Cremations and burials should be made illegal

The presented justification for the illegalization of cremation: My opponent has proposed that an outright ban of crematories is required because, as profit-oriented entities, crematories and associated organizations would resist legislation that is harmful to potential profits. Although it is true that such institutions would attempt to maximize profits within a market, environmental regulations do not inherently reduce profitability. In fact, by meeting environmental standards, crematories could potentially gain a higher share of business and thus increase profits through: -the desirability within the market to dispose of human carcasses in an environmentally friendly way. -the elimination of competitors who fail to meet environmental standards. Legislative measures designed to reduce emissions are indeed profitable and would therefore be readily pursued by crematory institutions; the reduction of emissions through environmental enforcement is achievable and should be pursued over illegalization. The presented justification for the illegalization of burial: According to the article cited by the instigator, "some graves are kept open for up to two years, covered only by loose planks, leaving them exposed to scavenging animals. " The issues associated with "pauper's graves" are undoubtedly caused by improper burial practices and would not occur if carcasses were buried at the appropriate depth of six to eight feet (from the highest body to the surface); at such depths animals such as bears, foxes and wildcats would not be able to access the carcasses, nor would the stench of rotting flesh penetrate the surface of the ground. The problem of scavengers consuming deceased fetuses and children within the UK is not a valid reason to illegalize burial in its entirety because the problem is caused by partial and delayed burial of the body. The presented alternatives: 1. ) Again, I would like to assess the "carnivorous method" of disposal which my opponent has put forth. The instigator claims that variability within the human death rate is not an issue because animals can be fed low-grade and inexpensive meats when death rates decrease. While what my opponent proposes is true, the requirement of feeding massive amounts of even relatively cheap meat to a population of carnivorous animals so large as to be considered a viable option for the disposal of human carcasses again poses the problem of inefficiency (meat must still be purchased, transported and given to the animals by trained handlers). The effectiveness of the proposed system would still be affected by changes within the death rates of the human populace. My argument regarding the matter of constructing new infrastructures (elaborated in point 3) was not addressed by my opponent at all. 2. ) My opponent has presented some new alternatives, which I will shortly address here and in my concluding arguments: The "shooting of corpses into volcanoes via cannons" – the presented would require that such cannons not only be able to transport bodies at considerable distances in a way that both leaves them intact and successfully delivers them to the volcano, but is also ecologically friendly; this would pose a significant challenge for engineers. The "descent of carcasses through low orbit" – the presented would require that bodies be brought up to an altitude high enough to ensure that they disintegrate into the atmosphere upon descent. This alternative would require huge amounts of fuel and resources to be needlessly expended just to dispose of human corpses. The "dropping of corpses into disused mines" – the presented would require human beings to enter mines in order to place the carcass down a shaft that is deep enough to contain them. Abandoned mines commonly contain large quantities of asphyxiant gases which could potentially kill the people placing the bodies into the mines. Concluding arguments: Burial is a practical means of disposal: The reason that the process of burial has been adopted across the vast majority of human societies throughout history is not because of some fleeting and universal religious sentiment; it is because it's massively accessible, extremely simplistic and unsurprisingly effective. Burial only requires a depth of soil great enough to contain a human carcass. Mine shafts do not exist unless some previous generation has excavated them in hopes of acquiring a precious resource or valuable gemstone/metal; they are not available where there is no reason for them to exist. Volcanoes are not accessible unless some very specific geological conditions are present. Both are astronomically scarce compared to the vast availability of soil within human societies. Furthermore, bodies do not need to be lifted beyond the stratosphere or shot out of cannons; the labor and mechanics involved in burial are relatively minimal yet achieve the function of disposing of the body without any extended efforts beyond ensuring that it is underneath the ground at the appropriate depth. In defense of cremation: Cremation is an established way in which to dispose of human bodies and institutions which specialize in it are readily available throughout Europe and the United States. Although the involved infrastructures should indeed be refined in order to reduce emissions, the resources required to do so are minor compared to those that would have to be expended in order to dispose of human bodies via the methods in which my opponent has presented; the refinement of cremation through environmental regulation would not require the construction of spacecraft, or cannons, or wildlife reserves or the needless endangerments involved in feeding wild animals or placing carcasses into abandoned mines. I would like to again remind the readers of this debate that: 1. ) A justifiable reason for the illegalization of burial and cremation has not been offered. I have presented regulatory measures which would effectively eliminate the environmental issues associated with burial and cremation. I have explained why the blanket illegalization of cremation is not justified for the reasons that my opponent has presented. I have also explained why the occurrences within the UK cited by my opponent do not justify the illegalization of burial. My opponent's continued fixation on the supposed environmental unsoundness of burial and cremation is unfounded. 2. ) The instigator has failed to present an alternative (singular or accumulative) for the disposal of human carcasses that would be effective if the traditional means of burial and cremation were to be illegalized. My opponent claims that "there are surely more than the ones that I have presented," while proposing that the way in which society disposes of human bodies be forever altered like never before. The affirmative does not seem to realize that the repercussions of illegalizing cremation and burial would require an effective means to dispose of human bodies in its place; the resolution is not justifiable without presenting such an alternative.