Sorry for the clumsy subject heading, I was trying to keep it simple. I’m not even sure if this is a GQ or IMHO.
Well, here goes;
There’s a local restaurant named The Dead Fish. Me being me, I got to wondering. Is a dead fish (or a dog, or a fly, or even a human) still a fish? Or whatever? If you see a dead dog, do you think of it as a dog, without the modifier?
I know I’m not making myself clear, but it get’s worse.
At what point of putrefaction would a cadaver cease to be a human? Would it be the same for an animal? What about a chicken, consumed by yours truly?
I feel that once any creature dies it ceases to be whatever it was when alive.
I’m going to think about this some more. Feel free to manipulate this thread in any way you see fit. 
I’ll be back.
Peace,
mangeorge
I’m not sure if there is a clearcut delineation between life and death; sure, we humans like to classify brain stem death as definitive, but death of a complex organism is, in most cases, a gradual process, certain types of cells will still be alive for many hours after brain death.
OK, so if you cook a fish, it’s dead, IMHO it is still a fish though, because it has the form of a fish, once you start to cut it up and eat it, it starts to lose it’s essential ‘fishness’.
This topic is similar to What defines Human?
Once the lights go out, you’re mulch.
(Kinda drive-by…Beep, beep vroooooom…)
OK, here’s more. Let’s take your fish. It’s swimming along, happy as a fish that’s swimming along (la la la). That’s a fish. Then it dies. (garg!) Not a fish. Just a fish-shaped carcass.
Big-brained people can say:
A) It’s still a fish. It didn’t turn into a (let’s say) lamp, now, did it?
or
2. A fish swims around making that gloop-gloop face as it sucks water over it’s gills. And it eats stuff. (Worms and Wheaties balls, I guess) And it makes little fish. Is this crispy breaded thing onna plate going gloop-gloop? Is it eating stuff? Making a stray little fish? See? Not a fish. We still just call it a fish because calling it a fish-shaped carcass takes too long, and upsets the impressionable.
The “fish-ness” of a fish ends with death. But the fish shaped carcass is yummy fried, with tartar sauce.
So.
Dead= thing
Live= being
The “Preview” and “Submit” buttons should be farther apart…
It all depends on how you define ‘fish’ doesn’t it?
The man in the street will use the term ‘fish’ to mean the body of a generally fish-shaped animal that may or may not be dead.
The Purist will argue (as above) that by ‘Fish’, we mean the living entity.
Who is right?
Well, either, I suppose, if 99% of people misconcieve the definition of a word, what generally happens is that over time, it becomes redefined to validate their misconception and is no longer wrong.
Words are just labels that we have invented to cover concepts; if the underlying concepts undergo a shift (like they have in our modern improved understanding of what makes something alive), the labels don’t quite fit anymore or worse, they overlap.
This is particularly the case with life/death; the traditional view of death was that it is an instantaneous change; one moment you’re alive, then click! the next moment you’re dead; this might be true if you’re a single celled organism, but it simply isn’t the case for complex organisms.
[Slight hijack]
What about a quick-frozen live fish? it diplays none of the lively attributes of a living fish, but if thawed carefully it’s alive again (this is possible with some species of fish, but not all) - was it dead?
[/hijack]
I have a feeling we’re straying dangerously close to talking about souls and the Platonic Ideal.
the problem is the hypothetical being is the called the same thing alive or food.
I have pet fish.
Some people, but not I, eat cooked fish.
Now, had the example been a Steer…
Alive=Steer
Dead= Beef
A dead human, though, is a “dead body,” “dead person” or maybe a “corpse” which is not the same as being a person. If you saw a dead human, you probably wouldn’t refer to it as a person without adding “dead” in front of it.
<man lying decapitated in street> “Oh, look, there’s a person lying on the road.” Doesn’t sound quite right to me, anyway.
Ok, I’ll cut the crap and move to the essence of my question.
Given that after a person dies the body is just a thing, why don’t we more universally harvest and use the good stuff? And then toss the rest? Seems like a waste to bury all those useful parts and pieces.
We’d save a lot on funerals, too.
Does anyone really care what happens to the body after they die? I don’t. I’ve talked to my kids, and they said they would respect my wishes. My body goes to Stanford, if they want it. Otherwise the scraps go into a furnace, and the ashes get tossed. No problem, and no huge funeral bill for my descendants.
I like that.
Peace,
mangeorge
Ah, well, this is a bit different, mangeorge.
People carcasses are special because they used to house a person. The container is empty, but it would be disrespectful to the memory of the person to treat it like any other resource.
The big brain causes trouble again.
On one hand, it ain’t a person anymore.
On the other, it used to be. And you should show the appropriate reverence for ex-people. (Etiquette and all that.) Good people treat empty bodies with respect, 'cause that’s what Good People do.
So. Soylent Green outta convicted killers? Well…that would just be gross. (Except maybe a nice honey mustard sauce.)
By the way, I agree with you, mangeorge. Recycle what’s still good, and toast the rest. Sprinkle it around and maybe the flowers will be nicer next year. But the funeral isn’t for the dead guy. He can’t care. It’s for the survivors. A nice send-off for their closure.