Mortician here!
Recomposition (or Natural Organic Reduction) is already legal in several states: California, Washington, Vermont, Oregon and Colorado!
As of right now, I think the compost is only allowed in national and state parks, but they’re doing testing on farms to check if there’s dangers to us consuming the crops and it’s been very successful and safe.
Most diseases and viruses can’t survive the composting heat and the plants are thriving. It uses 87% less energy than cremation and burial and stops embalming fluids from leaking into our ground water. I’m really glad this is an option.
There’s a scam company that claims you can put cremated remains in the ground and grow a tree… yeah, cremated remains turn into concrete when wet and the heat of cremation denatures nearly everything beneficial for plants. We constantly have to tell people not to put cremated remains on plants or the plants will join the family member that passed…
#mulchtherich
How is that supposed to remove lead and mercury from the food supply? If you use that as fertilizer, the heavy metals will still be in there, and likely get picked up by your crops…
Make sure to have some rolly polies in your compost heap to eat the rich 🍽 those little guys can remove heavy metals from the corpses of the bourgeoisie 😋
Dig a hole. Fill the bottom with a billionaire corpse. Plant a tree on top and finish filling the hole. Take a breath of fresh air.
Does it have to be a corpse?
At some point.
Composting doesn’t get rid of prions or heavy metals unfortunately.
deleted by creator
Unfortunately they do. Plans have been shown to take up prions associated with Chronic Wasting Disease and transmit them to mice.
Meh, I’ll take my chances. The heads are going on pikes anyway so that should mitigate the prion problem. As for the metals, well they can’t be worse than you’d get eating a lot of predatory fish (like tuna). Since there’s a lot of oppressed and a relatively much smaller number of rich, the load will be distributed widely enough to mitigate the metal problem anyway.
Just don’t eat the brains. It wouldn’t be very filling anyway.
Well. The folk punks always knew that we all are just compost in training.
Realistically you feed the rich to pigs and chickens and then eat the pigs and chickens. Otherwise yes, you’re just eating tainted meat.
Notice how everyone knows what is needed to be able to eat or mulch a person, but no-one is directly mentioning the part about killing being required.
I don’t know why we need euphemisms for this. Genuinely I’m asking, not presenting an opinion.
It would be very crass indeed to talk about killing the rich, but the cold hard fact is that if psychotic people are leading the entire planet to get properly fucked, it’s the moral thing to do to get rid of them somehow.
Obviously humanitarian values hold that one shouldn’t kill needlessly.
I guess “eat the rich” reminds us of what we need to do and why; because the poor are hungry for the resources the fucked up rich people are hoarding. It’s also very clearly implied that we could kill the rich, but that we’re willing to avoid it if our hunger gets sated some other way.
In other words “hey rich assholes, we’re not violent people, but unless you start making this more fair, this is going to end up in a situation in which we will have to resort to violence, and there’s a lot more of us than there are of you”.
Or as Percy Bysshe put it more eloquently a few centuries ago in a political poem (thought to perhaps be the first modern statement of the principle of nonviolent resistance.)
Stand ye calm and resolute, Like a forest close and mute, With folded arms and looks which are Weapons of unvanquished war.
And if then the tyrants dare, Let them ride among you there; Slash, and stab, and maim and hew; What they like, that let them do.
With folded arms and steady eyes, And little fear, and less surprise, Look upon them as they slay, Till their rage has died away:
Then they will return with shame, To the place from which they came, And the blood thus shed will speak In hot blushes on their cheek:
Rise, like lions after slumber In unvanquishable number! Shake your chains to earth like dew Which in sleep had fallen on you: Ye are many—they are few!
I don’t think you have to look very far to see discussions of guillotines and the like - I’m not sure that the discourse is as restrained as you think.
Yeah you’re still doing it. Euphemism, that is.
Yes, you can find people straight up advocating “we should sharpen the guillotine”, but even then it isn’t “the rich don’t deserve to live” but more of a directly implied threat of dying just like what happened in the French Revolution, and that was quite literally class warfare.
So even saying “let’s sharpen the guillotines” (which I’m all for), it is a restricted form of threat. It’s not about the lack of implied threat, that’s my point. I think we all know that eating a person unalives them.
The point I’m making is that while the implied threat is death, the way the threats are made really do show how much more moral the working class is compared to the capitalist scum who genuinely don’t mind saying inhuman things and straight up advocating for inhumane working conditions and whatnot.
It’s not about “restrained discourse”. It’s the way the death threats are made. “Eat” reminds people that the reason to attack the rich is literally hunger, not anger. “Guillotine” reminds us of how effective the brutal revolution of France was for them.
Both situations that the rich ruling class can willfully avoid if they choose to share.
They just never fucking do.
So while there is a direct threat of death, saying “eat the rich” / “sharpen the guillotine” is still a humane response which gives the people under threat a chance to resolve the situation peacefully. It’s not like some genocidal rightwing rhetoric of “the only good [enterraciststereotype] is a dead [enterraciststereotype]”.
You see the difference there? (Not asking sarcastically, I’m trying to communicate something that I haven’t written much on so it’s still prolly coming out a bit incoherent at time.)
