No one, I’d save it in case anything happens to Digit
That actually says a lot about how much someone can mean to you while they’re still here. I get the logic, but at the same time I think part of the point would be giving closure to something already lost. Still, holding onto it for someone you care about feels very human.
What are the rules?
Do they come back the way they were the day they died? At their peak of health? Do they have all their prior knowledge? Meaning if they come back at age 25 and died at 100 years old, do they have the memory of a 100 year old or a 25 year old?
How long will they be around? If it’s for a limited period, do they know their time is limited?
Do they have knowledge of life after death? Can they describe the afterlife?
Who knows about this? Am I the only one or is it a big, public project?
What about if we bring back someone who only spoke a dead language? Do they speak a modern language?
I’d imagine the cleanest version is bringing them back at peak physical health, but with all the knowledge and memories they had at the moment they died. Otherwise it feels less like revival and more like cloning or time travel. As for how long they stay, I think it only works if it’s permanent and they know it. A secret time limit or hidden rules would be cruel, and it would completely change how they behave. I also don’t love the idea of them having clear knowledge of an afterlife. If they knew for sure what comes next, it would distort everything they say and do here suddenly every opinion becomes gospel. I’d keep it semi-public: governments and scientists know, but not a spectacle. Turning it into a public project would reduce the person to a symbol instead of letting them just be human again. Language-wise, I’d assume they keep what they knew, but gain the ability to communicate otherwise you’re reviving someone just to trap them in isolation. Basically, the more normal the revival is, the more ethical it feels. The moment it turns into a gimmick or experiment, it stops being about bringing someone back and starts being about using them.
Bringing back Marcus Aurelius would be…interesting in these times.
Can’t think of anyone else…
The people we admire the most are often the ones already living in our minds so that’s a really nice choice.
My heart would say Robin Williams, but considering that he did it to himself, he might not appreciate the assist.
So in the same spirit of the age, where we need comedy and satire more than anything nowadays, I’m going to say George Carlin.
edit: Thinking about it, it’s a close tie between George Carlin and James Randi.
That’s a really respectful way to look at it. Robin Williams brought so much light, but you’re right reviving someone without considering their own struggles feels complicated. George Carlin makes a lot of sense though; his kind of blunt, fearless satire feels especially missing right now. And James Randi too skepticism and critical thinking could really use a strong voice these days.
