Inspired by another thread about having “The Talk” with your SO.
I’m afraid I just don’t care that much, but it occurred to me that perhaps I should. An informal poll here in the Training Department tells me that things are pretty equally split – cremation people seem to be leaning that way because of the reduced cost, and burial people are on their end for the “visiting your gravesite and knowing you’re there” argument.
So convince me. Why burial? Why cremation? Are there other options I perhaps haven’t considered?
Both are equally gross, but cremation’s over with quicker (like, an hour or so).
Burial: You’re stuck underground in a coffin with bacteria and microbes, which soon cover you with mold and fungus, then over the months and years (depending on conditions and coffin permeability), you liquify into a yucky jam.
Cremation: It’s pretty grisly as you burn and crisp at high temperatures, but when it’s done, you have nice, clean “cremains” your friends can dispose with as they like, or bury under a tombstone.
If you don’t care, then why bother getting convinced? From what I’ve heard, “buried or cremated” is on about the same level as “paper or plastic” and “cloth or disposable”; it doesn’t make a very significant difference either way in terms of resource use or the environment, so unless your survivors feel really strongly about it, you don’t need to become a partisan of either camp.
It’s true that burial is often much more expensive, but that’s because of the funeral industry. There are organizations such as Funeral Consumers Alliance that help consumers avoid getting ripped off.
This is not an issue that I’m especially passionate about one way or the other but, all things being equal, you’ll take up less space if you’re cremated.
Environmentally, burial’s the way to go. But no preservatives, and no steel reinforced lead lined hermitic coffin. Head off to the compost heap in a water soluble box so the worms can get at you fast.
As far as city-planning goes, gotta opt for cremation. You’re using up precious fuel and producing pollution, but you’re saving a lot of space. The ashes can be dispersed, or the family can keep them on the mantle to creep people out.
I’d say the absolute best option would be an old fashioned churn cemetary. You dig up the old graves to make room for the new stiffs. See the greaveyard scene in Hamlet for further details. This keeps the worms happy, reduces the need to constantly expand the city body farm, and still makes sure there’s somewhere creepy for the goth kids to hang out in.
Besides the waste of perfectly good land, there’s this against burial:
The worms crawl in, the worms crawl out,
The worms play pinochle on your snout.
They eat your eyes, they eat your nose,
They eat the jelly between your toes.
“Life…is in the blood” (Leviticus 11:17). Without the blood we are just so much dirt. (Gen. 2:7). So what is the point of trying to “perserve” a lifeless piece of clay?
The point is, it makes some people (Mortuary and cemetery owners; casket manufacturers, etc. ) a lot of money.
Cremated is better, but you should wait until you die to have it done. Bugger all that spiritual nonsense, leave the usable land to the living. (With a few public memorial exceptions, I suppose.) Besides, nobody digs up a cremated person a few years later and has their way with them.
Rising up into the sky (as smoke) seems more dignified than being buried in dirt, but maybe that’s just me.
Burial is better if you suspect the death wasn’t 100% natural. Hard to prove murder if your body’s been cremated. (I know, I’ve been watching too much CSI.)
Undertaker: Well they’re both nasty. If we burn her, she gets stuffed in the flames, crackle, crackle, crackle, which is a bit of a shock if she’s not quite dead. But quick. And then you get a box of ashes, which you can pretend are hers.
Man: (timidly) Oh.
Undertaker: Or, if you don’t wanna fry her, you can bury her. And then she’ll get eaten up by maggots and weevils, nibble, nibble, nibble, which isn’t so hot if, as I said, she’s not quite dead.
