In the ‘early years’ of redaction when sudden death has effectively been cancelled I could envisage a huge change in behaviour: a massive uptick in people taking part in highly risky pursuits (mountaineering, sky diving, bungee jumping etc).
Also a creation of Westworld-style theme parks WITHOUT THE ROBOTS where you get to have real shoot-outs with real bullets against real flesh-and-blood people and if you happen to cop a fatal wound you know you’ll be dropped in the redaction machine.
In other words a new world of much greater risk taking where the (21st Century) obsession with safeguarding life at all costs is dispensed with. In addition to more general recklessness then, perhaps there will also be more murder because… well, why not? You can just revive the victim. (These leads me to some dark thoughts: do serial killers in this new world just have the same victim every day, putting the body in the redaction machine overnight? Not a pretty picture).
And what would be the most heinous crime in this world? Perhaps this: a crime syndicate that specialises in removing a substantial part of your body mass (a leg and an arm, say) before you can be redacted, to be returned only on payment of everything you own. (How can they be made to pay, you ask? Simple—redact them when fully intact and tell them what you’re going to do with their remains unless they cough up).
Sorry for the random thoughts, but they all popped into my head while reading.
I need more time to consider the broader philosophical and psychological questions around redaction technology once it has become established for hundreds/thousands of years. I suspect humans would adapt in ways that are beyond what we can currently imagine.
Thank you for the thoughts. There is a throwaway reference to people becoming “slightly more brazen”, but (at least to me) things like the terrifying death-shoots you suggest didn’t strike me as that likely. I don’t want to die, but I also don’t want to bleed out slowly in pain. Being told I won’t remember it doesn’t necessarily change my logic. Maybe other people would feel otherwise and I am wrong on how this would go.
Related to your crime idea. One thing that was removed from the story was Jane seeing TV news coverage about war crimes trial. Some warlord is being tried for a campaign of damage against the bodies of enemy combatants (Geneva conventions say the bodies should be preserved for post-war reviving). Some grey-zone stuff where burning a corpse is obviously wrong, but maybe if you happen to shoot someone with an anti-tank weapon and vapourise them its less clear cut. Didn’t make it in because it was too fiddly to explain clearly, and very plot-irrelevant.
Thanks. Fascinating story and great concept.
In the ‘early years’ of redaction when sudden death has effectively been cancelled I could envisage a huge change in behaviour: a massive uptick in people taking part in highly risky pursuits (mountaineering, sky diving, bungee jumping etc).
Also a creation of Westworld-style theme parks WITHOUT THE ROBOTS where you get to have real shoot-outs with real bullets against real flesh-and-blood people and if you happen to cop a fatal wound you know you’ll be dropped in the redaction machine.
In other words a new world of much greater risk taking where the (21st Century) obsession with safeguarding life at all costs is dispensed with. In addition to more general recklessness then, perhaps there will also be more murder because… well, why not? You can just revive the victim. (These leads me to some dark thoughts: do serial killers in this new world just have the same victim every day, putting the body in the redaction machine overnight? Not a pretty picture).
And what would be the most heinous crime in this world? Perhaps this: a crime syndicate that specialises in removing a substantial part of your body mass (a leg and an arm, say) before you can be redacted, to be returned only on payment of everything you own. (How can they be made to pay, you ask? Simple—redact them when fully intact and tell them what you’re going to do with their remains unless they cough up).
Sorry for the random thoughts, but they all popped into my head while reading.
I need more time to consider the broader philosophical and psychological questions around redaction technology once it has become established for hundreds/thousands of years. I suspect humans would adapt in ways that are beyond what we can currently imagine.
Thank you for the thoughts. There is a throwaway reference to people becoming “slightly more brazen”, but (at least to me) things like the terrifying death-shoots you suggest didn’t strike me as that likely. I don’t want to die, but I also don’t want to bleed out slowly in pain. Being told I won’t remember it doesn’t necessarily change my logic. Maybe other people would feel otherwise and I am wrong on how this would go.
Related to your crime idea. One thing that was removed from the story was Jane seeing TV news coverage about war crimes trial. Some warlord is being tried for a campaign of damage against the bodies of enemy combatants (Geneva conventions say the bodies should be preserved for post-war reviving). Some grey-zone stuff where burning a corpse is obviously wrong, but maybe if you happen to shoot someone with an anti-tank weapon and vapourise them its less clear cut. Didn’t make it in because it was too fiddly to explain clearly, and very plot-irrelevant.