Uses for the dead

On Tues, Jan 25, 2011 at 21:23:57
Marion asked this question:

I've just read an article titled 'Row Over Crematorium Heating For Swimmers' which details plans of a local council, in an attempt to save energy, 'recycling' the heat generated from an adjacent crematorium to heat a swimming pool. Some have slammed the idea calling it, 'Sick and an insult to local residents', and I agree with them... Is this not ethically unacceptable?

Here's the link to the BBC TV News story which begins, in typical laconic BBC style, 'The heavy curtains hide a world that few of us want to think about. But the people of Redditch are being forced to do just that...'. The local Council, in a bid to save around £15,000 a year, want to pipe some of the heat from a crematorium to a nearby leisure centre. There have been protests. Supporters point out that the practice is fairly commonplace in Sweden. Another British council is already using the heat from a crematorium to heat administration buildings.

I am not sure that this is a question of ethics rather than taste. Imagine a glass bottomed swimming pool where you could view the human corpses in the process of being burned to supply heat to the pool. That would be rather ghoulish. Although it would certainly make an original tourist attraction, better even than the London Dungeon. However, I can fully understand that there are those who would not want to swim in a pool knowing where the heat came from, even if they couldn't actually see the process going on while they were practising their strokes.

When philosophers think about this kind of issue, there is a regrettable tendency towards excessive rationalism, which includes appeals to utilitarian thinking ('the greatest happiness for the greatest number'). I have no truck with this. My response to Marion's question hinges on questions of ethical rights and wrongs. I am not assuming any particular view of of the nature of ethics. I shall also leave aside the question of good or bad taste, as this is something philosophers have a tendency to get rather pompous about.

Philosophers argue a lot. Sometimes, the arguments get so tangled that ordinary folk are left far behind. However, the true nature of philosophical thinking, its inner essence, isn't found in complex logical argumentation but in the determined attempt to see things differently. This is as much about feeling as it is about logic. To feel appropriately rather than inappropriately is part of what we mean by 'rational behaviour'. Those who put excessive faith in rationalism — the Mr Spocks of this world — lack to some extent the capacity for appropriate feeling.

So how should we feel about the swimming pool news story? Here is one possible take. I'm not saying that this is the only way.

I would like to take a step back and consider the question of how we dispose of the dead, in relation to what it means to live out the span of a human life, not for ourselves, or even those who know us or are affected by our actions, but in terms of ecology. There are many ways in which one can look at human life and its value, but one issue which is becoming increasingly urgent concerns the question of how each of us, during our lifetime, contributes towards consuming the resources of this planet, and the detritus that we leave in our wake.

Imagine on your death bed being shown the vast mountain of refuse that you created during your lifetime. Not something to be proud of. At a time when the very life of the planet is at stake, human achievements seem rather puny in comparison with the consequences of generation upon generation of reckless rubbish generators fouling up the environment, then as a final insult, leaving their own mortal remains behind for others to dispose of.

Burial is an ancient practice. Some would place the beginning of civilization at the point where human beings conducted ceremonies for the burial of the dead. But at a certain point in human history — which may or may not yet have come, but is certainly very close — increasing population and dwindling space must inevitably reach the stage where the dead no longer have the right to take away space from the living. A person who lives out their natural life should depart this earth, not lay a permanent claim to some portion of it.

However, cremation is not the ideal answer either. Let's deal with this question of heat which seems to have so upset the Redditch residents. The amount of energy, in calories or BTUs required to convert a human corpse into ash is far greater than the calorific value of the corpse itself (notwithstanding very rare cases of so-called 'spontaneous combustion' — more accurately called auto-combustion — where the corpse supplies its own energy). All that excess energy goes up the chimney of the crematorium. It's not just a waste, in the economic sense (I fully accept that there is a limit to economic thinking, money is not the only consideration). It's adding insult to injury, after all the resources that we consumed during our lifetime.

I would like to see the dead disposed of in a way which gives something back. The swimming pool crematorium idea is not to everyone's taste. Well, you don't have to swim there, and you don't have to be cremated there. It's your choice. But I believe people should be permitted to choose.

Selling your body for medical use is another possibility which many find distasteful. However, in this case sheer economics make this a serious proposition for some people. A corpse in fair condition, fully exploited and mined for organs and tissue, is worth many thousands of pounds. It could be your most precious gift to your loved ones, as well as helping in a small way to make up for the resources you consumed while you were alive.