I mean, even then you're growing it from chemicals. Unless you're straight up converting energy to matter (in which case, it would be kind of odd the first practical application they think of is making colors).
In the sense that everything is chemicals, yes. But you typically wouldn't describe a butterfly growing a wing or a welder making a blue weld from metals that are normally very much not blue as "growing from chemicals". I guess you could argue about the butterfly, but I think few people would say that chemicals are involved in welding steel, despite iron, carbon and tungsten being chemical elements
The few people that would say that chemistry is part of welding "steel" (what type of steel? what type of metal? how about aluminium? etc) includes welders.
Well, the counterargument is that in theory, you can imagine a way to create structural color regardless of substrate. So imagine a technology that shines a laser on a car or a block of concrete and makes it blue; I'd argue that's correctly "without chemicals".
Of course, I doubt you can do that to any random substrate, since the color will depend on the properties of the material.
Neat idea. But also, somebody's definitely going to take some kind of inappropriate picture just as the charge runs out, and will be stuck with it at the worst time. And somehow this makes it even better.
And by 'pay more' he means 'buy more US weapons'. NATO is a conveniently captive market for the US arms manufacturers, and no way they're going to want to pull out of that while they still have stock to sell.
> But, just as much, the dead do deserve our attention and respect.
They do in a way, but don't fool yourself that it's actually about the individual dead. It's about humanity in general, and the contribution – good, bad, or meaningless – that every single human life has made to our collective existence. It's good that we admire rainbows, but that doesn't mean we should revere every droplet of water.
> The dignity of a person doesn’t cease when they are dead.
It doesn't 'cease' inasmuch as it becomes a meaningless term. The dead don't have dignity, they are no longer people. It's the memories of the dead have dignity. Those memories are not a part of the dead, they are a part of the living that remember them.
I'm not sure you believe what you're saying. The dead don't have dignity? They aren't people anymore?
Treating the dead with dignity isn't solely for the sake of the dead, it's literally one of the oldest cultural norms of homo sapiens and perhaps even our homonid ancestors.
A homeless man is found dead outside city hall. He is nominally identified, but no relatives can be identified. What should the city do with him or - excuse me - his remains?
> Treating the dead with dignity isn't solely for the sake of the dead, it's literally one of the oldest cultural norms of homo sapiens and perhaps even our homonid ancestors.
When people thought the dead were in an afterlife wherein their circumstances depend on how good their funerary arrangements are? (There's people who still think that, by the way.)
