Government and Biostasis: Friends or Foes

Bad and mixed scenarios for the further future

Biostasis and the law: the past

Up to the present, governments have largely left cryonics alone. So far as I know, no national government has laws specifically dealing with biostasis, either constructive or obstructive. The closest may be the Canadian province that forbids advertising of cryonics.

There have been some local legal challenges by government agencies and officials, some of which have ended up setting helpful precedents. The first of these was the Dora Kent case, starting in 1988. I remember this well because I was involved in it – though not to the point of being arrested as happened (briefly) to several friends. Difficult as it was for Alcor – a tiny organization at that time – this battle with the Coroner and then the Health Department led to cryonics becoming an accepted body disposal method in California.

Not long after that in 1992 came the Mitchell vs. Roe case, in which the California Appellate Court ruled that the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA) applied to cryonics. Being covered by the UAGA means that cryonics organizations benefit from medical personnel who are familiar with the paperwork required for whole body donations and the need for rapid release of the body. A 2010 ruling by the Iowa Court of Appeals found in favor of the Alcor Life Extension Foundation which had gone ahead with the cryopreservation of the remains of Orville Richardson. Siblings were trying to take control of Richard’s remains in order to destroy them. Alcor argued that they had the strongest claim based on the UAGA and Richardson’s written wishes and the court agreed.

In Arizona, the State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers sought to expand the scope of their regulatory authority by claiming that cryonics is part of “embalming.” They based their claim on the definition in the Arizona Revised Statutes, Professions and Occupation, 32-1301. Alcor fended off this overreach but Cryonics Institute for years had to accept some conditions in Michigan.

In 2004, HB 2637 – a bill providing for regulatory oversight of cryonics – was brought before the Arizona State Legislature. This would have regulated cryonics like a cemetery, completely overriding the medical nature of cryonics and the need for rapid movement. Alcor worked against the bill leading to some revisions by the bill’s sponsor, Bob Stump (R-District 9), and eventually to the withdrawal of the bill from consideration by the Senate. A more recent decision in the UK favored a minor’s right to be cryopreserved when one parent opposed.

These decisions show that legal decisions can be helpful in protecting the status of biostasis and in protecting the right to be cryopreserved without undue interference. Even better would be legislation that explicitly recognizes the right to be cryopreserved in each country. We would also benefit from a law against autopsy (without clear value) and laws enabling “death with dignity” are also extremely helpful.

My goal in this essay, however, is not to detail past legal battles and court rulings but to speculate on ways in which governments may intervene in the future – once cryonics becomes far more acknowledged and popular. As a bonus, future scenarios are much more fun that details of past legal battles!

Government and biostasis

These scattered legal and regulatory battles took place in a world where few people understood cryonics and biostasis and where even fewer supported the practice. Biostasis has, for the most part, been too small for authorities to pay it much attention. Now let’s look ahead.

Biostasis organizations have to be prepared to survive and thrive even if membership continues to grow as slowly as it has. But what if growth surges to a much more encouraging exponential? Or more than exponential? What if the idea spreads gradually until it suddenly gets traction and rapidly becomes widely popular? This could happen because of a major breakthrough in medical research, support crystallizing around some respected individual, a reduction in costs that come with scale, or revival of a small animal under laboratory conditions.

It might be when biostasis organizations in the USA have 100,000 members or a million. Whatever the number, states are likely to start sniffing around and poking their noses into our business for a range of reasons. Governments like to regulate and once they see biostasis as a major industry (or heading that way) they will find reasons to regulate it or take it over. The financial and legal implications of large-scale biostasis will make it impossible for governments to ignore.

Legal battles so far have not drawn serious government attention but that could change. If large corporations enter the space, governments are likely to step in – especially in Europe but also in the United States. And, with enough people choosing biostasis, governments might even step in with good intentions to clarify personhood rights, estate planning, and inheritance laws for cryopreserved individuals.

You are familiar with the standard model of how cryonics or biostasis works. Service providers manage membership and arrange SST and long-term maintenance of patients. The service providers are typically non-profits but may make use of nominally for-profit companies for standby, stabilization, and transport (SST) . The long-term maintenance is carried out by a non-profit organization, preferably with dedicated funds that cannot be diverted to other uses. Government plays practically no role in this model. Unless you are an extreme optimist, biostasis organizations will need to continue in operation for decades, perhaps a century or more.

What would government regulation and intervention look like? I’ll go into some intriguing scenarios combining possible responses in a moment but, in general terms, here are some plausible individual possibilities.

As governments accept biostasis procedures as an experimental form of medicine they will seek to either codify or overrule existing practices through rules, licensing, and oversight – just as in healthcare in general. The same burdens seen in other industries are likely including medical licensing, other personnel requirements, and other industry regulations. Governments might push for a public-private approach (as in some scenarios below) or even use taxes to subsidize or fund biostasis. More usefully, if common law does not do it, legislation might clarify legal rights for biostasis patients and establish specific forms for biostasis trusts. Countries with more accommodating attitudes would attract more members.

The specific ways in which governments might regulate or control biostasis will vary across countries. It is beyond my scope here to dive deep into these details. In the USA, given the federal system, core biostasis legal rules could differ by state, just as abortion and drug laws do. The United States seems likely to accept biostasis legally but also to regulate it to a degree that depends on how hard we push back. Much of Europe might see governments taking over biostasis directly or else heavily regulating it.

China – one of the few countries with an established biostasis organization – has so far been supportive without promoting it. Depending on the whim of China’s leaders, biostasis could be suppressed or – more likely if it becomes popular – taken over either with direct control or with heavy regulation as part of an industrial planning approach. In the Middle East biostasis is likely to run into religions barriers, at least for some time.

Apart from the standard downsides of regulation – added costs, added work in complying with paperwork, regulatory capture by the currently largest organizations, vulnerability to bureaucratic overreach and arbitrary judgments, reduced competition, reduced innovation – if government becomes heavily involved, especially financially, biostasis could become subject to short-term, politically-driven thinking. If government takes control of decisions over repair and revival, outcomes would become dependent on other funding priorities.

The future is radically uncertain when we look decades ahead. Even so, let’s throw caution to the winds and construct some scenarios of varying degrees of plausibility (not ranked).

Scenarios

The “Medicare for Cryonics” Model

A government-backed cryonics insurance system allows citizens to opt-in to biostasis coverage, similar to Social Security or Medicare. Individuals contribute small amounts throughout their lives, ensuring affordability. Funds are pooled and managed like a pension or health insurance trust to cover preservation costs and eventual revival. Funding mechanisms could be: payroll deductions (like Social Security), tax-advantaged savings accounts (like a Health Savings Account), and public-private partnership in which government funds the infrastructure, but private cryonics companies manage operations.

This model may offer some advantages:

• Ensures Universal Access – biostasis is not just for the wealthy; anyone can participate.

• Sustainable and Self-Funding – By using insurance or pension-like models, it avoids political volatility.

• Encourages Research & Development – More participants mean greater incentives for revival breakthroughs.

• No Burden on Taxpayers – Funded through individual contributions, not general taxes.

Some potential risks and solutions:

• Political parties could argue over funding level. Solution: Structure it like Medicare or Social Security—automatic funding with no need for annual approval.

• Long-term viability concerns—what if people live indefinitely? Solution: Program could transition to a longevity fund, supporting life extension treatments.

• Fraud or misuse of funds. Solution: Strong trust fund protections, ensuring funds are only used for biostasis purposes.

I present this as a fairly plausible model but I do not favor it. Governments have proven incompetent at long-term planning. Wealthy countries are facing an increasingly urgent and serious financial problem as the population ages and shrinks, creating ever more severe burdens on the remaining workers and future generations.

The Revival Bond System

Governments (or private entities) issue Revival Bonds, which can only be redeemed once revival is scientifically possible. Investors, institutions, or even individuals can purchase and trade these bonds on financial markets. The value of bonds increases over time, providing incentives for technological advancements. The funds generated support for both individual revival and further research.

Revival Bonds would function much like War Bonds worked in the past. Both involve bonds that are government-issued or government backed; they are long-term investments with deferred returns. In the case of Revival Bonds, they would mature only when revival becomes feasible or at specific scientific milestones. Both encourage public engagement in a grand vision. Both could be tradeable on secondary markets, allowing for private investment in longevity and cryonics breakthroughs.

Revival Bonds would differ from War Bonds in some ways. Payouts would be contingent on outcomes. Unlike War Bonds, which had a set maturity date, Revival Bonds would mature only when revival becomes scientifically feasible. This creates a speculative but high-reward investment model, much like venture capital for future human restoration. There could also be scientific milestone payments for advances that move us closer to revival. With private investment (which was only sometimes a secondary market for War Bonds), investors, biotech firms, and research institutions would have a direct financial stake in making revival happen sooner.

This has certain advantages: No taxpayer burden – revival is self-funded by investors, not public money. It encourages private-sector innovation – companies work toward revival breakthroughs to cash in bonds. Long-term financial stability – ensures sufficient capital for both maintenance and revival.

Some potential risks and solutions:

• Bonds may be considered speculative if revival is uncertain. Solution: Governments could match private investment, reducing risk.

• If revival is delayed, bonds might stagnate in value. Solution: Tiered system – partial payouts for scientific progress along the way.

• Possible manipulation by financial markets. Solution: Strict government oversight or blockchain-backed transparency.

The “Deferred Revival Citizenship” Model

This would be rather like citizenship for immigrants where immigrants are legally and economically integrated into the country rather than being viewed as economic threats. Deferred Citizenship means that governments recognize revived individuals as “Deferred Citizens”, ensuring that they have rights and legal protections upon awakening. This includes access to financial support, medical care, and integration programs, without forcing revival decisions to be political. Revived individuals do not claim past assets or inheritances (to avoid economic disruption) but have new economic opportunities.

This approach avoids political conflict over revival since revival is handled scientifically, not politically. It ensures rights for the revived by preventing legal limbo where revived people lack identity or status. It encourages ethical handling by ensuring revived individuals are treated as citizens, not property. It avoids sudden economic shocks because revived individuals start fresh and there is no inheritance chaos.

Some potential risks and solutions:

• Some might oppose revival if it changes population dynamics. Solution: A phased approach—revivals occur at a manageable pace.

• Revived individuals may feel disconnected from modern society. Solution: Cultural re-education programs, support networks, and mentorships with post-revival citizens.

• If revival is expensive, funding could become controversial. Solution: Deferred citizens could work off revival costs, sponsor their own revival, or have access to the Medicare for Cryonics system.

Off-World Biostasis (“Cosmic Retirement”)

This is a scenario that I consider unlikely but far from impossible. Instead of funding biostasis on Earth, governments create off-world cryonics facilities (like space stations or lunar bases). Or they work with private organizations to do this. These facilities are self-sustaining preservation vaults, isolated from political and environmental risks. This is like how governments build space stations with international collaboration.

This approach has several points in its favor, starting with safety from Earthly disasters such as wars, economic crashes, and weather and climate challenges. If achieved through international cooperation, no one government would control revival. A self-contained system could last for millennia if needed. Once in place, no energy would be needed to maintain cryogenic temperatures. If revival is tied to space colonization, it justifies investment in off-world settlements.

Some potential risks and solutions:

• Transporting patients to space is expensive. Solution: Launch costs will keep falling. Brains would be cheap to put into space. Patient transport could piggyback on other missions.

• If space stations fail, preservation could be lost. This is highly unlikely if patients are stored in extremely stable locations (not on the surface of Mars). Further safety could be realized by using multiple decentralized storage sites on the Moon, underground on Mars, or in deep space.

• Future civilizations might forget or abandon the patients. Solution: AI-managed archives ensure future generations remember and maintain biostasis sites.

Each model solves different problems:

• Medicare for Cryonics – Best for fair access and sustainability.

• Revival Bonds – Best for self-funding and investment-driven research.

• Deferred Revival Citizenship – Best for avoiding political and economic disruptions.

• Off-World Biostasis – Best for long-term security and survival.

A hybrid system might be better where Medicare for Biostasis funds preservation, Revival Bonds incentivize research, Deferred Citizenship ensures smooth integration, and Off-World Biostasis provides security.

None of these scenarios involving government appeal to me but we should consider them because governments encroach on all areas of life and will try to do the same in biostasis once it becomes popular enough. Some types of involvement are preferable to others. By having an idea of the possibilities, we can better steer toward the preferred outcomes.

In my personal ideal situation, the government would be limited to passing any needed legislation and enforcing the law. This could include settling the legal status of people in biostasis, their legal status after being revived, standards for establishing continuity of identity or creating a new legal identity, funding basic research if sufficient incentives otherwise are lacking, and possibly helping fund revival of underfunded patients and organizations.