this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2024
941 points (97.6% liked)

Science Memes

10842 readers
2319 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.


Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Unconditional support for comrade broccoli! 🫑

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

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 manyβ€”they are few!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Masque_of_Anarchy

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

In the past the commoners treated badly had to contend with rulers in castles with canon loaded with grape shot

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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.)

[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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...

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

With the disclaimer that I don't know anything about your field....

IMO, if eating food that was nourished by dead humans was inherently unsafe, I believe we would have had significant issues well before now. I have no doubt that when agriculture was new, cemeteries and areas where people have died and left to decompose, would have been used to grow food and if it created any problems, I think we would have seen issues before now.

Again, I'm not a farmer, mortician, scientist, or any other preceived or direct authority on the subject.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

What you've said is true. In my forensics class, we learned that police can actually use plants to find dead bodies, because you can see a noticeable oval of healthier plant growth. Older cemeteries flourish. There's a few stories from the Neolithic Era about planting crops on the deceased, both humans and animals, but it's mostly been erased from history. It wouldn't surprise me if it's happened during Famines or situations like the dust bowl where civilizations weren't rotating crops and depleted the soil.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

I heard there was a time when cemetery grass is premium for farmers with grazers

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Realistically you feed the rich to pigs and chickens and then eat the pigs and chickens. Otherwise yes, you're just eating tainted meat.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

The animals we create are morally equivalent to our own children and are owed the exact same unconditional love and protection.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I have way too much microplastics to be good for environment. Plants would just die form all the heavy metals too

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Mortician here! This is, luckily not true. Recomposition is already legal in several states and they've had massive success with it. The national and state forests that received the recomposted remains are thriving. The only downside (for some people) is that the person who passed cannot be embalmed, and in most states, that means it's illegal to have an open casket visitation to the public. Most states have laws that family can see their loved one without embalming if it's been less than 48 hours after death, but they need liability waivers. The public, however, cannot be a part of an open casket funeral, unless the deceased has been embalmed and sterilized. Closed caskets are fine at any stage. They make hermetically sealing ones that lock in the decomposition smell and keep people safe.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

We have a break room, and some people pack food from home? Morbid fact; if a decedent who has excess weight, gets cremated; the whole building smells like bacon. I remember walking in one day, (at my first job that had a crematory retort inside) and was so excited thinking our boss had bought us breakfast... nope... I gave up bacon for over 2 years.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Almost like at McDonald’s, except its different kind of meat I guess

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

The other white meat

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Composting doesn't get rid of prions or heavy metals unfortunately.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

Well. The folk punks always knew that we all are just compost in training.

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί