4 ms·

Whenever I read these kinds of collapse posts I wonder: where do the bodies go in this scenario? Because if that kind of collapse happens the management of seve

by pjc50 2y ago

Whenever I read these kinds of collapse posts I wonder: where do the bodies go in this scenario? Because if that kind of collapse happens the management of seven billion corpses becomes pressing.

all2 2y ago
Depending on the source of their un-aliveness you have a few options: 1. they rot on the face of the ground and the carrion eaters will take care of it 2. they are already cinder/charcoal and the plants will take care of it
vdupras 2y ago
For french speaking people, I recommend "Ravage" by Barjavel. It's not realistic by any means, but it's a nice take on this very issue :) The serious take: live in the countryside. This is an urban problem.
WesolyKubeczek 2y ago
I’m most likely going to be one of the corpses, so not my problem.
kragen 2y ago
Given a land area of 510 million km², in the worst case, that's a sudden event producing 14 bodies per km², about 25 meters from one body to the next. If I were one of a small number of survivors in that situation, I'd dig a mass grave, dump 14 bodies into it, and enjoy my nice, sanitary square kilometer all by myself. Probably boil the water from the well. Until I die of starvation because I don't know how to hunt, or from an infected wound, or something. In more plausible cases, we're talking about a population collapse where the deaths are either concentrated in cities, spread out over several years, or both. If they're concentrated in cities, maybe avoid the cities for three to six months until they finish rotting. If they're spread out over several years, those who die later will be able to bury those who die earlier; it only takes a few man-hours of labor to dig a grave.
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  Burn the bodies, let scavengers have at them, or put them in a river and let those downstream deal with them. Probably easier to burn or let scavengers have at them than bury them. Fewer calories burned on your part compared to digging. Regarding hunting, if you're near a river and it isn't piling up with bodies from upstream, you can take up fishing. It's easier to learn from scratch on your own and requires less effort.
- ben_w 2y ago
  > 510 million km², in the worst case, that's a sudden event producing 14 bodies per km², about 25 meters from one body to the next. That's the area of the planet; you only get that distribution if the event also redistributes the bodies evenly over the entire globe, including oceans. (Though I'm not sure how you go from 14/km^2 to 25 meter separation?) > If they're spread out over several years, those who die later will be able to bury those who die earlier; it only takes a few man-hours of labor to dig a grave. During the covid pandemic, which was around a single percentage point of the world population over a few years, there were reports in the UK and the USA of mass graves, normal death procedures being overwhelmed. Global supply chain collapse is kinda the "mass starvation because farms can't get fertiliser to grow enough crops, nor ship them to cities" scenario. If you can't hunt or fish, you're probably one of the corpses (very few people will have the land to grow their own crops, especially without fertiliser).
  - kragen 2y ago
    You are right; the correct number was 148.94 million km², which produces 47 corpses per km² of land. > Though I'm not sure how you go from 14/km^2 to 25 meter separation? √14 ≈ 4 and I somehow managed to think that 1000m ÷ 4 = 25m. In fact that calculation should have given 250m, and √47 ≈ 7, and 1000m ÷ 7 ≈ 140m. So we're talking about on the order of a city block between corpses. > there were reports in the UK and the USA of mass graves, normal death procedures being overwhelmed. Yeah, but it wasn't a question of corpses rotting in the streets despite all the survivors digging graves full-time; it was just a question of the usual number of gravediggers being unable to cope. If people had just dug graves themselves for their family members in their yards, the way they do for pets, it wouldn't have been a problem; but that was prohibited. Anyway, I think people who worry about health risks from corpse pileups due to society collapsing are really worrying about the wrong thing. The corpses won't be piled up; at most, they'll be so far apart that you could walk for days without seeing one unless you're someplace especially flat or with an especially high density of corpses, and in realistic scenarios, they'll just be buried like normal, mostly over years or decades, not left out to rot en masse.

by pjc50 2y ago

Whenever I read these kinds of collapse posts I wonder: where do the bodies go in this scenario? Because if that kind of collapse happens the management of seven billion corpses becomes pressing.

all2 2y ago

Depending on the source of their un-aliveness you have a few options: 1. they rot on the face of the ground and the carrion eaters will take care of it 2. they are already cinder/charcoal and the plants will take care of it

vdupras 2y ago

For french speaking people, I recommend "Ravage" by Barjavel. It's not realistic by any means, but it's a nice take on this very issue :) The serious take: live in the countryside. This is an urban problem.

WesolyKubeczek 2y ago

I’m most likely going to be one of the corpses, so not my problem.

kragen 2y ago

Given a land area of 510 million km², in the worst case, that's a sudden event producing 14 bodies per km², about 25 meters from one body to the next. If I were one of a small number of survivors in that situation, I'd dig a mass grave, dump 14 bodies into it, and enjoy my nice, sanitary square kilometer all by myself. Probably boil the water from the well. Until I die of starvation because I don't know how to hunt, or from an infected wound, or something. In more plausible cases, we're talking about a population collapse where the deaths are either concentrated in cities, spread out over several years, or both. If they're concentrated in cities, maybe avoid the cities for three to six months until they finish rotting. If they're spread out over several years, those who die later will be able to bury those who die earlier; it only takes a few man-hours of labor to dig a grave.

Jtsummers 2y ago
Burn the bodies, let scavengers have at them, or put them in a river and let those downstream deal with them. Probably easier to burn or let scavengers have at them than bury them. Fewer calories burned on your part compared to digging. Regarding hunting, if you're near a river and it isn't piling up with bodies from upstream, you can take up fishing. It's easier to learn from scratch on your own and requires less effort.
ben_w 2y ago
> 510 million km², in the worst case, that's a sudden event producing 14 bodies per km², about 25 meters from one body to the next. That's the area of the planet; you only get that distribution if the event also redistributes the bodies evenly over the entire globe, including oceans. (Though I'm not sure how you go from 14/km^2 to 25 meter separation?) > If they're spread out over several years, those who die later will be able to bury those who die earlier; it only takes a few man-hours of labor to dig a grave. During the covid pandemic, which was around a single percentage point of the world population over a few years, there were reports in the UK and the USA of mass graves, normal death procedures being overwhelmed. Global supply chain collapse is kinda the "mass starvation because farms can't get fertiliser to grow enough crops, nor ship them to cities" scenario. If you can't hunt or fish, you're probably one of the corpses (very few people will have the land to grow their own crops, especially without fertiliser).
- kragen 2y ago
  You are right; the correct number was 148.94 million km², which produces 47 corpses per km² of land. > Though I'm not sure how you go from 14/km^2 to 25 meter separation? √14 ≈ 4 and I somehow managed to think that 1000m ÷ 4 = 25m. In fact that calculation should have given 250m, and √47 ≈ 7, and 1000m ÷ 7 ≈ 140m. So we're talking about on the order of a city block between corpses. > there were reports in the UK and the USA of mass graves, normal death procedures being overwhelmed. Yeah, but it wasn't a question of corpses rotting in the streets despite all the survivors digging graves full-time; it was just a question of the usual number of gravediggers being unable to cope. If people had just dug graves themselves for their family members in their yards, the way they do for pets, it wouldn't have been a problem; but that was prohibited. Anyway, I think people who worry about health risks from corpse pileups due to society collapsing are really worrying about the wrong thing. The corpses won't be piled up; at most, they'll be so far apart that you could walk for days without seeing one unless you're someplace especially flat or with an especially high density of corpses, and in realistic scenarios, they'll just be buried like normal, mostly over years or decades, not left out to rot en masse.