questionnaire on deatomization

[skydust]

I am doing a design project about environmental issues. In a nutshell, the aim is to take something that is harmful to the environment, and promote a solution to the problem. I would very much appreciate if you could take the time to answer my questions, as this would be part of my primary research.

I've decided to focus on the issue of how we dispose of our dead. The two most popular ways of doing this are burial and cremation. Due to global warming, floods and cataclysms are likely to increase dramatically, which will reduce the amount of land we have to inhabit. Cemeteries take up vast amounts of space, and we will definitely need that space if the weather keeps on going at this rate. Cremation is also a threat to the environment, due to the greenhouse gases (nitrous oxide) that are released when burning the bodies, as well as the harmful gases produced when burning the coffins.

My proposal for solving the problem would be deatomization.

Deatomization would be the process of breaking down atoms to their simplest form, which is (according to superstring theory) pure vibrating energy. By doing this, there would be no bi-products produced that would be harmful to the environment. The possibility even exists, to take this energy and use it as a source for electricity, etc.

The ceremonial aspect of the "funeral" would still be available, and people would be allowed to be present during the process, much like at a cremation. The only difference would be that instead of being buried or cremated, the person would be deatomized. Since people will want to have a place to visit, or have something to remind them of their loved ones, one could "capture" some of the energy released and seal it in a small glass bottle. It would be similar to the idea of keeping the person's ashes, and it would hold sentimental value.

Although the idea of deatomization is possible in theory, I realize that it will take quite a few years until we have the technology and the vast amounts of energy needed to do this. But let's disregard that fact for a moment, and pretend that it is available today.

- Would you use it?

- If not, why not?

- If you are religious, and your religion does not permit cremation, would it allow deatomization?

- If not, why not? I would appreciate if you could try to explain in more detail why your religion would not permit this, and if there would be ways around this.

- Let's say that cremation and burial would be banned, and only deatomization permitted. What problems / consequences can you see arising from this?

- How many years from now do you think we'll have the technology to do this?


Thank you to all who participated, its much appreciated!

[James S]

I see deatomisation as likely to be a process that would require some very power-hungry equipment, making it rather inefficient and possibly more harmful to the environment than cremation, unless safe power sources are developed first.

If you want something that the earth will appreciate more, then keep on burying people. Not with elaborate indestructable coffins and ornate marble gravesites, but plain biodegradeable materials so that our bodies can be given back to the earth for its nourishment.

Natural cremation - funeral pyres, as were used by mnay of our ancestors is also a good solution. Again, our ashes can be nutrients for the earth.

If deatomisation became the only lawful way for someone to be disposed of, I feel this would be rather sad. Not that I believe bodies of the deceased need to be preserved, but to me it seems a little too clinical, to mechanical. In death there should be reverance for life. I am not religious, but I do have a love for our Mother Earth. I would rather she benefit from my remains after I die.

My wife has an interesting take on her desired "burial". She wants to be creamated, have her ashes loaded into a beautiful big sky rocket, and have her funeral done as a fireworks display.

Blessings,
James.

[Necromancer]

If we learn to ascend dematerialization will be the natural process of life. At the present time spontaneous human combustion is held mostly as an urban legend but I am sure knowledge of this will come before they learn to reconfigure atomic structure. One of the basic principles of physics is nothing created, nothing destroyed, there is only action and reaction.

Humans are carbon base life forms and when burned a large amount of hydrocarbons are released which is evident if you have ever watched the stack of a crematorium. Also they do not use coffins, it is more like a cardboard box and they wouldn't use that if law didn't require it. What do you think the ashes are, the remains of a pine box?

It would seem that what you are proposing in essence is finding another dumping ground. I would hate to think that this sort of behavior might offend some pan dimensional entity. That is to say that they find it offensive that we are throwing our garbage in their back yard.

The benchmark of a society is usually considered to be burial rites. Archeologists have trouble defining a society of early man until they discover burial grounds. So what kind of statement is this making about our society. Whether it is deatomization, cremation, or decomposition, it is still the same process, changing of atomic structure. The issue is how we deal with it, and how we treat our fellow beings.

Personally I will stay with the idea of learning SHC.

[jilola]

I propose we do away with ceremonial burial and just plant the peeps in one big hole.
Keep the ceremony in the realm of rememberance and acceptance and shed the idea of a permanent burial symbol entirely.
After all, we are not remembering the body but the person, right?

2cents & L&L
Jouni

[NickJW]

personally I don't care what happens to my body when I die.

As the Klingons would say, "It is only an empty shell now."

[Neutral]

The amount of energy being inputted to break down molecules by seperating their subatomic particles would surely be massive in proportions. Clearly, if you plan to use such large resources, the amount of toxic or useless substance being produced would be substancial. Imagine the work your employing at the local power plant and think of the sheer volume of pollution being caused.

Frankly, it has to start from the ground up, basing plans on strategies on newer, safer technology. Removing reliance on petrolium would be a good start.