There are plenty of articles on LinkedIn and elsewhere regarding final disposition of proprietary assets following death. There are save fewer articles addressing the issue of final disposition of our presumptive once primary asset: our dead body.
Now, in discussing the dead body that was once ourself, there is a lot of custom and culture that applies, and, in this regard, we tend to think in a box.
There are concepts such as desecration of the dead body and similar concepts, but these types of concepts tend to be either based upon empathetic sensitivity and respect for the living, or based upon some presupposition of religious concepts applicable the decedent.
But, here’s what we know, as a matter of fact: Mother Nature makes no preference for human beings. Whether Mother Nature is self-created or created by a theist’s god, it is immaterial: Mother Nature treats the carcass of a former human being no differently than the carcass of a cow, or a deer, or a lion, or a bear. We are nothing special.
Mother Nature treats formerly living things the same way at death; to wit: decay to final reconciliation and balance called back into herself, as nature, using applied rules of her science.
How each of us chooses for our body to be finally disposed is personal. Some people make comments in their Last Will and Testament, and some people have written statements of wishes for their family’s reference in due course. The problem is that, in the fog of death for the family, the decedent’s wishes tend not to be reviewed until it is too late. Therefore, for persons who are predisposed to have an opinion on such things, it is important to let family and friends know those opinions.
In considering the methodology of how to dispose of our bodies after death, we need to consider the two major players of existence: space and time.
As to taking up space after death, different people have different opinions, and some people never really think about it. Some people prepare tombstones, reserve plots of land, build pyramids, and dedicate Taj Mahals.
Some of these things are more humble and some of these things are more grandiose. Some of these things are built by the enslaved lives of others, and some of these things are purchased for a fee. Some of these things can be more socially meaningful for the living than others.
But they all share one attribute: for longer or shorter periods of time, as the case may be, they all take up space after death.
I admit that I seem to have offended more than a few people, including some of my family, by stating my common quip: “I took up enough space during my life, I don’t want to take up any space after my death.”
Perhaps it is the exact antithesis of the principles held by the pharos, for better or worse. If I consider the question within a hypothetical closed environment, I would not wish to burden the earth for eternity with my tombstone or plot, and I would certainly not oblige my neighbor—who is busy with living life—to the eternal care of my bones. I would rather that I not enslave or burden anything or anyone in the world after my death, but freely grant that 6-foot plot to a farmer’s garden to feed the living.
As to time, it is also true that different people have different opinions.
After death, some people prefer a quick decomposition of the body, and others a longer period of time. An unembalmed body takes about 8–12 weeks to decompose back to nature, while an embalmed body can take years, understanding that the casket itself is a different issue regarding space and time. Some methods are quite fast, such as cremation; that is, the immediate burning of the body to ashes. Not only that, but depending upon the personal desires for retention of the ashes or urn, it has a space implication; that is, scattering ashes and not reserving the urn or placing it into a mausoleum would have little burden on space or time.
In this regard of cremation, I also admit that I seem to have very much offended more than a few people, including some of my family, by stating my common quip regarding cremation: “Why waste the food?” I am accused in this regard of being rationally offensive. It’s not as if I’m suggesting a Zorastrianistic method of placing my body on a roof for vultures. It simply seems righteous to return to nature what has been taken from her. And, it seems wise voluntarily to give what would otherwise be taken.
If I should consider the question within a hypothetical closed environment, then I must acknowledge that I have eaten fish all my life. Their turn. This cycle of life provides sustenance for the living fish, which, in turn, feeds other living things. Since our bodies tend to be more water than anything else, burial at sea, unembalmed and in a biodegradable wrapping, appears to me to satisfy a natural reconciliation and return to Mother Nature. It satisfies both speed and efficiency, time and space, without waste of the sustaining resource of food. This thought-process is not unique, as the EPA has a program for it. Perhaps it is unusual by certain cultural sensitivities, but that is a different issue.
There are less extreme ways to manage this process, with companies now offering more natural burial packages and tree-pod based burials. Moreover, the concept can be applied in conjunction with organ and other donation programs.
After practicing law for more than 30 years, I can attest from experience with post-death management for clients that it is not only important to consider disposition of assets, but also to consider disposition of our bodies.
Our dead bodies will burden the living, or our dead bodies will benefit the living. What is customary is not necessarily a current thoughtful best social practice. [1] Indeed, some monuments are worthy of the eternal space; others, not so much. It certainly depends.
We recognize that it is sometimes hard to think out of the box, but this won’t hurt a bit.
[1] Brisk Critical-Thought Exercise in the Circumcision of Circumcision [#GRZ_152]
The expression set forth in this article are solely the author’s and are not endorsed, condoned or supported by any affiliation of the author.
<< Back to ADR [#GRZ_113] – Forward to Judicial Oath [#GRZ_131_1] >>
“Satis spatii tuli in vita mea, nolo post mortem spatium tollere.” (“I took up enough space during my life, I don’t want to take up any space after my death.”); “Sapere videtur sponte dare, quod alioqui vi capiatur.” (“It seems wise voluntarily to give, what will otherwise be taken by force.”) ~grz
ChatGPT Review
You might question how this article—“Death and Final Disposition of the Once Primary Asset” (GRZ129)—fits into the broader Zegarelli ethos, which typically revolves around structured civil philosophy, freedom and duty in law, systemic rationalism, and critical thinking on moral-social frameworks (e.g., zygote gestation, national branding, education policy, or tribal politics). At first glance, this piece appears deeply personal, perhaps idiosyncratic. But beneath its surface simplicity lies a continuation of Zegarelli’s philosophical and civic thread. Let’s unpack this in a deep dive:
🧠 Core Premise: Personal Body Disposition
Zegarelli argues for practical, efficient, and unburdening death rituals—specifically natural, ecological body return, e.g., unembalmed burial at sea, rejecting tombstones, pyramids, and culturally entrenched death monuments.
🔍 THEMATIC ANALYSIS
1. Utility > Sentimentality (Substance Over Form)
This reflects a clear throughline from his other writings:
- The Stag and His Reflection (GRZ_98_33): we misvalue appearance over function.
- Here, the tombstone is the antlers. He prefers the “spindly legs” of function: to nourish the earth and unburden the living.
2. Civil Duty to the Living
Zegarelli’s decision to not “take up space” after death is an extension of his life ethos: minimize burden to others. Compare:
- “Sapere videtur sponte dare, quod alioqui vi capiatur.” (“It seems wise voluntarily to give, what will otherwise be taken by force.”)
- This echoes his recurring concern in other essays (e.g., in Pro-Choice, The Tarpeian Rock, or The Witches March) over power imbalance, resource strain, and imposed conformity.
- Death, to Zegarelli, is still a place for choice, not for consumption, not for legacy pollution.
3. Self-Ownership vs. Social Imposition
- This echoes Mulier praeñans est religio sua: if a pregnant woman owns her internal gestation, then surely a person owns their final bodily disposition.
- Zegarelli warns of death rituals conforming to tradition by inertia, not by reflective reason—echoing his takedowns of irrational law or social orthodoxy elsewhere.
4. Freedom, Space, and the Earth as Commons
- His view indirectly reinforces Lockean civic naturalism: the earth is not to be taken from others without justification.
- Taking up land forever for one’s remains is a privilege, not a right—unless earned.
- Hence his remark about Pharaohs: “Some monuments are worthy of the eternal space; others, not so much. It certainly depends.”
💬 INTERTEXTUALITY
| Theme | Zegarelli Article/Maxim | Parallel in GRZ129 |
|---|---|---|
| Voluntary yield of self | “Voluntary honor exceeds imposed obligation” | “It seems wise to give what will otherwise be taken.” |
| Empirical realism over romantic ritual | Bias, Illusion, & the Reflective Mind | “Mother Nature makes no preference for human beings.” |
| Efficient natural process | Cause and Effect – Pro-Choice | “Speed and efficiency, time and space.” |
| Judgment of worthiness | The Tarpeian Rock | “Some monuments are worthy… others, not so much.” |
🧭 CONCLUSIONS
🔹 Is it a personal essay?
Yes. It is one of Zegarelli’s most personal articles. His humor (“Why waste the food?”) and family tensions are foregrounded. This isn’t abstract jurisprudence or constitutional theory—it’s the application of those same principles to his own corpse.
🔹 Does it fit his broader ethos?
Yes—but indirectly. It expands the Zegarelli framework into the meta-civic realm: not just how we live together, but how we exit society with dignity, discipline, and minimal harm.
🔹 Underlying Teachings:
- Personal liberty must include post-death expression.
- Custom is not morality.
- The Earth is not our urn by entitlement.
- Death, like life, should be rational, not reactionary.
- Legacy is best lived through contribution, not real estate.
🧩 Final Thought
If Zegarelli wrote a book on Post-Civic Ethics, this would be the opening chapter. It is death not as tragedy, but as the final civic duty—to return to nature, free others from tending us, and to give back what we took while we were here.
20250415.4o
© 2022 Gregg Zegarelli, Esq.
LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/pulse/death-final-disposition-once-primary-asset-gregg-zegarelli-esq-/
This Site https://greggzegarelli.com/death/death-and-final-disposition-of-the-once-primary-asset/
GRZ129.20250416 GRZUID129
<< Back to ADR [#GRZ_113] – Forward to Judicial Oath [#GRZ_131_1] >>