What? Prions suddenly being in dirt instead of a human being doesn't kill them, there's a whole thing with Mad Cow and soil from the UK as i recall. Part of why they're so fucking horrible is that you practically can't kill Prions.
Obscenely high temperatures are required.
The rich should be turned into fuel pellets instead.
96Composting is a specific set of chemical processes that take place in a hot, highly oxygenated environment with the proper mix of nutrients for microbial growth. It is not comparable to ordinary decomposition in soil.
Composting can destroy prions, but it might be different to ensure you’ve destroyed all of them. Read more here: https://www.beefresearch.ca/fact-sheets/can-composting-destroy-bse-prions/
PS: I think it’s not good to joke about killing people, even shitty people.
32PS: I think it’s not good to joke about killing people, even shitty people.
Then it's time to stop joking
17
You actually literally can't kill prions, they aren't alive, they're basically the virus debate's bastard older brother with a rap sheet that's just a list of all the people they've sent to the hospital, and then followed up bankrupting the hospital because literally everything that victim touched has to be scrapped because hospitals usually don't have the tools required to break down prions enough for it to be safe to keep anything that might have gotten the patient's prions on it.
11The rich should be turned into fuel pellets instead.
Until the process is started with them alive, it's fine
3
Ugh. I hate being that guy, and I realize it's a meme, not science, but I can't leave it alone.
Composting doesn't get rid of metals, so you'd need a way to deal with them if you wanted to be safe.
48Especially if the compost is used for mushrooms. They have tendency to absorb heavy metals from the ground so you have to be careful where you pick them from and what kind of compost you use if growing at home.
10I’ll bring the magnet.
10
11
Okay but if we're going to be that guy, "eat the rich" doesn't mean consume their flesh.
1
Mortician here!
Recomposition (or Natural Organic Reduction) is already legal in several states: California, Washington, Vermont, Oregon and Colorado!
As of right now, I think the compost is only allowed in national and state parks, but they're doing testing on farms to check if there's dangers to us consuming the crops and it's been very successful and safe.
Most diseases and viruses can't survive the composting heat and the plants are thriving. It uses 87% less energy than cremation and burial and stops embalming fluids from leaking into our ground water. I'm really glad this is an option.
There's a scam company that claims you can put cremated remains in the ground and grow a tree... yeah, cremated remains turn into concrete when wet and the heat of cremation denatures nearly everything beneficial for plants. We constantly have to tell people not to put cremated remains on plants or the plants will join the family member that passed...
22With the disclaimer that I don't know anything about your field....
IMO, if eating food that was nourished by dead humans was inherently unsafe, I believe we would have had significant issues well before now. I have no doubt that when agriculture was new, cemeteries and areas where people have died and left to decompose, would have been used to grow food and if it created any problems, I think we would have seen issues before now.
Again, I'm not a farmer, mortician, scientist, or any other preceived or direct authority on the subject.
4What you've said is true. In my forensics class, we learned that police can actually use plants to find dead bodies, because you can see a noticeable oval of healthier plant growth. Older cemeteries flourish. There's a few stories from the Neolithic Era about planting crops on the deceased, both humans and animals, but it's mostly been erased from history. It wouldn't surprise me if it's happened during Famines or situations like the dust bowl where civilizations weren't rotating crops and depleted the soil.
3I heard there was a time when cemetery grass is premium for farmers with grazers
2
How is that supposed to remove lead and mercury from the food supply? If you use that as fertilizer, the heavy metals will still be in there, and likely get picked up by your crops…
19#mulchtherich
16A hashtag I can get behind
2
Make sure to have some rolly polies in your compost heap to eat the rich 🍽 those little guys can remove heavy metals from the corpses of the bourgeoisie 😋
11Better to phytoremdiate with sunflowers or other hyper accumulators, and then landfill the biomass
5
Dig a hole. Fill the bottom with a billionaire corpse. Plant a tree on top and finish filling the hole. Take a breath of fresh air.
9Does it have to be a corpse?
6At some point.
10Easier to stop them trying to make a break for it.
Odds are you're gonna have to shoot them anyways to stop an escape so save the energy you'd have to spend ordering them around if they're still alive.
2
Diggy diggy hole...
4
Notice how everyone knows what is needed to be able to eat or mulch a person, but no-one is directly mentioning the part about killing being required.
I don't know why we need euphemisms for this. Genuinely I'm asking, not presenting an opinion.
It would be very crass indeed to talk about killing the rich, but the cold hard fact is that if psychotic people are leading the entire planet to get properly fucked, it's the moral thing to do to get rid of them somehow.
Obviously humanitarian values hold that one shouldn't kill needlessly.
I guess "eat the rich" reminds us of what we need to do and why; because the poor are hungry for the resources the fucked up rich people are hoarding. It's also very clearly implied that we could kill the rich, but that we're willing to avoid it if our hunger gets sated some other way.
In other words "hey rich assholes, we're not violent people, but unless you start making this more fair, this is going to end up in a situation in which we will have to resort to violence, and there's a lot more of us than there are of you".
Or as Percy Bysshe put it more eloquently a few centuries ago in a political poem (thought to perhaps be the first modern statement of the principle of nonviolent resistance.)
Stand ye calm and resolute, Like a forest close and mute, With folded arms and looks which are Weapons of unvanquished war.
And if then the tyrants dare, Let them ride among you there; Slash, and stab, and maim and hew; What they like, that let them do.
With folded arms and steady eyes, And little fear, and less surprise, Look upon them as they slay, Till their rage has died away:
Then they will return with shame, To the place from which they came, And the blood thus shed will speak In hot blushes on their cheek:
Rise, like lions after slumber In unvanquishable number! Shake your chains to earth like dew Which in sleep had fallen on you: Ye are many—they are few!
8In the past the commoners treated badly had to contend with rulers in castles with canon loaded with grape shot
1I don't think you have to look very far to see discussions of guillotines and the like - I'm not sure that the discourse is as restrained as you think.
1Yeah you're still doing it. Euphemism, that is.
Yes, you can find people straight up advocating "we should sharpen the guillotine", but even then it isn't "the rich don't deserve to live" but more of a directly implied threat of dying just like what happened in the French Revolution, and that was quite literally class warfare.
So even saying "let's sharpen the guillotines" (which I'm all for), it is a restricted form of threat. It's not about the lack of implied threat, that's my point. I think we all know that eating a person unalives them.
The point I'm making is that while the implied threat is death, the way the threats are made really do show how much more moral the working class is compared to the capitalist scum who genuinely don't mind saying inhuman things and straight up advocating for inhumane working conditions and whatnot.
It's not about "restrained discourse". It's the way the death threats are made. "Eat" reminds people that the reason to attack the rich is literally hunger, not anger. "Guillotine" reminds us of how effective the brutal revolution of France was for them.
Both situations that the rich ruling class can willfully avoid if they choose to share.
They just never fucking do.
So while there is a direct threat of death, saying "eat the rich" / "sharpen the guillotine" is still a humane response which gives the people under threat a chance to resolve the situation peacefully. It's not like some genocidal rightwing rhetoric of "the only good [enterraciststereotype] is a dead [enterraciststereotype]".
You see the difference there? (Not asking sarcastically, I'm trying to communicate something that I haven't written much on so it's still prolly coming out a bit incoherent at time.)
1
Just don't eat the brains. It wouldn't be very filling anyway.
7Composting doesn't get rid of prions or heavy metals unfortunately.
7Well. The folk punks always knew that we all are just compost in training.
7All good points, but Lemmy was very specific about what to do with the rich.
6https://inv.tux.pizza/watch?v=Wh3t49NsWBA
/watch?v=Wh3t49NsWBA3
Meh, I'll take my chances. The heads are going on pikes anyway so that should mitigate the prion problem. As for the metals, well they can't be worse than you'd get eating a lot of predatory fish (like tuna). Since there's a lot of oppressed and a relatively much smaller number of rich, the load will be distributed widely enough to mitigate the metal problem anyway.
3I consider this an absolute win.
3Unconditional support for comrade broccoli! 🫡
3Do we know for sure that diseased meat doesn't have a chance to infect a plant if used as a fertilizer?
2At least in CWD-causing prions, plant accumulation is significant enough for the plants to be infectious when consumed by mice in a lab setting. So, maybe?
https://www.usgs.gov/publications/plants-vectors-environmental-prion-transmission
5
distribute them to all the carnivore species left in the wild who have become endangered because of them
1I have way too much microplastics to be good for environment. Plants would just die form all the heavy metals too
1Mortician here! This is, luckily not true. Recomposition is already legal in several states and they've had massive success with it. The national and state forests that received the recomposted remains are thriving. The only downside (for some people) is that the person who passed cannot be embalmed, and in most states, that means it's illegal to have an open casket visitation to the public. Most states have laws that family can see their loved one without embalming if it's been less than 48 hours after death, but they need liability waivers. The public, however, cannot be a part of an open casket funeral, unless the deceased has been embalmed and sterilized. Closed caskets are fine at any stage. They make hermetically sealing ones that lock in the decomposition smell and keep people safe.
4
Realistically you feed the rich to pigs and chickens and then eat the pigs and chickens. Otherwise yes, you're just eating tainted meat.
-1The animals we create are morally equivalent to our own children and are owed the exact same unconditional love and protection.
2
You’ll feed a lot more people eating meat than composting it.
Highest and best use, guys.
-2With a side of mental trauma from doing cannibalism! We all love that now, don't we?
3
