I've seen similar articles a few times. Not to uncommon it seems.
https://www.cnn.com/2015/09/15/europe/ireland-tree-skeleton-...
Lots of people think cremation is environmentally friendly, but they don't realize the amount of fuel being burned and how much carbon it puts into the atmosphere. It's not clean by any stretch of the imagination. They also don't realize that crematoriums are not cleaned well and that they are often not getting the ashes of just their relative but probably other people as well, but that is a separate issue.
The answer is for funeral homes to begin offering expedited burials that use natural preservation techniques on unembalmed bodies. The new expectation would be that the burial occur within 24 hours of death, 48 if absolutely necessary (something that would be inconvenient for funeral preparations, but worth it) and bodies placed in freezers and on dry ice (in the coffin) to prevent decay and odor from setting in.
This works, it's being done in certain parts of the US and in lots of places around the world. My family is Eastern Orthodox Christian and this is the traditional burial method for us. A simple wooden box, an unembalmed body, and into the ground ASAP. Nothing better for the environment than to return yourself to the earth.
We call it a three-day funeral, but the process can sometimes take as little as 36 hours (death in the evening of first day, burial/cremation in the morning of third day). I think the short funeral also helps the bereaved return to normalcy sooner. There's no time to get used to the funerary mood. You're expected back at work/school/etc. by the fourth day.
1. They are removing all of this guys body fluids and injecting him with weird preservatives. He's been drained like a hunted animal and is puffed up with fake juices.
2. This person died and they are extending the time between death and burial for the convenience of those attending the funeral, because the death of a human being is somehow a thing we should "work into our schedule" and not expect to be TOO inconvenienced by. Like seriously? What better way to honor this guy than to be like "yeah, I know you died, but can you just hold on a sec because I really need to let my work know I won't be there for that meeting." It's so detached from the reality of what has happened.
For ordinary people, though, the immediate family is all who matters. To continue to Korean example I mentioned above, it is culturally accepted that you can just drop everything and leave if a family member has died. You don't work the funeral into your schedule; the funeral forces itself into your schedule whether you think you can afford to or not. I think this is a result both of the Confucian tradition (filial duty above everything else) and of the practical necessities of public health (you don't want to keep dead bodies around for too long in a hot and humid country). The flip side of being able to drop everything immediately, of course, is that you're expected back at work as soon as it's over. Either way, social norms need to support this kind of prioritizing in order for most people to adopt quick funerals.
And land shortage is not really an issue in any real sense. Even in a place like China or India you could find enough land to support natural burial practices like I described above. If you begin with the assumption that most people want to be buried, there are plenty of options that can maximize the use of existing land. You can bury more than one person in a single plot over time (as one decomposes, put another in) or you can go deeper and do things like bury people in tunnels. If people want a solution, they can come up with one pretty easily, it's just a matter of actually trying.
My plan for years now has been to get buried in a wicker coffin in a forest. Not an enclosed coffin, no embalming, no neat graveyard, just as natural as possible underground with a tree on top.
If you're buried won't you turn into methane and then CO2 anyway?
Still, animals die and decay in the wild, they don't get cremated in the wild[0]. That suggests to me it's the more natural and sustainable way to end.
[0] Except in forest fires, I suppose.
Equally as important is that I would prefer a joyful wake, one where friends and family get together and remember all the best times we had together, and to celebrate a life well lived. Have a grand old party in my name, and remember to enjoy the good things in life.
The problem, I see, is overcrowding. It's not really a quality forest if you constantly have to dig holes for new bodies.
I also thought about that. It just feels like a nice thing, coming from something deeply ingrained in my mind. I wonder why other people also seem to have the same feeling.
It just looks like a particularly nice bit of native forest, and in a hundred years they aim that it should still just look like forest. They allow and even encourage picnics, walkers, dog walkers.
Surprisingly - well we were - it isn't more expensive than a regular funeral.
I don't know about you, but for me even a fallen tree sounds like a more interesting tomb marker than a slab of stone.
Forests and nature in general managed just fine without human intervention, and indeed, us valiantly putting out forest fires have only made forest fires more dangerous as forests are now denser than they'd have been with natural pruning.
I'm not sure when the gravesite lease for ethical business practice expires.
This is simply not true
Overcoming the marketing pressure of the morticians and funerals industry is the non-trivial part. It's like getting engaged without a diamond ring. All you have to do is not buy an expensive thing that nobody needs.
If you wait until you're dead, you won't get to experience the splendor of being consumed by a giant reptile.
But if living? Oh man. Giddy up, partner.