Is the circle of life still relevant in modern day society?

[moonshadow]

Is the circle of life (more specifically the process by which bacteria breaks down our bodies when we die) still relevant in modern day society or has it essentially been replaced by organic fertilizers(i.e poo)? If it still is relevant (i.e nutrients spread from graveyards to farms somehow) then is there a mathematical upper limit at which point the nutrients gained through the circle of life are not needed for farming? For example if we bury 10 million people this year (random number) vs 11 million, are those extra million people needed to sustain-ably keep using soil for crops?I know it’s a weird question but when you look at farming you start to question if the circle of life has been replaced by science in some way.

 

[Sensei]

Majority of people worldwide are cremated rather than buried these days.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_cremation_rate

Which disallows any living organisms to use human body as their food.

And disallows getting DNA of person after death (if somebody would like to e.g. clone person, in the future)..

 

Edited December 24, 2017 by Sensei

[moonshadow]

So does that mean the circle of life is fueled by animals being decomposed or is the circle of life not integral to farming/not helpful to human beings?

[Sensei]

23 minutes ago, moonshadow said:

So does that mean the circle of life is fueled by animals being decomposed or is the circle of life not integral to farming/not helpful to human beings?

If body is burned, CO₂ and H₂O are produced, which will be used by plants the same day..

ps. I am not great cremation fan, because for me it means lost of DNA data..

ps2. Bodies of almost extinct animals should not be especially destroyed.. Their DNA are priceless, and can be reused to resurrect them in the future..

 

Edited December 24, 2017 by Sensei

[moonshadow]

Cool, personally I wouldn't want to be cloned so you're making me afraid of burial =p. And how does it reach farms, winds or some other process like the clouds(sorry for asking so many questions)? And if say an animal dies and we burn it, it wouldn't be the equivalent of eating it right? Things would be lost through the process regardless of how we try to contribute to the circle of life(burning, or burial)? 

[Sensei]

24 minutes ago, moonshadow said:

And how does it reach farms, winds or some other process like the clouds(sorry for asking so many questions)?

After burning CO₂ and H₂O are gases..

24 minutes ago, moonshadow said:

And if say an animal dies and we burn it, it wouldn't be the equivalent of eating it right?

Eating means reusing molecules as they were in food, with just small splitting them by stomach juice etc. "you become what you eat" (therefore you should bother quality of food!)

 

CO₂ and H₂O have to be converted by plants to glucose and fructose etc. in photosynthesis process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis

 

 

Edited December 24, 2017 by Sensei

[moonshadow]

Ya I figured on the co2 and h2o just confirming, and what I was trying to ask is which way is more efficient in a theoretical sense only lol. I burn the animal and it produces CO2 and H2O you said that will be used by plants or I bury it or I or someone eats the animal which way gains more food for humanity/which way is more efficient?

 

I think the answer might be obvious but without any scientific backup I feel ignorant so, if I ate the animal and gained say 100 calories(if that's a good measure of food) or I buried it or I burnt it would the resulting plant gain(eventually) be equivalent to 100 calories or less? Or maybe in other words what is lost in both processes?

[Sensei]

27 minutes ago, moonshadow said:

 I burn the animal and it produces CO2 and H2O you said that will be used by plants or I bury it or I or someone eats the animal which way gains more food for humanity/which way is more efficient?

There is no one good answer for that. In some cases, when there is danger of epidemic, cremation is a way to prevent it..

 

[moonshadow]

Ya I figured but don't close the topic in case anyone wants to try to answer that in some way(even if it's just the theories of each process), thanks for all your help sensei =). I found it funny that you answered cuz I watch a lot of anime lol.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, moonshadow said:

even if it's just the theories

Theory is the strongest thing in science, period. Theory ≠ Guess.

Sorry, had to correct this, very important.

[Strange]

6 hours ago, moonshadow said:

know it’s a weird question but when you look at farming you start to question if the circle of life has been replaced by science in some way.

A large part of the fertiliser used today is artificial, rather than from composted vegetable matter and other organic waste. 

[Sensei]

11 minutes ago, Strange said:

A large part of the fertiliser used today is artificial, rather than from composted vegetable matter and other organic waste. 

Fritz Haber created NH₃ and later NH₄NO₃ from air and water.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process

For which he was awarded Nobel prize.

 

  He was also involved in making toxic weapon gases during I world war..

 

[dimreepr]

12 hours ago, moonshadow said:

Or maybe in other words what is lost in both processes?

 

Nothing is lost, the problem is, where is the gain? The circle of life goes much deeper than what lives and dies now, oil comes from what died 'then'. A benefit now doesn't equal advantage tomorrow; whilst we keep borrowing from 'then', our ledger will never see black

Edited December 24, 2017 by dimreepr

[Sensei]

19 hours ago, moonshadow said:

Ya I figured but don't close the topic in case anyone wants to try to answer that in some way(even if it's just the theories of each process),

There is no theory (even scientific theory) here.

Scientists-biologists were putting plants to hermetic closed boxes, and observed level of gas vs time.

f.e. you can get rid of entire air, replace it by CO₂ (so initial concentration is 100%, fire cannot burn) (also deliver water and enough light), and see how it's decreasing with time when plant is consuming it on graph, hour by hour, day by day, releasing more and more O₂ will appear in our hermetic box (fire can now burn)..

It's similar experiment to the one in which scientists found Oxygen is sustaining fire: placed candle in hermetic glass container, and observed how fire is fading away (because of decreased concentration of Oxygen, replaced by CO₂)..

 

[moonshadow]

"Nothing is lost, the problem is, where is the gain? The circle of life goes much deeper than what lives and dies now, oil comes from what died 'then'. A benefit now doesn't equal advantage tomorrow; whilst we keep borrowing from 'then', our ledger will never see black"

Well I’m more interested in the production of food than oil from dead bodies since you can’t eat oil but that’s interesting.

"There is no theory (even scientific theory) here."

Well I’m just a physics student so I’m sure the following interpretation of all the facts is riddled with a fair amount of holes but based on what you've told me and my own research I've tried to compare the three options in optimal conditions, assuming there are no concerns like epidemic for the specific animal.

 

Option a) I or someone eats the animal obtaining some organic molecules/some energy and the organic transfer isn’t perfect but unless there’s some big difference in efficiency (between eating a plant and animal) enough to tilt the scales between the options then I wouldn’t see that as relevant?

Option b) If I could bury it on a farm (theoretically for argument’s sake) it would enrich the soil and contribute to all the natural cycles like the carbon and nitrogen cycle probably but I could instead achieve the same soil enrichment part using fertilizer “mined” from sources like poo or apparently air and water so option a) plus just using fertilizer instead should result in more gain food wise?(i.e 100% for burial vs. 120%  from eating and using air/water/poo for the soil enrichment)

Option b2) I bury it elsewhere and the same waste of soil enrichment is achieved?

Option c) I cremate the already dead animal releasing C02 and H20 which I could theoretically capture using some type of sealed box I guess? And proceed to use that somehow for farming (which may sound messed up but I’m just considering all the options), but while burning the animal, energy is converted to heat so that would also have to theoretically also be used for farming (which seems legit from one google search =p). So nothing seems to be wasted in an ideal scenario?

Option c2) I cremate it elsewhere and the C02 and H20 is used for various other purposes than farming so I would say this is below 100% transfer?

So my conclusion from the above is that c) and a) are both fair options for agriculture/farming but depending on the region animals could be thought of as a separate area of food production since farming needs are already met, that and the infrastructure needed for option c) make option a) seem like the best option.

Just from the little research I did it does ring true that nothing is wasted in the sense that nothing is lost but where it goes, comes from and how useful it is can be arguably important if one wants to compare the methods in relation to food production.

 

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, moonshadow said:

Well I’m more interested in the production of food than oil from dead bodies since you can’t eat oil but that’s interesting.

1

Without oil, there is almost no food production.

1 hour ago, moonshadow said:

So my conclusion from the above is that c) and a) are both fair options for agriculture/farming but depending on the region animals could be thought of as a separate area of food production since farming needs are already met, that and the infrastructure needed for option c) make option a) seem like the best option.

Option d) Leave the carcass where it fell and eat the flies.

 

1 hour ago, moonshadow said:

Just from the little research I did it does ring true that nothing is wasted in the sense that nothing is lost but where it goes, comes from and how useful it is can be arguably important if one wants to compare the methods in relation to food production.

The circle of life is about more than just food.

[Moontanman]

Personally I think burying people in caskets made of concrete separates them from the circle of life. I want to be buried bare and a tree planted on top of me. 

[dimreepr]

47 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Personally I think burying people in caskets made of concrete separates them from the circle of life. I want to be buried bare and a tree planted on top of me. 

Buzzards have to eat as well as worms.

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Buzzards have to eat as well as worms.

My ancestors put their dead on tall platforms just for that reason... 

[moonshadow]

 

“Option d) Leave the carcass where it fell and eat the flies.”

Okay but I’m not necessarily talking about a carcass but let’s say I was, is there a benefit to this or is just an alternative assuming we follow the same safety procedures we would with eating animals?

“The circle of life is about more than just food.”

Right I realize this but I’m not suggesting upending the circle of life just trying to see what the benefits of each way are in terms of food just because that’s the purpose that I’m interested in, humans will still ultimately end up contributing themselves in one way or another which leads me to maybe a key question, is there a benefit to a human being and an animal dying separately and contributing to the circle of life vs. a human being eating the animal and then eventually dying by themselves?

 

 

"Without oil, there is almost no food production."

 Ya, I read this somewhere but it wasn't backed up by anything so I assumed it wasn't necessarily science but it seems like both of you are saying it like it’s obvious? Do you mean like modern day food production or just the natural process (because I don't think my ancestors used oil in any way =p). But as mentioned above the circle of life will continue obviously but what I find interesting about this is my research seemed to indicate that oil is a resource that is a fast depleting one vs it’s production. But that’s an entirely different topic I would say plus it’s already probably been beaten to death elsewhere I would assume lol.

 

 

[dimreepr]

13 hours ago, moonshadow said:

“Option d) Leave the carcass where it fell and eat the flies.”

Okay but I’m not necessarily talking about a carcass but let’s say I was, is there a benefit to this or is just an alternative assuming we follow the same safety procedures we would with eating animals?

 

Entomophagy 

Quote

The benefits of entomophagy do not stop at weight loss; the UN say eating insects could help combat malnutrition, which is widespread in developing countries.

Quote

 

According to The World Bank, the global population is expected to increase to 9 billion by 2050, which means we need to produce around 50 percent more food in order to feed an extra 2 billion people.

With climate change expected to reduce crop yields by more than 25 percent, there is an urgent need to identify alternative ways to meet the need for additional food.

 

https://qz.com/84127/five-reasons-we-should-all-be-eating-insects/

Quote

Rearing traditional livestock accounts for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions (pdf, p .63), which trumps emissions by the transportation industry. Both industries emit far more greenhouse gases than mealworm, cricket, and locust producers. Insects also release much less ammonia and methane than pigs and cattle.

 

13 hours ago, moonshadow said:

 Ya, I read this somewhere but it wasn't backed up by anything so I assumed it wasn't necessarily science but it seems like both of you are saying it like it’s obvious?

 

How many farms do you know without tractors?  

or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combine_harvester

http://grist.org/article/how-will-we-feed-ourselves/

 

[dimreepr]

19 hours ago, Moontanman said:

My ancestors put their dead on tall platforms just for that reason... 

We can learn a lot from our ancestors when they understand the circle of life (not the ones that decided a crusade is a good plan).

[moonshadow]

Option e) ”Composting is the preferred method of carcass disposition in animal agriculture for animals that either die or must be euthanized.   It accelerates the decomposition and provides for soil enrichment. “-“Farming guy” – And according to my research it sounds useful ie for replacing chemical fertilizers.

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, moonshadow said:

Option e) ”Composting is the preferred method of carcass disposition in animal agriculture for animals that either die or must be euthanized.   It accelerates the decomposition and provides for soil enrichment. “-“Farming guy” – And according to my research it sounds useful ie for replacing chemical fertilizers.

The problem is, in agriculture everything is already used, what doesn't get eaten by us is fed to other animals. You could use diseased animals but then you run the risk spreading the disease.

[Endy0816]

If the temps are high enough, composting can kill pathogens.

Main issue is keeping our plants supplied(and us fed), while needing more as our population grows. Artificial sources have helped a great deal there.