What some people say doesn’t necessarily represent what most people actually believe. We still have people talking as if the earth was flat etc.

Probably for the same reason they didn't have the internet...?

I don't think it's a rude question as much as it is an obvious question.

Even with the Internet, people regularly believe questionable things, so I don't think it's down to availiability of the Internet.

That wasn't my point. The point is more that back then, science wasn't nearly as commonplace.

> The point is more that back then, science wasn't nearly as commonplace.

Have you even seriously studied the history of science? Are you seriously referring to the 17th century with a lack of science? The reality is that science was flourishing, and had been extremely popular for centuries, even millennia, before that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scient...

The Renaissance was in full bloom, Leonardo da Vinci was already dead and his legacy was being explored in depth, Galileo lived until 1642, the grand cathedrals and basilicas of Europe were being built. In fact, for millennia before this, great buildings such as the Hagia Sophia, the Pyramids, the ziggurats, the Mayan and Aztec Temples, these are all feats of engineering and science. In Arizona, the Hohokam people had built a network of canals, hand-dug with no machinery or even animals, to irrigate the arid desert land that they then cultivated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohokam

If these are not feats of science, if these do not demonstrate a most commonplace culture of science, then I don't know what to tell you.

Maybe “culture of science” happened in gradations?

Having scientists is not the same as everyone going through science as a required subject of education.

I think you're intentionally missing my point and being overly pedantic.

junon, unfortunately I appear to have conflated you with the GP, who was a different commenter, and so I was answering the GP more than your interjection.

The point seems to approach a trope of "ignorant illiterate religious freaks from the 17th century had no idea how the world worked and made up a lot of superstitious garbage that we've all moved past in enlightened, modern times".

Was I off by much there?

Even in modern times, it is difficult to tell when someone is actually, really dead. In older times, without stethoscopes, heart monitors, and other modern inventions, someone coming back from the grave was common enough that rumors around it were somewhat plausible.

But even modern medicine screws it up. Just this year: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-65886245.amp

And here is a somewhat interesting article about the history of the problem. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/04/07/final-forms

Prof. Jan Bondeson wrote a book called Buried Alive (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Buried-Alive-Terrifying-History-Pri...). I have a copy. He concluded that almost all historical accounts of premature burial could be explained in other ways, or were unreliable. There were, however, a handful of confirmed cases of people being rescued from premature burial and removed from their grave, only to die shortly afterwards. Around 200 years ago in Germany, many deceased were placed in Leichenhäusen until decomposition started, to ensure they weren't prematurely buried. Not one person woke up.

Of course, for obvious reasons it's impossible to be sure nobody was buried alive, but if anyone was, the air supply in their coffin wouldn't last longer than about an hour.

> Further, what things are we doing now that future generations will ask the same question about us?

Lawns seem a good candidate. We take a piece of land that could provide most of the sustenance we need along with a host of positive externalities, then douse it in poison, expend enormous effort to remove natural fertilizers from it, pay to import industrially produced nitrogen to spread over it, and burn fossil fuels to cut it.

How a reasonable culture could view this practice as anything but stupidity or madness is anyone’s guess.

I don't have the time to garden my entire yard, but even if I did, it would come no where near providing half of my sustenance. It takes several acres of farm to feed one person.

If I did nothing with it, it would naturally be grass, albeit extremely tall grass interspersed with thistles, burrs, and hemlock, which are far more negative than grass.

I don't spray it, remove anything from it, fertilize it, or use any ICE equipment to cut it, so that seems like a bit of a strawman.

And a lawn is extremely utilitarian. If you eliminate them, you eliminate a host of positive externalities: they're very aesthetically pleasing and good for mental health, they provide space to do activities, especially for kids, which promotes a healthy lifestyle, they're good for socializing, they're required for dogs, etc.

At least in America, we have no shortage of space. I don't know what people's problem is with people having a little recreational area.

"It takes several acres of farm to feed one person."

I think this may be a bit high, my math may be wrong.

an acre of lentils for instance should yield about 5-8 quintals (say 500-800kg) of lentils a year. I imagine if you really care about that one acre, you may get higher yields still.

800kg of lentils would be about 2600 kcal/day for a year.

Rice would yield substantially more (but not everyone lives where rice paddies can thrive)

Corn: 1 acre yields 170 bushes / 5000kg, about 50,000 kcal/day.

Now, you need to eat other stuff as well to avoid malnutrition, but if you don't have meat, 1 acre seems to be more than enough per person. If you have to (zombie apocalypse, not because it would be convenient).

Caveat: IANAF, cannot provide any agricultural advice.

I kid you not, this is the first time in my life that I have seen the word "quintal" in a forum post.

Lawns replace existing habitat with a monoculture of a non-native plant. The untended yard you labeled as "negative" supports a local habitat and ecology - those native plants support insects, reptiles, birds, squirrels and other wildlife. The lawn is a far more sterile space, an ecologically near-dead zone that only support grubs, ants, and a few undesirable insects but primarily is lost habitat. Lawns are among the drivers of habitat loss that are driving species loss in the US. During a time of global warming where droughts are becoming increasingly more common we've got lawns wasting that water. Lawns are objectively harmful to the environment on many, many fronts.

Capitalism is probably at the top of the list, running healthcare/electric power generation/etc as for-profit entities. Homelessness. ICE cars.

If we get the infinite resources needed to retire capitalism then those others should also be solved as well.

> If we get the infinite resources needed to retire capitalism then those others should also be solved as well.

I mean, Nike destroys product to keep prices high and maintain scarcity [1].

I think everyone is aware of how housing prices are kept artificially high by agressive zoning restrictions.

The problem isn’t capitalism per se, the issue is that this is crony capitalism, not real capitalism.

A true free market would actually benefit the masses with more inexpensive goods, better, low cost health care, affordable housing etc, the issue is that there’s arbitrary restrictions put on the free market either by market makers or by groups with disproportionate influence over regulations.

Also it’s worth mentioning social norms, it’s easy to find an education online in lieu of a paying for a full blown college education, but individuals still insist that a compsci degree is necessary.

Anyhow, my point is that humanity has never been closer to a post scarcity society and rather than embracing it, it’s actually being pushed back against by a number of different actors for a variety of selfish reasons.

[1] https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/9/17/17852294/fashion-bra...

> I think everyone is aware of how housing prices are kept artificially high by agressive zoning restrictions.

Taxing property as apposed to just land misaligns the economics enough so that land becomes a financially useful hedge asset, like gold.

So the rich, and large funds, all create demand for land beyond its practical use.

This also keeps land prices artificially high.

I will argue that stuffing a corpse full of formaldehyde, putting it in a sealed box, likely plastic-lined, and then burying it in such a way as to ensure that no future life forms benefit from the sequestered biology (composting) is pretty odd.

Cremation is pretty odd as well: we are like 80% water (or whatever), so it's more like boiling someone away and then burning the desiccated results. It's quick energy-intense, and to what end?

I've heard of some recent innovations in mushroom caskets that help decompose the body in short order. I would imagine that silicone prosthetics and what-not are somewhat of an issue...

I was interested by the mention of a "counter-reformation" in the story and increase in sermons and homilies about death that led to some of these beliefs. It made me think of movements today like Q'Anon that are detached from traditional religion but involve some of the same characteristics -- and obviously some false, macabre beliefs.

The Counter-Reformation[0] is a massive part of European history (and, through European colonial expansion, world history). It’s rather surprising you’ve never heard of it. That said, both sides in the Counter-Reformation held the same belief in the supernatural, they just differed on details.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Reformation

> Further, what things are we doing now that future generations will ask the same question about us?

That can't be answered safely. If it could be answered safely, it would also be true that we weren't doing it.

Why is your culture so stupid that you think some dead meat can be "desecrated"? It's just dead meat.

Question yourself before others.

Before the theory of germs, it served a very useful function as you'd eat bad meat and die. That culture hasn't evolved from that taboo since is a testament to how bad it would be to die from eating bad meat.

> Further, what things are we doing now that future generations will ask the same question about us?

In a word, fashion. Our fashions will be criticized.

we don't really trust funeral effects people in mystery way. but we still spend so many time and money on it.