There is nothing in particular to stop you from pouring the liquid into an urn if you want to. Maybe keep granny around in her favorite teapot or something.
Save your toe and finger nail clippings and other detritus and you can prepare the urn before you go and on death your entire collection of molecules can do something more immediately useful as in fertilizer. True reincarnation albeit in a different pattern.
It makes sense. Some comedian used to joke about the best land being taken up by golf courses and cemeteries. So, that has always stuck with me and I've long since planned on getting cremated.
I'd prefer a sky burial but that's difficult, or so I am told.
Human death is an industry and cemeteries are some of the players. Cemeteries would be obsolete if all humans had evolved the habit of cremation instead of isolated burial. Cremation costs zero units of space, isolated burial costs a finite amount of space in a world with scarce space.
If the market prefers isolated burial, then there's a market for space-consuming cemeteries. This probably costs a lot in government regulations, so cemeteries have to be big enough to absorb the initial costs.
Cemeteries are kind of a dumb idea and part of a backwards industry, driven by some silly need to bury people in quaint suburbs of death.
That sentiment is my bias showing, but it's kind of a no brainer: cemeteries are superfluous and are basically societal debt at this point. Let's hope we can count on people to move towards more economically friendly means of disposable:
1. Dump your dead friend in the woods.
2. Dump your dead friend in the ocean.
3. Dump your dead friend's ashes somewhere.
These are all better options than hogging some space, digging a hole, dumping your dead friend into the hole, then telling everyone that this land forever belongs to someone who can no longer use it.
They're a neat mix of history, nature, and art. They're often isolated, beautiful, and quiet. Important people get monuments in public squares; all but the most poor throughout US history get a small plot and a little headstone. It's fun to think about people who otherwise have been completely forgotten: the eras they lived in, the family members they're buried with, the countries where they came from, their accomplishments in life, and sometimes the sacrifices they made for me. They're no dumber than any other monument you see to anyone anywhere else, except these are the monuments for the 99%, figuratively speaking.
Visiting a cemetery also reminds me that I'm mortal and one day my fate will be the same.
There's an extremely fair case to be made against cemeteries from environmental and/or space concerns, and you can accomplish a lot of the above goals in other ways. However, the dismissal of a very human desire to remember and/or be remembered deserved a response.
Yeah the aesthetic argument is one I can't really argue against. I also like cemeteries for aesthetic reasons, but there's no reason why we couldn't preserve a forest and then plant monuments there, followed by cremation.
Are physical monuments getting more or less popular? I mean, my whole history and life is basically on Facebook, which acts as a more thorough monument than any limited gravestone ever could. Remembering people through electronics seems like a complete eco-friendly replacement for altars and other space consuming habits.
He is buried in a cemetery, according to Google. I wonder why? He seems to have been rather principled and I'd have not expected him to do so.
The other thing is that some really good thoughts come from comedians. Beneath the humor, there is frequently some good thoughts, intellectual thoughts. I wonder why this is? Psych is, obviously, not my domain. I don't really understand why we do many of the things we do, but I will avoid too much digression.
Maybe the Google reference was wrong; at least, Wikipedia says his ashes were scattered: "In accordance with his wishes, his body was cremated, and the ashes were scattered in front of various nightclubs he played in New York City and over Spofford Lake, in Chesterfield, New Hampshire, where he attended summer camp as an adolescent."
A girlfriend in medical school said she wish she had a cadaver like my body for anatomy class. She said that she and nearly everyone in the class had to cut through inches of fat to get to the organs, also covered in fat. Such bodies may represent today's population better, but she said you could learn better without it.
Once they're done using your body, they still need to dispose of the remains. By "giving your body to science" you are avoiding having to make a decision at a personal level, but it doesn't answer the question of the best way to dispose of our deads at a societal level.
Interesting that you mention that — holding neither strong opinions nor privileged knowledge about the matter, the desire to avoid making a comparatively uninformed decision about the disposition of my body after death "at a personal level" is precisely why I've been a total organ donor since the opportunity first presented itself.
The New York Times had a fascinating article trying to track down the people who ended up being buried in "Potter's Field". One story that stuck with me was of a wealthy, accomplished woman who donated her body to science. Once the New York University School of Medicine was done with her, her remains "now lies with 144 strangers in Trench 359."
"The bodies are not placed on the ground because their presence would corrupt the earth. For the same reason, Zoroastrians do not cremate their dead, as it would corrupt the fire.
The dakhma is a wide tower with a platform open to the sky. Corpses are left on the platform to be picked clean by vultures, a process which only takes a few hours. This allows a body to be consumed before dangerous corruption sets in."
Yes but the problem with sky burials are the environmental contamination of leaving hundreds of bodies (or whatever remains after the vultures have their supper) to slowly decompose in one single spot. You can easily google for images of typical Zoroastrian "Towers of Silence" and see that quite a lot of stuff is left over, which the villagers just sweep off the ledge into the center hole. The idea that the corpse is "picked clean" is really debatable and demonstrably false in many cases, as you can clearly see in the images of Towers of Silence. I don't pretend to be privy to the facts -- and perhaps someone will correct me with a citation -- but from my understanding, "environmental contamination" is often one of the arguments against allowing the construction of Towers of Silence.
Deer and other large mammals regularly die in the wild. Vultures are just the first stage of decomposition, so while they don't get everything even bones get taken care of and Towers of Science take up far less space than a cemetery.
The issue with human remains is really disease transmission, and while not perfect they do work fairly well.
This is the result of the use of Diclofenac, a non-steroid anti-inflammatory drug, to care for livestock. The vultures eat the livestock carcasses, and die of the diclofenac... in great numbers. 99.9% (yes) of Indian vultures are gone- which, among other things, makes Parsi sky burials ineffective:
I wonder if this "alkaline hydrolysis" effectively destroys prions. With 1/9 people over 65 afflicted with Alzheimer's - and that's diagnosed - I am of the unconventional suspicion that prions are a culprit[1], though I am aware it is not a well-received suspicion. We've known for years that plants can uptake prions. We've verified that in cases of chronic-wasting-disease (etiology = prions) animal droppings from infected wildlife contain prions, which implies that humans may also pass prions through fecal matter and are perhaps more easily spread than popularly accepted. With the common application of Sludge (municipally treated and redistributed sewage) and the primarily bacterial means of processing it, it too seems a source of spreading prions. I wonder if more caution is due regarding the spreading of such a persistently virulent thing, and if the risk of prions isn't underestimated in many respects.
Protein staining in the study of Alzheimer’s disease is a common (and old) element of its analysis. This is part of how we identified tau protein plaque formation as part of the disease.
Prions are not part of the disease. They would stain, and be visible on microscopy. They are exactly the (type of) substance that has been stained for, and are more than large enough to show up on the various types of microscopy regularly performed on these tissue samples.
I’m trying to find a more explicit way of saying: these are easy to eee in exactly the ways that we examine these brains, so no, it’s not a prion disease.
It's super unlikely. Having worked in the field, I am almost certain that amyloids are a consequence of, not a cause of the disease. Otherwise, valeant's drug would not have failed so spectacularly a few weeks ago.
Prions (transmissible protein configurations in general) are not a part of the Alzheimer's disease. If it were, the valeant drug would not have failed so spectacularly two weeks ago.
The major risk factor in Alzheimer's is susceptibility to oxidative damage in the brain.
I thought you were completely dissolved to the core making some kind of primordial soup, it was beautiful, until I read there are still bones at the end they can put in an urn. Could be better. The device is still worth it. Maybe the 500k model can do it?
I like the fact you go into the sewage system or be used as fertilizer (if you are a pet). At the end, you can be drunk or eaten by other people.
Only beaten by: A/space burial to the sun or frozen in the middle of total vacuum B/cryo C/science.
Honestly I've been planning for a good old-fashioned Roman funeral pyre after I'm gone. Complete with some kind of monument with an inscription imploring passersby not to shit on my grave.
Yes it does seem like that, doesn't it? But Romans were particularly concerned about people shitting on their graves. If you start reading Roman epitaphs, they all universally seem to follow one particular format:
To the spirits of the departed, here is the grave of Publius Maximus, served in the Legions, who drank heartily every day of his life. Passersby, consider a moment this grave, but go on before too long, lest you shit here. This monument was put up by his dear brother Julius Maximus and measures ten feet at the front and twenty into the field.
If you're interested in the whole concept of Roman epitaphs, I can't recommend enough Death in Ancient Rome by Valerie Hope [0]. It is a fascinating perspective on the culture of the Roman Empire which demonstrates ideas that were important to them in a way that couldn't be known otherwise. I read loads of books on the Roman Empire, but I could not put this book down. I read it in a very short amount of time. If you only buy three books on the Roman Empire, this should be one of them! Also, you can click on this link confident that it's not a stupid referral.
Burial/funerary practices are really fascinating, as it's so intertwined with our ideas of morals and aesthetics (which have always themselves been part of the same thing). Ceremonial/ritualistic treatment of the dead is something that's been part of humanity for so long, and it's made us what we are.
For this reason, it's good to examine what sorts of funerary practices one finds aesthetically pleasing or off-putting, and to see if there are any trends. For example, I personally am less enamored of pure utilitarian/altruistic methods like donating one's body to science, or where you get your remains put into a package to grow a tree. Can't deny the usefulness and rationality of such things, of course. But the thought process of that I can't shake is "Well, at least I'll be of some use when I'm dead" or "I don't want to be a bother."
My thought is that there's something good in the notion, not just of the dead not being forgotten, but of having the dead impart some sort of cost or burden on the living. I actually love the idea of pyramids and ancient mausoleums, and the idea of people having been buried with personal or costly items -- not because I myself am interested in having a lavish tomb or "thinking I can take it with me," but because I think there's something primal in us that wants to find some way of making the sense of loss more concrete and material. (At the same time, that can be driven to excess in our modern funeral-director economic system, which itself tries to piggyback on that desire to throw wealth at the dead by instead throwing wealth at the living.) When it comes to burial, I've always liked large standing headstones far more than just flat markers, partially for historical/design purposes, but also just because I'm not a fan of making such gravestones less prominent just to make the job of a lawn-mower easier. I can't help but want graves to be obnoxious obstacles enough that someone has to deal with them individually.
When it comes to cremation or the article's "liquifaction," I find it curious that either method sits well with me except for the last step of cremulation. It's not something that we generally think about, but when you cremate a body, the fires aren't enough to get the job done -- you end up with many fragments of fragile bone rather than some uniform powder. At that point, the fragments go into a cremulator, which is essentially an industrial blender, to be pulverized into powder. Maybe I'm just a romantic for older methods, but the more modern industrial "grind grandma's bones in a blender" approach strikes me as much more violent than immolating a corpse. I'd much rather cremation was practiced as in Japan ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_funeral#Cremation ) where the fragments themselves are hand-picked out of the ashes (or rather chopstick-picked) by relatives to be placed in the urn. I'd also be a fan of bringing back the practice of ossuaries to balance the desire for burial with the limitations of physical space.
Of course, this is all 'irrational' or 'illogical', but it's good to think about what we actually favor when it comes to funerary practices, and what it says about ourselves. I think that aesthetics, our sense of beauty/ugliness in this situation, is connected with our worldview, our personal history, and our morals/ethics in interesting ways. Looking through the thousands of years of human civilization and seeing how various people dealt with the trauma of death and loss is enlightening.
> My thought is that there's something good in the notion, not just of the dead not being forgotten, but of having the dead impart some sort of cost or burden on the living.
Sure, as long as "the cost or burden on the living" is merely that of remembering our debt to the dead for their contributions to our present-day lives. (Cf. President Obama's "You didn't build that" remark during the 2012 campaign [0], which triggered outrage by opponents who quoted it out of context.)
Is that technique really "greener" than cremation ? Maybe you're not generating as much CO2 on-site but sodium hydroxide is made by electrolysing salt so it consumes a lot of energy.
>The environmental benefits of alkaline hydrolysis are significant. Its carbon footprint is about a tenth of that caused by burning bodies. Mr. Wilson said liquefaction uses a fraction of the energy of a standard cremator and releases no fumes.... the [effluent] is sterile and contains nutrients, so much so that it can be and is used as a fertilizer. Rick Vonderwell, who manages Tails Remembered, a pet crematory in Delphos, Ohio, uses the effluent at his farm, as do several large universities.
Well it does have minerals, salts, and amino acids!
Joke aside, if it went into being fertilizer which then feeds plants which we eat... The plants are just playing the role of the processing mechanism for recycling those chemicals...
Although I don't like the thought of my body rotting somewhere, I do think it's probably just fair if my available biomass is turned after something useful after I'm dead, considering how much I will have consumed during my life. It's still only a symbolic gesture, but in that sense I'd prefer being liquefied and used as fertilizer to just being burned to relatively useless ash.
I wonder what the most ecologically useful way of disposing of a body is.
> Instead of burying the corpse, Zoroastrians traditionally laid it out on a purpose built tower (dokhma or 'Tower of Silence') to be exposed to the sun and eaten by birds of prey such as vultures.
And I don’t actually think it’s very eco friendly. They only do that because the altitude doesn’t allow for enough microbial activity to break it down.
What altitude? This is a tradition that started in Persia and still exists in parts of India. I don’t think altitude has much to do with it. There are social issues when the Towers of Silence that used to be away from the population centers become surrounded by the growing cities, carrion eaters aren’t always the tiniest of creatures
I recall reading there is a problem with doing this in India because the birds of pray population has decreased by like 99% so there's often not enough birds to pick the body clean.
EDIT: there's another comment down thread saying the same.
Turns out to be logistically challenging in many ways (and fraught with the socio-cultural complications one would imagine in a tradition going back thousands of years):
Ecologically useful is leaving it out to be broken down in a warm biologically active wild. Minimum energy spent, and it will provide energy throughout the local biome.
There's an eco-friendly cremation process that was developed within the past two decades, where the body is flash-frozen using liquid nitrogen, and then pulverized into powder with vibration. Whatever happened to that? I'm finding articles on it from 1997, but it looks like it never gained much popularity.
You could look at "green burial", a small but growing option in the US. All natural materials for the casket, no embalming, a more or less natural site for burial. You can also be buried green-ly on your own land in certain more rural/wild jurisdictions.
There's an interesting concept I saw a few years back of the mushroom body suit: http://grist.org/living/mushroom-burial-suit-turns-dead-bodi.... It's essentially a bag laced with mushroom spores. You put it on an unembalmed body and bury it and the mushrooms use the corpse as fuel. Something like that and a backyard burial is probably the most ecologically friendly way of disposing of a body.
My body is pretty beat up and should probably be treated as toxic, hazardous, or medical waste (or all three).
I don't want to be buried, burned, or donated. I'd prefer something like dipping into molten steel (or lava) like in Terminator 2, for everyone's safety.
If fungi can mitigate, neutralize all the bad stuff in my body, I'd be okay with that.
"normal" burial is pretty eco IMO. Your body goes back to mother earth, especially if the Jewish /Muslim tradition of just wrapping the dead person in a cloth is adapted.
My goal is to become a fossil - literally - and take a message to the future with me. I'd need to be buried in soil likely to become sedimentary rock, something like a bog, or maybe a muddy river delta. For my message, I'd take something like a wooden abacus or astrolabe, something that will petrify like my mortal remains. I know, the chances are missions to one my fossil will ever be found, and we can only imagine by whom or what. But what a story that fossil will tell!
Here's a plug for Barry Hughart's Master Li and Number Ten Ox books, where in a character collects mummified holy men who died while meditating, with the rumour that some didn't die of natural causes.
I keep telling people I want a Viking funeral. And not one of those silly, historically accurate ship burials. I want to be pushed out to sea in a longship with a sword laid across my chest, with an expert longbowman to set me on fire with flaming arrows.
Is it anachronistic? Yes. Am I a badass Scandanavian warrior? Not even a little. Do I actually worship Thor? Only on census forms. But it makes me laugh about my death so I'll keep telling people that's what I want.
In my actual will, I'm an organ donor and donate anything left over to science, but no one needs to know that just yet.
I’d be down for this if my current plans are still too expensive to be an option when I die.
I’d like to be flung out of a mass driver towards interstellar space, naked, in the “starfish position.”
Starfish position for the uninformed is arms out, legs out. You know, the position you take when you drop onto your bed exhausted at the end of a long day.
Except my final bed would be emptiness, forever cartwheeling into the abyss...
I'd like to undergo taxidermy stretched over a robotic skeleton. With a bank of Li-ion batteries and a charging port on the belly button. And of course a few hard drives and a board or three and lots of sensors.
That way I can pre-program a bunch of activities for myself after death and finally catch up on all the stuff I meant to do but never got around to.
145 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 35.8 ms ] threadI'd prefer a sky burial but that's difficult, or so I am told.
If the market prefers isolated burial, then there's a market for space-consuming cemeteries. This probably costs a lot in government regulations, so cemeteries have to be big enough to absorb the initial costs.
Cemeteries are kind of a dumb idea and part of a backwards industry, driven by some silly need to bury people in quaint suburbs of death.
That sentiment is my bias showing, but it's kind of a no brainer: cemeteries are superfluous and are basically societal debt at this point. Let's hope we can count on people to move towards more economically friendly means of disposable:
1. Dump your dead friend in the woods. 2. Dump your dead friend in the ocean. 3. Dump your dead friend's ashes somewhere.
These are all better options than hogging some space, digging a hole, dumping your dead friend into the hole, then telling everyone that this land forever belongs to someone who can no longer use it.
They're a neat mix of history, nature, and art. They're often isolated, beautiful, and quiet. Important people get monuments in public squares; all but the most poor throughout US history get a small plot and a little headstone. It's fun to think about people who otherwise have been completely forgotten: the eras they lived in, the family members they're buried with, the countries where they came from, their accomplishments in life, and sometimes the sacrifices they made for me. They're no dumber than any other monument you see to anyone anywhere else, except these are the monuments for the 99%, figuratively speaking.
Visiting a cemetery also reminds me that I'm mortal and one day my fate will be the same.
There's an extremely fair case to be made against cemeteries from environmental and/or space concerns, and you can accomplish a lot of the above goals in other ways. However, the dismissal of a very human desire to remember and/or be remembered deserved a response.
Are physical monuments getting more or less popular? I mean, my whole history and life is basically on Facebook, which acts as a more thorough monument than any limited gravestone ever could. Remembering people through electronics seems like a complete eco-friendly replacement for altars and other space consuming habits.
That was the great George Carlin:
https://youtu.be/lncLOEqc9Rw?t=5m53s
He is buried in a cemetery, according to Google. I wonder why? He seems to have been rather principled and I'd have not expected him to do so.
The other thing is that some really good thoughts come from comedians. Beneath the humor, there is frequently some good thoughts, intellectual thoughts. I wonder why this is? Psych is, obviously, not my domain. I don't really understand why we do many of the things we do, but I will avoid too much digression.
That makes more sense, as Carlin seemed (if nothing else) principled.
A girlfriend in medical school said she wish she had a cadaver like my body for anatomy class. She said that she and nearly everyone in the class had to cut through inches of fat to get to the organs, also covered in fat. Such bodies may represent today's population better, but she said you could learn better without it.
Such a compliment
Better gain 100lbs if you think the relationship is going south.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/body-donation/biocremation-resoma...
Pre-med have all the best pickup lines.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/15/nyregion/new-...
The only thing to get past is the way the idea reminds me of an episode of Breaking Bad.
"The bodies are not placed on the ground because their presence would corrupt the earth. For the same reason, Zoroastrians do not cremate their dead, as it would corrupt the fire.
The dakhma is a wide tower with a platform open to the sky. Corpses are left on the platform to be picked clean by vultures, a process which only takes a few hours. This allows a body to be consumed before dangerous corruption sets in."
http://www.avesta.org/ritual/funeral.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/zoroastrian/ritesrit...
https://www.thoughtco.com/zoroastrian-funerals-95949
The issue with human remains is really disease transmission, and while not perfect they do work fairly well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diclofenac#Ecological_effects
In the past, the vultures would have picked the bones clean. Now there's just not enough vultures- hence the image you describe.
Beyond the symbolic aspects, it's practical in regions where there's very little wood for cremation, and the ground may be too hard for actual burial.
[1] James Ironside on prions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlIYGYA5q0s
Prions are not part of the disease. They would stain, and be visible on microscopy. They are exactly the (type of) substance that has been stained for, and are more than large enough to show up on the various types of microscopy regularly performed on these tissue samples.
I’m trying to find a more explicit way of saying: these are easy to eee in exactly the ways that we examine these brains, so no, it’s not a prion disease.
Also, prions are a concern without fringe conspiracy theories.
The major risk factor in Alzheimer's is susceptibility to oxidative damage in the brain.
Only beaten by: A/space burial to the sun or frozen in the middle of total vacuum B/cryo C/science.
Btw, it's the mobile version of the page. Here is the full one: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/business/flameless-cremat...
I'm not a pet, but would love to be used as fertilizer.
This is oddly specific, it feels like a dare.
To the spirits of the departed, here is the grave of Publius Maximus, served in the Legions, who drank heartily every day of his life. Passersby, consider a moment this grave, but go on before too long, lest you shit here. This monument was put up by his dear brother Julius Maximus and measures ten feet at the front and twenty into the field.
They are literally all like that.
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Death-Ancient-Rome-Sourcebook-Sourceb...
For this reason, it's good to examine what sorts of funerary practices one finds aesthetically pleasing or off-putting, and to see if there are any trends. For example, I personally am less enamored of pure utilitarian/altruistic methods like donating one's body to science, or where you get your remains put into a package to grow a tree. Can't deny the usefulness and rationality of such things, of course. But the thought process of that I can't shake is "Well, at least I'll be of some use when I'm dead" or "I don't want to be a bother."
My thought is that there's something good in the notion, not just of the dead not being forgotten, but of having the dead impart some sort of cost or burden on the living. I actually love the idea of pyramids and ancient mausoleums, and the idea of people having been buried with personal or costly items -- not because I myself am interested in having a lavish tomb or "thinking I can take it with me," but because I think there's something primal in us that wants to find some way of making the sense of loss more concrete and material. (At the same time, that can be driven to excess in our modern funeral-director economic system, which itself tries to piggyback on that desire to throw wealth at the dead by instead throwing wealth at the living.) When it comes to burial, I've always liked large standing headstones far more than just flat markers, partially for historical/design purposes, but also just because I'm not a fan of making such gravestones less prominent just to make the job of a lawn-mower easier. I can't help but want graves to be obnoxious obstacles enough that someone has to deal with them individually.
When it comes to cremation or the article's "liquifaction," I find it curious that either method sits well with me except for the last step of cremulation. It's not something that we generally think about, but when you cremate a body, the fires aren't enough to get the job done -- you end up with many fragments of fragile bone rather than some uniform powder. At that point, the fragments go into a cremulator, which is essentially an industrial blender, to be pulverized into powder. Maybe I'm just a romantic for older methods, but the more modern industrial "grind grandma's bones in a blender" approach strikes me as much more violent than immolating a corpse. I'd much rather cremation was practiced as in Japan ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_funeral#Cremation ) where the fragments themselves are hand-picked out of the ashes (or rather chopstick-picked) by relatives to be placed in the urn. I'd also be a fan of bringing back the practice of ossuaries to balance the desire for burial with the limitations of physical space.
Of course, this is all 'irrational' or 'illogical', but it's good to think about what we actually favor when it comes to funerary practices, and what it says about ourselves. I think that aesthetics, our sense of beauty/ugliness in this situation, is connected with our worldview, our personal history, and our morals/ethics in interesting ways. Looking through the thousands of years of human civilization and seeing how various people dealt with the trauma of death and loss is enlightening.
Sure, as long as "the cost or burden on the living" is merely that of remembering our debt to the dead for their contributions to our present-day lives. (Cf. President Obama's "You didn't build that" remark during the 2012 campaign [0], which triggered outrage by opponents who quoted it out of context.)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_didn%27t_build_that
>The environmental benefits of alkaline hydrolysis are significant. Its carbon footprint is about a tenth of that caused by burning bodies. Mr. Wilson said liquefaction uses a fraction of the energy of a standard cremator and releases no fumes.... the [effluent] is sterile and contains nutrients, so much so that it can be and is used as a fertilizer. Rick Vonderwell, who manages Tails Remembered, a pet crematory in Delphos, Ohio, uses the effluent at his farm, as do several large universities.
("Effluent? That's Grandma!")
His last sentence to me was, "When will this end?"
Don't tell Soylent about this.
Joke aside, if it went into being fertilizer which then feeds plants which we eat... The plants are just playing the role of the processing mechanism for recycling those chemicals...
I wonder what the most ecologically useful way of disposing of a body is.
> Instead of burying the corpse, Zoroastrians traditionally laid it out on a purpose built tower (dokhma or 'Tower of Silence') to be exposed to the sun and eaten by birds of prey such as vultures.
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/zoroastrian/ritesrit...
EDIT: there's another comment down thread saying the same.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jan/26/death-city-la...
http://forensicoutreach.com/library/5-places-to-leave-a-body...
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/a-burial-machine-that-...
http://www.us-funerals.com/funeral-articles/directory-of-gre...
I don't want to be buried, burned, or donated. I'd prefer something like dipping into molten steel (or lava) like in Terminator 2, for everyone's safety.
If fungi can mitigate, neutralize all the bad stuff in my body, I'd be okay with that.
I recommend reading this article in it's entirety:
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/julyaug/13-mushrooms-clean-...
There seems to be a lot of TED talkers focusing on this question:
https://www.ted.com/talks/jae_rhim_lee
https://www.ted.com/talks/katrina_spade_when_i_die_recompose...
https://www.ted.com/talks/caitlin_doughty_a_burial_practice_...
https://www.ted.com/talks/jae_rhim_lee
Does cost a lot though, $1500 http://coeio.com/
Yuck!
Is it anachronistic? Yes. Am I a badass Scandanavian warrior? Not even a little. Do I actually worship Thor? Only on census forms. But it makes me laugh about my death so I'll keep telling people that's what I want.
In my actual will, I'm an organ donor and donate anything left over to science, but no one needs to know that just yet.
I’d like to be flung out of a mass driver towards interstellar space, naked, in the “starfish position.”
Starfish position for the uninformed is arms out, legs out. You know, the position you take when you drop onto your bed exhausted at the end of a long day.
Except my final bed would be emptiness, forever cartwheeling into the abyss...
Until I hit an asteroid or something.
I would also accept being launched out of a trebuchet.
I won’t budge on the cartwheeling starfish. In case I pass by intelligent life in a few billion years I definelty want them to have a WTF moment.
Don't people know what happens to the body's blood during embalming? Goes down the drain.
I've already told my family that this is my preferred burial method.
That way I can pre-program a bunch of activities for myself after death and finally catch up on all the stuff I meant to do but never got around to.
—Chairman Sheng-ji Yang, “Ethics for Tomorrow”