= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
timtyler comments on The Threat of Cryonics - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (212)
Re: "Historical Death Meme".
The appearance of the dead body typically matters somewhat to those relatives and friends who look at it. What did you expect?
The "protecting family from trauma" theory does not explain why societies hung the bodies of criminals and traitors in public as gruesome reminders of how disgusting and unacceptable their behavior was. A "decent burial" is likewise a social signal of reward for honorable conduct, e.g. in a battlefield.
If you see the body of a criminal hung by a roadside, you will be deterred from embarking on a life of crime yourself, if you still have some social attachments, such as a family; more so than if you see that criminal being given a decent trial, execution and burial.
On the other hand, choosing to be a criminal or a traitor is already choosing a low-status social position: it's legitimate to be skeptical of the supposed power of the mere status threat of having your body mangled, compared to the very real risk of being hunted down and killed which inheres to the social position of criminal in the first place.
This is one more instance where I suspect status of being used as a fake explanation.
The status threat is in addition to being killed. In other words, once the society has already exercised the option of killing you they would also attempt to destroy your credibility and dehumanize you by publicly displaying your rotting carcass.
This is obviously supposed to be an additional deterrent above and beyond being killed. It makes a huge amount of sense that this would be because you can't rationalize it as easily by thinking "hey even if I'm caught and killed at least I'll be remembered as a pretty cool guy". It makes no sense in the context of the tender feelings of family and friends of the criminal. Also, I'd be willing to bet the criminals most likely to suffer such a fate are high-status ones whose exploits are most legendary -- the revolutionaries and traitors, more than common criminals.
Another obvious reason to think corpse treatment is a status symbol is the amount of care given to the bodies of kings and emperors, and as I've mentioned, fallen warriors. It's like the reason people buy bigger houses. On the surface, yes it provides a little more comfort for their family. But when it comes down to it, they do it primarily to signal their status.
As a deterrent, obviously.
"Deterrent" has no explanatory power. It's just a label. You need to consider why a person would be deterred by it.
I have no idea why this comment is being downvoted. Can someone explain?
But why should it?
'Where death is, I am not.'
The relatives use the appearance for purposes associated with resolving grief. A gruesome death mask stimulating negative memories of the departed is unlikely to help much with that. Thus: cosmetics.
I doubt it is very useful for the purpose of resolving grief. However if you can cite studies that back this claim that would be helpful.
Here's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embalming on the topic:
"After being dressed for visitation/funeral services, cosmetics are applied to make body appear more lifelike and to create a "memory picture" for the deceased's friends and relatives."
Here's what can happen if it is done badly:
"Family Sues Funeral Home Over Bad Corpse Condition"
On the effect on mourners:
"The funeral industry promotes embalming and viewing as a means to show "proper respect for the body," and to establish the "clear identity" of the corpse so that the reality of death cannot be denied by those who view the body. Many funeral directors are convinced that seeing the body is a necessary part of the grieving process, even if the death was long anticipated. "
None of this seems to offer direct empirical support for the hypothesis that the mental health of mourners is actually helped by viewing the corpse. Note how in the case where it is done badly, it is embarrassing and socially problematic.
Further down: "Few funeral directors will participate in the public viewing of a body without embalming and cosmetic restoration. While some people may be comforted by "a beautiful memory picture," as it's called in the trade, 32% of consumers reported that viewing was a negative experience, according to a 1990 survey."
32% of the people who view their loved one's corpse find it to be a negative experience. That does not sound to me like something optimized for helping the grieving process.
I wouldn't expect anyone to be happy about paying their last respects to a loved one's remains. It's not a walk in the woods.
The question at hand is relative, not absolute: would someone be worse off (in the long term) it their last memory of a loved one was of their mangled body, or of a version of it resembling the person in life.
The question is whether they would be worse off with cremation or simply with no ceremony... or with cryonics of course, for that matter.