Discussion in 'Science & Technology' started by HossHuge, Aug 30, 2011.
I find the freeze drying idea kind of wierd.
Won't be "bye bye" at all. There's a massive market for people who want their ashes compressed to a diamond after cremation; just like my Mum wants done.
Looks alright I guess. I don't think telling people your dumping this into the municipal water system is going to help. It may be legal and safe but that doesn't always make for a acceptable perception with the public.
Nice. I'll change my will include this as my top choice. Cremation is now second.
Sure, I'll have the steak and potatoes. And for the drink, I guess I'll just have some human remains.
That was my exact thought! Better they dump it in the sewer. Let mother nature return it to the water system.
I found that strange as well.
The lady talking about using the the body as compost was strange to me. Imagine hearing, "Gramma really made these tomatoes taste much better!"
Hmm interesting. I've always thought bout this, what to do with my body when I die. Still undecided though, if ever there is something afterwards, whether there's an afterlife et al, well I'd rather be in a "complete" state when I wake up! But then again, being bare-bones won't be pretty either.
The compost part is sick though.
Well we all know machines do not always work 100% every time exactly as man designed it. So the boneless fingers floating through the water treatment plants may be a surprise to some. I am kidding as I am sure there should be filters in place. But since I work close to this field it is quite amazing the things you will see.
My preference is for cryogenic freezing. I could spend eternity next to Walt Disney's head.
Motel Hell - truly a classic.
I used to be a member but the annual dues were getting to be ridiculous. My life insurance policy still has them listed as the beneficiary though.
This disturbs me. I'm very glad I'm not connected to any municipal water.
I would rather have my bodyparts be recycled (donorship), any metalwork that might be in my mouth or where-ever be recycled and predators may be feasting on my flesh if anything of it is left.
Give me to a necrophiliac. I won't care, I'll be dead.
I wonder whether a corpse can get a STD from that.
The woman that this article was written about (the one who champions this process) is not someone new to this. Years ago there was a book called The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers. They had a long section on what this woman wanted to do, but I'll offer the highlights for those not in the know:
1) Burning releases carbon, and toxic metals due to fillings and implants.
2) LN2 (liquid nitrogen) is produced as a chemical byproduct, and can thus be purchased cheaper than the fuel for a cremator.
3) People can be pulped with ultrasonic vibrations, assuming the water is in crystalline form.
People goo is nutritious for plants, but the process is best described as gruesome. Imagine a frog in a blender; yeah, it's that gruesome.
This said, I don't care whether it's this of cremation. I will accept either means of disposing of my meat shell when I've vacated it. The only goofiness is letting loved ones see you, which I don't think anyone in their right mind would allow. This is why people are opposed to the process, without fully understanding what it is that creeps them out.
I would like to drink my wife. But then I guess I would have to pee her out too.
Imagine for what ever reason one is not actually dead.
To die by either of the new process here must be the worst way to die.
Granted though if I'm already dead I won't care what they do with my body. Chop it up, disintegrated it, whatever, just make sure I'm really dead before you do that.
ash to ash dust to dust
but the memory remains ...
I always wondered why people who believe in a physical reincarnation of some sort are so afraid of having their bodies disposed of by cremation or means like this. If a god has the power to create you, bring you back from dead (where it's scientifically known that the entire body decays, potentailly... someone once told me that statistically speaking, each person alive on the planet should have one or two atoms present in his or her body that were once part of William Shakeaspear's body - or anyone from that long ago for that matter) in a physical form would be unwilling or incapable to bring you back if you donate organs or cremate your body.
I say, as long as it's safe, and better for the environment, good.
as opposed to suffocating in sheer terror after being buried alive or burnt to death, the closest thing a physical body can come to the traditional description of hell, it doesn't seem much worse to me. It wouldn't take the full two-and-a-half hours to kill you, just to fully liquefy and sterilize the biomass.
AFAIK, dead people are being stung somewhere during the declaration of death in order to verify the persons' passing.
I know we have at least a few members from India and east Asia so I'll let them take this. but until then, IIRC, Hindus believe in reincarnation and I thought that the primary means of disposing of corpses was via cremation.
BTW, Buddhists also believe in reincarnation - it just doesn't have to be in this particular universe (seriously. I'm not making that up).
However having said this, I'm guessing that you mean the WESTERN idea of reincarnation as opposed to it's historical antecedents.
Ever hear of the Burning Monk (WARNING May be graphic, LINK LEADS TO EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS)? He seemed to take it well (Granted he was a monk).(Not trying to joke around here or anything of that nature.) I'm just wonder maybe once the fire kills nerves you don't feel anything.
For people who don't want to see something that might be disturbing (ok, very disturbing), you probably shouldn't go to that link since it really is about a Buddhist a monk who immolated himself as a protest to the Vietnam war.
As far as I can tell, the first image of him actually on fire is at mark 1:37 (no guarantees) and although the commentary is leading up to it, they spring the image on you.
If you paid attention during history class / when watching the news (age dependent) you would have been knowing that it was out of protest against the "democratic" Southern Vietnamese government of president Ngo Dinh Diem. Not out of protest against the Second Vietnam War*, which had not yet started IIRC.
* the one with the Americans and South Vietnam fighting the Vietcong and troops from North V., China and the USSR (though the latter two mainly provided weapons and such)
Separate names with a comma.