if i could spend eternity watching trains chuff by, i would be the happiest ghost in the netherworld.
post
What he gonna do? Raise from the dead?
When I vacationed in france, I got to my hostel and realized it was next to train tracks, and I thought "im fucked". Then a train wizzed by at like a 100 mph compleetlly silently and I realized it was lucky I was so close to public transit!
Whereas if we built a giant highway... with like 10 lanes... that'd be perfectly quiet!
Don’t worry, people like this want the highway over there to get them into other people’s neighbourhoods.
You can annihilate a lot more minority neighborhoods with 10 lanes, too.
Nowadays they don't do that anymore. They've learned their lesson and use not wanting to displace people by buying right-of-way as an excuse to refuse to install transit or bike infrastructure. Progress! /s
I've recently changed my mind about what I want done with my remains after death. I had wanted cremation because I think it's selfish to take up land after death. But I've had a better idea that won't pollute the air:
I want to be dropped in the ocean, far enough out that I won't wash up on land. I want to sink to the bottom and fuel life for all the strange scavenger critters that dwell on the ocean floor. Other than the fuel for the boat, this is as close to 100%-efficient recycling as I can imagine.
I haven't looked into how one would make arrangements for this to happen without putting the people dumping me in the water at risk of being charged with a crime (desecration of a corpse, illegal dumping, whatever). If I live long enough, I'll get around to researching whether I can make this happen.
Aquamation is, as far as I know, the most sustainable way to have your remains disposed of, and even reused. You may want to look into that!
Sounds like it still uses energy to dispose of the body. I appreciate the recommendation. I still expect ocean-dumping to be more energy efficient. Especially if the people depositing my body use a sailboat. I only did a cursory search, so I'm happy to be corrected if I'm getting that wrong.
When you cremate your remains and then seed the ocean with your ashes, it feeds the bottom of the ecosystem.
CORRECTION Cremated remains have all organic compounds broken down and is a process used to stow or preserve remains (since it's mostly carbon, it can be used to make an artificial diamond). Also someone I know who planned on this as his return to earth funerary choice was misinformed.
That said, there is a tradition to carve a cadaver up and grind the bones and make sausages for the local wildlife, who will happily partake. In fact part of the ritual is noisy and consistent so as to inform the locals that dinnertime is coming.
Just drop the body into the wilds and the local fauna (mostly invertebrates) will do a fantastic job of utilizing your remains, and reintroducing the material back into the ecosystem. Avoid permafrost places like the Himalayas, seas that are lifeless (like the Dead Sea). Deserts will just desiccate you quickly.
Planting your body under a sapling (without formaldehyde or any other preservatives) will make sure you're literally worm food.
AFAIK, cremains are inorganic and don't nourish anything
Beware, human bodies are often full of medicine that might be toxic to wildlife or fish.
A rite where human remains are eaten by vultures is partly the reason why vultures in India are close to extinction (together with the same medicines being used in livestock that the vultures also feed on).
Over my dead body!
Cemeteries are a giant waste of perfectly good land. And the land right around train tracks can't really be used for anything. Sounds like a match made in heaven.
They should make some law that says cemeteries can only be made near active train tracks.
It's my opinion that we should be making cemeteries parks. I know I personally would be much happier if, when I die, and if I were to have a grave, that the space would be useful. Also, the "headstone" could instead be park equipment, like a bench or swings or something. Maybe some space could be set for gardens, and you can choose to be buried there. I don't understand cemeteries that are made solely for bodies to be thrown in and mostly not useful to society.
Cemeteries act like parks in that they drastically improve the cooling of cities. Plus they act like a small wildlife resort for some animals (like birds and squirrels) because there is much reduced foot traffic compared to parks, usually more trees and less noise.
Besides, cemeteries are useful for society because they allow family members to grief and remember which I'm fairly certain is beneficial for mental health.
For the grieving thing, they really don’t need that much land to do it. I think the other commenter is generally correct, though.
When it comes to the wildlife thing, it’s all just low-height grass monocultures and maybe a few trees if you’re lucky. That’s not really doing the animals any favours, they need taller grasses and bushes to hide in, and more tree density than a cemetary allows for. A dense urban forest with a footpath would be far better. An example of this is Montréal’s Parc Angrignon, if you want to check that out.
True, a densely forested park is better than a cemetery. In my experience, most parks are not this type though and many cemeteries - especially those more than a century old - have more trees.
I mean, take a look at e.g. Greenwich Park in London. That's nearly a golf course!
My personal idea is human composting combined with tree planting (if that material is suitable for it).
Each tree planted for the deceased, growing (partially) from their remains. Should be good enough of a memory for the bereaved, and you'll get people taking care of the planted trees, instead of some stones.
I think the one good thing trump has done in his entire life is to bury his ex-wife on his golf course. Golf is already a phenomenal waste of land, might as well bury people there too.
I'm pretty sure the cemeteries around where I live (at least the old public ones) are parks, technically. It's just that they don't really have recreational amenities, so people don't have much reason to visit them.
(The notable local exception is Oakland Cemetery which is historically-important enough to be managed by a foundation that puts on events and stuff.)
the cemetery near me has pivoted to more park-like sections where you just have a bunch of headstones in a circle without the actual body (afaik), muuuuuuch more compact and interesting.
Hot take: end all burials, mandatory organ donation. No their religious or cultural reason does not matter more than anyone's life.
Imagine unironically wanting to be quoted saying that
Pretty sure she doesn't mean it will be too loud for a dead body, she means the grave may be affected by construction (moved, driven over etc).
Debbie Hippie? What?
One of my favourite names is a news reporter for one of the UK TV news stations. Debbie Tubby. Sounds like a character from a Millennial-era children's show, a Teletubby
That would be justified when the construction goes right through or on top of a burial ground or graveyard or some such. Not near it, that's downright stupid.
How would a train disrupt a funeral, guests won't be able to hear something important or what?
Ehh, disturb in this case can also mean moving his grave around by accident or intentionally. Nobody wants to see their relatives grave all fucked up, but it could be moved at cost to the rail line to another nice location.
I mean, the headline itself claims a rail station is going to "threaten the neighborhood charm" which is an insane thing to say near anyone who has lived beside a six lane freeway.
I'm more upset at that than the line about jostling a graveyard
Nobody wants to see their relatives grave all fucked up
I couldn’t give less of a shit about that. They don’t either, they’re dead.
"So? It's not like the people buried in the cemetary can hear."
"Uh, they're dead, not deaf!"
"..."
all 41 comments