- cross-posted to:
- fuckcars@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- fuckcars@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/34366718
I guess the IBX is loud enough to wake the dead?
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/34366718
I guess the IBX is loud enough to wake the dead?
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.
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.
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!
Sounds like we just need to make better parks, then, no? Like, we’re already asking for change so why not just have that be part of it?
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.)
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 a particular fan of burying trump on a golf course, as soon as possible.
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.
Hot take: end all burials, mandatory organ donation. No their religious or cultural reason does not matter more than anyone’s life.