You can't take it with you, folks, and that includes your body. I don't get the rituals around what happens to bodies after consciousness leaves them. Let the dust return to dust. So what if it happens together with a bunch of other dust? My dust won't know the difference at that point.
The important thing for me is to leave a legacy besides what happens to my body. A work of art or technology, or memories passed down through offspring. Maybe a nice little obituary.
The stories in the article are great, I just don't get the attitude that asks, "how dare these people be buried this way?" I think it has everything to do with the irrational fear of death, maybe one of the only things we won't be able to rationally, personally comprehend.
The want for a traditional burial of some form isn't for the departed - as you say they have no need of it, it's so the family can grieve and have some form of closure and often a place to go and visit.
This is going to entirely depend on the family and is a very personal thing and not rational, but the widespread of emotional response to loss is anything but rational.
Myself I don't care what happens to my cadaver when I'm gone, but my family can deal with it as they please to bring whatever peace they need.
I certainly understand the frustration and 'hurt' expressed by what is in the article. And there are some questionable circumstances and decisions, yes, along with unwillingness to work with the poor.
But it's not as if these people are being pushed into mass graves with a bulldozer. Or willy-nilly flung around without respect.
Most of these stories were of people already forgotten - strained relationships, mental illness, or otherwise out of contact with their loved ones.
If someone hasn't spoken to another member of a family or friends in a number of years and kept in contact with the caregivers/caregiving facilities, and their only contact is with someone who is paid to care for their most basic needs, how can we entirely blame a system for not going to utter lengths to 'restore' those?
4 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 18.2 ms ] threadGetting a municipal burial if necessary is one of the perks of living with a social safety net that I guess I didn't appreciate.
The important thing for me is to leave a legacy besides what happens to my body. A work of art or technology, or memories passed down through offspring. Maybe a nice little obituary.
The stories in the article are great, I just don't get the attitude that asks, "how dare these people be buried this way?" I think it has everything to do with the irrational fear of death, maybe one of the only things we won't be able to rationally, personally comprehend.
This is going to entirely depend on the family and is a very personal thing and not rational, but the widespread of emotional response to loss is anything but rational.
Myself I don't care what happens to my cadaver when I'm gone, but my family can deal with it as they please to bring whatever peace they need.
But it's not as if these people are being pushed into mass graves with a bulldozer. Or willy-nilly flung around without respect.
Most of these stories were of people already forgotten - strained relationships, mental illness, or otherwise out of contact with their loved ones.
If someone hasn't spoken to another member of a family or friends in a number of years and kept in contact with the caregivers/caregiving facilities, and their only contact is with someone who is paid to care for their most basic needs, how can we entirely blame a system for not going to utter lengths to 'restore' those?
Another sad reality is: some people don't care.