Goonhub
05-18-2024, 04:04 PM
There's definitely two directions this thread is going.
1. Puritans in the true sense of the word should imply a dislike/distaste for being revived, but not so much a genetic instability. It should instead be considered more a crime, and be akin to assault/murder, as you have knowingly gone against someone's wishes, and perhaps could simply be handled via DNR.
2. The name itself could be changed and the genetic instability kept and expanded upon, making it more of a procedure to clone these individuals, if not outright making it only possible to revive them via borgification.
---
Personally, I have long held the belief that people who die should first and foremost consider it a privilege to come back. This is especially true for people who were not clonescanned before death. Frankly, I wouldn't be opposed to making it harder to clone people in general, both in terms of scanning and the actual procedure. If we do go down the route of renaming it to genetic instability, it wouldn't be amiss to have a little marker in the cloner records that would display it as such, just for convenience. If need be, one could even change the cloner to be only handled by medical personnel (which for some strange reason it still is not)
1. Puritans in the true sense of the word should imply a dislike/distaste for being revived, but not so much a genetic instability. It should instead be considered more a crime, and be akin to assault/murder, as you have knowingly gone against someone's wishes, and perhaps could simply be handled via DNR.
2. The name itself could be changed and the genetic instability kept and expanded upon, making it more of a procedure to clone these individuals, if not outright making it only possible to revive them via borgification.
---
Personally, I have long held the belief that people who die should first and foremost consider it a privilege to come back. This is especially true for people who were not clonescanned before death. Frankly, I wouldn't be opposed to making it harder to clone people in general, both in terms of scanning and the actual procedure. If we do go down the route of renaming it to genetic instability, it wouldn't be amiss to have a little marker in the cloner records that would display it as such, just for convenience. If need be, one could even change the cloner to be only handled by medical personnel (which for some strange reason it still is not)