The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

Phobos · 2002-05-12 13:20:48

What do you think will be the fate of the dead in a early Mars colony? I can't really envision them being buried because of the fact the body has a lot of resources the colony could utilize to some extent. Resources like organics and moisture that could be employed for medical and agricultural uses. I'd kind of resent it if I knew I was going to be ground into fertilizer here on Earth but I think I could live with it
if I were on Mars. Of course, I'm sure they'd ritualize such things somehow to properly memorialize the dead and respect living relatives. It could be interesting to see what kind of funerary customs emerge on Mars.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-05-13 06:56:13

Phobos! .... I like your posts and I like your style. But slow down a bit!
We haven't got any astronauts to Mars alive yet ... and you're already trying to figure out what to do with the bodies!!!

Peter Pevensie · 2002-05-13 11:30:12

There are some very interesting religious offshoots to your question, Phobos, given that an early colony is likely to be made up of people of many different faiths, each with its own rituals and beliefs regarding death. In the harsh environment of a Martian base or colony, would those beliefs be subordinated to basic survival, a la the floating colony in Waterworld?

Adrian · 2002-05-13 11:54:11

It's an interesting concept, Phobos. I can imagine that with their express consent, the bodies of individuals could be used for medical and agricultural purposes, although those individuals might want to consult their families. However, I don't think that there will ever be a rule for bodies to be 'recycled'.

Firstly, as much as it makes a lot of sense, many people would have religious or moral objections. Secondly, if the colony is in such dire straits as to require mandatory body recycling, that will be the least of their problems. Any colony should have months of supplies and medicine in reserve at any time - in fact, I would say that they should have years of supplies in excess due to their remote and dangerous location.

I wouldn't be against the colony's administration advocating body recycling, but I would be against anything that made it mandatory. Perhaps an anonymous opt-out system would work best.

Another question - if they aren't recycled, where do you put them? Cremation wouldn't be too difficult, I should think, but wouldn't it be cool to be the first person to be buried out on the surface of Mars? (after a long, fruitful life with a natural death, of course )

clark · 2002-05-13 12:43:25

Religious convictions aside, maintaining the long term survival of any society is the end all be all of the discussion. Irregardless of singular or minority dissent to mandatory "body-recycling", the welfare of the living group is far more improtant than personal or family wishes, especially if these individual wishes go contrary to what is neccessary to maintain stability within a highly regulated enviornment (i.e. ANY space colony). Furthermore, the rights of the living are also greater than the rights of the dead, the dead not even HAVING rights- so their is no legal recourse for those who want to be buried in a manner that is contrary to socieites wishes. A body, after death, becomes mere property that is usualy given to the next of kin or some other responsible group- memrly change the formulation that all dead bodiues become property of the State, and now it becomes legal for the State to dispose of bodies in the manner it deems fit.

There can be a whole slew of reasons why people need to be buried in a manner that they do not wish- environmental contamination is one consideration- the whole terraforming issue aside, if we allow wanton burial of bodies on Mars, we begin biological contamination of the planet. There also may be a need to reclaim neccessary minerals or other components (like water) from the dead... We don't have to list all of the reasons, or even fight over which reasons are bad and which are good- the entire argument comes down to one of neccessity- if any Space Colony society need to use the dead, then they have every right to do so.

Side question- wouldn't putting a dead body in vacum cause it to explode? What is the sense of burying someone on the surface of Mars if they just explode? Maybe you could wrap them in something... but then Mars will be littered with mummies- no free water to aid disintigration.

Adrian · 2002-05-13 13:11:26

I think there are some fundamental assumptions that you make here that are disputable, or simple wrong.

First, you state that the welfare of the society supersedes the welfare of the individual. This is really a matter of opinion, and views will vary with different people. I believe that libertarians may have something to say about this, as well as some of the more thoughtful gun advocates.

Secondly, recycling bodies will have an insignificant effect on the welfare of a colony. Growth of food in greenhouses and extraction of water from the atmosphere or other sources, as well as supplies sent from Earth will far outweigh the few people who will die each year even in a colony of 1000 people. Indeed, on Earth I don't know of a single country which practices mandatory organ donation after death, even though such a scheme could save significant numbers of lives each year and would be very beneficial (but the analogy isn't very apt - organ donation is more significant than body recycling).

Finally, you say: "if any Space Colony society need to use the dead, then they have every right to do so." This is dependent on whether its colonists decide to pursue this course of action, and of course if a colony never 'needs' to use the dead then it's a moot point. If however you are living in a colony completely cut off from Earth with no backup supplies and a food generation system (e.g. greenhouse) which is teetering on the edge of collapse due to its loops being too small, I imagine that the colonists would give body recycling some serious thought.

clark · 2002-05-14 09:37:15

First, you state that the welfare of the society supersedes the welfare of the individual.

Not quite right, I stated that the rights of a living society superceed the rights and welfare of a DEAD individual. Furthermore, the welfare of Society ALWAYS superceeds the welfare of the individual, it is the basis of the Social Compact. We have a right to free speech, however, that right is limited in certain instances becuase it deemed neccessary for the welfare of society- if it were not, we wouldn't have laws about not yelling "Fire" in a crowded room- there are other examples of this precedent.

I believe that libertarians may have something to say about this, as well as some
of the more thoughtful gun advocates.

No, they will, or should, all agree with the premise that the welfare of Society is more important than the individual. If you think it through, you might begin to relaize that your individual welfare is ENSURED by Society- it is in our individual best interests to maintain the welfare of Scoiety, becuase it thus ensures our own. Now, some may disagree as to what is and what isn't important or neccessary for the welfare of Society, however, that is a seperate issue- the one of individual welfare versus Society's welfare is a closed issue... unless you can provide a convincing argument in the face of hstorical evidence.

Secondly, recycling bodies will have an insignificant effect on the welfare of a colony.

This is a moot point. Refrence my previous post, the reasons WHY are immaterial. If thier is a perceived need by Society, then Society has the right and duty to dispose of bodies in a manner they deem neccessary. arguing about wether or not it is really productive is an unproductive exercise.

Growth of food in greenhouses and extraction of water from the atmosphere or other sources, as well as supplies sent from Earth will far outweigh the few people who will die each year even in a colony of 1000 people.

So what? If it is DEEMED neccessary, then the colonists have that right. Even if you prove without a shadow of a doubt that more effecient avenues exsist to reach the same goal, it dosen't matter- it dosen't change the basic tenet that the wishes of Society superceed those of the individual.

Indeed, on Earth I don't know of a single country which practices mandatory organ donation after death, even though such a scheme could save significant numbers of lives each
year and would be very beneficial (but the analogy isn't very apt - organ donation is more significant than body recycling).

Yet mandatory organ donation is a possibility. Customs and what is considered "taboo subjects" change over time. Just becuase it isn't happening dosen't mean that it can't or that it isn't legal.

This is dependent on whether its colonists decide to pursue this course of action, and of course if a colony never 'needs' to use the dead then it's a moot point.

I fail to see the point of any of this statement- Of course ALL of this is mad irrelevant if the colonists choose not to do or do somethig- however, what I contend is that the colonists have the right to dispose of the bodies in a manner they choose, irregardless of the deads wishes.

GOM · 2002-05-14 10:06:54

Indeed, on Earth I don't know of a single country which practices mandatory organ donation after death,

Well, I think we are getting closer to that idea in a few countries. Something sticks in the back of my mind regarding that, but I can't quite think of the exact country right now.

Also, have you considered China? They kill prisoners and sell the organs. I consider that mandatory organ donation. Don't you?

Phobos · 2002-05-14 20:55:35

Sorry Shaun, I guess I jumped the gun. Anyways, the arguments between the rights of the society vs. those of the
individual is an interesting off-shoot. Personally I'll have to be the illogical one and say I support the rights of the individual
over those of the society. I believe it's basically acting
in the best interest of society when individuals are allowed a very wide degree of political and economic freedom that
can't be abridged by the government. What is society, after all, but the sum total of its individuals.

clark · 2002-05-15 08:02:22

Personally I'll have to be the illogical one and say I support the rights of the individual over those of the society.

I doubt you really support this idea if you think through the ramifications of your statement. If you support the right of the individual versus those of society, you are in essence saying that the needs of one individual can superceed the needs of everyone else. As an individual, you have a right to freely assemble where and with whom you want- sounds great on the surface. Now lets say that you meet the same people all the time, and that many of them have been know to commit crimes. Let's even sya there is evidence to support that when your group meets, more crime takes place- isn't it the best interest of Society to limit these people from meeting each other- here we have individual rights being sacrificed for the right of Society to protect itself.

I believe it's basically acting in the best interest of society when individuals are allowed a very wide degree of political and economic freedom that can't be abridged by the government.

Define "wide degree". Exactly how much is that? The politcal freedom to enslave yourself and your children if you wish? The economic freedom to exploit others for maximum profit while destroying the environment? That kind of freedom, where the government is not allowed to stop these kind of actions?

What is society, after all, but the sum total of its individuals.

Exactly, and as such, the SUM of all individuals is greater than the PART- which means the SUM of our collective rights, ie Societies Right, must superceed the Individual Right, which is merely a part of the total.

In line with this topic, how can you legitametly support an argument that a dead person has the same rights as a living person, or failing that, how a dead body has ANY rights what so ever? If it has no rights, then there is no argument as to what can and cannot be done with the body, at least from the perspective of the deceased.

Phobos · 2002-05-15 14:52:02

I don't really believe there is a concrete thing as the "public good". What exactly is that? How should it be determined? I'm wary of giving any group of people the power to enforce what they believe to be in the "public interest." I'm sure the Nazis believed they were acting in the "public interest" when they decided to eradicate Jews from their society. I'm sure the Taliban thought it was acting on behalf of the "societal good" when it oppressed people in the name of its religion. I believe people should be able to say, believe, or act anyway they wish as long as it doesn't bring harm (yes I know that word is opening a can of words) to other people. I especially couldn't support any regime which would seek to crush political dissidents in the name of society.

clark · 2002-05-16 08:11:25

I don't really believe there is a concrete thing as the "public good". What exactly is that?

Public good could be considered what is best for the maintence of liberty for everyone within Society. It is in the "public good" interest to have an open and free debate of ideas, however it is also in the "public good" interest to limit debate in certain instances, such as yelling Fire in a crowded theater. Here we have an example of two points of view that are both equally correct, yet are at odds with one another. Sometimes individuals must limit their personal freedom in order to maintain their overall liberty.

How should it be determined?

Ideally, everyone should have all the available information pertaining to the issue at hand, and everyone should have a say in any new laws passed.

I'm wary of giving any group of people the power to enforce what they believe to be in the "public interest."

Ahh, but you see, when a "group of people" within society are given this power to decide what is and isn't in the "public interest", and the Public itself is not consulted, then what we have is not a Society, but a Dictatorship. Small groups that form within Society leverage their position to have a greater influence on Society, the groups self interest is what ends up being represented, and not the publics interest.

I'm sure the Nazis believed they were acting in the "public interest" when they decided to eradicate Jews from their society.

Case in point- A small group ursurped the General Will of Society, and then made decrees (a decree is an order, or law, that is unjust and has no LEGAL power to compel others. Thios small group pushed their own agenda based on their own self-interest- The public interest, while used as the exscuse, was actually never represented.

I believe people should be able to say, believe, or act anyway they wish as long as it
doesn't bring harm (yes I know that word is opening a can of words) to other people.

In other words, you believe that Society may REGULATE what we say, what we believe, and how we act. That in a nutshell is what you have just stated. You have given a stipulation, or a baisc requirement, for others to belong to your version of Society (if you were to form your own). They may be a part of Society, and be free within this Society, as long as they do not Say, Belive, or Act in anyway that might harm others. Taking your argument to the logical conclusion, you advocate that the price of liberty is the loss of freedom. Do you still believe what you believe?

I especially couldn't support any regime which would seek to crush political dissidents in the name of society.

What, or who, do you consider a politcal dissident? There are many ways one can be "crushed", is economic sanctions against politcal dissidents more acceptable than violent oppresion, or is it equal? What of politcal sanctions? What if a Government doesn't recognize the legitmacy of a group who claim to represent the politcal views of a minority- the simple act of non-recognition to prevents a means for representation of views, which can have the same effect as physically crushing politcal dissidents. What if the politcal dissidents, say KKK members, advocate something at odds with the rest of society, and that their views may constutite a threat to our society- dosen't it behoove Society to squash it? In this instance, would you still agree that you "couldn't support" a regime, or a governemnt, that did this?

Phobos · 2002-05-16 13:45:15

I don't believe in the "right" of the state to regulate what
anyone believes absolutely irregardless of what they believe. As for freedom of speech, well, I believe in limits only so far as libel or physical threats to an INDIVIDUAL, and not the state. But the real crux of the problem here is political free speech. Does an individual have the right to dissent against the political policies of the "state"? You put the rights of the state above the rights of the individual, which by logical extension, means that if the state believes an individual is advocating political views which run contrary to those held by the state, the state has the right to ban such a person's speech. I for one hold that the state does not have a right to ban such a person's speech, that the individuals right to express his political speech over-rides that of the state's desire to suppress his political speech.
Basically Clark, allow me to sum up my opinions like this:
When I say I believe in an individual's freedom, I mean I believe that an individual should have political freedom from
government coercion. I don't recognize a government's right, for instance, to institute a military draft to send people
off to die or kill against their will, even if it means such a
society is doomed, or to threaten an individual with incarceration, etc, merely for having certain political opions. To get to the point, I believe the government only has a right to initiate force against an individual if that individual has already initiated force (by force I don't necessarily mean physical) against another person. So in my hypothetical country, I would allow some nazi idiot to spout off his offensive political speech, but if he started building death camps to deprive other individuals of their right to exist, only then would I initiate force against said nazi scum because he initiated it first.

clark · 2002-05-16 14:20:35

You stated:

I don't believe in the "right" of the state to regulate what anyone believes absolutely irregardless of what they believe.

However, this statement contradicts your previous post, which stated:

I believe people should be able to say, believe, or act anyway they wish as long as it
doesn't bring harm

You qualified "belief" in that individuals may not "belive" in something that brings harm to others, and since "beliefs" cannot be known unless their is action in words or in deeds, you end up making laws that do not allow certain beliefs, or in the very least, affect "beliefs".

Let us also define what "belief" is- do you consider it ONLY your private thoughts whihc go unshared, or is the mere act of exchanging your views the same as sharing your "beliefs". If it is the latter, then what if I have a belief of violently overthrowing the government, and installing myself as supreme leader- would you still contend that Society does not have a right to prevent the destruction of itself?

As for freedom of speech, well, I believe in limits only so far as libel or physical
threats to an INDIVIDUAL, and not the state.

Why do you differentiate between the State and the Individual? The State is merely the disembodied representation of ALL Individuals- so how can the rights of one superceed the rights of All? If you threaten to destroy the State, isn't in essence threatening to destroy All indiviudals?

But the real crux of the problem here is political free speech. Does an individual have the right to dissent against the political policies of the "state"?

There is NO problem here, we agree- Individuals DO have a RIGHT to make their voice, or opinion, known to the State. However, the State has a right to REGULATE the manner in which the dissent is expressed. Here in the States, we elect Rep's to make our voice heard- I can't go to the Senate floor and Vote, so I am denied a certain form of "dissent"- however, I may elect a different Rep. or tell others what they should tell their Rep- you see, my dissent, the way I am allowed to express myself is REGULATED- Where do we derive ANY Right to dissent in a PARTICULAR way? The only Right we have is that we are ALLOWED the opportunity to dissent from the State.

You put the rights of the state above the rights of the individual, which by logical
extension, means that if the state believes an individual is advocating political views which run contrary to those held by the state, the state has the right to ban such a person's speech.

The State may only ban the "speech" if it endangers Society- the same standards of libel and slander for individuals should apply to the State. And again, we as a community may decide on HOW people are allowed to express their point of view. What's wrong with that?

I for one hold that the state does not have a right to ban such a person's speech, that the individuals right to express his political speech over-rides that of the state's desire to suppress his political speech.

Yet what if the individual is inciting a riot and endangering the lives and property of others? In this instance, isn't it in Socities best interest to prevent the person from causing destruction? If it is, then that establishes that the State DOES have a right, in certain instances, to ban speech.

When I say I believe in an individual's freedom, I mean I believe that an individual should have political freedom from government coercion.

Think this statement throguh: An individual should not have to submit to Government coersion- you in effect are stating that NO ONE must pay taxes, obey laws, serve jail time for a crime, etc. This idea that the "Government" is coercing you is inaccurate- you as a member of Society, are also a part of the "Government". Which means that you agree to abide by the Laws in exchange the Government guareente's your Rights. Since you, as a member of Society, are part of Government, how can you coerce yourself?

I don't recognize a government's right, for instance, to institute a military draft to send people off to die or kill against their will, even if it means such a society is doomed.

Again, this statment is inaccurate. The "Government" isn't instuting a Draft, we, as members of Society, and the government as the executor of our SHARED Will, is instuting the draft. It is Individuals deciding as a Group that some of the Individuals within the Group must be used/sacrificed to protect the Group.

To get to the point, I believe the government only has a right to initiate force against an individual if that individual has already initiated force (by force I don't necessarily mean physical) against another person.

Government, or the Will Of The People, has a right to initiate force when individuals do not comply with the agreed upon laws. How can their be equality under the law if individuals are allowed to flout the laws?

Phobos · 2002-05-16 18:25:05

I don't believe in the "right" of the state to regulate what anyone believes absolutely irregardless of what they believe.

However, this statement contradicts your previous post, which stated:
Quote
I believe people should be able to say, believe, or act anyway they wish as long as it
doesn't bring harm

OK, so I got a little sloppy with the way I wrote it and accidently implied that I think someone shouldn't be able
to believe anything they want. I'll retract that right now. Beliefs in themselves don't bring harm to anybody, so yes, I believe people have a right to believe in anything they want.

Why do you differentiate between the State and the Individual? The State is merely the disembodied representation of ALL Individuals- so how can the rights of one superceed the rights of All? If you threaten to destroy the State, isn't in essence threatening to destroy All indiviudals?

Because the state is merely an abstract construct defined
by imaginary borders and whoever has the power to exert rule. It's not a living entity, and the state doesn't necessarily always look out for the welfare of the individuals within it. Look at how the USA enslaved individuals in the 19th century, or how millions of people were starved to death under the rule of Stalin. When a state doesn't recognize the rights of individuals to be free, but instead abuses and enslaves its citizens in the name of some political idea and the public good, I would say that state has no right to exist.
And I don't believe that by threatening an oppressive
state your threatening to destroy all individuals within it.
Look at the fall of the Soviet Union. Did the people rallying
against the state at that time threaten to kill all of the
individuals within? Not at all, they merely wanted to be
freed from its anti-individualist, pro-statist policies.

clark · 2002-05-20 13:12:36

Beliefs in themselves don't bring harm to anybody, so yes, I believe people have a right to believe in anything they want.

What about people who believe that their children should receive no vaccinations against highly communicable diseases. To force them to submit is to violate their "beliefs", to not do so allows for the endangerment of society. Their belief in of itself does not cause any harm- in this instance, it is distinctly the act of INACTION based on a belief that causes the problem. Would you hold in this instance still that Society has no right to intefere with someone's belief? Should porn peddlers and the like be free to "belive" what they want on school grounds, free to discuss their "beliefs" with adolecents? Or would you agree that Society does have a right to regulate the manner in which we express our beliefs?

Because the state is merely an abstract construct defined by imaginary borders and whoever has the power to exert rule.

Granted, yet those who exert power are allowed to do so by Society. The imaginary borders serve to delineate who belongs to which group, and which group is responsible for an individual. The power is derived by the consent of the governed, becuase those who exert control do so at the behest of the People. In those instances where individuals or small groups within society seize power or use their position to force their will onto the People, then it ceases to be a Society, and is merely a regime- it has no legality and should not even be considered a Government.

It's not a living entity, and the state doesn't necessarily always look out for the welfare of the individuals within it.

The State, by definition, is the welfare of everyone. When it no longer looks to represent the welfare of everyone, then it ceases to be a legal Society- it becomes one of master and slave, which is not a relationship, since it requires that one party give all and another party give nothing- that is exploitation.

When a state doesn't recognize the rights of individuals to be free, but instead
buses and enslaves its citizens in the name of some political idea and the public good, I would say that state has no right to exist.

I would say that the State no longer exsists, in its stead is a tyranny of individuals who maintain an exploitive relationship though force. That is not a State, that is not a Scoial Compact.

And I don't believe that by threatening an oppressive state your threatening to destroy all individuals within it.

One, "oppressive" can be subjective- one man's oppresion is another man's justice. Two, by threatening a legal State, you threaten the agreement between all individuals, the contract that binds the group together. By using, or advocating force to destroy this agreement, you are in effect arguing for the use of force against the very structure that is supposed to be the only legitimate user of force- the State. You are violating the very agreement of the Group in order to dissent from the rest of the Society. You are also establishing that the use of force is a legitimate means to settle disputes between individuals within society.

Look at the fall of the Soviet Union. Did the people rallying against the state at that time threaten to kill all of the individuals within? Not at all, they merely wanted to be freed from its anti-individualist, pro-statist policies.

The People in this instance were not rallying AGAINST the State, they were rallying for a NEW EXPRESSION of their WILL!

Peter Pevensie · 2002-05-21 06:11:40

To quote Shakespeare, clarke, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio/Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

For better or worse, right or wrong, religion always seems to trump reason. Unless this is a local effect caused by some undiscovered element in Earth's atmosphere, I have no doubt we will take this truth to Mars with us.

clark · 2002-05-21 07:27:15

For better or worse, right or wrong, religion always seems to trump reason.

Man is more than the sum of his desires.

If, as you contend, that religion "always seems" to trump reason, why is their progress? After all, religion is merely a system of belief that is supposed to bring order to a disordered universe- a common human trait. Yet, many of the advances we have enjoyed in our long human history have been the result of Reason, not Religion. While religion has been used as a means to coordinate groups, it is by no means an uncontrollable beast that dictates human action. Again, if religion is the "trump card" (as it were), how should we account for the western civilization moving beyond the limits of Church teachings? How do we explain technical and scientific evidence that only serves to discredit certain religions in of themselves? Wouldn't religion prevent such happenenings?

I have no doubt that humans will take religion with them, where ever they go, just like they will take germs, pests, hate, lust, want, altruism, and joy. However, religion, like the rest of the examples is a human condition that is ultimetly a product of being human- as a human condition, it falls into the sphere of our control.

Peter Pevensie · 2002-05-21 10:33:42

Religious convictions aside, maintaining the long term survival of any society is the end all be all of the discussion.

Interestingly enough, history is full of stories of communities that put their religious convictions above community survival. Some would say that humanity as a whole is better for their convictions.

If, as you contend, that religion "always seems" to trump reason, why is their progress? After all, religion is merely a system of belief that is supposed to bring order to a disordered universe- a common human trait.

Though I disdain being perceived as overly technical, I'd argue that religion is "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe, or a personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship." Of course, I'd have the dubious distinction of having the dictionary on my side. Thus religion itself is not "supposed to bring order to a disordered universe," as you postulate, but rather the acknowledgement that someone/thing already has. I hope you can understand why such an understanding of the cosmos would drive an individual, community, or society to choose adherence to their religious convictions over survival.

Rather than answer the question you posed in the above quote, I prefer to point out the unconscious assumption you made in posing it: that religious thought cannot lead produce "progress" (a frighteningly subjective term in a discussion such as this one, but you chose it, so I'll use it). Personally, I don't find your assumption offensive, though many would. I'll merely point out here that no serious historian -- or sociologist, for that matter -- would agree with that assumption. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase the question?

While religion has been used as a means to coordinate groups, it is by no means an uncontrollable beast that dictates human action.

Here again I would have to disagree. While I question your motivation in characterizing religion as a "beast," I would put forth that it is, at least in societal terms, uncontrollable. Check with the Nazis, Soviets, Sandinistas, or Chinese Communists if you're unsure about this one. Because of the unique nature of religious thought, it defies all attempts to eradicate or subjugate it. (Please try to keep in mind that I'm not talking about any one form of religious thought or philosophy here; rather, I'm pointing out the character of religious philosophy as a system of thought.) An understanding of this fact often leads those who would "control" religion to a third option: adulterate it. However, watering down a system of religious thought tends to strengthen the faith of the "orthodox," ensuring that their doctrine continues to propogate. Of course, I'm overgeneralizing almost to the point of foolishness here, but as St. Paul said, "you drove me to it."

Again, if religion is the "trump card" (as it were), how should we account for the western civilization moving beyond the limits of Church teachings? How do we explain technical and scientific evidence that only serves to discredit certain religions in of themselves? Wouldn't religion prevent such happenenings?

Again, your unspoken assumption rears it's intellectually disreputable head. Many would argue that western civilization hasn't "moved beyond the limits of Church teachings." In fact, a quick perusal of the New Testament, the Pentateuch, or the Qur'an would all indicate that western civilization has a long way to go, at least from a societal standpoint. To quote Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:

It seems to me that [western society's] moral progress lags behind your scientific progress...You have allowed the material means by which you live to outdistance the spiritual ends for which you live. You have allowed your mentality to outrun your morality. You have allowed your civilization to outdistance your culture. Through your scientific genius you have made the world a neighborhood, but through your moral and spiritual genius you have failed to make of it a brotherhood...I would urge you to keep your moral advances abreast of your scientific advances.

As for explaining "technical and scientific evidence that only serves to discredit certain religions in of themselves," I will only say that Galileo, Ptolomy, Newton, and Einstein were all religious men. The implications of that fact are yours to do with as you please.

I have no doubt that humans will take religion with them, where ever they go, just like they will take germs, pests, hate, lust, want, altruism, and joy. However, religion, like the rest of the examples is a human condition that is ultimetly a product of being human- as a human condition, it falls into the sphere of our control.

In keeping with my tradition, my intellectual integrity, and my conscience, I would have to disagree once more. While the individual may have complete control over his own choice of religion (and many would argue with even that hypothesis), society as a whole can no more control religious thought -- and, I dare say, expression -- than it can the weather.

To prove (or at least strengthen) my point, I challenge you to point to one society in all of human history that has managed to eradicate, subjugate, or adulterate all religious thought that it deemed to be contrary to its own best interest, and survived to tell the tale.

clark · 2002-05-21 10:53:21

Interestingly enough, history is full of stories of communities that put their religious convictions above community survival.

I don't suppose you could provide examples that might better illustrate your point.

In those "instances" where such an event takes place, we will be discussing communities that identified their "belief" as an integral part of the community- the "belief" in a sense, served to define the group. In those instances, community survival is linked to "belief" survival. To seperate the two would only serve to destroy the community anyways.

A more accurate statement, perhaps:

Interestingly enough, it would seem that history is full of stories of communities that LINKED their religious convictions TO community survival.

This statement, and this reality, only furthers to illustrate my overall point that Society looks to its long term survival- what they deem neccessary and important to that survival is ultimetly a question answered by themselves, as a group.

clark · 2002-05-21 10:53:38

Interestingly enough, history is full of stories of communities that put their religious convictions above community survival.

I don't suppose you could provide examples that might better illustrate your point.

In those "instances" where such an event takes place, we will be discussing communities that identified their "belief" as an integral part of the community- the "belief" in a sense, served to define the group. In those instances, community survival is linked to "belief" survival. To seperate the two would only serve to destroy the community anyways.

A more accurate statement, perhaps:

Interestingly enough, it would seem that history is full of stories of communities that LINKED their religious convictions TO community survival.

This statement, and this reality, only furthers to illustrate my overall point that Society looks to its long term survival- what they deem neccessary and important to that survival is ultimetly a question answered by themselves, as a group.

C M Edwards · 2002-05-21 11:00:48

Hello All.

I suspect the ultimate development of burial practices in a Martian Society will be determined by the interplay of morals, laws, customs, and bureaucracy -- which are not the same things, but rather are four often competing influences.

If a society's laws run contrary to the morals and customs of a large enough faction of its population, resistance will occur. And the larger the faction, the more organized that resistance will be.

There is no absolute balance possible on an issue like this, just solutions that minimize the total resistance over time. A society might undertake a policy that risks phenomenal problems at first in order to find smooth sailing later on. Or it might take the path of least resistance, naively ignoring the possibility of later strife. But it is rare for social governments to deliberately prolong their own social strife indefinitely unless they ? and ?they? is usually a much small group than the society as a whole ? see some serious profit in it. Profit enough to afford bullet-proof limousines.

You may think of bureaucracy as a tool for enforcing laws, but any functioning bureaucracy has an entire internal structure devoted to allowing exceptions. Just because there?s a law that says Martians should ferment their dead, don?t imagine that the average bureaucratic government won?t find a way to allow a good cremation every now and then if that will grease the wheels with the anti-fermentation league.

CME

Peter Pevensie · 2002-05-21 12:02:34

Sorry, clark, I posted a quickie as a placeholder and then added to it. I'll wait to reply to your above post until you (and others, perhaps?) have had time to digest everything I wrote.

clark · 2002-05-21 15:47:07

Sorry, clark, I posted a quickie as a placeholder and then added to it.

In the interest of maintaining some semblence of order, I request that you make new posts, instead of adding to previous posts.

Though I disdain being perceived as overly technical, I'd argue that religion is "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe, or a personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

Thank you for the dictionary definition of what many consider "religion" to mean in the context of English language. Now, I ask you to apply the meaning of this definition.

Thus religion itself is not "supposed to bring order to a disordered universe," as you postulate, but rather the acknowledgement that someone/thing already has.

Where is my postulation incorrect? You are arguing semantics without actually addressing the issue I raise. Furthermore, if you take my ENTIRE statement and the context it was written, your claim is made even more meaningless. I said:

After all, religion is merely a system of belief that is supposed to bring order to a disordered universe- a common human trait.

Religion IS a system of belief, designed in of itself to bring order to disorder, pointing out that this done by only acknoldging the role of a "supreme being" within Religion adds little meaning to this discussion. I guess I fail to see why it is important to establish this difference.

I hope you can understand why such an understanding of the cosmos would drive an
individual, community, or society to choose adherence to their religious convictions over survival.

The "why" is irrelevant, and as such, I have agreed fully that individuals ARE driven by their convictions, be they religious or otherwise. However, as I tried to point out, which you seem to have summarily dismissed, is that when individuals IDENTIFY with a belief system so strongly they are willing to sacrifice the survival of the group, it is in this instance that the belief system becomes a PART of what is is to BE a person in that group.

Rather than answer the question you posed in the above quote, I prefer to point out the unconscious assumption you made in posing it: that religious thought cannot lead produce "progress" (a frighteningly subjective term in a discussion such as this one, but you chose it, so I'll use it).

I made an "unconsious" assumption? One, if it is "unconsious", how are you privy to it? Dosen't that assume a level of personal knowledge of me? If you contend that you made this dubious jump in logic based on my previous statement, I will ask you to please limit yourself to what I HAVE said, not what YOU assume that I mean.

Lets take a look at my QUESTION (which begs, how can a question assume anything, after all, it is a statment operating from a lack of total knowledge, but I digress): I asked:

If, as you contend, that religion "always seems" to trump reason, why is their progress?

My question was in response to YOUR statment regarding religion trumping Reason- your words, not mine. My question was ASSUMING that YOUR statment is TRUE- that Religion trumps Reason- I have stated NOTHING, so please, why don't you answer the questions or modify your statment.

Personally, I don't find your assumption offensive, though many would.

Considering that the only assumption I have made was in asking a question that assumed you were correct, and asking you to explain a seemingly apparent contradiction to that statement, I doubt any sensible person would find anything I have asked to be "offensive".

I'll merely point out here that no serious historian -- or sociologist, for that matter -- would agree with that assumption. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase the question?

No, not neccessary, unless you would care to rephrase your previous statement.

While I question your motivation in characterizing religion as a "beast," I would put forth that it is, at least in societal terms, uncontrollable.

How "should" I characterize religion? As for your statement that religion, in societal terms, is uncontrollable, how then should we account for the myriad of human laws that exsist solely to CONTROL religion? Are they just a bunch of hot air? To say that religion is uncontrollable by society, is to say that society is powerless- the whole idea of Seperation of Church and State is rendered impossible by your statment- yet it exsists. It also suggests that if a religion becomes a threat to the stability of Society, we are powerless to effect change- again, I would like evidence that suggests that Society is unable to regulate the way in which religion is expressed, or the way it is conducted.

Many would argue that western civilization hasn't "moved beyond the limits of Church teachings." In fact, a quick perusal of the New Testament, the Pentateuch, or the Qur'an would all indicate that western civilization has a long way to go, at least from a societal standpoint.

You are muddling the context and the subject of the posts you are reffering to. Let me clarify, how do YOU account for the scientific progress that would be denied by religious systems of belief IF RELIGION TRUMPS REASON (your words, not mine). Your previous reply only serves to underscore how Reason has proceeded BEYOND religious progress.

As for explaining "technical and scientific evidence that only serves to discredit certain religions in of themselves," I will only say that Galileo, Ptolomy, Newton, and Einstein were all religious men. The implications of that fact are yours to do with as you please.

I'm surprised you didn't include Darwin! Afterall, he gave us the theory of Evolution, yet he rejected his own findings. The "implications" of your statement are meaningless, so what, great minds were also religious- not very surprising given Humanities prefrence to create order in a disordered universe. Why don't you answer the questions instead of providing half statements from someone else? I applaud your strategy, but it won't work.

In keeping with my tradition,

Of not answering the questions, or defending your statements?

my intellectual integrity

Considering you have only dodged the questions I raise, you have none.

and my conscience, I would have to disagree once more.

Very pretty.

While the individual may have complete control over his own choice of religion (and
many would argue with even that hypothesis), society as a whole can no more control religious thought -- and, I dare say, expression -- than it can the weather.

Society can, and does, control religious thought and it's expression. How many religions that advocate slavery exsist? How many religions that require human sacrifice exsist today? Even those parents who follow their religious convictions and deny their children medical help are routinely over-ridden by Society in order to maintain the welfare of the child- how is THAT NOT controling religion, or at the very least, the expression of the Religion?

Look, you have taken the extreme position in this discussion by stating that Society is unable to control Religion, or its expression, which is blatantly untrue. All it takes is ONE example of Society "controlling" religion or its "expression" to invalidate your entire position.I suggest you revisit your posts, and try again.

To prove (or at least strengthen) my point, I challenge you to point to one society in all of human history that has managed to eradicate, subjugate, or adulterate all religious thought that it deemed to be contrary to its own best interest, and survived to tell the tale.

Almost ALL societies have either "eridicated, subjugated, or adulterated" a belief system that was deemed contrary to its best interest- if the Society did not, then it was consumed by the belief system so that it became a part of the Society to the point where it was no longer deemed contrarty to the Society. If Society deems something to be contrary to its best interest, only TWO results are possible- Sociey defeats what is contrary, or it must submit to what it contrary. Your challenge is meaningless since society need only affect enough change as to make any belief system it deems unaceptable, acceptable- otherwwise, the belief system is incorporated and Society itself changes to accomadate the belief system.

Bill White · 2002-05-21 16:53:00

While the individual may have complete control over his own choice of religion (and many would argue with even that hypothesis), society as a whole can no more control religious thought -- and, I dare say, expression -- than it can the weather.

I recently saw a television documentary on the embalming of Lenin and the maintenance of Lenin's tomb as a sacred shrine by supposedly "atheist" Soviet communists. The program asserted that in the Orthodox Christian tradition the bodies of true saints did not decay and that is why Stalin had Lenin embalmed.

As Spock might say - "Fascinating!" Putin's dilemma on what to do with Lenin's tomb, today, is also fascinating.

* * * *

Anyway, I have long been curious why some advocates of "Science" (big S) seem to share a general ignorance of how science came to be invented by the West. My pesonal theory is that modern Western civilization (including science) is the product of a mixed marriage between between the intellectual descendants of ancient Athens and the intellectual descendants of ancient Jerusalem.

I strongly disagree with KSR (Years of Rice & Salt) and the idea that the rise of "Science" was historically inevitable.

The Jews have given us irony and perhaps they also gave us the belief that the steadfast pursuit of truth must trump everything else. See a book by Jack Miles - a Jesuit priest who quit the Church - titled God: A Biography. I believe the book won a Pulitzer prize. Look at his translation of the final passages of the Book of Job and his chapter on Job in general.

If his translation is correct, then the words Job speaks in his final speech anticipate by several thousand years Galileo's famous quip "Yet it moves!" muttered in response to his forced recantation of Copernican theory.

* * * *

I have also had some thougts on the role of religion if we are to win the Drake's equation lottery.

Drake's equation, of course, is the calculation of the number of intelligent species in the cosmos made famous by Carl Sagan. There are 100 billion galaxies & 100 billion stars per galaxy

- z % have planets
- y % of those have planets in the "life zone"
- x % of those actually evolved life and so on. . .

Today, humanity is at the "entering space" stage and the "do we kill ourselves via nuclear war and/or environmental mis-management stage"

How do we become one of the % of species which survives this stage and avoid being one of the n % of species which fails to survive this stage. Are the odds better or worse if we believe "humanity" is special - whether or not there is any scientific basis for that belief? If we believe ourselves to be special and worthy of winning Drake's lottery, how can that be justified by anything except some form of religious belief?

* * * *
PS - Adrian, is there a spellcheck for this program?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-05-12 13:20:48

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#2 2002-05-13 06:56:13

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#3 2002-05-13 11:30:12

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#4 2002-05-13 11:54:11

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#5 2002-05-13 12:43:25

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#6 2002-05-13 13:11:26

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#7 2002-05-14 09:37:15

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#8 2002-05-14 10:06:54

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#9 2002-05-14 20:55:35

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#10 2002-05-15 08:02:22

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#11 2002-05-15 14:52:02

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#12 2002-05-16 08:11:25

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#13 2002-05-16 13:45:15

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#14 2002-05-16 14:20:35

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#15 2002-05-16 18:25:05

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#16 2002-05-20 13:12:36

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#17 2002-05-21 06:11:40

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#18 2002-05-21 07:27:15

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#19 2002-05-21 10:33:42

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#20 2002-05-21 10:53:21

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#21 2002-05-21 10:53:38

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#22 2002-05-21 11:00:48

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#23 2002-05-21 12:02:34

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#24 2002-05-21 15:47:07

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#25 2002-05-21 16:53:00

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

Board footer