Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Badgers Digging Up Ancient Human Remains

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the someone-get-a-snake dept.

United Kingdom 172

One of England's oldest graveyards is under siege by badgers. Rev Simon Shouler now regularly patrols the grounds of St. Remigius Church looking for bones that the badgers have dug up. The badger is a protected species in England so they can not be killed, and attempts to have them relocated have been blocked by English Nature. From the article: "At least four graves have been disturbed so far; in one instance a child found a leg bone and took it home to his parents. ... Rev. Simon Shouler has been forced to carry out regular patrols to pick up stray bones, store them and re-inter them all in a new grave."

cancel ×

172 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Oblig (4, Funny)

sgbett (739519) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891050)

Badger badger badger (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33891094)

Badger badger badger badger. Leg bone! Leg bone! Ohhhhh, Grave!

Re:Badger badger badger (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891424)

Already done [weebls-stuff.com]

Re:Badger badger badger (1)

Goffee71 (628501) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891516)

I, for one, welcome the upcoming iPhone game; "Badger Grave Fury"

Re:Badger badger badger (1)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891866)

Also oblig: "Badgers? BADGERS?..." Someone please finish that one correctly...

Burying Bodies (5, Insightful)

DirtyCanuck (1529753) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891068)

Is it me or is the tradition of being buried becoming more and more ridiculous the further we venture into the reality that is the future.

Frankly cremation is the current preference, that doesn't end in a badger exhumation.

Re:Burying Bodies (1)

sgbett (739519) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891090)

I was thinking the very same the other day, it's a fine example of 'doesn't scale well'. I'm carbon all the way baby. Liking the industrial diamond option (which I suppose technically, also doesn't scale well!) but hoping the price comes down a bit.

Re:Burying Bodies (2, Insightful)

tygerstripes (832644) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891148)

So rather than donate you body to science, you can donate it to de Beers :-)

Re:Burying Bodies (1)

BoberFett (127537) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891200)

I'm intrigued by that company that will press your ashes into a playable record.

Re:Burying Bodies (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33891970)

Have you signed up for their newslestter?

Re:Burying Bodies (3, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891236)

It's quite the other way around..."natural" burials scale exceedingly well. Number of people who have ever died is estimated at around 100 billion. Add to that countless other species in the time span of hundreds of millions of years, I don't think cremation of remains (not to mention industrial diamonds) is anywhere near scalable.

Re:Burying Bodies (2, Insightful)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891258)

Indeed, the issue is that we still have an emotional attachment to the remains, and care that a badger digs them up. Personally, if nature wants to find a way to use my body after I'm dead, I'm happy.

Re:Burying Bodies (1)

zwei2stein (782480) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891328)

I suggest Sky Burial then.

Fun for for friends and foes.

Re:Burying Bodies (1)

gmack (197796) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891636)

Reminds me of when my friends were taking out life insurance and the insurance guy starts trying to change my mind about single guys not needing life insurance by saying "What happens if you die? Who will pay for the funeral?"

I managed to get him to leave me alone with "I'll be dead, they can give me a 21 flush salute for all I care."

Re:Burying Bodies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33891642)

May I suggest this use for your bones then? :)

http://www.kostnice.cz/ [kostnice.cz]

Re:Burying Bodies (1)

sgbett (739519) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891284)

You are right I shouldn't have said natural burial doesn't scale. Of course, I didn't though. The parent talked about the tradition of burial, in the UK (where the story is at) that means a graveyard.

Graveyards don't scale. Sorry for any confusion.

Re:Burying Bodies (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891322)

And I should have said "can scale", I guess. Yes, many modern implementations of leaving the body to nature are somewhat bizarre, to say the least. But it can work, does work for eons.

Re:Burying Bodies (1)

sgbett (739519) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891778)

Agreed, if people could get over the emotional attachment to dead body thing, then some kind of composting solution would be surely the most eco-friendly/responsible course of action.

Re:Burying Bodies (1)

artg (24127) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891892)

Burying people scales fine, at least for number if not for localised rate. The problem is with reserving the places they're buried in for a period much longer than their actual life. We should fill a graveyard, then reuse it as a field and move the burying onto another place. A period of say, 100 years between burying and growing would leave adequate time for direct relatives to feel their loved ones were respected. Turning perfectly good fertilizer into carbon, on the other hand, is silly.

Re:Burying Bodies (2, Insightful)

Clueless Nick (883532) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891110)

Donate eyes, liver, kidneys or whichever organs can survive 'death', and cremate the remainder. There will only be a finite number of corpses that medical research can accept.

On the other hand, if we cease to exist when we die, how can we decide what to do with the corpse after death? It should be left to the family members or community or government to decide how to recycle or treat the waste.

Next up: flamewars about inheritance and communism

Re:Burying Bodies (1)

M1FCJ (586251) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891580)

Cremation is rather wasteful. I'd prefer any remains after the NHS is done by picking up any reusable parts to be composted and recycled.

Re:Burying Bodies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33891630)

Not really a problem. Both pure capitalism and pure communism requires that the possessions of the dead are given to society rather than kept by the relatives. (For equal opportunity to exist no-one can have the advantage of being born rich.)
Idealism however tend to go out the window when genetics are involved and parents usually reserve the right to provide for their children, even after death.
This is one of the reasons we will never see a fair society where everyone is treated equal. Communism vs. capitalism has very little to do with it. (But they tend to blame each other for the problems.)

Re:Burying Bodies (5, Funny)

asliarun (636603) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891112)

I totally agree. Only a human being faces the possibility of being badgered in both life and in death.

Re:Burying Bodies (1)

Councilor Hart (673770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891118)

Strange, I have the completely opposite view. Why waste fuel on cremation when you can just bury them. Carbon is stored in the ground and some nutrients are returned to the soil.

Re:Burying Bodies (2, Insightful)

sgbett (739519) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891152)

Because you can't build on the land for several hundred, if not thousands of years. In some countries that's a problem.

Re:Burying Bodies (5, Insightful)

Hylandr (813770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891186)

All these interstate highways have at least 50 feet of available burial ground between the lanes and small critters often don't have much of a chance at making it over to invade.

Problem solved.

- Dan.

Re:Burying Bodies (3, Informative)

sgbett (739519) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891250)

We don't have states or highways, thus we do not have interstate highways. When I say 'some countries' that was for the benefit of the american audience, what I mean is 'not in america'.

Here is an interesting graphic btw. http://static02.mediaite.com/geekosystem/uploads/2010/10/true-size-of-africa.jpg [mediaite.com]

Re:Burying Bodies (3, Funny)

Hylandr (813770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891346)

Good lord, so when I take over the Earth I am moving all of humanity to Africa and refurbishing the rest of the planet..

That is just an astounding perspective. Thank You!

- Dan.

Re:Burying Bodies (1)

sgbett (739519) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891792)

Yes, ensuing arguments about europe notwithstanding, it absolutely blew my mind when I saw the US overlay. That mercator chap has a lot to answer for!

Re:Burying Bodies (1)

MSojka (83577) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891394)

This graphic is kinda dishonest, though. It excludes most of European Russia (by itself already about 13% the size of Africa and bigger then India) from Europe.

Re:Burying Bodies (1)

gilleain (1310105) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891478)

This graphic is kinda dishonest, though. It excludes most of European Russia (by itself already about 13% the size of Africa and bigger then India) from Europe.

True, Russia is the biggest country, but in the list of countries ordered by size there are quite a few African countries in the top 40. Sudan, Algeria, and the DRC at 2 million KmSq; Libya at 1.7; Chad, Niger, Angola, Mali at 1.2; ... er just a minute - what the hell is "European Russia"? Surely you don't mean Ukraine, Latvia, and other former Soviet states? Not a particularly popular terminology for that region :)

Re:Burying Bodies (1)

ladoga (931420) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891624)

er just a minute - what the hell is "European Russia"? Surely you don't mean Ukraine, Latvia, and other former Soviet states? Not a particularly popular terminology for that region :)

No, he doesn't mean that.

Didn't they tell you at school that Ural moutains are considered to be the dividing line between Europe and Asia?
http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/time-zone/russia/europe.htm [greenwichmeantime.com]

Re:Burying Bodies (1)

Alphathon (1634555) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891638)

I assume it means the part of the Russian Federation which is part of Europe rather than Asia

Re:Burying Bodies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33892020)

Not a particularly popular terminology for that region :)

Fuck them, it beats the hell out of "USian". Fucking commies.

Re:Burying Bodies (2, Informative)

pthisis (27352) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891690)

This graphic is kinda dishonest, though. It excludes most of European Russia (by itself already about 13% the size of Africa and bigger then India) from Europe.

It also omits Alaska from the overlay. Alaska is the size of Spain, France, Germany, and the UK combined.

Hawaii's left out as well, but that's a much, er, smaller problem.

Re:Burying Bodies (1)

ladoga (931420) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891590)

This single image tries to embody the massive scale, which is larger than the USA, China, India, Japan and all of Europe...... combined!

So Sweden, Finland and Norway aren't part of Europe? :)
Or what about European Russia.

Whoever made that map is in serious need of some geography lessons.

Re:Burying Bodies (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891666)

It doesn't include Denmark or the Netherlands, either. Or the Ukraine. And, of course, it leaves off Canada.

Re:Burying Bodies (1)

gaiageek (1070870) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891252)

This might make people drive a bit more slowly and safely on the highways. Of course, holding the traditional funeral ceremony could be a bit of a problem...

Re:Burying Bodies (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891646)

forget about 'between the lanes', how about under the road itself?

Re:Burying Bodies (4, Funny)

Calydor (739835) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891808)

"Here lies Dan.
He lived his life in the fast lane.
Now he rests next to it."

Re:Burying Bodies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33892032)

Because you can't build on the land for several hundred, if not thousands of years.

You'll need graveyards in the future, too. So the space doesn't really go to waste. They're already recycling existing graveyard space around here. You either pay rent or the grave gets reused after some time (two decades or so). Sounds like a good solution to me.

Re:Burying Bodies (1)

tygerstripes (832644) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891160)

Agreed. Graves are a good carbon-sink :-)

Re:Burying Bodies (1)

codeButcher (223668) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891408)

Traditional burial apparently takes place too deep for aerobic decomposition to take place. Embalming fluids, some medication and food additives, various metals in prostheses (e.g. dental fillings) further complicate the matter. Of course, cremation has its own problems with some of these, apart from the huge amounts of (fossil) fuel required.

Natural burials [wikipedia.org] and ecological burials [wikipedia.org] provide some (partial) alternatives.

Re:Burying Bodies (2, Insightful)

lenawash (1905480) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891120)

and the living won't be pestered with all those stupid zombie movies anymore.
cremation = no zombie.

Re:Burying Bodies (2, Insightful)

fuzzix (700457) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891440)

and the living won't be pestered with all those stupid zombie movies anymore.

cremation = no zombie.

Have you ever even seen a zombie movie?

Hint: Few feature the grave.

Re:Burying Bodies (1)

worx101 (1799560) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891162)

Why not just bury and people become the fertilizer of the future? or soylent green can be a alternative :P

Re:Burying Bodies (3, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891184)

Burning wastes resources... and for what? (well, in many places burying does, too - seriously, concrete tombs and metal caskets?)

A solace for living participants that there will be some reflection about them; preferably in an orderly manner. That they will be remembered - but ultimately we ourselves don't treat very old memorials, very old customs, very old faiths as anything more than archeological curiosities.

PS. Also, Ig Nobel 2008:

ARCHAEOLOGY PRIZE. Astolfo G. Mello Araujo and José Carlos Marcelino of Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil, for measuring how the course of history, or at least the contents of an archaeological dig site, can be scrambled by the actions of a live armadillo.
REFERENCE: "The Role of Armadillos in the Movement of Archaeological Materials: An Experimental Approach," Astolfo G. Mello Araujo and José Carlos Marcelino, Geoarchaeology, vol. 18, no. 4, April 2003, pp. 433-60.

Re:Burying Bodies (1, Insightful)

MrL0G1C (867445) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891276)

A solace for living participants that there will be some reflection about them; preferably in an orderly manner. That they will be remembered

Having some stone stuck in the ground amongst 10,000 other stones stuck in the ground in no way means you are being remembered - seriously, does the stone look like you, does it talk, walk, think like you? - no, it's a hunk of rock with some random persons name on it wasting space.

And secondly - more natural: no it's not natural, natural would be to leave the body above ground to quickly be eaten by maggots etc.

Re:Burying Bodies (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891294)

Well that's the point; illusions for the living.

And secondly, certainly "more natural"...

Re:Burying Bodies (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891848)

The original point of a headstone was to protect the grave from animals.

--

Badgered to death and gone to a furry grave.

Re:Burying Bodies (1)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891868)

Exactly right.

Which is why I want to be plastinated [wikipedia.org] after I die. My family can keep me in a glass coffin and use me as a coffee table! [snopes.com] Or just stand me up in the corner. If nothing else, I'll make a great hat and coat rack! [instablogsimages.com]

;)

Re:Burying Bodies (1)

bored_engineer (951004) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891260)

It's a nice idea, but there are one or two [wikipedia.org] religions that forbid or strongly discourage cremation. In fact, the preference for burial may (or may not; I didn't attempt a census) include a majority of the world's population. Are you sure that it's the current preference, badger exhumations aside?

Re:Burying Bodies (1)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891460)

I want my head wired up and put in a jar Futurama style. My body should be frozen, shattered, and the frozen bits launched into space.

still wastefull (1)

r00t (33219) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891672)

Cremation requires a huge amount of fuel.

I suggest making biodiesel, pet food, and fertilizer.

We could auction off the corpses for such purposes.
Imagine them stacked on pallets with plastic straps to
keep them from falling off and a plastic wrap to keep
the arms and legs in. Corpse bundles would be rated
according to estimated meat, fat, and leftover content.

Buyers would get a chance to request individual
auction for corpses that they find to be particularly
desirable. Among other things, this would allow
museums to acquire famous people for public display.

Vigilantism (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33891084)

If humans were digging up graves, the church could have security shoot at them, in self defense. Why do badgers have more rights than humans?

Re:Vigilantism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33891170)

History Detectives had an episode [pbs.org] about people putting bombs in their coffins to prevent themselves from getting dug up and dissected in medical schools.

But whether it counts as self-defense when you're already dead is at best a complex question.

Re:Vigilantism (3, Funny)

rpjs (126615) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891178)

Uh this is England. Shooting people, other than Brazilian electricians [wikipedia.org] and tooled-up lawyers [bbc.co.uk] , is rather frowned upon here.

Saunders (1)

gd2shoe (747932) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891634)

Oh geez. And here I thought California was soft.
(It could be a lack of clarity in the write-up)

Jurors must decide if the lawyer "deliberately and consciously" used his shotgun, provoking the police to shoot. [Not whether his actions could reasonably be interpreted that way during a time of crisis?]

The jury, which is expected to go out on Wednesday, was asked to answer several questions ...

Was "sufficient weight" given to the fact that Mr Saunders, who was drunk at the time, was a vulnerable person?

Article includes a picture of Mr Saunders holding said shotgun while leaning out the window.
(No, I don't know more about the story. First I've heard about it.)

Re:Vigilantism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33891188)

Firstly, this is the UK, the police carry guns infrequently, security services hardly ever. Secondly, how exactly is it self defence if the badgers are digging up graves as opposed to attacking the security guards? And finally, badgers don't have more rights than humans, but what makes you think the corpse of someone who died hundreds of years ago is more important than a living, endangered species? As trolls go, you definitely need to put in more work.

Re:Vigilantism (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891280)

No, no they couldn't – they could call the police, they could go and confront them and ask them to piss off, they could not shoot them. The latter option at least is available with badgers, but you may have to use different language.

Re:Vigilantism (2, Insightful)

pspahn (1175617) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891348)

Why do badgers have more rights than humans?

Because, unlike you (presumably), badgers are at somewhat of a disadvantage when it comes to the freedom to choose where they want to live.

Animals, in many cases, should have more rights than humans, especially endangered ones. If you don't like it, then stop fucking up their habitat.

Re:Vigilantism (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33891480)

The GP is a fine example of why this sort of news story is coming about.

I'm quite a fan of the new government for the most part, but since they've come to power there's been an escalation of "news" stories about foxes attacking people, badgers causing problems etc. Call me cynical, but I find it strange that these sorts of stories have started to appear frequently at the same time as the government is making a push to bring back Fox hunting (no, not hunting as in America i.e. with guns- the sick fucked up version that only people with a disturbing psycopathic blood lust would enjoy) and to allow for badger culls by farmers.

I don't think any of this stuff is new, limited to badgers, or particularly newsworthy to be quite honest. I think it's just a case of needing something in the news about them to bolster the governments position on killing them so that irresponsible farmers who have destroyed their habitat pushing them into urban areas or into contact with their cattle in the first place can continue to be irresponsible, and can continue to grow fields of cabbages which they never harvest anyway because they grew too much, but want their government subsidy.

Re:Vigilantism (1)

EdZ (755139) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891788)

Maybe you're reading too many tabloids (i.e. reading any tabloids at all)? I've never heard any stories abut foxes attacking people, and this is the first I've heard about badgers causing trouble either, apart from one story about how culling may speed up the spread of TB among livestock.

Re:Vigilantism (1)

kainosnous (1753770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891358)

I don't think you could stretch it to self defense, but when I first saw the article, my thought was "This belongs in idle. Just shoot the badgers." However, looking at the responses here, I see that I am in the vast minority. Suggestions seem to range from "It's just human remains, let the kids play with them." to "We can find better ways to get rid of the bodies". Sure, I know that once a person is dead, the body is an empty shell, but I'm still of a mind that it trumps some animal. I guess this is why sometimes I feel like I've entered the Twilight Zone.

Re:Vigilantism (4, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891386)

Why would human remains trump badgers?

Why should our emotional attachment to bit of dead folks mean that cute, furry, stripy badgers should be killed?

I don't think it's the twilight zone. The UK has already wiped out pretty much every wild animal it ever had that was larger than a badger. And we like badgers.

Re:Vigilantism (2, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891416)

Why do badgers have more rights than humans?

Because they never hire lawyers to exercise them.

Re:Vigilantism (2, Funny)

teh kurisu (701097) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891484)

I like the idea that you think a church in a tiny village in rural England a) has security, and b) has armed security.

Re:Vigilantism (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891692)

What I know about rural England could fit in a thimble, so: is it such a harmless place that not a single parishioner owns a shotgun and is willing to use it?

Re:Vigilantism (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891958)

What I know about rural England could fit in a thimble, so: is it such a harmless place that not a single parishioner owns a shotgun and is willing to use it?

Probably.

In any case, rural England isn't very far from urban England, and urban England will have police in cars, armed if necessary (i.e. only occasionally). That village is certainly rural [google.co.uk] , but it's only 8 miles from the nearest town (Melton Mowbray, home of the pork pie. The village is one of the places that makes genuine Stilton).

Wikipedia entry for the village [wikipedia.org]
Village news [long-clawson.com]

Re:Vigilantism (1)

Wizard Drongo (712526) | more than 3 years ago | (#33892036)

Given that shotgun licences aren't very easy to obtain, and you need to show just cause for having one (being a farmer is usually good enough), they're not as common as once was the case.
Also, if you go brandishing a shotgun, the armed police will be called.
In the US, "armed police" means a fat 45+ normal cop with a donut, coffee and a 92F.
In the UK, the only armed police are the ones that do armed standoffs, terrorist incidents etc., somewhat like your SWAT teams, and they carry MP5's and are the serious, young, very-fit used-to-be-in-the-special-forces types, who will shoot you if you look dodgy. And get away with it in court, too.

And yes, merely walking around the church-yard with a 12-bore will get them called out. Even if the vicar knows they're there, a local old biddy can make the call and the cops will show up. In 3 or 4 off-roaders, and a helicopter.

Think I'm kidding? "Cool story, bro" time. My dumb-ass moron neighbours (i live in a shitty area) decided they were gonna go rabbit-hunting in the woods on the hill behind our 'hood. Being they a) drug-addled idiots, b) teenagers and c) completely lacking in any knowledge about firearms or the armed police, they thought it'd be fine to go waving around their air-rifles.
Yep, air-rifles, not even .22's. They also had BB pistols which, to a blind, half-dead dickhead old person might look like something resembling a 9mm. So they started threatening some normal dog-walking folks with their BB's.
Normal folk think "meh, moron neds with BB's, suppose I should phone the cops though, they'll only be out causing trouble later otherwise". Cops get phoned, are told someone has a handgun and was threatening people. They respond in force, helicopter, dogs teams, the works. Cops come to my neighbours flat-block where the wee shits have since ran too, having heard the chopper.
We then have an armed stand-off as the wee shits are pulled out the house one by one, by the 12+ armed response guys standing out from of the building (not to mention the ones surrounding the rear etc.) with the loudspeaker etc. Neighbourhood is cordoned off, the gardens behind the buildings got the guys coming in, vaulting fences etc. moving the old grannies out sunbathing (now shitting themselves, LOL) etc.

For a BB airgun. In the woods, near a somewhat isolated housing estate.

Now imagine the response for someone discharging an actual real firearm, in the centre of a busy town.
Then ask again if anyone who needs a firearm for their livelihood (as in, they'll lose their farm if they don't have one because of livestock regulations etc.) would be willing to come do the dirty deed on jeremy the badger

Uh-oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33891102)

They're getting used to the taste...

Shroooms (1)

skywatcher2501 (1608209) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891142)

They're probably more interested in the mushrooms. SNAKEE SNAKEEE!!!

Am I strange? (2, Interesting)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891150)

Am I strange? I quite like the idea oif my remains being eaten by badgers. Its part of the circle of life. I have always thought that the Native American tree burials and Zoroastrian towers of silence [wikipedia.org] are somehow very satisfying and symbolic of our return to nature.

Re:Am I strange? (4, Interesting)

mpoulton (689851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891176)

Am I strange? I quite like the idea oif my remains being eaten by badgers. Its part of the circle of life. I have always thought that the Native American tree burials and Zoroastrian towers of silence [wikipedia.org] are somehow very satisfying and symbolic of our return to nature.

Well, the badgers aren't so much eating your body as food. Really they're just pulling your remains out of the way of their excavation project. Rather than participating in the circle of life by providing nutrition to critters, your body is just annoying them by getting in the way of their homebuilding.

Re:Am I strange? (4, Funny)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891256)

When they start building their homes WITH human bones, we'll have more of a problem.

Re:Am I strange? (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891438)

Oh I don't know. I'm useless as a skeleton in the ground. If my tibia can be used to brace some burrowing mammal's new dinning area, I'm all for it.

A little macabre, but then again so are a lot of the old religions. Maybe they're catching up.

Re:Am I strange? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891210)

Or sky burials [wikipedia.org] (this one with photographs)

But members of many/most(?) cultures prefer to perceive themselves as not quite succumbing to the forces around them in such "trivial" way; as something above them.
Which, in the end, is part of few certainly still useful adaptations.

Re:Am I strange? (1)

ysth (1368415) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891296)

All the cool kids are having their remains et by Durrell's vontsiras.

Re:Am I strange? (4, Informative)

bored_engineer (951004) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891390)

Ya know: "native American" is not exactly a monolithic group. Being a descendant of north American aboriginal people, I just decided that I'm allowed to be offended for the entire group called "native American" when the label is misused. Not everybody who was here before the arrival of Europeans practiced "tree burials," so perhaps you ought to be more specific. Sioux tree burials? Nez Perce tree burials? Apache tree burials? Even this list [nanations.com] isn't all-inclusive of the methods used in north America (pre-invasion) to bury the dead. [smaller nit to pick: that should really be native American, no Native American, just as it should be western European, not Western European. It's not necessary to capitalize every adjective.]

I'm sorry if the above paragraph is offensive; I don't mean to be. I do, though, dislike general assumptions or statements about aboriginal American peoples. We weren't (and are not) a monolithic culture.

Re:Am I strange? (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891560)

I'm sorry if the above paragraph is offensive; I don't mean to be. I do, though, dislike general assumptions or statements about aboriginal American peoples. We weren't (and are not) a monolithic culture.

Not at all, I'm sorry I offended you. (incidentally Western European" [wikipedia.org] is standard). I was referring to a practice I had heard of and admire but really know little about. I should have at least put "Some" native Americans.

I should have known better because I do realise how assumptions that you believe and follow a particular practice because it is practised somewhere in your wider culture can be can be upsetting if it is something that your particular group does not follow or recognise or even finds repulsive. As a Hindu I am quite used to people bringing up practices such as the Nepalese Bali sacrifice as if it is something that I must approve of because of my beliefs!

Re:Am I strange? (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891702)

that should really be native American, no Native American

It's a pretty useful capitalization. I'm a native American, but I'm not a Native American. How would you prefer to make that distinction?

Badgers? (3, Funny)

pablo_max (626328) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891174)

We don't need no stinking...ah forget it.

Re:Badgers? (1)

laejoh (648921) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891262)

Eh, we? I want to install linux on one!

I'd prefer a more natural "funeral" (1)

fadir (522518) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891194)

If I had the choice I'd say: feed my remains to wolves, sharks, hyenas - whatever fits the food chain - and no badger would cause any issues when building its new home.

Sadly that's not allowed in Germany and you have to get buried or burnt.

Re:I'd prefer a more natural "funeral" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33891372)

feed my remains to wolves, sharks, hyenas

How quaint. Did you actually mean the 4-legged/finned creatures that originally had these names, and may still be found in zoos and some remote locations on the planet?

Re:I'd prefer a more natural "funeral" (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891482)

There are wolves in Germany. Some reintroduced, and for example some packs that crossed from Poland (which has small group in western forests, even if most of their population is in the east - where, funnily enough, wolves from Slovakia, Belarus and Ukraine also cross; general direction seems to mimic the movement of people, or perhaps the other way around)

Re:I'd prefer a more natural "funeral" (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891446)

There should be a loophole, in some (yeah...) circumstances, for sea burial.

I for one.. (0, Redundant)

Arvisp (1626837) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891288)

I for one welcome our new badger overlords

Badgers badgers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33891350)

MUSHROOM!

Soylent Green? (0, Troll)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891376)

Instead of burying people, we should eat them. That should solve this problem. The local vicar might have some qualms about this, but, hey, show me where it says in the Bible, that "humans should not eat humans". Well, maybe the bit about, "Thou shall not covert your neighbor's wife's leg . . . lightly braised in an onion sauce."

And for the badgers? Tough luck, let them eat bark.

Re:Soylent Green? (1)

Ostracus (1354233) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891418)

Instead of burying people, we should eat them.

You'd think mad cow disease would discourage that sort of behavior.

Re:Soylent Green? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33891436)

"Thou shall not covert your neighbor's wife's leg . . . lightly braised in an onion sauce."

Damn, you must be good if you can braise your neighbour's wife's leg without her noticing. Unless it's an artificial limb which probably wouldn't be very tasty.

Some awfully black humour (1)

ultramarweeni (662813) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891396)

Badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger CORPSE CORPSE badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger OOH SPINE OOH IT'S A SPINE

OK, this wasn't funny at all. Mount your rotten tomatos.

Ready, "Sett", Go! (1)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891492)

Badger whatchoo diggin' there/With your bum up in the air?

Shaft!

Why you movin' body parts/Skulls and legs and even hearts?

Shaft!

You say that mine shaft's a badger house?

Shut yo' mouth!

Gonna dig it!

need help here.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33891562)

I've arranged to have myself freeze-dried and cast into a block of clear acrylic for display in perpetuity. I just can't decide how to have me posed. Any suggestions would be appreciated, as time's a-wastin'

What's the fuss? (1)

barry61 (1447103) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891566)

When you're dead you're dead. I don't have a problem with my bones being dug out by hungry/idle badgers, and I quite like the idea of being taken home by kiddies to meet mum and dad - its good to think I would continue being of educational value, rather than just a bit more pollution.

not this window? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33891578)

samzenpus - you posted to slashdot, but I think you wanted to post at /b/

Next time, on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33891740)

Grave-desecrating badgers? Next time, on Sick, Sad World!

Well... (2, Funny)

Syberz (1170343) | more than 3 years ago | (#33891870)

It looks like nobody told the animals to...

*puts on sunglasses* ...stop badgering the corpses.

YEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?