3 ms·

> If this is Earhart's plane, it's probably also her grave. Only because no one knew where she was to bury her properly. I assume you don't say that we should

> If this is Earhart's plane, it's probably also her grave. Only because no one knew where she was to bury her properly. I assume you don't say that we shouldn't recover bodies from ANY plane crash; most people would expect bodies to be moved from a plane crash to be buried properly. Why is this one different? The length of time it took to find the crash, I assume. So how long before we can't move the body because it is a grave? 3 months? A year? 10 years? I don't think I would consider this a grave, and recovering the body and burying it properly is not grave robbing.

aeturnum 3y ago
That's super fair - I think recovery and reburial is probably a respectful option. My impression is that our decisions about what to do with human remains often relies on finding a living member of the family to speak about preferences. To go back to the titanic example - I don't know of any families who agitated to have the remains in the ship reburied. One of the ways this situation is different is that there would be no ambiguity about remain identification. > I don't think I would consider this a grave If by not a "grave" you mean not an "intentional burial site" I agree. But it would be a final resting place and, to the question I was answering ("why would people object") that's a thing that people care about being handled with the proper care and consideration.
- cortesoft 3y ago
  Yeah, this one is always a tricky topic for me because I have literally zero emotional response to human remains and really don't care at all what is done with my remains or the remains of my loved ones. Once a person is dead, the body is just random matter to me. Trying to guess how other people would feel about things is a complete academic exercise in this case for me.
bogantech 3y ago
There are no bodies to recover. The crabs ate them long ago

aeturnum 3y ago

That's super fair - I think recovery and reburial is probably a respectful option. My impression is that our decisions about what to do with human remains often relies on finding a living member of the family to speak about preferences. To go back to the titanic example - I don't know of any families who agitated to have the remains in the ship reburied. One of the ways this situation is different is that there would be no ambiguity about remain identification. > I don't think I would consider this a grave If by not a "grave" you mean not an "intentional burial site" I agree. But it would be a final resting place and, to the question I was answering ("why would people object") that's a thing that people care about being handled with the proper care and consideration.

cortesoft 3y ago
Yeah, this one is always a tricky topic for me because I have literally zero emotional response to human remains and really don't care at all what is done with my remains or the remains of my loved ones. Once a person is dead, the body is just random matter to me. Trying to guess how other people would feel about things is a complete academic exercise in this case for me.

bogantech 3y ago

There are no bodies to recover. The crabs ate them long ago