>After twenty minutes or so, he placed them in his bone press, turning them to dust before wheeling in the second body.
That seems like such a waste. If it were me, I'd want my bones artificially reconnected to one another, then my skeleton donated to a comedy club or something.
No reason to stop having fun just because you're dead.
> "I give my skull to the Goodman Theatre, for a production of Hamlet in which to play Yorick, or for any other purposes the Goodman Theatre deems appropriate." At a press conference on July 1, 1999, Charna gave Robert Falls, the Goodman's artistic director, a skull resting on a red velvet cushion inside a Lucite box. Falls held out the skull in his right hand and spoke. "Alas, poor Del! I knew him, Horatio: A fellow of infinite jest..."
> But the skull wasn't Del's. Charna came clean in the October 9, 2006, issue of the New Yorker. After Del died, hospital personnel laughed at her request to remove the head, suggesting that she contact the Illinois Society of Pathologists. They too ultimately refused. After two days, she reluctantly had the body cremated in its entirety. Then she went skull shopping at the Anatomical Chart Company in Skokie. She purchased a skull there, and to make it resemble Del's she and her sister pulled out as many teeth as they could manage before turning it over to the Goodman.
> The truth doesn't seem to matter to most of those who knew him. Robert Falls still keeps the skull on his bookshelf. The attitude of most of Del's friends is that if it wasn't originally Del's skull, it is now.
In my last startup, my primary product was a CRM of sorts for the US funeral industry. Coming from Hindu country, I was kinda puzzled on why does one need CRM and accounting systems in deathcare over a period of 30 years - think of one "lead" changing states for 30 years.
That is until I realized that the primary business of deathcare in the US revolves around real estate. People want to be buried under a tree on top of the hill with the gentle sea breeze.. And not near a place where a dig can take a dump.
Very surprising.. And IMHO wasteful for someone like me, who admittedly belongs to another belief.
Also, since a lot if people have written about this, the Parsis (a community in India who trace their descent from Iran) feed their dead to vultures. Sadly, Mumbai don't have too many vultures... So now, they are mandated by law to cremate them.
This is the norm in Arab/Muslim countries where their doctrine instructs that the (naked) dead should be covered only in a simple, white cotton shroud and buried six feet under; caskets and embalming fluids are not used. (Hence the Islamic requirement for a speedy (same day if possible) burial, no wake, etc.)
In similar vein, mausoleums, raised tombstones, and cemetery shrines are also forbidden (the overall theme is "we are all equal in death").
The net result is that cemeteries are "reusable" and some of the most-popular in Saudi Arabia ("jannatul baqee'" a là Arlington Cemetery) are reused/recycled every so many decades (or is it once a century, once the denizens are forgotten/no longer visited?).
On request, graves will be lined with timber, brick or
concrete breeze blocks to form an inner shell in the grave
space. Please note that we require the following notice for
these types of vault.
"A concrete or other permanent outer burial container is
not required, but there is an additional charge for a burial without an outer burial container."
The UK burial section for Muslims might be for offshoots or sects; for example, I do not know if Shiaa Muslims adhere to the same. Or it could be like here in the US: government regulations say you can't bury people sans-casket, so it could be "these (and only these) are your options."
For anyone slightly confused (I was), Bury Council (bury.gov.uk) is the local government for the town of Bury, and that is a guide for burials in Bury. It's not the national authority for burials or anything.
I've yet to read a criticism of this being harmful to the environment, save the fact that it takes up land that could otherwise be used for agriculture/forestry.
Tangential: That's the commandment of Jewish burial law.
Bodies are to be buried in simple, plain linen or cotton hand-made shrouds. One reason is so that those who cannot afford fancy clothing aren't embarrassed that they don't have any.
Also, bodies are supposed to be buried without caskets, but in areas where local law mandates burial with a casket, that casket is to be simple and modest, rather than an ornate coffin.
The human body accumulates toxins which are then returned back to the environment. The mushroom suit can apparently neutralize some of these things. Haven't tried it yet, will let you know when I do :D
what kind of suit do the mushrooms that have absorbed your toxins (lest they be released into the environment) have to wear so when they die, they wont simply decompose and release your toxins?
Or what if the mushrooms holding your toxins are ingested by animals, would it pass through and then ultimately poison the earth?
There is a trend called "green burial" where just that service is offered. I had to look into it for a client who wanted a green burial dictated in her will. There are local cemeteries that specialize in it. They basically wrap you in a sheet and bury you. No casket, no vault, no embalming.
that's exactly what I was wondering. except I thought their system dissolved bones too. I'm thinking of the story from Atlantic about the DEA's taking down a Mexican cartel that dissolved many of the victims in what they called "soup"
What a tremendous waste of space and energy. Millions of people die every year, where would we store them all? And, even if we do later figure out how to recover people from cryonic storage, who knows what pre-treatment will be required to make them eligible for re-animation?
Would you be okay with storing my genetic code, cyropreserving only my brain, and then growing me a new body in 100-500 years when we've got reanimation down cold (no pun intended)?
I'm fine with being stored in a robotic facility on Mars, the dark side of the Moon, or even at a Lagrange point; anywhere where passive physics can be used to ensure the appropriate temperature is maintained.
... is not really a thing, BTW. Earth's moon is tidally locked to Earth, so one lunar cycle (synodic period, about 29.5 Earth days) is approximately one lunar day.
You'd need to build a train on the moon to keep your cryo chamber in the Moon's shadow, or something similar. I doubt you'd save energy by doing so.
Completely incorrect. For exactly the reason you mention, the back side of the moon is indeed not visible from Earth, and was first photographed by a Soviet satellite in 1959. The only humans who have ever seen it in person were Apollo astronauts.
For what it's worth, I think we have a stronger moral responsibility to things that exist than to merely potential people in this regard. There's no reason we need to create new people other than that we want to and people die. I've tried really hard and I can't think of a moral reason we are required to produce new people on any particular schedule. I used to share your position.
My theory is that two people who each live to 40 will together experience more joy than one person who lives to 80. I remember the first time my daughter tasted chocolate. I could get filthy rich and buy a yacht and I don't think I could feel joy like that as an adult. If we maintain population at equilibrium, people living twice as long will mean half as many kids born each year. Half as many first tastes of chocolate. Life extension carries with it an enormous opportunity cost.
That seems like such a waste. If it were me, I'd want my bones artificially reconnected to one another, then my skeleton donated to a comedy club or something.
No reason to stop having fun just because you're dead.