[HN Gopher] The Lonely Funeral Project in Amsterdam
___________________________________________________________________
The Lonely Funeral Project in Amsterdam
Author : thunderbong
Score : 72 points
Date : 2024-04-09 09:56 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.upworthy.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.upworthy.com)
| 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
| I hope this benefits the living
| zingababba wrote:
| Book sales
| mapcars wrote:
| > "I feel everybody deserves something humane at the end of life"
|
| Everybody deserves something humane throughout their life, at the
| end is way too late.
| gambiting wrote:
| Yeah exactly, as nice as it is as an idea, that does literally
| nothing for the person who might have died completely alone.
| ziddoap wrote:
| Good thing this idea isn't mutually exclusive with helping
| people before they die.
|
| Edit: Curious at the downvoters, do you think this _is_
| mutually exclusive or something? What am I missing?
| ruszki wrote:
| > What am I missing?
|
| How many people have empathy.
| gambiting wrote:
| I think you are correct - maybe I'm being too negative
| about it, sorry.
| user_7832 wrote:
| I think that is fine, it's good to honor the dead but
| it's also worth asking why we always don't do that for
| the living.
| derbOac wrote:
| I agree although late is also better than never.
| Filligree wrote:
| Since they're already dead, it's arguably "never". Funerals
| exist for the survivors, and for the sake of society.
|
| I wouldn't go as far as to say it's pointless, and I also
| don't believe it is. But "too little, too late" does apply
| here. All respect to the people who do it...
| lukas099 wrote:
| > Funerals exist for the survivors, and for the sake of
| society.
|
| Exactly. Every living person in Amsterdam knows that
| somebody will be there at their funeral.
| NietTim wrote:
| No, contacting relatives might be impossible but become
| possible over the years, them knowing someone they lost
| contact with but still loved was given a proper burial
| might relieve some of the shock of finding out they're
| dead.
| dazc wrote:
| Better late than never?
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| This is a terrible perspective. Por que no los dos?
| scop wrote:
| It is interesting that the first two comments on here are in
| relation to the living. Yes we should strive to reduce the
| suffering of the living to the fullest extent possible. But, just
| as much, the dead do deserve our attention and respect.
|
| Is it "pointless" from some sort of "efficient use of time and
| resources"? Of course it is. That isn't the point. Much of what
| gives meaning and purpose in life can be deemed "pointless"
| (music, fiction, liturgy). As Aristotle said:
|
| > we are unleisurely in order to have leisure
|
| The dignity of a person doesn't cease when they are dead.
| lukas099 wrote:
| I used to look down on the "spiritual, but not religious"
| thing. But now I think that being spiritual means choosing to
| keep some things sacred. You can do this without believing in
| anything supernatural (I believe we all do to some extent or
| another).
| hfsh wrote:
| > But, just as much, the dead do deserve our attention and
| respect.
|
| They do in a way, but don't fool yourself that it's actually
| _about_ the individual dead. It 's about humanity in general,
| and the contribution - good, bad, or meaningless - that every
| single human life has made to our collective existence. It's
| good that we admire rainbows, but that doesn't mean we should
| revere every droplet of water.
|
| > The dignity of a person doesn't cease when they are dead.
|
| It doesn't 'cease' inasmuch as it becomes a meaningless term.
| The dead don't have dignity, they are no longer _people_. It 's
| the _memories_ of the dead have dignity. Those memories are not
| a part of the dead, they are a part of the _living_ that
| remember them.
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| I'm not sure you believe what you're saying. The dead don't
| have dignity? They aren't people anymore?
|
| Treating the dead with dignity isn't solely for the sake of
| the dead, it's literally one of the oldest cultural norms of
| homo sapiens and perhaps even our homonid ancestors.
|
| A homeless man is found dead outside city hall. He is
| nominally identified, but no relatives can be identified.
| What should the city do with him or - excuse me - his
| remains?
| shrimp_emoji wrote:
| > _Treating the dead with dignity isn 't solely for the
| sake of the dead, it's literally one of the oldest cultural
| norms of homo sapiens and perhaps even our homonid
| ancestors._
|
| When people thought the dead were in an afterlife wherein
| their circumstances depend on how good their funerary
| arrangements are? (There's people who still think that, by
| the way.)
| toasterlovin wrote:
| > Is it "pointless" from some sort of "efficient use of time
| and resources"? Of course it is. That isn't the point.
|
| Small nitpick, but the "pointlessness" of it is actually the
| point! It's the sacrifice for no other reason that makes it a
| sacrifice and, thus, worthwhile.
| scop wrote:
| You are absolutely correct. Thanks for catching that.
| PreInternet01 wrote:
| Hmm, well, imagine this turning up on HN! I attend 1,2-maybe-3
| funerals every year because of this exact project, and while
| every one of these is _very_ different, the experience is
| _always_ humbling.
|
| Most of the time, literally nobody will show up. So, you'll pay
| your respect to the deceased using a short speech that is based
| on the information provided (which is usually pretty scarce,
| like: "found abandoned, identified, but no next-of-kin
| responded") complemented with Google and your imagination, and
| that's about it.
|
| Then, there are the occasions where one or two people will
| attend. These are usually the hardest: you have to make clear
| that _you don 't actually know the first thing about the
| deceased, other than what Google told you, and that might be
| ENTIRELY wrong_, but still have to deliver a coherent eulogy.
| Poems work best for these situations, and sometimes talking to
| the visitors is quite revealing as well.
|
| And then, there are surprises, like a room full of people turning
| up, and you being able to elicit stories from family and friends,
| and basically having a regular funeral. But I admit that happened
| once in like the past decade or so.
|
| Anyway, I think it's important that nobody is left to their final
| resting place without witnesses, and I also find avoiding that is
| a good way to engage with your community...
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >Anyway, I think it's important that nobody is left to their
| final resting place without witnesses, and I also find avoiding
| that is a good way to engage with your community...
|
| Funerals, like life, are for the living. The dead don't care --
| they're dead.
|
| This seems like a ghoulish way to make oneself feel more
| compassionate and caring, and does absolutely nothing for the
| deceased. As I said, they're dead -- they don't care.
|
| That said, if using a dead person as as a prop to make you feel
| better about yourself, go for it. The dead person doesn't care
| -- they're dead. But pretending that it somehow makes a
| difference to the dead person is rather silly -- they're dead,
| they don't care.
|
| Edit: Fixed prose.
| gedy wrote:
| I think you are coming from a belief system that makes this
| all pointless and cynical, but this is quite kind for people
| with some religious beliefs.
| Filligree wrote:
| Well, it's kind to their relatives. Not to the person in
| question, given they're dead. The theory here is that the
| dead person is looking down from above?
|
| That works if the person giving the eulogy is also
| religious. If they _aren 't_, then they shouldn't be
| believing that.
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| You don't necessarily need to be religious to have a
| belief in the afterlife, or at least a strong enough
| suspicion of it to want to be respectful. As an analogy,
| there's some evidence that people form memories when in a
| coma. Even if you can never prove that an individual is
| aware of you, it is still compassionate to assume that
| they can hear what you say about them.
| wpietri wrote:
| When you were a baby, many people were kind to you in
| ways that you don't remember. Was that also pointless?
|
| I also think this goes well beyond the relatives. Part of
| being in a society is caring for one another. Here I am
| on another continent, and I feel better that these people
| are taking a moment to mark someone's passing. If it
| doesn't matter to you, fine, you don't have to do it. But
| I don't get why you're putting so much energy into being
| negative about it.
| ziddoap wrote:
| > _The dead don 't care -- they're dead._
|
| We get it -- repeating it 4 times in 6 sentences is a lot.
|
| > _That said, if using a dead person as as a prop to make you
| feel better about yourself, go for it._
|
| Yikes. Some people have different belief systems, some of
| those belief systems believe in the afterlife.
| PreInternet01 wrote:
| > using a dead person as as a prop to make you feel better
| about yourself
|
| No, "feel better" is definitely not what myself (nor anyone
| else involved in this program, as far as I'm aware) is trying
| to achieve here.
|
| I _know_ that a deceased person doesn 't care about pretty
| much anything. Yet, that doesn't preclude _me_ from caring
| about _them_ , does it?
| michaelsbradley wrote:
| Burying the dead is, according to Christian belief, one of
| the corporal works of mercy: In the days of
| Shalmaneser I performed many acts of charity to my brethren.
| I would give my bread to the hungry and my clothing to the
| naked; and if I saw any one of my people dead and thrown out
| behind the wall of Nineveh, I would bury him.
|
| - Tobit 1:16-17 [RSV]
|
| https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Tobit+1%3A16-17.
| .. The bodies of the dead must be treated
| with respect and charity, in faith and hope of the
| Resurrection. The burial of the dead is a corporal work of
| mercy; it honors the children of God, who are temples of the
| Holy Spirit.
|
| - Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 2300
|
| http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2300
|
| Praying for the souls of the dead is one of the spiritual
| works of mercy: This teaching is also based
| on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in
| Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement
| for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."
| From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the
| dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the
| Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may
| attain the beatific vision of God. The Church also commends
| almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on
| behalf of the dead: "Let us help and commemorate them. If
| Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why
| would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them
| some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have
| died and to offer our prayers for them."
|
| - Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 1032
|
| http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a12.htm#1032
| cseleborg wrote:
| But we'll all be dead one day! It's a compelling idea that if
| something happens to me and I lose touch with all my
| relatives, there might still be someone at my funeral.
| echelon wrote:
| I feel really weird about this.
|
| It's too late for the person to receive any benefit. They won't
| know or care.
|
| If it's not accurate and you're making stuff up, this feels
| like a creative writing exercise to make the eulogizers feel
| good. Like getting a dopamine kick off of someone's macabre
| death.
|
| I don't think I'd like if I knew people would do this to me.
|
| Whatever the case, death sucks. Loneliness sucks. We have a lot
| of problems to solve.
| PreInternet01 wrote:
| No, I'm not making stuff up, and yes, it's weird.
|
| But: if you die, and nobody is around to eulogize you, would
| you rather be completely forgotten, or have a total stranger
| think about what happened to you and make a short-and-
| ultimately-meaningless speech accordingly?
|
| For me, it's the latter, but then, I'm biased :)
| krisoft wrote:
| > if you die, and nobody is around to eulogize you, would
| you rather be completely forgotten
|
| If i die and there is nobody around to eulogize me then I
| am already forgotten.
|
| > or have a total stranger think about what happened to you
| and make a short-and-ultimately-meaningless speech
| accordingly
|
| I would prefer that not to happen. It feels fake.
|
| Of course your time is your time, you spend it as you see
| it best fit, but haven't you thought about reaching out to
| someone old and lonely before they die? That would feel to
| me much more likely to be meaningfull.
| lukas099 wrote:
| Is it fake? They put real time and effort into showing up
| for you.
| noneparticular wrote:
| Differing perspectives I suppose. It's comforting to me to
| think that no one would be bothered if tomorrow I dropped
| dead. I'd actually be somewhat happy if they could just
| leave my corpse to rot somewhere in a field, or at least be
| disposed of in a landfill. No funeral, just compacted in
| the back of a garbage truck and then tossed as refuse.
|
| Somewhat a little harsh, but at least I'd rather people
| worry about the living then fretting about my remains. By
| the point, I would be beyond caring.
| polygamous_bat wrote:
| > It's too late for the person to receive any benefit. They
| won't know or care.
|
| Funerals are rarely for the dead, despite what we tell
| ourselves they are mostly for the living.
|
| The benefit of the program, as I see it, is the reassurance
| that even if they lost everything tomorrow they will at least
| have a kind stranger show up to their funeral. I admit it's
| not a lot to offer, but I find it to be a small consolation.
| cnasc wrote:
| Your second point seems to contradict the first
| 0xEF wrote:
| Not really but sorta? I don't know that I'd call it
| contradiction so much as working with limited
| information.
|
| When we are alive, we want to be acknowledged, at the
| very least. We might think about making arrangements for
| our stuff after we are gone, or trying to reconnect with
| someone to say goodbye before it's too late, etc. Knowing
| that we _will_ die tends to inform some of our behavior
| when we 're alive.
|
| Now, we die, and that's that. Maybe we experience
| something after, maybe we don't. We don't know. There's
| lots of good guesses out there, some more coherent than
| others, but even if we lean toward oblivion, we cannot
| conceive of it, of non-existence.
|
| So, we don't focus on that part. It's not a useful thing
| to examine and results in crisis for some. Instead, we
| focus on life, because that is knowable to a degree.
| Funerals are as much for the living as they are for the
| dead _who were previously alive._ We die knowing, or
| hoping maybe, that we will get acknowledgement that yes,
| we existed, after we pass, even if we do not directly
| experience it.
| card_zero wrote:
| It's valid to want things (for) after you're dead and no
| longer exist.
|
| It's an awkward concept, probably because you have to
| draw a line somewhere or else we'd be faced with
| extrapolating the wishes of millennia of dead people into
| the future, and crippled by trying to be respectful to
| what it seems they would have wanted but what they
| shouldn't really have any say over. They shouldn't have
| any say over stuff they're not involved in and don't
| understand (because they're dead). But being involved in
| stuff and understanding stuff doesn't have to cease
| _exactly_ when you die and cease to function, it can be
| extrapolated beyond that a bit, based on what the person
| said back when they existed. Hence, last wills. Which
| largely get ignored and revised, and mostly only serve to
| distribute property, but a dead person 's last wishes
| still do get respected, a bit, sometimes, and should be,
| because people are basically a bunch of ideas and their
| last wishes after death are ideas too.
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| > you're dead and no longer exist.
|
| That's an assumption, not a fact, and there are very
| rigorous philosophical arguments for personal
| immortality. But even given personal survival of death,
| and given that the remains are not technically a body
| anymore as a body is part of a living person (a severed
| hand, as long as it remains severed, it not a bona fide
| hand), it is still a show of respect for each person and
| the memory of them, of the fact of their existence. It
| isn't a matter of what they would or would not have
| wanted, or do or do not want, but our own relationship
| toward people. How we treat remains has enormous
| importance and consequences for our sense of human
| dignity; it both reflects and shapes that sense of
| dignity. Treating a corpse like trash translates into a
| devaluation of human life and the life of the person who
| has died. The implication is entailed. But treating it
| with respect also entails a conclusion: this was a
| person, and that we treat their remains with respect must
| mean that respect is due, and it is due because they are
| the remains of a human person. We consider attacks on
| statues and other images of the dead hateful and
| disrespectful. How much worse is it to attack and
| disrespect someone's remains! Religious images, also
| clearly not remains, are likewise disposed of in a
| respectful manner according to religious law and custom
| because of what they depict.
| jkingsman wrote:
| I think they're compatible. There is warmth and hope to
| be found (for the living) by considering that when they
| die, at least someone will care.
|
| Knowing that someone will remember them, at least in a
| fashion, after they're gone is an important component of
| present-day [alive] mental wellbeing for many people.
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| Not at all. The living can know of this program, and know
| that this is true of them. It just seems like you're not
| a very spiritual or sentimental person when it comes to
| this topic, but I don't see how these statements
| contradict each other at all.
| zeristor wrote:
| Star Trek : TNG "Skin of Evil" Tasha Yar's funeral.
|
| I don't remember seeing this the first time around, however
| it cropped up and I found it very touching.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DY3nY8SAnXs
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > It's too late for the person to receive any benefit. They
| won't know or care.
|
| Every human culture ever, afaik, has burial and death
| rituals. I don't suppose they are useless.
| delichon wrote:
| It would probably be emotionally harder to spend the same
| energy on visiting the dying in hospice care but it would be
| more than symbolic. I'd rather have you show up and say "Hi,
| want to talk?" than go to my wake.
|
| But since I don't do either you're a more compassionate person
| than me either way.
| muffinman26 wrote:
| I notice several people saying the energy is better spent on
| hospice, but these seem like different activities to me?
|
| Not everyone who dies spends time in hospice. Wikipedia says
| 7-8% die from accidents and violence, and over 30% die from
| heart disease, which would include sudden death due to things
| like heart attack. I'd also expect those who die in hospice
| to be less likely to have unattended/low-attendance funerals.
| Family and friends have time to plan and gather for the death
| because they know it's coming. They also have time to adjust
| start the grieving process.
|
| If someone I knew died suddenly and I was the only one who
| could make it to their funeral, I would certainly appreciate
| having someone else there as a witness, even if they didn't
| know much about the deceased.
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| Is it right to critique someone's good works because you can
| think of an even more challenging and selfless activity they
| could be doing instead?
| NietTim wrote:
| Something I feel like you've left out that is important: It's a
| gesture of respect, ensuring that no one's passing goes
| unnoticed.
|
| And more of a comment to the other replies; a relative being
| unable to be contacted currently doesn't mean they don't care.
| Them finding out later and knowing, despite everything, they
| got a dignified ending might give them some peace. These
| funerals are not being held for the people attending them but
| at the same time you can't have a funeral without someone
| attending them.
| user_7832 wrote:
| Is there a way you are alerted about this? Depending on the
| details I might be interested, I don't live too far from
| Amsterdam.
| PreInternet01 wrote:
| See http://www.eenzameuitvaart.nl -- there are contact
| details for various regions
| jddj wrote:
| Internet commentators here trying to critique and optimise your
| time spent _turning up to funerals to say something nice when
| nobody else has_ is a little disappointing.
|
| As a thing that happens in the world, an empty funeral is a sad
| thing. Zoom out folks.
| PreInternet01 wrote:
| To be honest, I sort-of-expected a lot more conversation
| around the _mechanics_ of the ceremony (after all, with a
| lonely funeral, you 're the director!), which is a
| _fascinating_ topic on its own.
|
| Instead, reactions were more like those to a viral video: how
| _dare_ you pay _attention_ to someone who clearly doesn 't
| _deserve_ it? I did not manage to complete all responses I
| started typing out because of, well, _feelings_ , but that
| strangely helped to justify the handful of hours I spend on
| this particular project every year...
| motohagiography wrote:
| about a decade ago i stood in as a pall bearer for someone who
| didn't have enough people and i decided it was important to be
| able to convene a party of six. found a fraternal organization
| and after some vetting, joined. it's what you make it, someone
| dies every couple of years and the loss of loose acquaintances
| and casual friends gives you some valuable perspective on lives
| lived and how to apply the time you are given. overall,
| recommend.
| ThaDood wrote:
| Oddly enough, I actually tried to make something like this happen
| at my high school. My high school was a private and catholic one.
| We had a strong relationship with a lot of the local parishes and
| shelters and there was always a need for some paulbearers or
| otherwise "witnesses" for individuals with no family (older,
| homeless etc) who had passed.
|
| Initially I would just attend a few burials. I did not say much
| (if anything), nor do much. I just tried reflecting on the person
| and hoped they found some peace and comfort.
|
| When I tried getting it off the ground into something more formal
| we ran into some bureaucratic issues. Makes me kind of sad. Maybe
| I should reach back out and see if I could get it started again.
| mparnisari wrote:
| I don't understand this project. If you want people to feel less
| lonely, then do it while they are alive. I know I wouldn't want a
| funeral attended by strangers that didn't know me, for me it
| feels even sadder than a funeral attended by no-one.
|
| What do the poets gain from this, an avenue to exercise their
| creativity? I'm sorry if I sound rude but I genuinely don't get
| it
| gwbas1c wrote:
| Because every person deserves dignity, even if their
| circumstances were such that no one is mourning their death.
| layer8 wrote:
| This really depends on whether you think that someone who is
| dead has the ability to care.
|
| In my opinion, funerals are for the living, for those left
| behind. And it's those who don't like the thought of non-
| attended funerals who organize this, and it's really for
| them, not for the dead, whose lives are already over and
| done. Dignity is for those who can experience the dignity or
| lack thereof.
| keybored wrote:
| Dying alone is not undignified. Even though the article
| gracefully gives the "maybe they were a drug addict" as one
| of the examples.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| The Dutch are a very cynical people, but I think this takes the
| cake. Churches could take action to make sure that these people
| are kept away from the deceased.
| Scarblac wrote:
| Churches aren't even in the story? These funerals are
| completely secular, and nobody from any church is showing up to
| them.
|
| Maybe churches should start doing this rather than leaving it
| to some poets.
| scop wrote:
| > Acedia comes from the latin _acedia_ , which itself comes from
| the Greek _akedia_ , which translates as "lack of care". Prior to
| the Christian era, ~the word denoted the act of not burying one's
| dead. Thus it connotes a dehumanization~. Man buries his dead;
| animals do not.
|
| _Nault: The Noonday Devil_
| impish9208 wrote:
| This reminded me of The Lonely Death of George Bell, a NYT
| article that delves into such deaths in NYC and how they're
| handled.
|
| https://archive.is/e1v1r
| smearth wrote:
| I imagine poetry as an often misanthropic and lonely hobby with
| virtually zero demand for it's output. Whether written or spoken.
| Moreso now there are LLMs.
|
| If I die unrespected and socially isolated I like the thought of
| donating my body to medicine while providing a funeral for poets
| to crash and get their words out. It is an absurd concept, it
| would be nice if they connected socially before I died and
| provided the respect they are concerned about. But given the
| constraints of their own lives it is nice knowing my lonely death
| could provide social support to probably introverted intelligent
| thoughtful people who are likely at risk of social isolation
| themself.
|
| What is the purpose of a funeral is an interesting question. I
| think it is to help the living to socialise and forge ahead with
| a cohesive story of the deceased 's contribution to their own
| lives and to navigate the gap and hierarchy left in the modified
| social network. I'm guessing this process reduces grief and
| conflict as people feel loved and supported through the process.
|
| If you die alone you leave no gap. I think it's brilliant that
| Poets seized this opportunity to get a reading in and strengthen
| their own social network. They are also attributing value and
| respect to life, no matter how meaningless, which is another
| positive. The futility and absurdity of the human condition is a
| beautiful thing we all wrestle with whether socially connected or
| not and I think this is the point they are getting across while
| having someone listen to their poetry.
| gnulinux wrote:
| > I imagine poetry as an often misanthropic and lonely hobby
| with virtually zero demand for it's output. Whether written or
| spoken. Moreso now there are LLMs.
|
| (1) In any big city in the US, you can easily find poetry
| workshops/meeting groups. I'm currently in one (Boston), we
| read each others' poetry and talk about poetry every week. It's
| absolutely ridiculous to think there is no demand for poetry,
| poetry is one of the -- if not the -- oldest art forms, I mean
| yeah there are people who read poetry even in 2024. My generic
| bookstore still has a poetry section where I pay $$$ to
| exchange for poetry books. There is even a dedicated poetry
| book shop in Harvard Sq (i.e. they exclusively sell poetry
| books) and they pay the same (expensive Boston) rent any other
| business pays.
|
| (2) LLMs write dogshit poetry. Comparing a "good" poem with a
| GPT-4 generated poem is like comparing "2001: Space Odyssey"
| and "The Room". Other than the fact that they're both arguably
| "movies" the quality difference is extremely obvious to people
| who are familiar with this art form.
| benou wrote:
| In a similar vein, the "Confrerie des Charitables de Saint-Eloi"
| was founded in Bethune (France) in 1188 during a plague epidemy
| and is still active today.
|
| Edit: spelling
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-04-09 23:01 UTC)