The person you're disagreeing with agrees with this idea about morality: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person-affecting_view). You, on the other hand, (I think) believe something can be bad even if it is not actually bad for anyone.
Case in point: the people who've actually died in said genocide cannot have any feelings about what we do about them, so to consider those feelings would be nonsense (according to the person-affecting view).
Of course, if someone living (such as yourself) cares about this, then it would still make sense to care about it, since the feelings of an actually living person are concerned.
Well, burials only matter if others care about it. Other values, such as "do not harm others", etc., matter even if others don't care about them, because they concern actual suffering of living people.
If you follow Parfit, you choose that the latter kind is the only kind to care about, and so caring about burials for the sake of the one buried would be nonsensical to you.
I reserve all rights to the atoms that make up my body ad infinitum, which means my estate will be able to claim copyright on your descendents for selling work that contains said atoms!
> That’s mostly because you live in a society which doesn’t value burials or the afterlife and which worships information, which must be acquired at any cost.
Even if I was, I'd be dead when it actually came about. The implication of time-travelling morality is an interesting but problematic one. There's no one actually suffering from the act of desecration, since suffering requires one to be alive.
There might be the confounding factor of being unlikely to buy a novel you don't know exists. If Rowling releases something under her own name, I'm sure to hear about it, which will surely boost sales.
>DER SPIEGEL: But you do save data about your users like the device ID, the phone model, the WhatsApp user name, the phone book and thereby also the numbers of all their contacts, right?
>Cathcart: It’s true that we do have some information about how people use WhatsApp and that we do know, for example, the device ID. We collect this only to secure our services and protect from attacks. When you use WhatsApp and allow access to your phone book, we only see the phone numbers, not the name.
In particular, they have (meta)data regarding specific messages being sent, as evidenced by their approach to curtailing misinformation:
>Cathcart: Messages that are highly forwarded can only be forwarded to one chat since last spring. That led to a drop in 70 percent of these messages. More recently, we are additionally showing you a link to the Google search on those messages, to let you check the facts directly.
I'm not sure how easy it is to figure out whether those 'highly forwarded messages' are all the same, or somehow link them without knowing anything about their content or linking them to information you already know about people. Maybe it's easy and I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, I don't know.
That's a very sensible perspective. Unfortunately, you will probably, as most people do, change your mind about this and decide to have children anyway.
I think that's precisely what ICANN was going for. Reacting to it, in the eyes of some people, implies there's at least some truth to what the other party said.
That's great, but my intuition fails me when I try to consider what it would mean for the answer to some question to be a complex number. It's even worse for quaternions, because I can't even use the spatial analogue there.