Parmesh

Robert and Reg,

You are both right here too.  Quality people as company should be an understood in fine dining outdoors.

Eduard Manet had a possible right idea in his Déjeuner Sur l’Herbe (Luncheon on the Grass) which, of course, you could vary to taste:

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Edouard_Manet_024.jpg

Over the last year I have moved some people I was acquainted with into my “poison pool”. I will no longer seek to engage with them in any format.  These are people who always seem to want something from me or if not, have nothing positive to say about other people.  I had time to reflect and had a few “Hang on a minute” moments.

I suppose I do t…[Read more]

All due respect to the dead, of course, but they just aren’t good, fun conversation over great food.

The dead in their silence are much more pleasant than many of the people around here. The plague has taught me again that I am happier without them and I that I should be more selective with my associations. I learned this once before when trying t…[Read more]

Davis and Fellow Unbelievers,

I’d much rather be surrounded by life and lively things on an outdoor eating excursion.

All due respect to the dead, of course, but they just aren’t good, fun conversation over great food.

I see what you might be doing, Simon, but let the non-existent bury the non-existent. 😉

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

A 2000 year old gravesite would likely be a national monument or world historical site, so you’d probably be subject to arrest.

I once spent an night on my own in a very old rural graveyard after taking a large dose of magic mushrooms. I spent most of the time imagining who each person may have been. I was about 18 at the time.  While the dead would not care if I danced on their graves I don’t think I would because of the anguish it might cause to the relatives of the…[Read more]

lol

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.

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]