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

Adrian · 2002-07-15 12:10:52

Okay guys, fun's over. TioRay: I think we all know that Clark isn't necessarily the most popular guy on these forums, but that's simply because of the way he argues (and he often argues quite well). It's nothing to do with who he is. So leave the ad hominem attacks outside of these forums. I don't want to have to ask you again about this. I don't want to even see this sort of thing in Free Chat.

Any further posts that are clearly off-topic in this thread will be deleted.

clark · 2002-07-15 12:39:17

I clearly understand that human values are not "objective" and therefore cannot be measured as such, but this doesn't mean we can ignore the "subjective" things, either.

I fully agree, however, how do we rationaly and legitametly claim the certainty of our moral judgement if no objective means exsists with which to validate it? Why your God, but not mine?

I agree that "some" value system is neccessary, I take pain to agree to this point continually. However, i contend that a a value system is neccessary, i hold that the most basic value system is all that can be derived from the limited absolute values we are able to discern.

We are able to logicaly discern that life has some type of meaningful value. We are not able to logically and objectively determine what that value is though. We are also able to deduce that if life does have a value, it must neccessarily be of equal value, otherwise, we allow for subjective evaluation and rationalization of the value of life. This allows others to legitametly evaluate the worth of life based on any critera they may have. The only legitimate way to prevent this abuse is to accept that the value is inherently equal at all times, and therefore immune to subjective valuation. Why is an innocent life sacred? Why is a "guilty" life not sacred? At some point, we as individuals have decided one is guilty, and one is not- each having a different value associated with the label- but it is we- the seperate individuals who are making this determination- we are imposing our value system on another individual to derive their relative worth to us. If you accept that we are just in doing this, you neccessarily accept that it is just that others do it to you or other people.

Although there can be no way of objectively measuring of "good" and "bad," they certainly give us guidelines concerning the things that are objective, such as the preservation of life.

The preservation of life is "objective"? We hold that it is just to kill the enemy- here we have subjectivly rationalized away something that was supposed to be objective. If you can hold that the preservation of life is bad, that measn you allos others to hold that the destruction of life can be "good" as well- the very fact that you allow yourself the latitude to formulate this view point neccessitates that others be allowed to derive their own and sometimes opposite viewpoint. Which ultimetly leads to us battaling each other as we try to impose our own personal viewpoints on each other as the "correct" one. If you agree that you can decide what someone else does is right or wrong, then they also have that right to judge and condem what you do.

Then we will know, i.e., we will have objective data on whether regulation is indeed necessary. But until that happens, the only tool that is available to us is ...you guessed it, subjective "values" of what you or I think might happen under those circumstances.

I actually have suggested that given the environmental restrictions on Mars and in space, control over reproduction mat be neccessary to ensure the long term stability and survival of the base. My argument has been that Society does have the right to control and regulate reproduction if it poses a threat to the survivability of the colony. Is it repugnant, even by my own personal standards it is, but that does not negate the reality of my hypothesis: If this, then this. That is all I am discussing.

The reason I bring up issues like these (like many that I have started) is to demonstrate in very real terms how Mars will be different from a terran experience. It will NOT be the American Fronteir. It will NOT be all libertarian, go-it-alone fantasy. There are some very real issues that will cause humanity to behave in radically different ways out of neccessity.

Many of th arguments I make are derived by simply imagining a neighborhood living on a nuclear submarine- with all of the opportunities and pitfalls associated with having children and the every-day man living in an environment that punishes evreyone for the mistakes of an individual. Such a reality requires new methods of coping.

One cannot live by logic alone...

Or emotion. Who should derive the value of an action?

Bill White · 2002-07-15 13:30:56

A few snippets from the 1st Federalist Paper

Author: Alexander Hamilton - To the People of the State of New York:
. . . you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. . .
. . . It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. . .
. . . So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. . .
. . . And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists. . .
. . . For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution. . .

I believe I am supporting clark - if not, he will tell me - when I say that Hamilton appears to agree that we cannot ever be certain that we ourselves have properly grasped a point or principle of absolute moral truth - whether such truths actually exist or not.

I am especially reminded of these cautions when I read Ayn Rand's opinion that Reason "proves" Aristotle was right and Plato was wrong. LOL! If only things could be that simple. . .

Anyone seeking to formulate a political philosophy for Mars would be well advised to begin with - and return often - to these words of Alexander Hamilton, including those who are convinced their positions are supported by "Reason"

Shaun Barrett · 2002-07-16 00:53:41

Nice post, Bill!
I draw great comfort from realising that the essence of Hamilton's words forms part of my world view of human relationships. Why comfort? Because Hamilton's eloquence very obviously reveals an eminently insightful human being. So, if I share his views, I MUST be on the right track!
Though I could never hope to express it as simply and beautifully as he did. Great stuff!
Thanks again, Bill!

PS. Just thought I'd thank Adrian again for his fair and even-
handed running of this site.

Palomar · 2002-07-16 08:12:42

Bill quoting Hamilton: ". . . So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society."

*Sure, this happens. Nobody is perfect. Voltaire himself wrote, "Let each of us boldy and honestly say 'How little it is that I really know!'"

Bill quoting Hamilton: "This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. . ."

*But ::anyone:: can have this attitude, Bill -- whether objective in orientation or subjective in orientation. Actually, in my experience, it's the subjective crowd who tend to be more this way. Why? Because they don't and won't question ::themselves::, primarily. There are no standards, no value systems, etc., so why should they bother to question themselves?

Bill: "I am especially reminded of these cautions when I read Ayn Rand's opinion that Reason "proves" Aristotle was right and Plato was wrong. LOL! If only things could be that simple. . ."

*Well, though I quote Rand occasionally, I'm not a member of the ARI, and there are aspects of Rand's personality and her philosophy which I don't agree with -- particularly her politics. However, she did have a basis for why she felt Aristotle was right and Plato wrong: Aristotle insisted on the idea that man's 5 senses, combined with his ability to think and comprehend, could lead him to a better working knowledge of his surroundings, his world. Plato, on the other hand, believed in "First Forms" which dwell in another dimension, that his ideal "Philosopher King" would know these "First Forms" intimately, and this would give the "Philosopher King" the "right" to rule over the people [would you like to live in a political system where one person has absolute authority to make things happen because s/he can simply state "I consulted with the First Forms and They told me ___ " and that is the ::only:: "justification" he or she needs to do whatever it is he or she wants to do? How could anyone come against this ruler, challenge him to reconsider, etc.? No thank you! This scenario has "Jim Jones and Guyana" written all over it] -- things Plato couldn't prove existed by any criteria whatsoever. Aristotle was objective in his philosophy; Plato was subjective. The best analogy I have is: Were you to become ill, would you rather go to a licensed medical doctor who will do tests on calibrated machines with scientifically established controls, who will examine you based on hundreds of years of accumulated scientific medical knowledge, who believes he can diagnose your illness and treat you in the quickest and most efficent manner, and thus restore your own well being [Aristotle]...or would you go to a local new age guru and let him do a Tarot reading for you [Plato]?

Reason, as I've come to understand the word, as taught by Voltaire and some of his 18th century contemporaries, means using and applying critical thinking and seeking the best choice for one's own well-being while, in the mean time, ensuring as little harm as possible come to others as a result of personal decisions [being responsible and considerate of others in the process of critical thinking and decision making]; in fact, the reasonable person seeks, by their decisions, to ::benefit:: as much as possible those around him/her as well!

--Cindy

Bill White · 2002-07-16 16:22:33

Reason, as I've come to understand the word, as taught by Voltaire and some of his 18th century contemporaries, means using and applying critical thinking and seeking the best choice for one's own well-being while, in the mean time, ensuring as little harm as possible come to others as a result of personal decisions [being responsible and considerate of others in the process of critical thinking and decision making]; in fact, the reasonable person seeks, by their decisions, to ::benefit:: as much as possible those around him/her as well!

A friend of my once offered me a sure-fire trick to get rich in the stock market.

I said "Okay, so tell me"

She leaned over and whispered, "Buy low - Sell high"

I said, "Okay, so just how do I do that?"

She replied, "Look, I just do concepts - the details are your problem."

I get a similiar feeling when I hear people claim "Reason" - with the big R - is the solution to life's moral and philosophical dilemmas.

Of course it is - I can readily agree to that. But when faced with a moral conundrum, being told "Just follow Reason." is rather like being told buy low and sell high. Okay, how?

Doing good, avoiding harm, okay, I can go for that, but how do we define those terms?

And, how do we know when we are truly following Reason, or to paraphrase Hamilton - since even wise and good people can be deluded into thinking they are doing or thinking the "right thing" when in reality they are merely following unrecognized prejudices and biases, how can we be sure our conception of "the good" really is good?

Ever tell a child - or have some one tell you - "I did it for your own good?" People who are the most certain that they are following the dictates of "Reason" - big R again - very often, IMHO, fail to be "reasonable" - little r this time.

Next, I have no problem with someone preferring Aristotle to Plato.

I have a bigger problem with anyone being "too sure" or "too certain" that such preference is somehow absolute or beyond controversy.

By the way, IMHO, a delicious irony is that Ayn Rand rejects Plato but then elevates Reason - big R - to the level of a Platonic form. She also seems to have a rather Platonic conception of the nature of "Self" with the individual being some sort of absolute moral measure.

Still, much of your criticism of Plato is accurate, IMHO. However, absent Plato's influence, I doubt Aristotle could have become the thinker he did and I submit we cannot really understand Aristotle without making a sincere effort to grasp Plato - on his own terms and as sympathetically as possible.

To my mind, Aristotle focused on studying the world external to the "self" the outside objective world while for Plato "To know thyself" was the most important area of study.

Voltaire and Rand are both brilliant, insightful thinkers who - IMHO - were rather too sure they were right about everything and saw little value in quiet introspection or self examination.

On a scientific level - as I learn more about brain physiology - I become less and less confident that homo sapiens can engage in the ideal practice of Reason advocated by Rand or Voltaire. Antonio Damascio's book - The Feeling of What Happens - makes mincemeat of claims that people can ever function, Spock-like, as devotees of pure Reason.

Damascio is a highly skilled brain surgeon - and not a navel gazer - and his points are backed up with medical and physiological research.

So where does that leave me? Shakespeare.

Shakespeare knew and wrote more insightfully about "being human" than any other single writer in the history of the world. I will gleefully defend this point with great vigor, but then,

Maybe I am wrong. . .

Palomar · 2002-07-16 16:45:46

Bill: Voltaire and Rand are both brilliant, insightful thinkers who - IMHO - were rather too sure they were right about everything and saw little value in quiet introspection or self examination.

*Rand was this way. Voltaire was not. How much of Voltaire have you read? Do some research. Voltaire was a VERY introspective man who engaged in self-examination. If I've given any wrong impressions, my apologies!

Bill: On a scientific level - as I learn more about brain physiology - I become less and less confident that homo sapiens can engage in the ideal practice of Reason advocated by Rand or Voltaire.

*Rand capitalized the word frequently. Voltaire never did. Please don't think that Rand and Voltaire can be used interchangeably, because they cannot.

Rand was a selfish person: She defined reason in an Aristotelian fashion [Aristotle was her self-professed hero] ::but:: she also defined reason in a manner of being synoymous with capitalism and outright selfishness [Me First, Me Only].

Voltaire found Aristotle "baffling"...as he did Plato; he was not of devotee of either of them. He was a humanitarian. He was generous and compassionate throughout his life. He said the true "job" of the philosopher is not to pity people, but rather to have compassion and seek to help them [You and Me].

And please don't sell reason short; study the 18th century philosophers, find out for yourself the why's and wherefore's of their philosophies!

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-07-16 17:49:21

Bill: Antonio Damascio's book - The Feeling of What Happens - makes mincemeat of claims that people can ever function, Spock-like, as devotees of pure Reason.

*I had to hurry away from the computer, and will finish the post.

I'm ::not:: advocating "Spock-like devotees of pure Reason."

Voltaire said that persons who are always solemn and serious seem to him afflicted with some sort of morbid disease. I agree.

As I've said before, subjectivity is part and parcel of being human and being in the human experience. It is doubtless what initiates and drives the unique personalities of us all. Obviously there is such a thing as subjectiveness and objectiveness -- otherwise, how could those words have ever been conceived as concepts and differentiated?

Subjectivity is important; it's part of who we are and assists in forming our personalities. It is introversion. However, objectivity is, IMO, more important -- it is extroversion. It is the seeking out of proof as opposed to the making of mere claims.

Enough said. Please consider studying Voltaire. I rarely speak highly of persons, and don't have many Heros. However, when I find an exception, I'm happy to share.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2002-07-23 21:30:51

Now that the philosophical discussion is over...

The body really wouldn't have many reclaimable resources anyway. We're mostly carbon and water. Two very abundant things on Mars.

I think the chosen form of burial will be to be cremation, since being buried would be akin to mummification, and the prospect of that would not appeal to most people. Though I'm sure some geologists or archaeologists (yes, I believe we'll have archaeologists on Mars) would love to be buried in time capsules.

Although I accept that the question as to whether or not a dead person has rights is moot, I think giving the dead certian cultural rights, as defined by the families or so on, isn't entirely contrary to a Martian society. Especially given that dead bodies really can't be too useful from a resource perspective.

(Sperm, eggs, and various important, replacable body parts are the only resources we would necessarily harvest from the dead, and we do that already, in our current society, often without question.)

Sorry if my typing it out of wack today.

clark · 2002-07-31 08:01:24

The body really wouldn't have many reclaimable resources anyway. We're mostly carbon and water. Two very abundant things on Mars.

We are a source of biological nutrients, i.e. compost. Something not very abundant on Mars.

Although I accept that the question as to whether or not a dead person has rights is moot, I think giving the dead certian cultural rights, as defined by the families or so on, isn't entirely contrary to a Martian society.

What are "cultural rights"?

Bill White · 2002-07-31 09:08:03

The "Martian Dead" thread should be renamed

"The Thread of the Living Dead" . . .

IMHO,

Isn't this the longest continuous thread New Mars has yet seen?

clark · 2002-07-31 09:27:42

LOL.

A dubious distinction for a strikingly morbid topic.

Perhaps I should settle down...

Josh Cryer · 2002-07-31 20:22:01

We are a source of biological nutrients, i.e. compost. Something not very abundant on Mars.

If we want to use bodies as compost, why not simply eat the bodies directly? We'll be eating them either way, since their molecules would be absorbed by the plants and so on. And eating them would be a much more direct way of accessing those nutrients, since they're already there, and not reprocessed by plants.

Why don't we? Because we ?just don't.? It's a moral thing. Do we give that up? Nah. We won't have to. It's our cultural right. I think cultural rights are things we are allowed to do that aren't detrimental to the society. Not using a person as compost is fine, since people are mostly carbon and water. And the waste they create is exactly proportionate to the plants they eat.

We can reconstitute bodies back into the system, if we want, but it's not necessary, especially if we keep our population stable (and assuming we don't have a surplus of plant growth).

I think you exaggerate the importance of human compost (since hydroponics are really the direction we're heading anyway). And I think you don't fully get the importance of cultural traditions.

Maybe you've seen too much Water World.

clark · 2002-08-01 07:42:48

If we want to use bodies as compost, why not simply eat the bodies directly?

The question isn't really how the bodies are disposed, but wether or not Society has the final say.

Why don't we? Because we ?just don't.? It's a moral thing.

Moral thing? That implies that those cultures that practice(d) canabalism were immoral. That's just a fallcy. Morality is based on cultural norms- in Western Society, cannabilism is generally frowned upon. However, I fail to see the immorality of the action. You eat flesh- just like a cow, a chicken, or a horse. Now, I don't eat horse any more than I eat human- but would you hold that people who eat horses as immoral? What about dogs?

Do we give that up? Nah. We won't have to. It's our cultural right.

Cultural right? Again with that term, and I still don't quite get it. Does that mean that people who have a culture of eating dead bodies have a RIGHT to continue to eat dead bodies, and we as individuals who do not share that culture, have no right to do it?

I think cultural rights are things we are allowed to do that aren't detrimental to the society.

That's not a cultural right. If you wish to do something that has no effect on the rest of Society, that's freedom.

And I think you don't fully get the importance of cultural traditions.

No, I quite fully understand the importance of cultural traditions. However, I am also willing to put those same traditions aside and try to examine them for what they are.

Josh Cryer · 2002-08-01 13:41:10

The question isn't really how the bodies are disposed, but wether or not Society has the final say.

Oh, then it's clear to me that Society has no say in this matter, unless the systems you have are highly inefficient and complicated. Dare I say, unworkable, in space.

Everything in space must be done on a chemical basis initally. The more organic the system, the more complicated it becomes and the higher failure risk you're going to have.

Decomposition is done by bacteria. Can you imagine how difficult it would be to create compost? First, you have to contain the whole thing. Then you gotta make sure your bacteria levels are equalized. All it takes is one hole in the hab, or one non-UV protected panel and all your bacteria is dead. Sure, you can genetically engineer more resilient bacteria, but I'd rather be working with systems that take bacteria out of the loop.

Esepcially, since, economically, compost would become a ?valuable,? yet wholly unnecessary resource. And we'd have people selling it at ridiculous costs. I can honestly see someone bartering two tons of premolded steel for a hundred pounds of soil.

Moral thing? That implies that those cultures that practice(d) canabalism were immoral. That's just a fallcy.

You said, ?Morality is based on cultural norms,? and I said, ?Why don't we? Because we ?just don't.? It's a moral thing.? When I said, ?we just don't,? I was talking about cultural norms.

We agree, clark. I'm not inventing a universal moral here. Morality is exactly what you said.

Does that mean that people who have a culture of eating dead bodies have a RIGHT to continue to eat dead bodies, and we as individuals who do not share that culture, have no right to do it?

Why not? Obviously I'm not talking about eating everyones dead, just their dead. Interestingly, some people drink the ashes of their loved ones... weird stuff, but nothing I can condemn.

That's not a cultural right. If you wish to do something that has no effect on the rest of Society, that's freedom.

Okay then, I think that the families of dead people should have the freedom to do what they want (and to a lesser extent, what the dead person would have wanted) with the bodies (obviously you're limited by your resources- you're not going to be buried in a friggin mahogany casket, for example). This is still a cultural thing. I was just using this weird terminology because you said the dead have no rights. I think the families have rights. You can call them cultural rights, or you can call it freedom. It's still the same thing.

Society does not define everyones culture...

Palomar · 2002-08-01 14:10:28

Society does not define everyones culture...

*Mmmmmm. That's an interesting statement. I'll have to think it over. I guess I've always thought them to be so interrelated as to actually be one and the same thing...but perhaps not.

I'll mull it over.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-08-01 15:19:19

Let me clarify a bit. The point of the discussion was to establish wether or not Society had the final say on how a body is disposed of- burial, cremation, stuffed, eaten, etc. The reason for the burial is immaterial in my mind becuase there could be any number of "reasons". The point being that if there is a "reason" then Society does have the right to dispose of the body in the way it deems fit.

Thats all I have been arguing. Thats my point. I've been laughing for a while as everyone tries to refute this rather obvious thing- Society can dictate how a body is disposed of if it has a reason. I have strictly avoided a specfic "reason" becuase individual reasons can be debated on their merits- but the principle cannot, i.e Societies superceeding right.

Okay then, I think that the families of dead people should have the freedom to do what they want (and to a lesser extent, what the dead person would have wanted) with the bodies (obviously you're limited by your resources- you're not going to be buried in a friggin mahogany casket, for example).

Do you also think that the families should have this same freedom, unfettered, if it poses a danger to anyone else? Do you also thinnk that the families should have this freedom if it poses a threat to the stability of Society on Mars?

We can argue about how it might or might not- but the point is IF it IS, then what.

I was just using this weird terminology because you said the dead have no rights. I think the families have rights.

No, the families do have rights over the body.... .... becuase the body becomes property! As such, it is fully legitimate for Society to dictate how "property" is used.

Society does not define everyones culture...

No? Hmmm. What about this: A society that enforces strict drug prohibition. Imagine you are a person who uses certain drugs as part of your culture- say mescalin. Isn't the prohibtion limiting the practice of your culture and therefore Society in effect defines your culture (i.e what cultural behavior you are allowed to do and not do)?

Honest question, look forward to your response.

Josh Cryer · 2002-08-01 16:36:02

The point being that if there is a "reason" then Society does have the right to dispose of the body in the way it deems fit.

Society only has a ?reason? to dispose of a body if it's not possessed by someone or if there is a resource problem, or whatever. But at this point the situation would be pretty bad.

Say you're on a ship going to Mars, and someone inexplicably dies... you need a place to store the body, but you don't have one... so you gotta bag it and boot it.

Do you also think that the families should have this same freedom, unfettered, if it poses a danger to anyone else?

Well no, obviously not.

But this is a moot point... I mean, for example, we have bonfires, right? Do people have unfettered freedom, if it poses a danger to anyones else, to start them anywhere they please? Well no...

Bonfires are a dangerous cultural tradition in schools and so on all over the place, but we do have them. We just do them in the safest way possible. Instead of starting them in a forest, or near buildings, we make them in fields, and don't light them when it's windy. Our options are always limited.

Society can define safety (otherwise known as security), but it can't dictate cultural traditions beyond that (or it shouldn't, in my opinion). When it does, you get Hitler.

I can't really think of a good example... how about this: leaving bodies laying around where they died probably isn't a good idea. So if someone wants to do this, we're going to have to discuss with them how problematic this is for the health of the immediate area and so on.

No, the families do have rights over the body.... .... becuase the body becomes property! As such, it is fully legitimate for Society to dictate how "property" is used.

I don't see how it's not possession, really. Anyone who has loved ones will want to take care of those things.

I think about it like this way; prostitutes are ?property? of a pimp, dead bodies are possessed by loved ones... but this is my reasoning here, you don't have to accept it. The difference between property and possession is a fine line indeed.

No [Society does not define everyones culture]? Hmmm.

Perhaps I should have said, ?Society does not define culture except where culture is detrimental to society.? But this is a given to me, since I've already stated my three main beliefs, security, equality, and liberty.

Isn't the [drug] prohibtion [in my example] limiting the practice of your culture and therefore Society in effect defines your culture (i.e what cultural behavior you are allowed to do and not do)?

Ahh, exactly, it's limiting, but not necessarily defining. You can argue that it does define by limiting, but these limits are minimal at best (and necessary for civilized beings). Your whole environment, not necessarily Society itself, limits you, obviously (even more so than Society would). We've already talked about how different Mars is going to be.

Society merely says you can't do ?evil? things to each other (and don't take ?evil? there literally, damnit clark! ), which I think is a good compromise considering the cultural possiblities.

Honest question, look forward to your response.

Lemme add something. When I said, ?society does not define everyones culture,? I meant that society doesn't say ?this is the culture you're to have? it says, ?these are the rules of society, and you can practice any culture as long as they don't break those rules.? So I will admit that Society can have reasons to use the dead, but I can't think of any Martian society situations...

clark · 2002-08-02 07:10:32

Society can define safety (otherwise known as security), but it can't dictate cultural traditions beyond that (or it shouldn't, in my opinion). When it does, you get Hitler.

I understand this point, but what you are poitning out is that Society can dictate cultural tradtions, just that it shouldn't dictate them up to a point- there is a "line in the sand". Now, you and I know our own personal boundaries of what we find acceptable and what we don't. So how do we figure out how to reconcile the different boundaries of what is and isn't acceptable while also dealing with the saftey issues that are real?

This is what drives me when looking at Mars. The saftey issues alone allow for a great deal of justification for the curtailment of personal liberty on Mars. So how can, or what kind, of personal liberties can be allowed in an un-safe environment?

You point out bonfires and "windy" conditions as a saftey issue which limit when, where, and how you exercise your personal liberty to light a bonfire. Why, becuase your actions may affect others personal liberty, and could constutite a very real threat to others saftey. Dead bodies are no different. Jewish burial laws require that bodies be buried in wooden caskets- couldn't we imagine a situation where wood is a valuable commodity and the destruction of trees for the burial would affect the rest of the group? Weak example becuase we can shrug it all off to an economic solution... but do you see the point?

Other than the fact that we all want as much personal liberty as possible, our desire is not enough of a justification for it on Mars.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-08-28 06:26:09

Worm food would be a better use?

but another Celeb gets a 'space Burial'

Iconic ‘Star Trek’ actress Nichelle Nichols’ cremated remains to boldly go on memorial deep-space mission
https://www.nydailynews.com/snyde/ny-st … story.html

tahanson43206 · 2022-08-28 07:02:43

For Mars_B4_Moon ... thanks for bringing another "ancient" topic back into view...

Clark was a participant in the first 25 posts ... he and his correspondents engaged my attention without needing to insult each other, or gratuitously insult third parties. The debate was about the understanding of the relationship between individuals and groups of which they are a part. It was interesting (to me at least) to watch the struggles of the participants to explain themselves.

China appears (as I understand the reports) to be attempting to subsume "alien" beliefs into the system it has established in recent years. One of the correspondents in the first 25 posts of this topic rhetorically asked for the name of any nation that has done that.

All in all, that came across to me as a spirited debate, with no one convincing anyone else of anything, but providing an interesting exchange for non-involved readers to study.

The opening proposition was that the future residents of Mars will have to think about disposition of the remains of deceased residents.

Before anyone in 2022 decides to jump into this topic, please take the time to read the earlier work. Whatever you say (or would say) has probably been said years before.

(th)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-09-21 16:57:04

California will begin offering the option of human composting after death thanks to a bill recently signed into law that aims to tackle climate change. Human composting, also known as natural organic reduction (NOR), would be an option for residents who don't want to be buried or cremated upon their death - starting in 2027.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech … hange.html

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-10-03 22:12:19

Human composting to chemically change the body, it seems to have the specific goal of reducing down human remains into usable compost to use as a soil, the nitrogen/carbon added to the body during the composting process, the body undergoes changes at the molecular level?

'Inside one of the world’s first human composting facilities'

https://www.theverge.com/c/23307867/hum … eturn-home

This is natural organic reduction — better known as human composting — the first truly new form of final disposition developed in decades. First legalized in Washington state in 2019, the process has proved popular with certain of the Pacific Northwest’s eco-conscious consumers, who are eager to have their last act on earth be a positive one.

They know that traditional burials involve literal tons of steel, concrete, and toxic chemicals and that the heat of a cremation retort emits several hundred pounds of carbon into the atmosphere. For families like the Gerberdings, natural organic reduction, or NOR, promises a more gentle way out.

Despite these challenges, it’s clear a deathcare revolution is underway. New methods of body processing, from NOR to alkaline hydrolysis, are on the rise. So is the home funeral movement, which seeks to return the care of the dead to their families. New companies aim to be cost-competitive; at Return Home, NOR costs about $5,500 with a laying-in ceremony.

That’s about twice as much as the average cremation but about half the cost of a traditional funeral and vault burial. But even as new options proliferate, after so many generations of viewing the corpse at a distance, few of us know what we really want to happen when we die — or how to ask for it.

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-10-03 22:14:30)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-03-20 14:56:54

During the Covid outbreak the Hindu Indian went to traditional to deal with coronavirus. Round-the-clock mass cremations. Funeral, Burning, Grave and burial customs followed by the Anglo-Saxons between the mid 5th and 11th centuries CE in Early Mediaeval England. there were many practice and methods performed by the Anglo-Saxon peoples during this period, use of both cremation and inhumation. There is a commonality in the burial places between the rich and poor – their resting places sit alongside one another in shared cemeteries. Both of these forms of burial were typically accompanied by grave goods, which included food, jewelry, and weaponry. The actual burials themselves, whether of cremated or inhumed remains, were placed in a variety of sites, including in cemeteries, burial mounds or, more rarely, in ship burials.

What ‘Stunning’ Burials Reveal About Post-Roman Britain
https://www.historyhit.com/hs2-archaeol … n-britain/

Mysterious 'dead nails' found in ancient burial site
https://interestingengineering.com/cult … urial-site

Burial, cremation, 'natural' burial and more: Here's what's available in New Mexico, what's not and how much the options are likely to cost
https://news.yahoo.com/burial-cremation … 00506.html

Why Melbourne's booming west will be home to Victoria's biggest new cemetery in a century
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-16/ … /102096808

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2002-07-15 12:10:52

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

#77 2002-07-15 12:39:17

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

#78 2002-07-15 13:30:56

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

#79 2002-07-16 00:53:41

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

#80 2002-07-16 08:12:42

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

#81 2002-07-16 16:22:33

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

#82 2002-07-16 16:45:46

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

#83 2002-07-16 17:49:21

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

#84 2002-07-23 21:30:51

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

#85 2002-07-31 08:01:24

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

#86 2002-07-31 09:08:03

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

#87 2002-07-31 09:27:42

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

#88 2002-07-31 20:22:01

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

#89 2002-08-01 07:42:48

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

#90 2002-08-01 13:41:10

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

#91 2002-08-01 14:10:28

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

#92 2002-08-01 15:19:19

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

#93 2002-08-01 16:36:02

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

#94 2002-08-02 07:10:32

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

#95 2022-08-28 06:26:09

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

#96 2022-08-28 07:02:43

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

#97 2022-09-21 16:57:04

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

#98 2022-10-03 22:12:19

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

#99 2023-03-20 14:56:54

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

Board footer