And if we don't use coffins the fertilisation will be great!
It would be really cool if that branched out and went to other countries. It would be awesome if it took root everywhere.
If a loved one died you could visit them and you wouldn't have to worry about being sappy because it's normal to grieve in different ways.
That would be so great. Yo dog,wood you leaf some flowers or something?
Just hope the people who own the plot don't bark at you for coming by too often. I hope that you returning to her grave won't cause you to start pining.
For some reason, all I can imagine is a dead gray tree without leaves
What if the tree never grows or dies? That would make matters even more depressing.
This is a really good idea. I hope it catches on, it would be really cool
My friend's family had a tree planted in a park with a plaque on it commemorating her and there are quite a few parks that allow that to happen here, it's really a beautiful memorial idea.
There's that circle; with death comes life.
It's the ciiirrcle of liiiiiiife
Thank you very much :)
This is what the elves do in Inheritance (Eragon series) when one of the elves dies; from that point on (when I read it), I have wanted to do this.
it seems like an amazing idea, but if for some reason the tree didn't grow or was struck by lightning or died of some tree disease or whatever, i think some families would be upset
For some reason, I read "plagues."
I just hope none of the trees die- this is one case where a headstone would be more viable, as it's more permanent. It's still a wonderful idea, though.
Every living thing eventually dies. But even so, you can still plant a new tree.
I feel like plants and death aren't a good mix.
On the contrary, plants and death go very well together. Humus and such. The life cycle is built on it.
Luckily Carshay, life isn't governed by the rules of fairy tales.
Perhaps, but usually after the death of something or someone, a new plant grows where the thing is buried. Like an "after winter comes spring" or "death brings new life" sort of thing.
Well i'm not sure if you've heard of the folk tales, but normally when death is near a plant- the plant will wilt and becomes gloomy. Although i'm not saying that's completely true, just what i've heard.
I'm sure you're the kind of person who would protest against the building of a highway due to the fact that it might disrupt the humble abode of a squirrel, or the clearing away of dead underbrush, so that the beetles would have a place to live.
You seem like the type of person who could use a nice punch in the face.
You seem like the type of person who doesn't understand that every creature plays a role in the balance of nature...
The person is dead...
Alright, lets stop picking on the anonymous dude. He's a humanist. I'm not sure I completely agree with his philosophy, but it's not an illegitimate one altogether. Besides, thus far it seems to me that neither side has made an argument that extended beyond ad hominem.
I wasn't referring to the post, when I put my first comment, and people insulted me for that, I was referring back to that first comment, not the post itself...
Dude... So you were relpying to the post? And yes planting trees instead of gravestones is more environmentally friendly, what is wrong with that?
It's not just about the ocean.
And no, trees don't filter out the toxins. Trees filter carbon dioxide, not toxic artificial chemicals and microscopic bits of plastic. And while we may have more trees than 100 years ago, our impact on the environment has increased more than the number of trees.
You can be a humanist but that doesn't mean that the view isn't open for criticism especially when they are the ones that said they question the mentality of anyone who believes differently to them. And I didn't use an ad hominem argument,they are saying that the life of a person comes before the life of anything else, but the post is talking about dead people, so their point is invalid anyway.
Of course it's open to criticism. And I didn't mean you in particular were being ad hominem, I meant "you" to refer to the group of people who were attacking the humanist. His argument was ad hominem as well. And I think he would say that whether they're dead or not is irrelevant, they're still superior to the animals. I don't necessarily support that view, but I suspect it's what he would argue.
1- There is a reply button you should use when replying to a specific comment. Otherwise it does look like you are commenting on the post.
2- Why would you assume they are the type of person who would protest just because they made a joke about not using coffins in a cemetery with trees instead of headstones because it would be good fertilization?
I did reply to my comment:o and, well, "more environmentally friendly" pretty much gives that away.
I made the assumption that since the first thing they said was they'd be more environmentally friendly, that they were the kind of person who care deeply of the environment. I'm not saying I don't care, I just think humans come first, then other animals. I could be right or wrong on that one...
I agree with you on how we shouldn't dump nuclear/industrial waste when and wherever we want, but it's really not a problem anymore. There are more trees now than there were 100 years ago, it's not like when paper companies chop down trees they let the land go to waste. They replant the ones they chop down, so they don't put themselves out of business. I really do think that the environment isn't in danger anymore, like it was 30 years ago. If you can prove me wrong, I'd be more than happy to read about what you have to say, but we're not "killing" the Earth...anymore.
Humanists are pretty much sadists because if we keep doing what we're doing to the environment, all the shit we put into the air will eventually kill us off.
Edit: I realize sadist might not be exactly the right word to use, but I feel like it conveys what I mean.
It's more than just nuclear waste and stuff like that. There are tons of chemicals we're putting into the air that ends up getting everywhere (in our food, clothes, etc.). You can read a lot about it in Oceans.
We don't drink ocean water...and yeah there may be, but trees filter out those toxins, and like I said, more trees now than 100 years ago.
Or it could be that I still have a shred of respect for humanity to know that the life of anything besides a person's life comes after the life of a person. I question the mentality of anyone who believes differently.