Graves could be reused under proposals to tackle lack of space for the dead

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/oct/03/graves-could-be-reused-under-proposals-to-tackle-lack-of-space-for-the-dead

Posted by boycecodd

25 Comments

  1. I once saw a documentary about graves being re-used for housing. It was called Poltergeist.

  2. UnoriginalWebHandle on

    >There would also be safeguards for each individual grave. Where it is currently permitted, graves can only be considered for reuse when the last burial was made at least 75 years ago. The Commission is consulting on whether a new law should use that period, or a different one such as 100 years. If the family of the deceased person objects, no reuse can happen for another 25 years.

    This seems completely reasonable. Your loved ones will have a place to visit, but eventually they’ll die too and you’ll just be a name on a tombstone. The next generations should have the same opportunity to visit their dead.

  3. Maybe it’s just because I’m atheist, but I’ve never understood the concept of graves… Or at least since cremation became a thing.

    I can’t imagine why anyone would want to be thrown into a hole in the ground and left to rot.

  4. Viking burials.

    Or have weekly lorrys collecting corpses and driving them up the tops of mountains so the birds and animals can pick the bones clean.

  5. IhateALLmushrooms on

    No space for the living. No space for the dead. No space in prisons.

    Cannot even go to jail to live rent free FML!
    Now cannot even die not to pay someone something.

  6. Crypts not a thing anymore?
    If people could figure this out centuries ago why can’t we?

  7. This was extremely common in the past.

    Some old cemetery in cities are higher then surrounding areas despite roads street levels rising and it’s one of the main reasons why catacombs exist.

  8. I don’t understand why people are still buried instead of cremated, just keep using up more and more space for this forever?

  9. Wow, 75 years, or even up to 100 – used to be just 5 years in the hole, then dug up and off to the charnel house or an ossuary. Heck, we only stopped doing it in Britain because it was seen as too catholic.

    Personally I’d opt for fire and be done with it, whether that’s in a crematorium, a pyre, or in a long boat is up to how much I can save up before dying.

  10. Why don’t be bury them vertically? Gotta be able to cram more biomatter into the ground when they’re all stood up next to one another. An afterlife moshpit.

  11. I’ve said in my will I want one of these eco funerals where they just wrap you in a sheet and pop you in a hole in the woods. No chemicals or fancy boxes or bullshit, stick me in the hole and be done with it.

  12. fourlegsfaster on

    My parents bought a double plot for 50 years, they were given the choice of 25 or 50, years or permanent. They decided on 50 because they were calculating the lifespans of grandchildren and great grandchildren, who could possibly have an interest in visiting their very pretty grave site. The plot they bought was pre-used. [https://www.ford-park-cemetery.org/index.php/cemetery-services/burials](https://www.ford-park-cemetery.org/index.php/cemetery-services/burials)

    There are plenty of green/woodland cemeteries around. [https://www.woodlandburialcompany.com/](https://www.woodlandburialcompany.com/)

  13. CptnBrokenkey on

    We’re losing allotments and pitch n putt golf courses round here to make more room for cemeteries. I fully support this proposal.

  14. They should go the other way. Make graveyards more permanent. Introduce laws protecting them for 1000+ years. Make tree planting mandatory. Make graveyards dual-use as parks/forest nature reserves. Tax carbon-intensive cremation until cost-parity is acheived. Use graveyards as a way of protecting green space from developers.