Skip to content


Assume some way to effectively pause a human life. It doesn’t matter the means: cryogenics, temporal stasis fields, or anything else works so long as it is possible to essentially stop time for that individual indefinitely and start it again later.

What is the difference between failure to revive and murder?

Bonus points: is it a crime to fail to revive even if the affected person is later revived by some third party?

RSS feed


Comment by amalcon
2007-11-13 20:35:07

Cardinality. It only takes one murder to end someone’s life; it takes everyone with that capability failing to revive.

Of course, if only one person has that capability, then it effectively is the same. Of course, the death (or suspension) of said “only one person” would also indefinitely doom everyone so suspended; it’s very much a degenerate case.

Comment by coriolinus
2007-11-13 20:48:49

Interesting. Assume that the capability to revive is widespread, you’re saying that failure to revive is the inverse of genocide.

I wonder how that could be tried?

Comment by alchemeron
2007-11-13 22:31:44

Answer: consent.


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.