I'm curious what the policies are for the persistence of cemetery plots in different areas. I thankfully have had no personal interaction with the funeral indus

I'm curious what the policies are for the persistence of cemetery plots in different areas. I thankfully have had no personal interaction with the funeral industry yet, but the article's matter-of-fact mentioning of gravestones being uprooted and hauled elsewhere (or even destroyed) after some period of inactivity seemed hideous to me. A bit of research ( http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2248/do-cemetery-plots-have-expiration-dates http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2248/do-cemetery-pl... ) suggests that the US (where I reside) seems to have more permanence in burial plots than Europe does. I suppose it makes sense given the limitations of space and accumulated time that Europe has had to deal with as opposed to the US, but there is something aesthetically horrifying to me about the idea of evicting dead bodies for failure to "pay rent." Moving graves for new development is one thing, but for it to be a policy of an active cemetery seems like such an alien concept. In a similar way, I've found myself less happy with the idea of modern cremation the more I learn about it. The mental picture of "body goes into the fire, ashes come out of the fire" seemed beautiful, but the use of the cremulator ( essentially a blender to crush up all the bits of bone that didn't turn to ashes, as seen in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJTclbBKxKk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJTclbBKxKk ) gives me pause. It may be an irrational thought in our modern materialistic world, but that last act of push-button pulverization feels violent and overly industrial. Perhaps embalming is not much better, but at least that connects with a familiar historical tradition. I wonder how far back the use of cremulation in cremation goes -- in modern times can you request that your cremation keeps the bits of bones "unprocessed"?