When I was growing up, we always had pets. We raised tropical fish, gerbils, and canaries, and there was always a dog in the house. When the fish died, we employed the usual method of disposal, a plop and a flush, and the other animals were interred in the back yard. Somewhere along the line, pet cemeteries came into vogue, and while we never purchased a plot, my parents did end up having two of their dogs cremated. Cremation allows the owner to either scatter or bury them in an area they used to enjoy together or keep them in an urn as a memorial.
For humans, funeral arrangements in most places also involve burial or cremation. The former can be costly: Preparing the body, buying the casket, hosting the wake, the funeral itself, buying a cemetery plot, and paying for the headstone. Even cremation involves many of the same costs. Every year, burials in the United States use 30 million board feet of wood, over 104,000 tons of steel, 1.6 million tons of concrete for burial structures, and 800,000 gallons of embalming fluid.
Image created using Grok.
It’s been estimated that cemeteries comprise over two million acres of land in the U.S. This affects residents and urban planners because many cemeteries are located in areas needed for housing, transportation, and other requirements for the living.
The idea of composting human remains has circulated for years. Robert Heinlein mentioned it in his seminal work, “The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress”. As our consciousness of the importance of recycling to the environment grows, it seems only natural that we would begin to reflect on the possibility of applying this concept to humans.
Recently, a relatively new concept called ‘tree pods’ has arisen. This involves burying the remains under a new or existing tree. The individual may be cremated first or possibly buried intact. The former raises problems as ashes tend to be high in pH, making them bad for most trees, and the latter has not yet been performed anywhere in the world. The option, however, could be attractive to those who like the idea of their deceased loved one becoming a part of a tree.
This morning, I read about a process that utilizes alkaline hydrolysis. This employs water, alkaline chemicals, heat, and pressure to break a human body down into liquid and bone fragments. Colloquially referred to as “boil-in-the-bag” or “flush and bone” funerals, this approach is under consideration for legal approval in England. While proponents tout its environmental benefits and efficiency, some consideration should be given to ethical concerns, cultural sensitivities, environmental uncertainties, and practical challenges.
The primary objection to alkaline hydrolysis is its perceived disrespect to the deceased. The process dissolves most of the body into a liquid that will then be released into wastewater systems. Many people will find the terms used to describe this process (e.g., “flushed away”) dehumanizing or undignified. Such language risks trivializing the solemnity of death and raises ethical questions about whether the process appropriately honors the deceased. Religious objections can also arise, as many denominations emphasize the body’s sanctity and prescribe specific burial rituals. The process could easily alienate those who prioritize dignity and tradition in death.
For most people, burial practices carry profound symbolic meaning. They offer closure and a sense of continuity. The idea of a loved one’s remains being dissolved and “flushed” into the sewer is repulsive and deprives families of the emotional resolution provided by traditional funerals. Sensationalized media coverage that uses phrases like “boil-in-the-bag” risks framing the process as grotesque or disrespectful and would hinder public acceptance. The psychological barrier of accepting such a radical method would likely be prohibitive.
Alkaline hydrolysis is being marketed as more ecologically friendly than cremation or burial. The former emits CO2 while the latter requires land. Its critics, however, point out the potential risks of releasing chemical-laden liquid byproducts into wastewater systems.
A 2019 study led by Dr. Lian Lundy at Middlesex University determined that, while the liquid was safe for wastewater, its long-term impacts remain understudied, especially if the process becomes more widespread. The process requires significant amounts of energy to heat and pressure the hydrolysis chambers, which raises questions about whether it is truly more sustainable than burial or cremation. Its claims of environmental superiority, therefore, remain speculative.
Practically speaking, alkaline hydrolysis raises questions related to cost, accessibility, and regulation. It requires expensive, specialized equipment that will create disparities in access. The usual suspects will likely raise concerns about fairness, as not all families will have the option to choose this method. There will also likely be problems with inconsistent standards or misuse due to insufficient oversight. Not all regions have wastewater treatment facilities capable of handling the byproducts. Implementing the process on a large scale could present significant challenges.
The ethical and cultural objections will likely outweigh whatever environmental advantages may accrue. Being able to choose among various options on issues is important, but this must be balanced against the need for emotional closure and respect for cultural and religious beliefs.
At present, the perception of disrespect, cultural resistance, uncertainties about environmental safety, and logistical challenges highlight the complexities of introducing such a radically new method. For this process to gain acceptance, its proponents would have to engage with communities to address their concerns, clarify its environmental impacts, and ensure that its implementation is respectful and equitable.
I’m not holding my breath.