My name is Aurelia Song and I hope to make whole-body, human, end-of-life preservation for future revival a new global tradition. I care about it so much I've dedicated my life to it.[1]

The biggest objection I get to end-of-life preservation goes like this: "We can't revive today, so we can't prove that preservation works. Therefore preservation probably doesn't work. We shouldn't bother with preservation until we can revive." I call this the immediate revival objection.

I respect the immediate revival objection. If your standard of evidence is full recovery, then you don't need any knowledge of how people or mental processes work on the inside to evaluate preservation; you can just observe that they survive a round trip.

I think requiring revival, now, is reasonable a priori—it's analogous to how I feel when people talk about new kinds of quantum computers: I'll believe it when they're actually doing something useful.

However, in my opinion the logic of the immediate revival objection is too conservative when it comes to end-of-life preservation. Instead, I think that as a scientific community, we've known enough to preserve people for at least 30 years. I think we can and should start preserving people [...]