3 ms·

> People say it's a grave or memorial, but its not like it was built for that, its just the ship the people happened to be in when they died. Obviously the shi

> People say it's a grave or memorial, but its not like it was built for that, its just the ship the people happened to be in when they died. Obviously the shipbuilders never intended for the ship to become a grave, but that's exactly what it became and the intent of the shipbuilders hardly seems relevant. As for plane and train crashes, the discrepancy in treatment is obviously a matter of tradition. Not all traditions are problematic relics of the past that need questioning though; particularly not traditions as harmless as respecting the deceased victims of ship wrecks. And if traditions are to be challenged, it should be for a better reason than profit. (Historic inquiry is a better reason to challenge this tradition, but doesn't seem to apply in this circumstance.) I think that devaluing harmless traditions like respecting the dead in the name of utility and profit demeans our society.

simplicio 6y ago
Is there a tradition? Salvaging wrecks, with or without human remains, is a pretty old practice, the law generally seems to support it and I'm not really aware of any religious or other traditional prohibition against it. There's certainly efforts made to respect whatever human remains are present, but not to the extent of a defacto ban on salvage operations.
- catalogia 6y ago
  > Is there a tradition? Obviously yes, otherwise it wouldn't be contentious. There are many reasons to salvage shipwrecks, some better than others. Wrecks which pose navigational hazards are obviously removed. Wrecks which contain hazardous materials (oil, nuclear waste, explosives, etc) may also be salvaged. Wrecks which contain valuable materials are also sometimes salvaged, and in rare cases ships may be raised and refurbished to be used again (this happened to the confederate submarine Hunley twice.) There is no hard and fast tradition on salvaging ships, it exists on a continuum of necessity to reviled grave robbery. Specific instances can be evaluated on that continuum. The K-141 Kursk was dismantled and partially raised, in large large part because it contained a nuclear reactor and several nuclear warheads; I think most would agree doing so was prudent. On the other end of that spectrum, numerous ships sank during the Battle of the Java Sea have been destroyed for scrap metal, which has been widely reviled as grave robbery. (The steel of those wrecks has some value because it dates prior to the nuclear era: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel) but "it's valuable tho.." isn't generally seen as an acceptable reason to molest these graves. I think retrieving artifacts from the Titanic to put on display falls closer to the "grave robbery" end of this spectrum.

simplicio 6y ago

Is there a tradition? Salvaging wrecks, with or without human remains, is a pretty old practice, the law generally seems to support it and I'm not really aware of any religious or other traditional prohibition against it. There's certainly efforts made to respect whatever human remains are present, but not to the extent of a defacto ban on salvage operations.

catalogia 6y ago
> Is there a tradition? Obviously yes, otherwise it wouldn't be contentious. There are many reasons to salvage shipwrecks, some better than others. Wrecks which pose navigational hazards are obviously removed. Wrecks which contain hazardous materials (oil, nuclear waste, explosives, etc) may also be salvaged. Wrecks which contain valuable materials are also sometimes salvaged, and in rare cases ships may be raised and refurbished to be used again (this happened to the confederate submarine Hunley twice.) There is no hard and fast tradition on salvaging ships, it exists on a continuum of necessity to reviled grave robbery. Specific instances can be evaluated on that continuum. The K-141 Kursk was dismantled and partially raised, in large large part because it contained a nuclear reactor and several nuclear warheads; I think most would agree doing so was prudent. On the other end of that spectrum, numerous ships sank during the Battle of the Java Sea have been destroyed for scrap metal, which has been widely reviled as grave robbery. (The steel of those wrecks has some value because it dates prior to the nuclear era: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel) but "it's valuable tho.." isn't generally seen as an acceptable reason to molest these graves. I think retrieving artifacts from the Titanic to put on display falls closer to the "grave robbery" end of this spectrum.