Nicolai Federov thought that humanity should have the goal of Resuscitative Resurrection. When this procedure becomes possible, who do you think we should resuscitate first? (Spoiler Alert: no easy answers)
Before you begin to prioritize you must first begin with a criterion from which to judge the question. I am inclined to make the decision a just one. Some may feel that social utility is most fair, though hard to determine. Then there are the bias and motivated decisions that may be made by mobs or individuals making self-interested and/or impulsive decisions. This last option I find difficult to apply to a question that implies such a high level of social advancement, however the readers are generally not at such a point yet and will still reflect many of these attributes. You will get an innumerable amount of options by personal preference and hence must decide on a philosophy from which to judge the question to reasonably obtain a suitable set of options to evaluate.
My first inclination is to make the just choice and consult the Original Position. This would be the most just determination of how to organize Resuscitative Resurrection. With no knowledge of your own standing in the world’s categories; hence unable to make a decision bias to your own preference, how would you determine the outcome of a selection? A logical conclusion from this stance is to give life to those who lost it at the earliest stage: babies, children and on up to centenarians. However you may decide Utility is a better tool than Justice to make this determination, and so Humanitarians, Inventors, Engineers, Scientists, Professors/ Teachers and on to Lawyers, Politicians and other sociopaths at the tail end just before the youths, as their social utility is undetermined. Utilitarian answer’s are always grey; as many people’s existence was a product of their environment, someone who caused great harm in one life may achieve great good in a different circumstance. Also such an advanced society must have resolved all of its problems, if it has been able to turn its united focus towards conquering death. So we can assume that Justice Reigns and Common Utility have been achieved.
The alternative is to acknowledge the decision to be bias to reader’s preferences, in which case all sets may differ. The question itself implies, but does not specify limits on how many can be resurrected at once. This vague limit seems just to be there to test the bias of the reader. Some have discussed this in terms of how much it will cost and how who will foot the bill will determine in which order we are resurrected. In such a case the victims of the richest first and those with the poorest liable parties last? Those without resource would then be resuscitated into a life of indentured servitude. Hardly a world I would care to come back to! Another approach is to bring back those who expressed an interest in coming back, then follow with the rest. However for a society that ultimately defeated death, it is only reasonable to assume when given a question as this they simply answered: everyone. Until we reach a universal social advancement where that answer is the unanimous personal bias, I’m afraid this will remain just an exercise in ethical preponderance.