Brian Iverson

Simon Paynton wrote:
I wouldn’t sit on somebody’s tomb and have a picnic, unless it was about 2000 years old.

Why would you eat from a 2000-year-old picnic? You’d get sick, Simon.

I wouldn’t sit on somebody’s tomb and have a picnic, unless it was about 2000 years old.

Older gaveyards (or old sections) are beautiful and have interesting headstones and statuary and I think it is cool to picnic there, especially at night.

A picnic in a modern section is in poor taste and might needlessly upset some people, but in the big picture it is pretty minor.

New Orleans Cemetery has old and new mixed and even has ‘tours’…[Read more]

I don’t think there is a specific answer that works. If my family memorialized that way, I’d prefer people use the space for joyous things.

Still, cemeteries are for the living, ultimately, and the living are pretty inconsistent in terms of customs, expectations, sense of propriety.

There is a cemetery near where my mother and brother live.…[Read more]

“On top” of the grave? Poor taste at best, though I think a graveyard should not be treated like a public amusement area. So, wrong in that sense, yeah.

At the recent CPAC in Florida (Desantis territory) it was obvious that the GOP is still the party of Trump. I mean they rolled out a “golden calf” in his image for the event! Not sure what Cruz will make of that when he come back down from the mountain top. Maybe he will smash it and try to rebrand himself as the savior of Republicanism while…[Read more]

All the GOP state legislators and governors trying to bring back Jim Crow.

Speaking of governors, Ron Desantis is threatening to be the next Donald Trump.

Encoginator, you are assuming that life would develop on other planets the same way that it does here. The development of life is disinterested in our happiness or suffering and any mechanism which ensures the continuation of life will be ruthlessly utilised including the terrible byproduct of suffering. If life can continue, even with immense…[Read more]

PopeBeanie,

You wrote:

Q2: That one’s tougher, like the trolly car conundrum. I’m basically utilitarian by nature, so I’d probably say yes, move aside you miserable lot, but not loudly enough for them to hear it or anything that’s coming before we eliminate them. (There’s still a we here, in on this decision together, right?)

This reminds me. …[Read more]

Robert,

Q1. I would say No. Even if you studied them, you are seeing them through your own limitations and values. It is the “prime directive” in the Star Trek series… they constantly violate it.

“General Order 1”, and the “non-interference directive” is a guiding principle of Starfleet, prohibiting its members from interfering with the internal…

[Read more]

Davis,

These kinds of ethical questions are always irksome.  If one doesn’t grant the premise of the question, how can one answer it?

Surely a species cannot live a life of complete suffering or it would be too immobilized to do life-sustaining, reproducing acts and would eventually become extinct.

Also, even waste products of a species have…[Read more]

Secondary question:

If these creatures could indeed be re-engineered to suffer much less and yet still continue be able to somewhat adapt to this barely ever changing planet…would you consider enabling this? If you had the choice between a little less suffering (totally pointless suffering) but a tiny chance to develop intelligence would you…[Read more]

just because we can’t “conceive” of a way…does that necessarily preclude a path to advancement

Robert that is an extremely good point (one of the few nitpicking with this scenario that is as interesting as the actual answers themselves). I would say that this would have to be part of the risk assessment formula. Even if we cannot fathom how the…[Read more]

If you can positively conclude these things then I would say (Q1)Yes,(Q2)No, same logic as Kristina. Unlike the many theists, I don’t think it is wise to let people needlessly suffer. We are more kind to our beloved pets.

I do wonder…just because we can’t “conceive” of a way…does that necessarily preclude a path to advancement and betterment…[Read more]

@davis – organisms don’t have to have intelligence to have rights.

Robert we are talking about non-intelligent species and no conceivable way for them to develop intelligence. It is certainly not the same as a planet Earth were we can choose to continue living or not despite our suffering. In other words we aren’t helpless nor need the assistance of others to put us out of our misery.