I’d expect here we’d give necromancy positive connotations. Most of the people here seem to be against death.
Just because we have a specific attitude about things doesn’t mean we need to go and use terminology that has pre-existing connotations. I don’t think for example that calling cryonics “technological necromancy” or “supercold lichdom” would be helpful to getting people listen although both would be awesome names. However, Eliezer seems to disagree at least in regards to cryonics in certain narrow contexts. See his standard line when people ask about his cryonic medallion that it is a mark of his membership in the “Cult of the Severed Head.”
There’s actually a general trend in modern fantasy literature to see necromancy as less intrinsically evil. The most prominent example would be Garth Nix’s “Abhorsen” trilogy and the next most prominent would be Gail Martin’s “Chronicles of the Necromancer” series. Both have necromancers as the main protagonists. However, in this context, most of the cached thoughts about death still seem to be present. In both series, the good necromancers use their powers primarily to stop evil undead and help usher people in to accepting death and the afterlife. Someone should at some point write a fantasy novel in which there’s a good necromancer who brings people back as undead.
I thought it’s only thread necromancy if it moves it to the front page. This website doesn’t seem to work like that. I hope it doesn’t work like that, because I posted most of my comments on old threads.
Posts only get put to the main page if Eliezer decides do so (which he generally does to most high ranking posts).
I don’t think for example that calling cryonics “technological necromancy” or “supercold lichdom” would be helpful to getting people listen although both would be awesome names.
I dunno—I reckon you might get increased interest from the SF/F crowd. :)
I don’t think for example that calling cryonics “technological necromancy” or “supercold lichdom” would be helpful to getting people listen although both would be awesome names.
Just because we have a specific attitude about things doesn’t mean we need to go and use terminology that has pre-existing connotations. I don’t think for example that calling cryonics “technological necromancy” or “supercold lichdom” would be helpful to getting people listen although both would be awesome names. However, Eliezer seems to disagree at least in regards to cryonics in certain narrow contexts. See his standard line when people ask about his cryonic medallion that it is a mark of his membership in the “Cult of the Severed Head.”
There’s actually a general trend in modern fantasy literature to see necromancy as less intrinsically evil. The most prominent example would be Garth Nix’s “Abhorsen” trilogy and the next most prominent would be Gail Martin’s “Chronicles of the Necromancer” series. Both have necromancers as the main protagonists. However, in this context, most of the cached thoughts about death still seem to be present. In both series, the good necromancers use their powers primarily to stop evil undead and help usher people in to accepting death and the afterlife. Someone should at some point write a fantasy novel in which there’s a good necromancer who brings people back as undead.
Posts only get put to the main page if Eliezer decides do so (which he generally does to most high ranking posts).
I dunno—I reckon you might get increased interest from the SF/F crowd. :)
Funny. I was working on something an awful lot like that back in 2000. I wasn’t terribly good at writing back then, unfortunately.
...or would they...nahh.