Is it "nah, if I can't have netflix I'd rather just die"?

People are very adaptable. What happened more than three months ago doesn't seem to affect your happiness.

So absolute worst case you are thawed out (because you paid for it), but are now completely broke and unemployable, there is zero social safety net or UBI, and no chance for you to even steal food. You are 100% certain to starve to death. So kill yourself then? At least your got a brief glimse of how it all turned out.

I'd rather be alive and work for food in a circus as "the millennial man" than die and do nothing.

[biolurker1]

You are generalizing the argument giving conditions where life is worth it or not. That's not the point. And stop downvoting.

[gus_massa]

There is a trade off:

* You can invest X money for a Y% chance that you will be revived in the future.

* You can invest X money for a Z% chance that your children will survive in %W case of a problem. Like a better surgeon in a heart operation or cancer treatment, or more food stored before a famine, or a home that is not in a floodable area, or more education to get an points to get a visa to another country, some swimming classes to be more healthy, more airbags in the car in case of a collision, ...

Money can buy survival rate when it is correctly invested, the question is which one is the the one that gets more bang for the buck.

PS: Just in case you are wondering, I didn't downvote you.

[knorker]

The best bang for the buck is to buy malaria nets.

I mean if we're talking about saving the life of people who are not yourself. But that would be a huge change in topic.