There's something archetypical to this story. The rich have been trying to use their wealth to buy immortality for at least 4000 years—what we're looking at here is just a modern form of mummification, with a veneer of science instead of religion.
Who's to say that future scientists won't find studying these modern-day mummies just as fascinating?
[1] https://sites.manchester.ac.uk/knhcentre/research/current/ma...
That said, my only comment to this train of thought is that at least the building in the video takes up less space & resources than a pyramid.
Empirically, we're obviously way ahead of where humans were at the time of mummification, so I think it's a silly comparison anyways.
Depending on your values the scientific veneer may be more appealing than the religious one, but neither is founded in particularly strong observational evidence.
Step 3 is still very much not compatible with known science either, so as far as you can tell the success rate is the same as it was back then
That one Star Trek TNG episode from 1987 had this right. The accidentally discovered 21st century cryogenists are stunned to find their former wealth and status are irrelevant in Picard-era Federation.
I think the question at that time would be: “Do we bring these likely brain-damaged people into a world they can’t understand and which would cause them pain” — and the answer might be “No, that would be cruel”.
Some people already paid to maybe suffer that cruelty in the future, the same way some people already paid to go to the Titanic in an uncertified submarine and die.
There's an old saying "you can't take it with you".
Shabti are so common that they are the only actual artifacts you can export from Egypt without special permission/licenses. Most are going to be fakes or replicas. Some can be rather dull looking. The ones made out of faience tend to be fabulous.
There was at least some basis to thinking there was an eventual way to get there, even if now it seems cargo cult-ish
Science is some people religion nowadays
Other than that, you don't deserve to use computers, networks, electricity, radio, cell phones, AI, room temperature superconductors, cars, air conditioning, mathematics, logic, antibiotics, or medicine, if you falsely believe science is a religion.
But if you're into religion, then logical consistency and truth seeking isn't your thing anyway, so you probably do hypocritically enjoy all the benefits and convenience of science anyway, while believing in invisible ghosts and magic, without a shred of proof.
...At its best. That's not uniform across different fields; "social sciences" such as psychology are inherently a lot less rigorous than, say, chemistry. Also, there have been a few recent HN headlines about prestigious researchers withdrawing publications due to accusations of fraud. Let's not get into confirmation bias, tribalism, and whatnot, OK?
> But if you're into religion, then logical consistency and truth seeking isn't your thing anyway
It depends. Some claims based on religious beliefs are falsiable and happen to be scientifically dubious. However, many things are more philosophical in nature and aren't examinable by science. It seems there's pretty good evidence that Jesus died and resurrected, if only because the Roman soldiers probably wouldn't obscure details that would damage the credibility of Jesus' religion. Does this mean God exists and is as is described in the Bible? No, not necessarily. But you'd do well to consider that "science" isn't the end-all be-all answer to the universe. "Science", as we often deviate significantly from the spirit of scientific inquiry, which still isn't the key to omniscience.
What? What's the evidence that he resurrected?
If that's not sarcasm then you just proved GP's point.