Poll: Are Cemetaries a Waste of Space?

[Evilsanta]

Yes they are. And not that i want to disrepect the dead and cremation is a better option, Like that my stepdad that was a sailor wanted his ashes to spread out at sea.

 

[Sqalevon]

For some people a cemetery is a place to return to, to grief over a lost one.
This alone makes it worth devoting land to.
I honestly dont believe the dead get pissed of, if we dont bury them.
In other cultures bodies get burned and they seem to do fine
If cemeteries wouldnt have any place in the grieving process, it would make them obsolete.

Also, the WW2 cemeteries are in some way a great place to remember what war also brings with itself.

 

[SmartIdiot]

Actually ever since I first had any concept of death I always wondered "where will people get buried when we run out of space?". I was 7. Not sure if that's normal.

 

[Tdc2182]

The day idealisms are considered foolish is the day I renounce my status as a human being.

 

[ottenni]

Not at all. They are there so that we may remember those who are no longer with us, they represent our past and in many cases our history. They are also a place for people to grieve and to honor the dead, although i understand that is not a universal thing.

 

[Brad Shepard]

Its 2 things.

Its a sign of respect for those who are gone.

and its for the living, not the dead.

I went to a masive graveyard a few weeks back with my Girlfriend's family, and her mom bursted into tears seeing her sister's grave next to her fathers, thats when i realized that gravesites where for the living.

I also thought about the latter when my friend died a few years ago from a brain anurism, seeing everyone around, standing in the rain, in respect for the young woman who was gone.

 

[Trivun]

No way are they a waste of space. They're a gret way to honour the dead when they pass on, instead of just dumping the body somewhere and letting nature run it's course. A proper burial is much better.

That said, though I know several people who were buried when they died, my grandfather and uncle were both cremated. And that's how want to go, too. Creamtion is admittedly much better than cemeteries. That doesn't mean cemeteries are a waste of space.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Is it worth devoting land to the dead? Is visiting a grave site part of the grieving process? Do religious beliefs require it, or will the dead get pissed off and haunt us if they don't have a grave?

Thoughts.

Or, vote yes or no.

I think the concept of a grave is hidiously wasteful. I live in a world of 100% efficiency. Or at least i would like to. Clothes buried underground is a waste, as is jewelery and any other material, not to mention wood for the coffin. I think cremation is a nice way to go, your essance remains and everything uneccessary is given to the world once more as ash and carbon, ready to rejoin the cycle. Graves add a delay to this process and it irks me that things like gold and cloth have to just sit there for a thousand years until some acheologoist digs them up and it ends up in a museum. Theres only a finite amount of these materials.

In a totally efficient world, one where even i would be disturbed by the process, the dead would be rendered down for fertiliser or nutrient paste to be used in farming, all their possessions would be recycled into the system and their name perhaps engraved on a family slab of rock, kept in a garden or church, one slab for every family, kept reletively close.

I read a book once and it had an idea called the law of legibility, the grave system would be used but once the gravstone became un readable that persons memory had passed, and as such could be cremated, their ash scattered where ever they would like. The grave would then be re used.

If you can tell me what book it is you win 50 internets and a cookie.

 

[RedPandaMan]

Pragmatically speaking, yes. I understand that people want to follow tradition and put their dead to rest, but I was raised in a family where everyone donates their body to science or gets cremated, due to lack of religious foundations. However, I would rather keep them to as they help remind people of their loved ones, and I don't wish to tell people what they can and cannot do.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

What about urns? They save much more space and in todays world with a still growing population we will need all the space we can get or just let the bodies rot in the ground and complete the circle of life.

 

[Dark2003]

Pure and simple if somebody doesnt wanna be burned after they die, they dont believe they have a soul that leaves their body when they die. Just donate your organs, and maybe your bones, let them burn your flesh and move on

We need to abolish golf while were at it

 

[yoyo13rom]

Is it worth devoting land to the dead? Is visiting a grave site part of the grieving process? Do religious beliefs require it, or will the dead get pissed off and haunt us if they don't have a grave?

Thoughts.

Or, vote yes or no.

Dude! Think of the poor zombies! Think of the poor zombie kids! How could you forget about all that?
Oh, and how will grave robbers make a living?

 

[ww666]

All I gotta say is: SHOOT THEM IN THE HEAD!!

Better be cremated them coming back as a zombie, kids.

 

[Fetzenfisch]

What we need to do is start cremating everyone, and if someone is required by their religion to bury their dead then do so on land owned by their religious group or themselves. If we keep giving everyone a grave we'll soon run out of room for houses, rainforests, libraries or even stores.

So yes, cemetaries are an objective waste of space (the use of objective meant to mean that it is not a waste of space from subjective views such as those of relevant religions).

I could be wrong on this one, but I think you actually do have to own the land you're burried on. I'm not defending the practice mind you, I want to be cremated when I die. But, people who get burried in cemetaries actually do have to buy a plot in the cemetary.

You're actually quite correct, family plots in cemetaries are owned (bought) by the family, they're not free. So technically cemetaries are already-bought land developped differently from housing/commercial/etc, it isn't "public" land.

That being said, cremation should be the way to go anyways in my opinion, you can house 25x more (dead) people in a columbarium than in a cemetary for less land space.

+
Vast majority of graves on the other hand, are just for rent. The remains are dug out and disposed hygienily when a certain span of time has run out. mostly about 10 years.The family can prevent that by paying for additional years.

Sideinformation: On places used as Graveyards for a long time thats a pretty nasty job. Because the soil is overfed with nutrients and hardly lot of decomposing happens.

family buisness can be interesting

 

[similar.squirrel]

Yes. I'm all for organ donation and recycling. Anybody who objects to their cadaver being useful is a selfish prick.

 

[Dxz5roxg]

I accidentally but no but I meant to put yes.

I think they are necessary. They help with the grieving process and even if they don't know it I still think it's a good idea to respect the dead.

 

[PoliceBox63]

I say bury them under your flowerbeds instead of in cemeteries.

 

[Tharwen]

A completely insensitive and logical person would say that the best thing to do with dead people is to use them as fertiliser. That's a little unethical though...

 

[Drof]

Speaking Logically They are a waste of space , But So Are other Places People have already Mentioned.
They Do Also Have a Role In the Grieving Process And Generally Peoples Lives.

Personally I want my body to be put to use when i die, Medically, Scientifically or just Composted/Eaten.

 

[Stromko]

Cemeteries have grass and trees. They're basically parks. In that sense, not a waste of space, as green space is a pleasant thing to have.