>Corpses that aren’t embalmed or cremated are hotbeds for disease.

Not really. Corpses don't really gain the ability to transmit diseases if the disease wasn't already there. For those with infectious diseases that are of concern for human to human transmission, many locations have laws already in place. In Alberta, my province, we refer to these as Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 diseases and have public health law regarding handling of the deceased that fall into these categories [1].

1 - http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/2008_135.pdf

> Corpses that aren’t embalmed or cremated are hotbeds for disease

You're really going to have to provide a citation for that.

On our way to choosing a natural eco-friendly burial, we looked at quite a few locations. There was one common feature - none allowed embalming. Nor is there any legal requirement for embalming, and very few (regular) burial grounds require it. It's a convenience for undertakers (and a nice way to bump the price implying it's an expected procedure).

It seems very unlikely that would be the case if your assertion were true.

Jessica Mitford book "The American Way of Death" from 1963 is describe here https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/death/fond-farewells She documented the undertakers bumping up the prices as you describe (to put it mildly).

I don't however know if the undertaker lobby has since managed to get embalmment mandatory / carteling with the graveyards

They aren't just tossing the bodies on a compost pile. It's a very specific process that involves a lot of oxygen and high temperatures (60C-70C). Pathogens do not survive if it's done properly.

>if it's done properly...

And this is the reason that composting never took hold in antiquity. For the ancients, who may not have had as much scientific knowledge, burial and cremation could be done improperly, and still provide a sanitary means of disposal of the deceased. You try to compost the deceased in an ancient society lacking the proper techniques, facilities, and medical care, and I'd imagine you'd just be bringing a whole world of problems down on your village or town.

> And this is the reason that composting never took hold in antiquity

I rather doubt that is they reason why in the past we didn't decide to throw our dead in what is essentially a rubbish heap...

In most big cities people just throw their dead pets in the trash. Morbid, but true. I don't see why human bodies would really be all that different.

I don't know why but I laughed too hard at the thought of someone dumping their grandma in the trash out back, feet sticking up and all. Then the garbage man coming and being annoyed at the pointy toes but not really all dismayed.

"Please keep in mind we have a 50 lbs weight limit per bag - our backs and your loved ones thank you. Also, titanium is recyclable, so place all knees and hips into the appropriate bins."

You're not up to date on the rules.

Per the FTC, embalming is not required for burial in any state. A lot of cemeteries require it, but Google "green burial" for more info on places that don't.

https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0300-ftc-funeral-rule

If I can't afford to be frozen, then I would like to be sealed in clear epoxy with LED lights and put on display. That should be quite sanitary while not emitting much Co2.

> I would like to be sealed in clear epoxy

According to [1], taking a 40yr old male, the body would be 180cm x 25cm x 70cm (805, 236, 506+378 extrapolated). You'd probably want at least 2.5cm of epoxy border giving you 185cm x 30cm x 75cm or 0.42m^3. Assuming the body takes up about 0.067m^3[2], you're left with 0.35m^3 or 21350in^3. [3] says multiply that by 0.0163 to get 350 litres which then translates to kg of resin. Using GlassCast 50, at 32kg for £450 inc vat, you'd be looking at ~£4900.

(you could also just paint over a few thin layers instead but it wouldn't look as impressive.)

(also you'd need to dry the body out first because the resin would react badly with the moisture.)

[1] https://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/sections/section03.htm [2] https://www.researchgate.net/post/Volume_of_average_human_bo... [3] https://www.easycomposites.co.uk/#!/resin-gel-silicone-adhes...

That's a decent price. I would be the gift that keeps on giving :-) Being frozen is about $300k.

Embalming is forbidden in Islam. Corpses are buried directly after ritual cleaning.

But I tend to agree that composting is a bit... strange.

The western cultural expectation of spending a lot of money on embalming, then dressing the dead in fancy expensive clothing and putting them in a $5000 ornate wood coffin which will immediately go into the ground to rot is perverse. It has created economic incentives on the part of funeral services corporations to extract as much money from a grieving family as possible.

This is basically it. Particularly in the US where a burial has become astonishingly crass and perverse.

The size of the plot and headstone. The common use of heavyweight steel for coffins that can delay decomposition even longer. Concrete grave linings. Cremation is no better from an impact perspective.

I think they may be aiming for corpses that hang around as long as ancient Egypt achieved. :)

> Particularly in the US where a burial has become astonishingly crass and perverse.

Ever been to cemeteries in Paris? Giant monuments, incredibly ornate graves.. The US is far more modest by comparison.

You mean the 2 or 3 hundred year old ones? Victorians were often crass too. I meant in the current era.

I agree that there is a financial incentive in the funeral industry. But...

In general, humanity has buried and burned people with expensive objects to show reverence or recognize status. The Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, etc. It's kind of a tradition to waste a bunch of money on the dead!

If it were all transparent and above-board, and people knew what they were paying for and why, I'd agree. But that's not really the case. My father died a few years ago, and it was obvious that the funeral home staff relies on you being in a compromised emotional state, such that you'll just say yes to anything and not question the price.

Jewish law prohibits embalming, too. And tradition calls for a plain casket, usually pine, unlined, and with no metal parts (wooden pegs hold it together.)

What is the difference between “composting” and “buried directly without preservative”? I am fairly certain it amounts to much the same thing.

It doesn’t. Composting and burying leaves for example aren’t the same thing.

Composting provides extra oxygen and whatever other steps are necessary to accelerate the decomposition process.

A buried body can last many years, especially if it’s several feet into the clay layer.

Try it. Bury a cat or dog six feet under and come back in five years. If it’s common clay, a large percentage will still be there.

> A buried body can last many years, especially if it’s several feet into the clay layer.

And in some cases (e.g. peat) "many" can end up being "hundreds" or even "thousands".

Sorry, I was unclear: I meant “much the same thing on the timescales at which buried humans are likely to be disturbed”, so 50-100 years at a minimum.

I imagine it will be at least that long, and likely much longer, until the land used for cemeteries is repurposed.

This feels like snake oil. A grave without cremation has to be way less energy consuming than controlled "compostation".

The difference is that you can't bury a body in a garden, for example (for sanitary reasons). But after it is properly composted, what you have is, well, compost. Which can then be placed somewhere and a tree planted in it, for example - and then you have a living gravestone.

"Corpses that aren’t embalmed or cremated are hotbeds for disease"

Say that to 1.7 billion Muslims who bury their dead using neither.

The researchers involved have looked a this a lot, and found very little evidence for it.