UK finds new fuel source to undercut Russian stranglehold on Europe

[AAAAAAAAH!]

The idea of trying to generate energy by burning human bodies is absurd. I don't think you'll get a net gain in energy by burning a human body, it's 50 to 60% water. The amount of energy needed to evaporate off that water is far greater than the energy that might be gained by burning the fats, sugars and proteins. Putting fetuses in a "waste to energy" plant would be counter-productive.

If what you're saying is correct how do people get set on fire?

[AAAAAAAAH!]

60% water - 50kg human has 30kg of water - raising its temperature from 20 degrees Celsius to 100 degrees requires 2400 kilocaries
kilocalories in one gram of fat- ~9; amount of fat needed to boil 30kg of water at 30 Celsius: 267 grams or .267 kilograms (assuming no energy wasted)
kilocalries in one gram of protein or carbohydrates- ~4; amount of fat and carbs needed to boil 30kg of water at 30 Celsius: 600 grams or .600 kilograms

How is there not enough energy in the human body to boil the water therein?

[Thoth]

Obviously you get better energy output if the fuel is properly dried first.

[pchang]

But the avatar isn't a deer.

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

It is horny, though.

[Serb]

If you are ok with taking organs from corpses in order to save lives, are you also ok with feeding the non-organ bits to the hungry in order to save their lives?

Cannibalism is disgusting. We should not eat our kind, we are humans, not orcs.

[regexcellent]

Did orcs in Middle Earth practice cannibalism?

[Serb]

They did, at least according to the movie.

[notyoueither]

I don't see any non-religious motivations to be valid here. You can see it in this thread, plenty of atheistic folk asking what's the big deal, the person is dead.

You seem to be doing a good job of ignoring those that are given to you.

I'm not religious. I hold the position that human remains should be treated differently from garbage. I don't need a priest to tell me what to think about it.

But large groups usually don't mind killing other large groups if it gets them a benefit.

More and more frequently they do.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You seem to be doing a good job of ignoring those that are given to you.

I'm not religious. I hold the position that human remains should be treated differently from garbage. I don't need a priest to tell me what to think about it.

This would be an example of you aren't actually giving me any non-religious motivations. You hold the position that human remains should be treated differently. Ok, WHY?

And is it resulting from a different foundation than Judeo-Christian ideals (at least in the West from where your societal morality develops from) on why dead remains are sacred? This would be one of the reasons that even Richard Dawkins calls himself a "cultural Anglican" - because he believes in the moral underpinnings of English Christianity while wanting to toss away God. He doesn't want to do what Nietzsche wanted to do, which was to toss out the entire Western moral edifice, which was built on the foundation of Christianity (German Christianity in his case) and start over (the point of ubermench wasn't "Nazis!!1!" but morality creators that a society which has cast aside God would need).

[ZEE]

IMRAN SUCK-DIQUI

[Aeson]

Why do the remains of humans demand a higher respect absence of a religious purpose?

I already answered this.

Quite obviously emotional ties to the dead predated religious ceremonies for the dead. Almost surely those emotional attachments were a factor in formation of religious ceremonies, not the other way around!

You don't need religion to feel emotional attachment to a person, and indirectly to things associated with the person.

[Aeson]

This would be an example of you aren't actually giving me any non-religious motivations. You hold the position that human remains should be treated differently. Ok, WHY?

I care about my loved ones and don't want to see their memory or things associated with them tarnished. I understand other people care about their loved ones. I care about being a positive member of society. The natural conclusion is that I shouldn't tarnish the memory of the dead for myself or others.

Religion is not required even if it's commonly associated.

[Sava]

I liked your old DL better gribbler.

agree

[Imran Siddiqui]

I already answered this.

Quite obviously emotional ties to the dead predated religious ceremonies for the dead. Almost surely those emotional attachments were a factor in formation of religious ceremonies, not the other way around!

You don't need religion to feel emotional attachment to a person, and indirectly to things associated with the person.

I care about my loved ones and don't want to see their memory or things associated with them tarnished. I understand other people care about their loved ones. I care about being a positive member of society. The natural conclusion is that I shouldn't tarnish the memory of the dead for myself or others.

Religion is not required even if it's commonly associated.

Why would you feel attached to the remains of a person if you believed that there is nothing else afterwards for them? It's just a body husk, is it not? A meat bag? Why assign a higher reason to something when you don't believe in a higher purpose for it? Why respect the dead when you don't believe the dead are around anymore? If human existence only exists in consciousness, once that consciousness is extinguished, the body had no special significance.

And why do you think ancient burials based on emotional ties did not have an element of spirituality?


Basically, yes. I simply cannot wrap my head around why atheists would consider a respect for dead bodies to be important, aside from cultural conventions that arose due to a religious foundation - which is fine, if you want to say that you like the Christian foundation of funeral rites, but don't believe in God that's one thing, but claiming that there is an atheistic reason for respecting dead bodies makes no rational sense at all.