Graveyards are an Abomination.

[IAM]

Edit: "human corpse: freeze-dry it, shatter the brittle corpse into white powder, then compost"
http://www.mnn.com/money/sustainabl...-burial-how-to-turn-a-human-body-into-compost

From a logistical perspective we should not be attempting to immortalize human remains in permanent graveyards.

Reasons why
1- average funeral cost is $6,600 (USA National Funeral Directors Association data)
2- waste of human remains
3- waste of prime land resources

1- $
cost can be a hardship on some families
money could be spent to save lives of people around the world

2- human remains better uses
corpses could be better used for dissection (doctor practice) experiments etc.
people should be mandatory donors of organs to the living

3- land
bodies could be mass buried in graves and then the land used for forestry

But what parts of the funeral experience are important to a social creature? The coming together of friends, family, professional affiliates, fellow soldiers etc. to say goodbye to the deceased has a positive place in the grieving process.

 

[El_Machinae]

The only acceptable long-term outcome is a cure for everything that puts people into graveyards.

 

[Domen]

The only acceptable long-term outcome is a cure for everything that puts people into graveyards.

The best cure for life* or existence is extinction. Or a zombie apocalypse but this is less realistic.

*Also known as FSTD:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_as_a_Fatal_Sexually_Transmitted_Disease

 

[IAM]

The only acceptable long-term outcome is a cure for everything that puts people into graveyards.

It is already an overcrowded planet.

 

[El_Machinae]

The best cure for life* or existence is extinction.

It is already an overcrowded planet.

Yes, but I refuse to accept that the best "solution" is 'people gotta die'. It's a failure of imagination.

 

[IAM]

Yes, but I refuse to accept that the best "solution" is 'people gotta die'. It's a failure of imagination.

The 2 quotes you made are taken out of context. At least mine was. I was responding to the person that I quoted.

 

[Domen]

It would be better to colonize other planets using the excess of population.

 

[Agent327]

Good luck with that, son.

corpses could be better used for dissection (doctor practice) experiments etc.
people should be mandatory donors of organs to the living

No, thanks.

It is already an overcrowded planet.

No, it's not. It's a matter of food not being available where it's needed vs food being available in excess where it's not needed.

 

[Antilogic]

Eh, recycling organs isn't that bad of an idea. At minimum, I'd make it something you have to opt out of rather than opt in to.

 

[Tee Kay]

My grandmother donated her body to science then opted to be cremated, all expenses paid for by the University of Melbourne.

It's a good system.

 

[IAM]

My grandmother donated her body to science then opted to be cremated, all expenses paid for by the University of Melbourne.

It's a good system.

That's a reasonable compromise but it does take a lot of fuel to cremate a human body. Even those ancient funeral pyres that burn the body had to burn for days with a tremendous amount of intense heat and constantly feeding the fire.

 

[Core Imposter]

Economic activity is economic activity. Beats throwing rocks through your neighbor's windows.

Plus our remains will eventually be oil. Sustainable?

 

[El_Machinae]

It is already an overcrowded planet.

Yes, but I refuse to accept that the best "solution" is 'people gotta die'. It's a failure of imagination.

The 2 quotes you made are taken out of context. At least mine was. I was responding to the person that I quoted.

I understand that. My reply was framed to be appropriate to your comment.

 

[Paul in Saudi]

It would be better to colonize other planets using the excess of population.

THis "excess population" that you and Scrooge talked about, are they the people who look like you or the ones who look like me?

 

[BenitoChavez]

2- human remains better uses
corpses could be better used for dissection (doctor practice) experiments etc.
people should be mandatory donors of organs to the living

Also can be used to heat hospitals

 

[sophie]

Plus our remains will eventually be oil. Sustainable?

"Eventually" here being millions upon millions of years.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Easy solution: time-travel.

The Doctor may seem benevolent, but in fact he's a cruel oil tyrant that has the Earth under his tyranny for thousands of years.

 

[warpus]

Real estate is getting more and more expensive, and while we have a lot of empty land still, our cities are getting more and more crowded. Burial costs are going up.

Graveyards do not make long-term sense. We shouldn't be taking up valuable real estate with human corpses.

There needs to be a better way for us to respect the dead.. Burying them is not viable.

And when I die? I don't want my descendants or other family members to spend thousands of dollars on me. Spend that money on me while I'm still alive! Once I'm dead I don't give a crap, keep the money and improve your family..

I realize people want to be remembered, but there are other ways to accomplish that. Spending thousands of dollars and taking up valuable real estate space is not the answer.

 

[Smellincoffee]

If we're not going to burn bodies on funeral pyres like the Greeks, then I favor quick-compostable caskets that expedite our turning back into dirt. Mummification and modern attempts at preservation are a little weird. I know it's a grasping at immortality, but still...

 

[Farm Boy]

Graveyards are wonderful bits of connection with the past. All "my people" for the past 150 years are located in 3 general locations over slightly more cemetaries than that. We visit them, sometimes my wife and I picnic. Anytime we travel, local cemeteries are on the list of sights of interest we visit. I support the status quo. If you don't want your remains treated in a certain way, make sure you arrange for them to be treated differently and that your family knows your wishes. That's cool too.