Dead people have no use for money, doing this kind of research is not a waste, in my opinion, even if it is very unlikely to work at this stage.
Umm, people still alive have use for money. The money could go towards helping the lives of the living, so it absolutely is a waste.
Almost everything people in rich countries do is a ridiculous luxury compared to the fact that it costs about $1,000 to save someone from dying of malaria. Most of everything humans do is clearly a waste. We can’t even get it together to prepare for the next pandemic, never mind existential risk. This is besides the fact that nothing matters. There’s no God to ascribe meaning to things. Things only matter if they matter to you.
There is absolutely benefit in doing this type of research even if there is only a small chance that it ends up working.
I wonder: With economies of scale, could cryonics actually become cheaper than end-of-life medical care? Currently the ballpark cost of cryonics is similar to health insurance: https://www.alcor.org/membership/
It wouldn't shock me if cryopreserving terminally ill people would save money overall, given economies of scale. I would certainly prefer cryopreservation over terminal illness! https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/07/17/who-by-very-slow-decay...
The article covers the state of the physical complications quite well. I doubt we will be able to reverse the physical damage and safely reanimate before we learn how to digitize people, so I think the best bet is likely going to be in digitizing the brain after death.
Even if that comes with some damage, we know the brain is pretty plastic and functions well enough even with entire areas missing.
Still seems like a reach. But what's the other option? You can't take the money with you and there's no better alternatives if you would like more time.