Is this a good idea?

>>6915047
Actually...yes

>>6915047
no, that's completely fucking retarded, a person in a first world country uses hundreds of trees in his lifetime, planting one more tree means absolutely nothing, the only people who have such luxuries as actual stone tombstones are relatively wealthy people in first world countries and a minority of the world population anyway and the places with actual high populations like africa and india are too fucking poor to plant and grow trees for everyone that dies

the ecological impact would be completely negligible, it would accomplish absolutely nothing except make stupid hippie faggots with very poor logical abilities feel good imagining the persons spirit reincarnated as a tree or some shit.

and the entire purpose of a tombstone isnt to last a couple years so your family can have a funeral and visit maybe once or twice, its to have a permanent marker that will remain there for centuries after your death, which a tree will not

>>6915066
This guy knows it.

>>6915047
No. It's a bad idea morally, ethically and ecologically.

>>6915066
check ur priv first worlders >:[

>>6915047
I think that some people already do this.

>>6915066
The idea of preserving a body in a wood box and putting it in the ground is just as stupid, in my opinion.

>>6915143
Some people get cremated and get a tombstone

Nutrients from your decomposing body will be absorbed by the tree's root system. You will become a tree. How is that not a good idea?

>>6915047
It's better than just burying dead bodies in coffins...unless you want some weird ritual performed on your dead ass body, I don't think it really matters?? So why not plant trees. Trees are pretty dope

>>6915185
...no. I dare not make that reference.

>>6915143
Sure but nobody is pretending that is doing something good for the environment or doing anything other than providing peace of mind for the family of the deceased.

>>6915185
>Nutrients from your decomposing body will be absorbed by the tree's root system. You will become a tree.
If you are eaten by lions, do you think of that as though you are becoming a lion? It's a meaningless abstraction, if the idea of it gives you good feelings, fine, but don't pretend there's any more to it than making you feel good.

>>6915189
No one's saying don't plant trees, if planting trees and believing in hippie magic makes you feel good than go for it. The point is it doesn't really matter, you aren't doing shit for the world by it and there's absolutely no reason to do it other than your feelings. And as such it is in no way shape or form superior to the old coffin+tombstone method.

File: Br9J0CoCEAEjcAd.jpg (24KB, 598x358px)

24KB, 598x358px

>>6915206
So if it really doesn't matter, then it comes down to personal preference. On a large scale, I'm pretty sure trees would be more beneficial in several regards as opposed to coffins and tombstones.

Personally, I want my dead body/ashes to be sent into space.

>>6915185
http://www.spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com/how-to-turn-into-a-tree-after-you-die-end-of-cemetaries/

>>6915066
this.

furthermore the spacing between tombstones is minimal, if you wanted to plant trees instead you would have to put each grave at a distance of about 6-7 meters from each other for a SMALL tree, ERGO the cemetery would become highly inefficient and we would have to waste lots of space for it.

>>6915241
>Personally, I want my dead body/ashes to be sent into space.
yeah, I'm sure that's VERY environmentally friendly... sending a nutrient rich powder into space by burning a huge ammount of toxic materials

>>6915246
>6-7 meters from each other for a SMALL tree,

6-7 meters?!?! I don't even have to say how wrong that is.

>>6915047

I like the idea of planting a bonsai over my tombstone.

File: amerigans.png (474KB, 700x394px) Image search: [Google]

474KB, 700x394px

>Clear forest to make a graveyard
>Proceed to plant trees on it
>Americans

Besides planting one tree per a dead guy not only would be pretty much pointless and the tree would basically be just a placebo feel good gesture which gravestone does cheaper and more effectively.
Not only that but to be functional as a cemetery the trees would have to be spaced out more than in a regular forest (not to mention just regular graveyard) to make the whole place accessible which results again in more land waste.

>>6915250
because ashes are known to hold many nutrients.

File: Emperor Nintoku's tomb.jpg (296KB, 600x399px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 600x399px

>only one tree per person

there's your problem

>>6915246

Eh, just plant smaller trees. 6-7 meters is a gross overestimation anyway.

The fact is, if you go to any given cemetery you will see that tombstones are also not eternal and don't take too many decades to wear beyond recognition. This can be somewhat mitigated if someone takes care of them, which in most cases stops after some years. I bet a good tree can last about as long as most gravestones. In most cases there will be nobody to give a shit after a couple of decades anyway.

I don't care if the environmental would be negligible, it would still be cool. I might ask people to do that when I'm gone.

>>6915279
that's fucking cool

>>6915265
>which gravestone does cheaper
Idiot, gravestones can easily cost tens of thousands of dollars; trees cost like 20 bucks.

>>6915337
Idiot trees can easily cost tens of thousands of dollars; gravestones cost like 20 bucks.

Nice argument

File: Aokigahara-Forest1-uobydk.jpg (69KB, 630x472px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 630x472px

a forest of corpses would be the perfect place to hide a body

>>6915349
Idiot, gravestones can easily cost like tens of thousands of trees: dollars cost like 20 arguments.

Nice bucks

There's no possible way for a cemetery to make money from this, and they would be sued constantly because you can't expect every tree to take root or survive storms and the like. Can you imagine what a fucking mess it would be to have your loved one's tree get struck by lightening and die, need to be be uprooted (resulting in your loved one's decaying, tangled body to be pulled up as well) , and replaced?

>>6915354

Bucks, trees can easily argument like 20 idiots; tens of thousands cost like trees.

Nice gravestones

>>6915241
dat pic doe

>>6915243
>spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com

>>6915047
Pretty much everything is a better idea than burying dead people with a bunch of clothes, chemicals and a wooden box.

>>6915375
>spiritscienceandmetaphysics
I now remember why scientists can't take philosophy (Especially metaphysics) seriously. All of these euphoric betas are ruining what has been easily the greatest field a thousand years ago and even afterwards.

>>6915254
How is that wrong? Scrub oaks probably have about a 4-5 meter radius of roots, so two would have to be spaced apart accordingly. Scrub oaks are small

>>6915385

I tried to look into this, found that apparently common illustrations are wrong and large trees can have roots extending in a radius 9 meters from the tips of their branches and that typing ''how closely can trees grow'' will yield only answers relating to minecraft.

However, considering that, for example, spruces can grow very close to each other I feel there must be more to this. Right now I can't be arsed to do the research, though.But really, you see regions of trees in forests that are much closer than 8 meters from each other.

I love the idea. Any specific plants that'd get rid of the bones quicker than others?

>>6915411
Trees take as much space as they need and can get, if you put a tree on a small patch of soil the roots will grow down, if there's nothing around for 10 meters it'll grow just deep enough for the water and then sideways.
IANABotanicist

>>6915385
have you ever seen a forest dude? they can have overlapping root networks, the vast majority of the volume of soil within the radius of the root network is occupied by just soil and not roots, trees in real life grow like 2 feet away from each other sometimes. you are assuming a spherical cow.

the people talking about the economics of it like they make it not viable aren't getting it either. people don't spend money on tombstones because a rock with some carving in it is expensive. they do it because spending money to have a nice, valuable, custom-made memorial of the dead person makes them feel good. its not like every time someone dies, people would just plant whatever the easiest to find local tree is on the grave, rich people would pay thousands to have super rare fancy exotic trees planted for them, cemetaries would attract customers by offering fancier trees with nicer landscaping that they take better care of. funerals would still have the same economic role because they serve to assuage peoples feelings, the purpose wouldnt change and the function wouldnt change.

>>6915066

While the environmental/tree argument is poor, the rest makes complete sense.

The tradition of the tombstone came from a time when there was a fear that the dead people would come back from their grave.
about the purpose of a tombstone : you know that these are, in many, many cases, rentals ? In my country, by a cycle of 15 years.

And if you claim against the price of planting a tree, try the price of setting up a tombstone. The poorest have to get away with two wooden sticks planted in the ground ; a planted seed makes so much more sense.


A tree is

>>6915143

some people get pyramids

look at the arabs

>>6915449
Are egyptions arab?
or would arabs be descendants of Ishmael?

>>6915433
It only makes sense because it appeals to your feelings and because you feel closer to hippie naturalistic spiritualism than to christianity and traditionalism.

>The tradition of the tombstone came from a time when there was a fear that the dead people would come back from their grave.
No one in this century is putting up a tombstone because they're afraid the dead person is going to come back as a zombie, they put up tombstones exclusively as a lasting, enduring memorial for the deceased. Because it makes them feel good.

>you know that these are, in many, many cases, rentals
That's a pretty fucked up local thing, doesn't happen in the US.

>And if you claim against the price of planting a tree, try the price of setting up a tombstone.
see >>6915429

Tombstones aren't expensive because rocks are expensive or because carving someone's name in a rock is particularly expensive. They're expensive because people see spending a lot of money on a fancy tombstone as a way to feel better about their loved one dying.

Trees would be the same way. Rich people will spend thousands planting rare exotic trees for their dead relatives. Because spending money makes you feel better about losing someone. And nobody, not even the poorest, get buried in a hole in the middle of nowhere with a random rock as a tombstone, there is no reason to imagine people would do the same but with a random local tree instead of a random rock.

>The poorest have to get away with two wooden sticks planted in the ground
And you want to replace that with one wooden stick planted in the ground, just, a living one.

>a planted seed makes so much more sense.
It is every bit as irrational and retarded as using a tombstone, it doesn't make a goddamn bit of sense. It only makes you feel better than a tombstone. You need to learn to distinguish your positive feelings from actual reasoning.

>>6915066
Trees look nicer than headstones, and they wouldnt be cut because they're grave markers.

Graveyards aare ugly looking, a small wood would be much nicer, could even be like a park

Why don't we turn them into nutrient rich crackers called greenlent soy?

>>6915066
why so mad sweetie?

>>6915066

>Making a little difference is retarded because the little difference won't solve a massive problem on its own!

How is /sci/ actually succumbing to this logic.

>>6915885
/sci/ has become infested with /pol/lacks lately, it comes and goes

No, the spirits from all the dead people will make it a haunted forest

It's a good idea in the sense that planting a forest (which is pleasant, improves air quality, and provides a home for wildlife) is a much better use of space than a cemetery (which is garbage).

It's a bad idea in the sense that it's still unnecessarily using the land.

>>6915047

The trees would acquire a taste for human flesh, like those giant catfish in the Ganges.

>>6915906

This is the correct answer.

>>6915902

That's probably why I've seen a lot of mediocre and poorly thought out posts recently getting a bunch of replies from people parading some inane common sense notion as the real answer to the subject on hand.