Listen to how Neil answers the religious troll! Just awesome!

I love this guy he reminds me of the late great Carl Sagan... that video was just awesome.

I loved his response too. It actually has me reconsidering my desire to be cremated instead of buried. Maybe I should be returning something to the earth that has been so good to me.

I am at a loss to understand why anyone is applauding or satisfied with the answer. It is blatantly bogus as cremation returns just as much energy to the biosphere as burial. In fact conservation of energy requires that either process be the same. It is true to that the return of the energy is over different time frames but will be the same either way. Who is this guy? Is he a physicist? Doesn't seem very up on physics or chemistry. I think Carl would be insulted by the comparison.

stahrwe wrote:I am at a loss to understand why anyone is applauding or satisfied with the answer. It is blatantly bogus as cremation returns just as much energy to the biosphere as burial. In fact conservation of energy requires that either process be the same. It is true to that the return of the energy is over different time frames but will be the same either way. Who is this guy? Is he a physicist? Doesn't seem very up on physics or chemistry. I think Carl would be insulted by the comparison.

Yes, but clearly there is a difference in usable energy with the two options. Animals and plants cannot get nutrients from ash, and most of the heat energy would presumably be dissipated.

Dexter wrote:

stahrwe wrote:I am at a loss to understand why anyone is applauding or satisfied with the answer. It is blatantly bogus as cremation returns just as much energy to the biosphere as burial. In fact conservation of energy requires that either process be the same. It is true to that the return of the energy is over different time frames but will be the same either way. Who is this guy? Is he a physicist? Doesn't seem very up on physics or chemistry. I think Carl would be insulted by the comparison.

Yes, but clearly there is a difference in usable energy with the two options. Animals and plants cannot get nutrients from ash, and most of the heat energy would presumably be dissipated.

Incorrect, check on ash as fertilizer. It is usable. Were people applauding that he wanted to feed worms with his body? If so, I don't see how he shut down the questioner, or even answered the question. He Evaded it.

stahrwe wrote: Incorrect, check on ash as fertilizer. It is usable. Were people applauding that he wanted to feed worms with his body? If so, I don't see how he shut down the questioner, or even answered the question. He Evaded it.

Maybe you're right about that. All the better for him, if he wants his energy to be recycled.

Here's an approximation of the man's question.

A man is condemned to death and everything taken away from him. All he has left is his reason and his sense of self. He wants to come to terms with his pending death by consoling himself that the world has order. That there is something that keeps things together. He tries to reason why he should be at peace at the time of his death. Problem is his source of origin is a belief in God. What would you do?

Fair enough. But I would question the notion that one should feel peace at the time of one's death. I keep thinking of Dylan Thomas' "Rage, rage against the dying of the light." This man is about to be executed. I'm not sure feeling peace is a reasonable or attainable goal.

Neil deGrasse Tyson's response is that he would request to be buried, not cremated, so that the energy from his body could feed the flora and fauna, just as he has dined on flora and fauna to sustain his existence.

This doesn't seem like a dodge at all. In fact, since it is a personal question—what would you do?—there's no right or wrong answer. The idea that there's order in the universe seems perfectly compatible with Neil deGrasse Tyson's worldview. Understanding the order of the universe hardly needs to be based on a belief in God.

It's a beautiful answer. Tyson feels a connectedness with the universe and he is comfortable with the idea of death to want to give back a little from what he has taken from the universe. Death is part of the cycle of life.

As Tyson once said:

We are all connected;
To each other, biologically
To the earth, chemically
To the rest of the universe atomically

geo wrote:Here's an approximation of the man's question.

A man is condemned to death and everything taken away from him. All he has left is his reason and his sense of self. He wants to come to terms with his pending death by consoling himself that the world has order. That there is something that keeps things together. He tries to reason why he should be at peace at the time of his death. Problem is his source of origin is a belief in God. What would you do?

Fair enough. But I would question the notion that one should feel peace at the time of one's death. I keep thinking of Dylan Thomas' "Rage, rage against the dying of the light." This man is about to be executed. I'm not sure feeling peace is a reasonable or attainable goal.

Neil deGrasse Tyson's response is that he would request to be buried, not cremated, so that the energy from his body could feed the flora and fauna, just as he has dined on flora and fauna to sustain his existence.

This doesn't seem like a dodge at all. In fact, since it is a personal question—what would you do?—there's no right or wrong answer. The idea that there's order in the universe seems perfectly compatible with Neil deGrasse Tyson's worldview. Understanding the order of the universe hardly needs to be based on a belief in God.

It's a beautiful answer. Tyson feels a connectedness with the universe and he is comfortable with the idea of death to want to give back a little from what he has taken from the universe. Death is part of the cycle of life.

As Tyson once said:

We are all connected;
To each other, biologically
To the earth, chemically
To the rest of the universe atomically

If that is his 'final' answer then his life had no meaning other than to accumulate fuel to power lower life forms at his death. Some look for more significance in death. Some deaths has resulted in laws which make the world safer, some deaths have satisfied a perceived need for justice, some deaths have demonstrated a dedication to a cause worth dying for, some have been the result of defending family, friends and even strangers, if all Degrasse could come up with was taking a dirt nap and feeding worms, good for him, I guess, but I don't see the triumph in the answer, in fact, given the examples I gave above, it seems pretty lame.

I was nice of the moderator to allow the troll to ask his question however reluctantly he granted the permission.

Who is the Degrasse guy anyway?

stahrwe wrote: If that is his 'final' answer then his life had no meaning other than to accumulate fuel to power lower life forms at his death. Some look for more significance in death. Some deaths has resulted in laws which make the world safer, some deaths have satisfied a perceived need for justice, some deaths have demonstrated a dedication to a cause worth dying for, some have been the result of defending family, friends and even strangers, if all Degrasse could come up with was taking a dirt nap and feeding worms, good for him, I guess, but I don't see the triumph in the answer, in fact, given the examples I gave above, it seems pretty lame.

He didn't say that the meaning of his life was to power lower life forms. He is just accepting the fact that he won't be going to fairyland when he dies.