Hacker News Reader

Comment by xwdv | Hacker News Reader

Cemeteries aren’t for the dead, they’re for the living.

> Cemeteries aren’t for the dead, they’re for the living.

The living are there 1% of the time. The dead are there 100%. Put the cemetery in a place that isn't prime real estate because of this was my opinion.

I think you're being overly dismissive of thousands(?) of years of human tradition. Yeah, we don't act completely rationally when it comes to death, because death is a deeply emotional thing, and we're not robots. People honor the dead by burying them in beautiful places, it's pretty simple.

couldn't agree more

There are plenty of human traditions that don’t use a western-style cemetery.

There are thousands of years of history behind the cemetery tradition, part of a culture that's dominant in certain parts of the world. That there are other human cultures which have different practices doesn't make it any easier to change that one.

Not really thousands of years, western burial traditions have changed a lot over time. Here are some of the other examples https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tombs_by_type

It’s an interesting subject with a mix of practical, religious, and economic incentives resulting in a huge range of different outcomes in even closely related cultures.

Change is inevitable, even if uncomfortable.

Most of the world cremates the dead.

On the contrary, most of us are usually far too reverential to outdated traditions. We've very, very slowly abandoned the ones that resulted in completely unnecessary human suffering. But it doesn't mean the remaining ones are any more useful or justified than the ones that caused more direct or obvious harm.

Human tradition that originated in practical (at the time) solutions to a practical problem, that then got dressed up in ritual.

We need the practical solutions, not the ritual.

I would argue that for most people the ritual is much more important. Because, again, we’re not robots, traditions are deeply important to us, and some kind of send-off, be it burial, cremation, Viking burial, etc is part of the grieving process. It may not be important to some, but if you find yourself wondering “why do cemeteries get good real estate”, that’s why.

I don't understand this "we're not robots, it's ok if we act irrationally" argument. While it's correct, it doesn't justify irrationality. If it could, you could justify anything with this. You could say it doesn't matter if God exists, humans are not robots and we want to believe in it so we do. Sure, if that's what you want, more power to you, but your argument is not convincing. I visit my dead family's grave but that doesn't mean this is an inalienable part of human experience. It's just culture, like eating yogurt with sugar vs salt.

You’re right, this extreme misrepresentation of my argument is not convincing

You can have both though, you can have a plaque of remembrance which doesn't involve harsh chemicals and waste.

If composting isn't a good option then there's natural funerals where unembalmed people are buried in lightweight and compostable caskets and have trees planted over their grave.

When you’re in a city, particularly an old one, try visiting a cemetery. It’s nearly always nice and quiet and generally there is someone or something of interest.

Especially in Paris - beautiful

People are in parks 1% of the time. The trees are there 100% of the time. Nevertheless, parks are for people, not trees.

It wasn't really prime real estate when they established the cemetery. Then those living people started encroaching...

I don't think new cemeteries are generally placed in prime real estate. But as cities grow and cemeteries remain unrelocated, what was rural pastureland becomes something more like prime real estate.

I keep telling that to my grandfather, but he won't be tricked into trying out his grave.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com