Author: samanthawaite88

  • The “Death Tree” Australia Sent to America

    The “Death Tree” Australia Sent to America

    let’s talk death

    Every summer, Australia lights up like a giant barbecue that no one asked for. Millions of hectares gone, animals dead, towns wiped off the map, with the Kiwi and Canadian Fire Departments flying in to help. It’s a very reliable, if unfortunate, summer playbook over here. So, why does Australia so reliably go up in flames every year?

    If you’ve just found this channel, welcome. We post death-related videos every Friday, looking at it from every angle with Aussie sarcasm. So, if that sounds like your kind of thing, consider subscribing to the channel. Now, let’s talk Aussie bushfires.

    Why Australia Burns

    Australia is the most fire-prone country on Earth. And that’s not hyperbole. That’s just the continent doing what it was built to do.

    Three things have to line up for a catastrophic fire: fuel, heat, and wind. Australia has all three in abundance, and simultaneously. The fuel is Australian vegetation, particularly eucalyptus, which produces a flammable oil that makes it essentially nature’s firelighter. Leaf litter, peeling bark, and dry undergrowth—it all piles up between burns.

    Eucalyptus leaves
    Eucalyptus leaves contain highly volatile, flammable oils that turn dry forests into ticking ecological time bombs.

    The heat comes from a climate that is structurally one of the hottest and driest. And the wind—Australia is ringed by wind systems that push hot, dry air across the interior and funnel it straight into populated coastal areas. The country has always been this way, but climate change has made all three things worse.

    Australia has warmed around 1.5°C since 1910, with most of that warming since 1950. The number of days above 35°C has increased significantly. Droughts are longer. The fire season has extended into autumn. The window for safe hazard reduction burns is shrinking. But here’s the thing: the Australian landscape didn’t evolve to resist fire. It evolved with fire. And for at least 80,000 years, Indigenous Australians understood that distinction completely.

    Built to Burn

    Before we get on to the disasters, let’s talk about what fire actually means to this continent. Because Australia’s plants and animals don’t just survive fire—many of them depend on it.

    Eucalyptus trees have epicormic buds buried under their bark—dormant growth points that activate the moment a fire passes. Within weeks of a burn, the scorched gum tree is already pushing out fresh green shoots. It doesn’t wait to recover; it’s already preparing for the next fire. Banksias go further: their seed pods are sealed so tight that only the heat of a bushfire can open them. Some have held on to seeds for years, waiting. The moment fire rips through, the cone splits, seeds rain onto the freshly cleared ash bed, and a new generation has the best possible start because all the competition burnt. Wattles do something similar.

    Plant sprouting from ash
    Within weeks of an intense burn, many native Australian trees push out vibrant epicormic growth directly from their scorched trunks.

    The smoke itself contains chemicals that trigger germination in dozens of native species. The fire is essentially the signal that says, “Now is your moment.” Grass trees, those weird prehistoric-looking things with the long black trunks, only flower after fire. Some native orchids only appear in the year after a burn. The entire understory of much of Australia’s bush is a coiled spring waiting for a match.

    Animals have adapted too. Sugar gliders, kookaburras, and owls survive fires sheltered inside tree hollows. Wombats and reptiles ride it out underground. Kangaroos move towards fresh post-fire growth within days. The new shoots emerge from ash beds and are exactly what they want. Birds of prey have even been observed deliberately carrying burning sticks from one fire to a new area to flush out prey. We’ve known about this behavior from Aboriginal oral tradition for generations, and scientists confirmed it formally in 2018. The ecosystem isn’t broken by fire at the right frequency. It is refreshed by it.

    The problem has never been fire itself. The problem is fire at the wrong scale, the wrong season, and the wrong intensity.

    Which is exactly what happens when you spend 200 years preventing the small burns that were keeping the big ones manageable.

    Navigating Emergency or Care Contingencies?

    Get factual, non-judgmental, and practical advisory support on crisis planning, Advanced Care Directives, and system literacy before a transition forces your hand.

    Book a Strategic Consultation with Sam

    60,000 Years of Fire Management

    Aboriginal Australians didn’t just live in a fire-prone landscape; they actively shaped it using fire as a tool—a practice known as cultural burning or cool burning that was in continuous use for well over 60,000 years. The method is precise in a way that bureaucratic hazard reduction burns simply aren’t.

    Cultural burns are small, low, cool fires lit at specific times, typically early in the dry season from around April to July, when overnight dew keeps the temperatures down and winds are gentle. They don’t touch the canopy; the canopy is left intact deliberately. It provides shelter and seeds for the next generation. What burns is the undergrowth, the bracken, the dead grass, and the accumulated leaf litter that would otherwise become fuel for a catastrophic fire.

    Australian outback landscape
    Traditional fire-stick farming practices created a managed mosaic of open country that historically prevented large-scale canopy firestorms.

    The timing isn’t guesswork. Aboriginal knowledge holders read the landscape—when certain trees flowered, or when native grasses cured—to know exactly when to burn and when not to. As an Aboriginal community member put it: “The knowledge is held within the landscape. Once we learn how to read the landscape and interpret that knowledge, that’s when we apply those fire practices.”

    The result was a mosaic. Patches of burnt and unburnt country in rotation, creating a patchwork of habitats that supported maximum biodiversity, controlled fuel loads, and made catastrophic fire essentially impossible at scale. Early European settlers described the landscape as looking like a park—open, grassy, and park-like—because it had been actively maintained that way for millennia.

    When colonization forced Aboriginal people off their land and suppressed burning practices, that mosaic quickly fell apart. Fuel built up unchecked. The landscape Europeans protected from small fires was loading itself for enormous ones. A 2001 study found that the disruption of traditional burning directly increased the risk of extensive, uncontrolled wildfires across Australia. A 2017 study found that the removal of mature trees by European settlers triggered dense regrowth that created a far greater fire fuel hazard than existed before.

    In the desert territory where traditional burning stopped in the 1950s and 1960s, subsequent uncontrolled fires destroyed vast, sweeping tracts of tens of thousands of square kilometers in just a couple of seasons. That’s the cost of ignoring 60,000 years of expertise.

    The good news, if there is any, is that cultural burning is making a comeback. Dozens of Indigenous-owned fire management projects are operating across millions of hectares in northern Australia, abating around one million tons of carbon emissions per year. The land is being listened to again. Whether it’s happening fast enough is a different question. You can’t stop fire in Australia—you can only manage it, or ignore it until it manages you.

    Australia’s Deadliest Hits: Black Summer & Beyond

    Australia’s deadliest bushfires read like a greatest hits album that no one wanted to release.

    • Black Friday (1939, Victoria): Temperatures in Melbourne hit 44.7°C. Fires tore through two million hectares, obliterated entire towns like Narbethong and Noojee, and killed 71 people. A royal commission followed.
    • Ash Wednesday (1983, Victoria and South Australia): 75 dead, nearly 1,900 homes destroyed, and 104 fires burning simultaneously by a single morning. The energy released was reportedly equivalent to 1,500 Hiroshima-style bombs.
    • Black Saturday (2009, Victoria): The single deadliest fire event in Australian history. 173 people killed. Over 430,000 hectares burned, more than 2,000 homes gone, and almost 80 communities left unrecognizable. Melbourne had experienced three consecutive days above 43°C beforehand—the first time that was ever recorded.
    Heavy forest fire smoke
    The historic 2019-2020 Black Summer fires incinerated over 24 million hectares, emitting more than 700 million tons of carbon.

    Then came the Black Summer of 2019 to 2020, the worst fire season on record. Full stop. Over 24 million hectares burnt, and 33 people were killed directly. Smoke from the fires was responsible for an additional 417 deaths. An estimated 3 billion animals were killed or displaced. We lost 70% of the koala population from those areas. The air quality in Canberra on New Year’s Day in 2020 was the worst of any city on the planet. The fires generated their own weather systems—fire tornadoes, lightning, and pyroconvective storms.

    People outside of Australia struggle to grasp the scale. In 1974 to 1975, fires burnt between 100 and 117 million hectares across central Australia—roughly 15% of the entire continent. That’s an area the size of France and Spain combined. Three people died, largely because nobody lives out there. The Black Summer fires burned 24 million hectares. For context, the entire Amazon lost 10 million hectares in fires in 2019 and the world lost its mind. Australia lost more than twice that in a single season in a country with a modest population.

    The reason Australia doesn’t always top the global human death toll despite burning such enormous areas is geography. Most of what burns is remote scrub and grassland. When fire hits the urban fringes—the outer suburbs of Melbourne, or the holiday towns of the New South Wales South Coast—that’s when people die.

    The “Death Tree” We Sent to America

    Here’s where it gets interesting for our US viewers, and where Australians can either feel smug or guilty depending on your outlook. When Los Angeles burned in January 2025, killing dozens and destroying over 12,000 structures, one question kept surfacing: What role did eucalyptus play?

    The tree most responsible for Australia’s fire problem is now all over California, and the path it took to get there is pretty wild. A German-born botanist named Ferdinand von Mueller immigrated to Australia and became completely obsessed with eucalyptus. He spent decades evangelicalizing these trees, writing books, corresponding with botanists globally, and mailing seeds all over the world. It was essentially the apple seed of an ecological catastrophe.

    California hillside trees
    Imported during the Gold Rush era, fast-growing Australian Blue Gums now carpet large swaths of residential California.

    By the 1850s, eucalyptus seeds were arriving in California during the Gold Rush. California authorities, desperate for timber after clearing most of the native trees, encouraged mass planting. By the early 1900s, thousands of acres of eucalyptus, mostly Tasmanian Blue Gum, covered the hills of Southern California.

    The problem is that eucalyptus is not a passive resident. It produces a flammable oil that has been tested as a fuel substitute. Its bark peels off in long strips that fall to the ground and act as pure kindling. Its leaves build up in dense, dry carpets. When a fire starts near the eucalyptus canopy, the oil vaporizes, the bark channels the flames upward, and burning embers can be blown over a kilometer downwind to ignite new fires. The 1991 Oakland Hills firestorm, which killed 25 people and destroyed over 3,000 homes, was fueled in part by heavy eucalyptus groves. The debate re-erupted after every subsequent California fire.

    Now, to be fair—and this matters—experts are divided on how much blame eucalyptus actually deserves. As a fire ecologist put it plainly: “Blaming eucalyptus for wildfires is a bit like blaming a match for starting a fire.” California’s native chaparral is also highly flammable. The fierce Santa Ana winds would turn almost anything into an inferno. And then there’s the houses themselves. Most American homes, regardless of how much they cost, are built from timber frames. A million-dollar Malibu mansion burns just as fast as a cheap kit home if the walls are wood. In Australia, brick veneer or double-brick construction is standard. It’s not perfect, but it buys time.

    Americans build their dream homes out of kindling, plant them next to fire-adapted Australian trees, and then act surprised when everything burns.

    But here’s the kicker: eucalyptus doesn’t just burn; it thrives after burning. When a fire scorches an area, eucalyptus regenerates rapidly and outcompetes everything else. Burn a hillside, and the eucalyptus comes back dominant. It has literally evolved to use fire as a competitive advantage. There’s really no getting rid of it. That’s fine in Australia where the whole ecosystem is built around it. In California, where native species haven’t adapted to handle that specific fuel profile, it’s a completely different story. So, Australia didn’t deliberately export its fire problem, but it did accidentally export the plant most responsible for it for financial gain. And that plant is now embedded in one of the most fire-prone landscapes on Earth, waiting for the next major wind event.

    How to Actually Survive the Heat

    Australia burns because it was always going to burn. The continent’s climate, vegetation, and geography make fire inevitable. What’s changed is the scale, the frequency, and the season length—and all of those are moving rapidly in the wrong direction.

    The Black Summer was a preview, not a peak. Public scientists state that conditions like those of 2019 will become more common, not less. And eucalyptus is now on every occupied continent on Earth. One researcher summarized it succinctly: “What the hell have humans done? We’ve spread a dangerous plant all over the world.”

    So, here’s the question for you: When a disaster is both completely natural and entirely made worse by human decisions, who is responsible? And does it really matter when the fire is already at your front door?

    Let’s talk death.

    Practical Death Literacy Tools

    Equip yourself and your family with organized frameworks before a crisis limits your choices.

    Advance Care Workbook

    Step-by-step professional guidance for cleanly and legally documenting your final medical and personal wishes.

    Get the Workbook →

    Death Literacy Checklist

    A simple, actionable self-assessment tool designed for individuals navigating complex healthcare or legacy planning systems.

    Download Free Tool →
  • The Secret Reason Australians Don’t Fear Spiders

    The Secret Reason Australians Don’t Fear Spiders

    let’s talk death

    Australia has a reputation for being a total death trap. Sharks, crocs, spiders, snakes. Tourists arrive half-expecting to be eaten the moment they step off the tarmac. But here’s the thing: the animals that Australians actually fear the most are almost never the ones doing the killing. The animals that actually kill us are embarrassingly mundane.

    We post death-related videos every Friday, so if that sounds like your kind of thing, consider subscribing to the channel. Now, let’s talk deadly Australian animals.

    Australia has more venomous species than anywhere else on Earth. That’s not a myth. But “venomous” and “deadly” aren’t necessarily the same thing. And somewhere along the way, people started to confuse sheer, visceral fear with actual statistical risk.

    So today, we’re running the two lists side by side—the most feared, and the actual killers—and seeing how badly you’ve all been misled.

    The Most Feared (What Tourists Think Will Kill Them)

    Ask most international visitors to name Australia’s deadliest animals, and you’ll get a very predictable list. Sharks, crocs, box jellyfish, funnel-web spiders, eastern brown snakes, blue-ringed octopuses, stonefish, redback spiders, tiger snakes, cassowaries.

    On paper, fair enough. These animals are genuinely dangerous. Some have venom that can kill in minutes. Some have enough bite force to remove a limb. A cassowary can kick you open like a can opener.

    A great white shark underwater
    The international fear list is loaded with apex predators, but the actual fatality statistics tell a very different story.

    And yet, in any given year, how many Australians do these animals actually kill?

    • Sharks: Around 2 to 4 fatal attacks annually.
    • Crocs: 1 to 2.
    • Box Jellyfish: Maybe 2.
    • Funnel-Web Spiders: Zero. The last recorded death was in 1981, before antivenom existed.
    • Eastern Brown Snakes: 2 to 4.
    • Blue-Ringed Octopus: 2 confirmed deaths in Australia’s colonial history.
    • Stonefish: Zero recorded Australian fatalities in modern records.
    • Redback Spiders: Zero since antivenom.
    • Cassowaries: One confirmed human death ever, in 1926.

    Snakes as a whole account for roughly 2 to 4 deaths per year across all species combined. That’s it.

    You are more likely to be killed by stubbing your toe and cracking your skull on a barbecue.

    What Australians Actually Fear

    Here’s the thing about the tourist fear list: it was written by people who don’t actually live here. Ask any actual Australian what animal makes their blood run cold, and you’ll get a very different answer.

    Magpies

    Every Australian has a magpie story. From August to November, “swooping season” turns suburban streets into an absolute gauntlet. These birds are intelligent, territorial, and they remember faces—specifically your face—and they will find you again.

    A dark bird perched on a branch
    Swooping season causes genuine injuries every year and turns suburban streets into a daily survival gauntlet.

    Cyclists wear zip ties pointing out of their helmets. Parents walk kids to school with their arms raised. The website Magpie Alert logged over 3,500 attacks in a single season. People have lost eyes. A toddler in Queensland died in 2021 after being startled by a swooping magpie and falling.

    They’re no joke, and they are a serious scheduling problem. And yet, outside of those months, they’re actually lovely creatures. (Swooping plovers and butcher birds also get an honorable mention. Same energy, smaller fan base.)

    Drop Bears

    Yes, the drop bears. But firstly, they don’t live in the cities. I don’t know why international folks think that. Much like koalas, they live in trees, and there aren’t many trees in cities.

    They are a big problem for bushwalkers and those living in bushland regions because they live up in the canopies and drop onto prey from a height. Locals know to look up when they stop to rest. Tourists don’t. The official advice is to spread Vegemite behind your ears or on your nose as a deterrent. The strong aroma is usually enough to keep them away.

    Huntsman Spiders & Bin Chickens

    Next are Huntsman spiders, who don’t make the international fear list because they’re not particularly venomous. They make the Australian fear list because one will appear on your car’s sun visor when you’re going 100 km/h down the highway, and you will drive straight into a ditch. Cause of death? Technically the ditch. Morally? The spider.

    And finally, “bin chickens” (the Australian White Ibis). Nobody fears them, and yet they are everywhere, and they are bold, and they will take food directly from your hand with the dead-eyed confidence of something that has fully abandoned the social contract. No recorded fatalities yet, but it does feel like only a matter of time.

    Navigating Real-Life Health & End-of-Life Risks?

    Get factual, supportive, and highly practical guidance from Sam on medical frameworks, Advanced Care Directives, and navigating unexpected health transitions.

    Book a Strategic Consultation with Sam

    The Actual Killers (What’s Putting Us in the Ground)

    So, if it’s not the animals on the tourism posters, what’s actually putting Australians in the ground? It reads like a rural insurance claim, not a wildlife documentary.

    Horses & Cattle

    Horses kill more Australians per year than any other animal—around 5 on average, mostly from falls or being thrown. They are in every state, ridden by people of all ages, and they weigh half a ton.

    A horse standing in a grassy field
    We regulate car seats for children, but put kids on a thousand-kilo animal with minimal safety gear and call it character building.

    We have normalized the risk entirely. Helmets are compulsory in some venues and optional in others. We regulate car seats for children, but put kids on a thousand-kilo animal with minimal safety gear and call it character building.

    Cattle produce similar numbers: kicks, crushes, trampling. Farmers and rodeo workers are particularly exposed, and absolutely no one is making a dramatic documentary series about that.

    Bees, Wasps & Dogs

    Bees and wasps account for around 2 to 5 deaths annually from anaphylactic shock. Anaphylaxis is the great equalizer. An insect the size of a thumbnail can kill a full-grown adult in under half an hour. Allergic reactions are completely unpredictable. You can be stung 50 times without any incident and die on the 51st sting. People with known allergies routinely don’t carry their EpiPens. That’s a fixable problem that we mostly just haven’t fixed.

    Dogs account for 1 to 2 deaths per year, mostly children. Australia euthanizes tens of thousands of dogs annually for aggression, and we still lose people. Go figure.

    Kangaroos (Letting Physics Do the Rest)

    Kangaroos don’t usually rack up fatalities from direct attacks, but from car collisions. They cause hundreds of accidents a year and multiple deaths.

    A dark rural road at night
    The roo doesn’t mean to kill you. It just exists at exactly bonnet height on a dark road and stares into your headlights with complete philosophical detachment.

    The roo doesn’t mean to kill you. It just exists at exactly bonnet height on a dark road, stares into your headlights with complete philosophical detachment, and lets physics do the rest.

    And before you feel too sorry for them, a large male red kangaroo stands at 2 meters tall, weighs 90 kilos, and can disembowel a dog with one kick. They’re not helpless. They’ve just decided that cars aren’t worth the effort.

    The Stingray Beef & The Great Emu War

    Stingrays are not on anyone’s fear list. They’re flat. They’re shy. They spend most of their time doing nothing on the seafloor. Globally, fatal stingray strikes are extraordinarily rare.

    And then in 2006, one of them took out Steve Irwin, the one man on Earth who seemed genuinely unkillable. A bloke who wrestled crocodiles for fun and treated venomous snakes like a mildly rude house guest… gone to a stingray. Australia has had a beef with the stingray ever since. It’s tense. We’re currently in negotiations, but nothing’s been resolved. And frankly, the stingray doesn’t seem to be all that interested in a settlement.

    And where to start with the Emus? They can’t fly. They have no natural predators in Australia. They are essentially large, aggressive feather tubes with the problem-solving ability of a middle manager and absolutely no fear of consequences. They mostly cause property damage and vehicle collisions rather than direct fatalities.

    But in 1932, the Australian government decided that enough was enough and deployed actual soldiers with machine guns to cull them. The emus won decisively. The military withdrew in embarrassment after 11 days. So naturally, in 1948, Australia tried again. Same result. We lost to the same bloody bird twice with guns.

    The emus have never acknowledged the conflict. They were just standing around being emus, and two separate governments declared war on them, and both went home quietly. They have been here long before people, and they’ll be here long after we’re gone, standing in the middle of the road, staring at nothing, completely unbothered.

    Why Are We So Wrong?

    This isn’t accidental. Our brains are wired to fear things that *look* dangerous. Things with fangs, venom, and prehistoric menace. There’s even a psychological concept for it: we judge the likelihood of something by how easily an example comes to mind.

    Shark attacks are constantly in the headlines. “Man thrown from horse” makes page 12 in the local newspaper.

    The tourism industry hasn’t helped. “Australia, where everything wants to kill you” runs itself as a marketing line. Every international travel article lists the funnel-web spider, the eastern brown, the box jellyfish. No one’s clicking on a story about bees.

    Media logic does the rest. A crocodile death is a massive story. A horse riding accident is a tragedy, but it doesn’t go viral. So, the crocodile ends up with the lethal reputation, and the horse wins a ribbon at the Royal Easter Show.

    The Animals That Actually Deserve More Respect

    The Eastern Brown snake genuinely earns its reputation. It’s responsible for more snakebite deaths than any other species in Australia. It’s common in both suburban and rural areas. It’s fast, and unlike many snakes, it doesn’t retreat. It escalates. If there’s one animal on the feared list that belongs there, it’s this one.

    Bees and wasps deserve dramatically more caution than they get. Your first anaphylactic reaction will happen without warning.

    Magpies deserve formal recognition as a public health issue. Swooping season causes real injuries every year and receives about the same institutional attention as a minor pothole. Meanwhile, there are national strategies for an animal that hasn’t killed anyone since the 1920s.

    And the drop bear… look, all we’re saying is: Vegemite behind the ears. Don’t look up into the canopy for too long. And if you hear something move in the gum trees above you, walk. Don’t run. Running will trigger the instinct.

    The gap between the animals we fear and the animals that actually kill us is enormous. And it’s not random. It’s a product of how dramatic something looks versus how often it actually causes harm.

    Snakes look like death. Horses look like pets. Bees look like, well, bees. And magpies look like a bird until it takes your eye out on the way to work.

    None of this means you should be swimming with sharks or handling an Eastern Brown. Respect the dangerous ones. But if you spend time around horses, cattle, bees, or—and we cannot stress this enough—if you travel through magpie territory between August and November during a holiday, that’s where your caution should actually live.

    So here’s the question for the comments: Which animal do you think gets the least respect but is an actual genuine threat? Drop it below.

    Let’s talk death.

    Practical Death Literacy Tools

    Equip yourself and your family with organized frameworks before a crisis limits your choices.

    Advance Care Workbook

    Step-by-step professional guidance for cleanly and legally documenting your final medical and personal wishes.

    Get the Workbook →

    Death Literacy Checklist

    A simple, actionable self-assessment tool designed for individuals navigating complex healthcare and institutional systems.

    Download Free Tool →
  • Why “Celebrations of Life” Are Horrible for You

    Why “Celebrations of Life” Are Horrible for You

    let’s talk death

    In today’s world, the West loves to complain about the funeral industry taking their money, and they love to act smart with their “funerals are pointless anyway” remarks. Both points fall apart with 30 seconds of critical thinking outside the death avoidance bubble our society has created.

    <
    title=”The Lie of the Pointless Funeral” allow=”accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture” allowfullscreen=””>

    For those of you who have just found us, welcome to Taboo Education. We post videos every Friday looking at death from every possible angle. So, if that sounds like your cup of tea, consider subscribing to the channel.

    Instead, the West has decided that since funerals are pointless, we’ll create the “celebration of life” instead. These upbeat, no-one-is-allowed-to-be-sad, everything-bright-colors funeral replacements are the reasons why you feel funerals are pointless. So, let’s take a look at what funerals were actually supposed to do, why you refuse to do it, and why celebrations of life are soulless, death-avoidant black holes that are actually horrible for your wellbeing.

    What is a Funeral Actually For?

    Before asking what’s gone wrong with funerals, it’s worth asking what they were always supposed to do. The answer is not, despite persistent cynicism, primarily to generate revenue for an industry. We actually have a video about that. That critique, while not entirely without merit, is simply an easy scapegoat.

    Funerals predate the funeral industry by millennia. Every human culture in recorded history has had them, in forms ranging from the elaborate to the minimal, but present nonetheless. That kind of universality suggests a funeral is meeting a need that is genuinely human.

    People gathered together supporting one another
    A funeral gathers the community, signaling that a loss is a collective event and not merely a private one.

    A funeral does several things at once. It marks the reality of the death, making it concrete and undeniable for the people who love the deceased. It gathers the community, signaling that a loss is a collective event and not merely a private one. It gives the bereaved a structured role to occupy at the moment when they are feeling disorientated, so that the body knows what to do even when the mind cannot function.

    And importantly, it opens a sanctioned space for grief. A place and a time where weeping, wailing, and visible sorrow are not just permitted, but expected.

    The ritual does not create the grief. The grief was already there. The ritual simply gives it somewhere to go. This last function is perhaps the most important and the most underappreciated. Human beings need permission to feel their feelings in public. The funeral is one of the few remaining social occasions where grief is the correct response. Where breaking down is not an overreaction, but an entirely proportionate one.

    When the ritual is working as it should, the mourner is held by the community and by the structure of the occasion itself. They are not alone in their loss. The community has shown up, and the form of the gathering tells everyone present what their role is: to bear witness, to stay close, and to absorb some of the weight.

    Navigating End-of-Life Planning?

    Get supportive, highly practical, and completely non-judgmental guidance on individual end-of-life pathways, navigating grief, and making informed decisions when it matters most.

    Book a Strategic Consultation with Sam

    The “Invisible Death” Trap

    The celebration of life did not emerge out of nowhere. It is the latest expression of a cultural tendency that has been building in the West for over a century.

    The historian Philippe Ariès traced this arc in detail, describing how Western attitudes towards death shifted from what he calls the “tame death” of the medieval period—accepted, public, and communal—towards what he termed the “invisible death” of the modern day, in which dying is hidden in hospitals, grief is privatized, and death itself is treated as something between an embarrassment and a failure.

    A solitary figure standing in silhouette
    Ernest Becker argued that much of human culture is an elaborate, unconscious defense against the terror of our own mortality.

    Ernest Becker, writing The Denial of Death in 1973, went further, arguing that much of human culture is an elaborate and largely unconscious defense against the terror of our own mortality. We build civilizations, leave legacies, follow religions, and construct meaning precisely because we cannot bear to sit with the knowledge that we will die.

    The problem with defenses, as any psychologist will note, is that they work in the short term and accumulate cost over time. A society that has become very good at not thinking about death does not suffer any less grief. It simply suffers it less well.

    The celebration of life is a near-perfect expression of this tendency. The language alone is doing a vast amount of work. “Celebration of life” orientates attention towards the past, towards the fact that someone once lived, away from the present, the fact that they have died.

    Death gets mentioned as little as possible. The word “funeral” is increasingly avoided, as if it carries some sort of contagion. The result is a ceremony that gestures at loss while systematically refusing to look directly at it.

    The Problem with Positivity and “No Crying”

    There is a specific instruction that has become common in recent decades, issued in advance by the aging or dying and dutifully honored by those left behind. And it goes something like: “No sad faces at my funeral. Bright colors only. I want people to celebrate, not mourn.”

    The instinct behind this is almost always kind. People do not want to cause pain. They do not want to be remembered in an atmosphere of misery. They want to be associated with joy. But the instruction, however lovingly intended, contains several problems worth examining.

    The first is that it tries to author an experience for people who are in the middle of their own horrible experience. The mourners at a funeral are not there to perform the deceased’s preferred self-image. They are there because they’re in pain, because someone they loved is gone, and because they need a space to acknowledge that.

    When the deceased has issued instructions about the emotional tone of the occasion, the mourners are placed in an impossible position. If they cry, they feel they have violated the wishes of the person they are grieving. Even though that person is rotting in a box right in front of them and ain’t coming back to complain, they are managing the guilt on top of the grief, which is a remarkable burden to place on someone in the acute phase of loss.

    Person looking contemplative and emotional
    You do not cry at a funeral because you have decided to. You cry because someone you love is gone and your body knows it before your mind can catch up.

    The second problem is that grief is not a choice. When someone asks you not to cry at their funeral, they are asking you to suppress the involuntary physiological and emotional response to one of the worst experiences of your life. The instruction mistakes grief for a performance when it is, in fact, a reflex—the body’s honest response to loss.

    The third problem is that the “no crying” directive is almost certainly encoding something the person issuing it had not quite fully examined. There is guilt in that. The fear of having burdened the mourners with their grief. There is an identity in it. The desire to be remembered as someone joyful and light rather than heavy. And there is, underneath both of those, a confrontation with mortality that the person could not quite complete.

    The thought of a room full of weeping people and a coffin, a procession, the full weight of the ritual is confronting precisely because it makes death feel real and final and significant. A party is easier to imagine. So the instruction is partly issued to comfort the dying person themselves, a way of making their own death more bearable to contemplate.

    Celebration vs. True Mourning

    It is important to be clear that joy and grief are not opposites, and that a genuinely mourning funeral can contain both.

    The Irish wake, the New Orleans jazz funeral, the raucous storytelling that follows a burial in many cultures—these are not failures of mourning. They are expressions of it. Laughter at a wake is real laughter, but it grows out of grief. Everyone in the room knows why they are there. The sorrow is the water they are swimming in. And the joy is what occasionally breaks through it.

    That is a very different thing from a ceremony designed to skip the swimming altogether and go straight to the fun.

    The celebration of life often attempts exactly that skip. It reaches for the uplift without earning it through the genuine reckoning of the loss. The result is an occasion that can feel for many mourners vaguely fraudulent.

    People clinking glasses at an upbeat gathering
    Standing in bright clothing holding a glass of something sparkling while feeling your grief has nowhere to go creates a vaguely fraudulent experience.

    They are standing in a room full of people in bright clothing, holding a glass of something sparkling, listening to the deceased’s favorite playlist and feeling their grief with nowhere to put it. The ritual has not made space for what they are actually experiencing. It has, with the best of intentions, closed that space off.

    This matters because grief with no container doesn’t disappear. It relocates. Research on bereavement consistently finds that suppressed or unexpressed grief tends to resurface later, often in ways that are harder to recognize and address. The mourning ritual that looks grim from the outside is doing real psychological work. It is giving grief somewhere to go in the presence of a community, which is the condition under which human beings have always processed loss the most effectively.

    The Collapse of Communal Grief

    Underneath all of this lies something that rarely gets named directly, but is felt by almost everyone that has attended a modern funeral: We no longer know what to do with a grieving person.

    For most of human history, communities carried inherent wisdom about how to sit with loss. You stayed. You brought food. You did not try to fix it, or reframe it, or find the silver lining. You simply remained present in the grief with the person who was suffering with it.

    Mourning periods had structures, often lengthy ones, that told the community how long to stay close and signaled to the bereaved that their loss was socially recognized and supported. The Jewish shiva, the wearing of black for a year, the formal period of mourning observed across many cultures. These are not arbitrary customs. They are technologies for managing collective grief, developed and refined over generations.

    Most of that inherited structure has been dismantled by the secular West, and nothing has replaced it. What remains is a profound social awkwardness around grief. People genuinely do not know what to do or say.

    The instinct is to comfort, to fix, to move the grieving person towards feeling better as quickly as possible because their pain is uncomfortable to witness, and there is no longer a shared script for simply being present in it.

    “He’s in a better place.” “At least she didn’t suffer.” “You’ll get through this.”

    All of these are ways to try and close the wound rather than acknowledge it, driven not by cruelty, but by helplessness.

    The result is that a funeral where people are visibly and inconsolably grieving has become genuinely frightening to many mourners. Not because they don’t care, but because they have no idea what to do with it. The celebration of life format removes that risk. Everyone stays at a manageable emotional temperature. No one has to do the hard thing, which is to stay present with another person’s pain without trying to resolve it.

    The Unspoken Rules of Modern Funerals

    There is an unspoken set of rules operating in modern funerals. You do not cry too hard, and if you do cry, you recover quickly. Accept comfort graciously, and then signal that you’re all right. Do not make it too real for everyone else. Perform grief in a way that does not require anything of the people around you.

    A person looking socially distant and isolated
    The ordinary social skill of simply being with someone who is suffering has quietly atrophied because we have decided it requires clinical expertise.

    That is, when stated plainly, a remarkably cruel set of expectations to place on someone in the acute phase of loss. And yet, it operates almost invisibly, enforced not by anyone’s explicit intention, but by the collective discomfort of a community that has lost the ritual scaffolding and doesn’t know what to stand in its absence.

    The therapeutic culture that surrounds grief has paradoxically made this worse in some respects. We live in an era that talks about mental health more than any of the previous generations and yet have less practical capacity to sit with another person’s pain than most cultures that preceded us.

    We have professionalized grief. It belongs to therapists, counselors, and support groups. The ordinary social skill of simply being with someone who is suffering has quietly atrophied because we have decided it requires expertise. It requires someone else to do the work for us.

    The community shows up for the funeral and then disperses, often with visible relief, leaving the bereaved to manage the real weight of it alone.

    The Widow at Home Alone

    This is the sharpest version of the argument and it’s worth stating without softening: A celebration of life is not a gift to the bereaved. It’s a gift to everyone else in the room.

    Western culture has spent several decades celebrating individualism, teaching that community is optional, that your feelings are your business and other people’s feelings are their business. That is not merely a political or economic philosophy. It has seeped into the texture of everyday life, into what we feel we can reasonably ask of another person and what we feel obligated to give.

    The answer, increasingly, is not very much.

    We have quietly renegotiated the social contract around suffering downward to the point where showing up once, briefly, in brightly colored clothing, and then going home is considered adequate. It’s not adequate. It has never been adequate. But we have collectively agreed to pretend otherwise because the alternative asks something of us that we are no longer culturally equipped or willing to give. And then people complain that they’re lonely.

    Consider what actually happens. Someone has just lost their partner. The person they built their entire life alongside. The person they slept next to, argued with, made plans to grow old together with. The absence is not just emotional. It is physical, spatial, domestic.

    The house sounds different. The bed is wrong. There’s no one to tell things to.

    Person sitting alone in a quiet room
    Grief is not an event. It is a new permanent texture of every single day. The house sounds different. The bed is wrong.

    The grief is not an event. It is a new permanent texture of every single day. And what does that person get? A party that they helped to plan and pay for, in colors they didn’t choose, for the comfort of the people who will drive home afterwards and not think about them again till Christmas.

    Then they go home alone to a house that sounds different to deal with their pain alone.

    That is a collective failure. Not anyone’s individual failure, but a failure of what we have decided a community means and what we are willing to do for one another.

    The Ultimate Cost

    The funeral industry does profit from grief, and that critique has merit, but it is also a distraction from something more uncomfortable. The celebration of life is not cheaper than a funeral in any meaningful sense. It still costs money, often a great deal of it.

    What it purchases, additionally, is a curated experience of not-quite-grieving together. You pay for convenience. You’re paying, in other words, for an occasion carefully arranged to keep everyone emotionally safe.

    The money is real. The function is not.

    A genuine mourning ritual does not require significant expenditure. We’ve done a few videos on this on how to have an affordable funeral. No, it requires presence. It requires people staying. It requires the community absorbing some of the unbearable weight of loss by simply refusing to leave the bereaved person alone with it.

    That costs nothing except time and the willingness to be uncomfortable, which is precisely why so many people no longer do it. We have decided without quite saying it that grief is the griever’s problem. Your loss belongs to you. It is your emotional event to manage, ideally with professional support, ideally without making too many demands of the people around you.

    The community will come to the party, raise a glass, say “he would have wanted this,” and consider their obligation discharged.

    But grief is not a private event. It never has been. The idea that it is historically bizarre, compulsory thin, and psychologically damaging. Loss happens to a person within a web of relationships. And whatever healing is possible happens within that same web.

    It requires other people to stay close, to keep showing up, and to sit with difficulty without flinching. It requires a community to say with its actual physical presence over actual time that your loss matters to us and we’re not going anywhere.

    A real mourning ritual is not comfortable. It asks you to look at death, to sit with someone in acute pain, and to stay where every social instinct tells you that you have done your bit and you can leave. It asks you to say nothing useful because there is nothing useful to say, and to be there anyway. It asks you to put your own discomfort aside for the need of someone who is suffering in a way that you probably cannot fully imagine.

    That is genuinely hard.

    And we have built an entire alternative ceremony whose primary function is to let us off the hook, dress it up in language of honoring the deceased and celebrating a life. But the deceased does not need honoring. The deceased is gone.

    The person who needs something is the one who is still here, sitting in that house that sounds different, trying to understand how to live in a world that no longer contains the person they love the most.

    Silhouette of a person walking away down a path
    The person who needs something is the one who is still here, trying to understand how to live in a world that no longer contains the person they love the most.

    A funeral that flinches from the thing that it exists to address is not doing its job. The celebration of life is a kind gesture dressed up as a ritual. But kindness and ritual are not the same thing.

    A ritual works because it is not optional, not personalized, not arranged to accommodate everyone’s comfort. It works because it is the same for everyone, because its forms are inherited rather than invented. And because it asks something of people who participate in it: it asks them to show up, to stay, to bear witness to loss together.

    When it is replaced by an occasion designed to keep everyone comfortable, to celebrate rather than mourn, to look forward rather than directly at the fact of death, something is lost and is genuinely hard to recover.

    The bereaved leaves without having been fully met in their grief. The community disperses without having done the work of collective mourning. And the death, the real event at the center of all of it, has been politely but firmly kept at arm’s length. This is why people think funerals are pointless.

    Grief in its most general form is not a mental health diagnosis. It is not a weakness. It is not something to be managed or minimalized or redirected towards celebration. It is love with nowhere to go. And it deserves a ritual built specifically to receive it.

    The funeral at its best and oldest was exactly that. What we have built in its place is something gentler, tidier, and considerably less useful.

    And with that, go talk death.

    Practical Death Literacy Tools

    Equip yourself and your family with organized frameworks before a crisis limits your choices.

    Advance Care Workbook

    Step-by-step professional guidance for cleanly and legally documenting your final medical and personal wishes.

    Get the Workbook →

    Death Literacy Checklist

    A simple, actionable self-assessment tool designed for individuals navigating complex organizational systems.

    Download Free Tool →
  • The Dark History of the Jehovah’s Witness Blood Ban

    The Dark History of the Jehovah’s Witness Blood Ban

    let’s talk death

    We are all aware of the rule in the Jehovah’s Witness faith about no blood transfusions. But do you know why? A few months ago, the religion made some big, unprecedented changes to this rule. So, while I’m updating you, let’s go through why they had this rule in the first place, how it has been changed recently, and why the medical community is opening their eyes now to the positives of their bloodless ways.

    Origins of the Movement

    Jehovah’s Witnesses originated near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in the 1870s when Charles T. Russell formed a movement based on a literal millennialist interpretation of the Bible. From those early days, the movement cultivated a strong sense of separateness from mainstream society, distinguished by the belief that the world around it was morally compromised and spiritually corrupt.

    An open Bible lying flat
    From its inception, the movement cultivated a strong sense of theological separateness from secular, mainstream society.

    The group relocated to Brooklyn, New York, in 1909 as it began to expand its organizational operations and publishing reach. Russell died in 1916 and was succeeded by Joseph F. Rutherford, a lawyer from Missouri who led the community through many of its early legal conflicts with the United States government until his death in 1942.

    Rutherford’s tenure was formative in a deeper sense. He oversaw a period of intense persecution of witnesses who refused military service and other civic obligations, which pushed the organization to draw sharper boundaries between itself and secular society. It was precisely this atmosphere of persecution and internal consolidation that created the doctrinal conditions for the later emergence of the blood transfusion prohibition.

    Witnesses had already developed a posture of conscientious objection to medical practices they considered pagan and contrary to scripture, including vaccinations. The blood doctrine that followed was not an isolated development, but an extension of this established pattern of resistance.

    The 1945 Declaration: Birth of the Blood Doctrine

    The first official statement on blood transfusions appeared in the Jehovah’s Witness official magazine, The Watchtower, on the 1st of July, 1945. It declared that blood transfusions were pagan and god-dishonoring. This was a pivotal and consequential moment.

    The timing was not coincidental. The Second World War had dramatically expanded the use of blood transfusions in military medicine, making the procedure far more visible and widely discussed than it had ever been before. The Watchtower Society’s ruling can be understood partly as a response to that cultural moment, drawing a clear line between faithful witnesses and a world that had embraced what the organization considered a violation of divine law.

    A clean, modern hospital hallway
    As medical technology advanced rapidly through the 20th century, the original blanket prohibition of whole blood had to be progressively refined.

    Over the following decades, the doctrine had to evolve continuously to keep pace with the advances of medicine. The original blanket prohibition of whole blood was progressively refined as new technologies emerged, including blood fractionation, autologous transfusions (using one’s own stored blood), and synthetic blood substitutes. Each innovation forced the organization to make theological rulings about where exactly the line was to be drawn between acceptable and prohibited treatments.

    The Biblical Basis

    The doctrine rests on several key scriptural passages. Jehovah’s Witnesses draw primarily from Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10, and Acts 15:28-29, interpreting these texts to mean that blood represents life itself and is sacred to God. They believe that once the blood has been removed from the body, the only divinely authorized use for it is in the atonement of sins.

    • The dietary logic runs from Genesis: “Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat.”
    • Through Leviticus: “I will certainly set my face against the one who is eating the blood.”
    • With a reliance on Acts 15:28-29 being particularly significant, because it extends the prohibition beyond the Old Testament dietary laws directly into the Christian era.

    A Watchtower article on the 1st of July 1951 made the critical leap, arguing that food and blood transfusions amount to the same thing insofar as both introduce substances into the body. Critics have long contested this reasoning, noting that digestion and intravenous transfusion are physiologically distinct processes, but the Watchtower Society held firm. Blood entering the body by any route was equally forbidden.

    Navigating Crucial Medical or Care Directives?

    Get supportive, highly practical, and completely non-judgmental guidance on individual end-of-life pathways, advanced health directives, and understanding your medical rights.

    Book a Strategic Consultation with Sam

    What is Prohibited and What is Allowed?

    Jehovah’s Witnesses organize blood into four primary components: red cells, white cells, platelets, and plasma. Members are expressly forbidden from receiving transfusions of whole blood, any of these four components, or anything whose primary function corresponds to any of those primary components.

    However, numerous exceptions have developed over the decades, producing a complex and at times contradictory landscape as to what is and is not permitted. Procedures in which blood leaves the body but remains in continuously flowing circuits, such as hemodialysis or cardiopulmonary bypass, are generally considered acceptable on the grounds that the blood outside the body can still be regarded as part of the believer’s body so long as the circuit is uninterrupted.

    These distinctions highlight a significant internal tension. The Watchtower’s position has always been that God’s standard requires that blood removed from the body must not be stored. And yet, the organization allows witnesses to use blood fractions derived from donated blood that has, by necessity, been stored. Witnesses are permitted to benefit from blood fractions, but are forbidden from donating blood themselves.

    Critics have argued this creates a profound moral inconsistency in which the organization benefits from a public blood supply system that it will not contribute to.

    Social Consequences and Legal Battlegrounds

    The social stakes of the blood doctrine have always been severe. Members who voluntarily accept a transfusion and are not considered repentant are regarded as having effectively disassociated themselves from the organization by abandoning its doctrines and are subsequently shunned by fellow members. For many witnesses, the prospect of shunning by family and community is a powerful deterrent to accepting treatment, even in life-threatening circumstances.

    Wooden legal gavel
    The refusal of blood transfusions has generated enormous legal controversy across every jurisdiction in which the witnesses reside.

    Additionally, a blood transfusion is considered a severe spiritual violation that can jeopardize their eternal salvation. The experience of a forced transfusion carries its own particular weight for believers. For a witness who accepts the doctrine, a court-ordered or medically administered transfusion is experienced not primarily as a physical violation, but as a spiritual one—the profound sense of having been robbed of the opportunity to demonstrate faithfulness, and having a moment of physical vulnerability exploited to impose a treatment at odds with their deeply held beliefs.

    The constitutional arguments advanced by witnesses rest on two main pillars: that forced transfusion constitutes an invasion to the right of privacy, and that it violates the individual’s freedom of religious practice.

    Cases involving children have been especially contentious, with courts in Australia, the UK, and the US frequently overriding a parent’s refusal when a minor’s life is at risk. Australian courts, in particular, have been highly consistent in authorizing transfusions for minors, even against the express wishes of both parents and, in some cases, the minor themselves.

    The Rise of Bloodless Medicine

    The Watchtower Society has long invested in supporting witnesses to access treatment that does not involve blood transfusions. It established hospital information services to provide education and facilitate bloodless surgery, and maintains hospital liaison committees worldwide to assist members.

    The broader medical community’s response to bloodless medicine has shifted considerably over the decades. What was once regarded as an extreme or even reckless approach to surgical care has increasingly been recognized as offering genuine benefits for all patients, not just those with religious objections.

    • A 2004 article in a medical education journal predicted that many of the techniques developed to use on Jehovah’s Witness patients would eventually become standard practice.
    • An article in the journal Heart, Lung, and Circulation in 2010 went further, arguing that bloodless surgery should be regarded not as a special accommodation for a minority religion, but as an integral part of everyday surgical practice.
    • Today, around 200 hospitals offer dedicated bloodless medicine and surgery programs.
    • Approximately 108,000 physicians have indicated a willingness to provide bloodless treatment when requested.

    Survival data has added further complexity to the debate. Studies have found that witnesses who underwent surgery without transfusion had a higher survival rate long-term compared to non-witnesses who received blood transfusions. While these figures do not establish that blood transfusions are inherently harmful, they do suggest that careful bloodless surgical practices can produce outcomes at least comparable to those achieved with transfusion, particularly in elective or planned procedures.

    Ongoing Debate and the March 2026 Policy Change

    The ethical and legal issues raised by the blood doctrine have never been fully resolved, and debate continues both outside and within the witness community. A notable organization, the Associated Jehovah’s Witnesses for Reform on Blood, has long argued from within the organization that the traditional blood doctrine rests on flawed biblical interpretation and has caused unnecessary deaths.

    One medical adviser from this organization has reported that since 1961, an estimated 33,246 Jehovah’s Witnesses died as a result of the blood prohibition—working out on average to roughly 594 deaths per year. Because most such deaths are recorded under their immediate medical cause (hemorrhage, severe anemia, etc.) rather than the underlying factor of transfusion refusal, the true toll is impossible to determine with absolute precision and is almost certainly underrepresented in official statistics.

    Medical professional analyzing data
    In a massive theological shift in March 2026, the governing body announced a “clarification” of teachings that alters decades of strict medical directives.

    In a significant and widely reported development, the governing body of Jehovah’s Witnesses announced in March 2026 what it described as a clarification of the teachings on blood. It now allows members to decide for themselves whether to have their own blood drawn and stored in advance for use in procedures, such as scheduled surgeries involving a significant risk of blood loss.

    The announcement was made via a video statement posted on the organization’s official website. Governing body member Garrett Losh stated, “Each Christian must decide for himself how his blood will be used in all medical and surgical care. This includes whether to allow his own blood to be removed, stored, and then given back to them.”

    The organization is retaining its wider ban against receiving transfusions of another person’s blood, which remains one of its most distinctive and controversial teachings. The change was particularly striking given the organization’s long-standing position. Older advanced medical directive forms explicitly told members to refuse blood transfusions under any circumstances and to absolutely refuse to pre-donate and store blood for later infusion.

    Critics have noted the apparent inconsistency: blood is still removed, stored, and reintroduced into the bloodstream, which was precisely what the previous doctrine strictly prohibited. Some former members welcome the changes as meaningful but ultimately insufficient.

    Mitch Melon, a former witness from Washington State, said, “I don’t think it goes far enough, but it is a significant change.” He noted that the policy still does not allow witnesses to accept donated blood in true emergencies. This means that members involved in violent accidents, experiencing massive trauma, or requiring multiple transfusions to treat conditions like certain childhood cancers remain entirely bound by the original ban.

    A further practical concern raised by critics is that the new allowance presupposes access to cutting-edge facilities capable of safely drawing and storing a patient’s own blood in advance for surgery—a luxury which is totally unavailable to many witnesses living in lower-income countries.

    The organization currently reports a United States membership of 1.3 million and a worldwide membership of 9.2 million across more than 200 countries and territories. The March 2026 announcement represents the most significant shift in the blood doctrine since its gradual liberalization policies around blood fractions in the 1990s and early 2000s. It is highly likely to prompt renewed debate, both legal and theological, about where the organization’s remaining bans should ultimately stand.

    Whether you agree with them or not, it is fascinating to watch how various religions attempt to work within the confines of the modern world.

    Practical Death Literacy Tools

    Equip yourself and your family with organized frameworks before a crisis limits your choices.

    Advance Care Workbook

    Step-by-step professional guidance for cleanly and legally documenting your final medical and personal wishes.

    Get the Workbook →

    Death Literacy Checklist

    A simple, actionable self-assessment tool designed for individuals navigating complex organizational systems.

    Download Free Tool →
  • Why Death Positivity Is Getting Toxic

    Why Death Positivity Is Getting Toxic

    let’s talk death

    Last week I was reading through my monthly stack of subscribed articles and came across a piece that is becoming all too common in the death positive movement. It was written by the kind of person who clearly missed the beginning of the meeting.

    The argument was that everyone, regardless of who you are, where you come from, or what you believe, should be adopting human composting. And that if you don’t, you are an immoral person who doesn’t care about the environment or the children. It was not subtle. It was poorly argued. And unfortunately, it was not a one-off.

    It shows up in all progressive movements where certain people try to take over and make a cause their entire identity. Environmentalism. Veganism. Wellness. Every single one of these started as a genuinely important set of ideas. And every single one of them, at some point, attracted a crowd more interested in moral rank than actual outcomes. The death positive movement is no different.

    How the Movement Built Real Change

    Let’s be clear from the start. The death positive movement produced real, meaningful change. It still does. It pushed back against a funeral industry that had spent decades commercialising grief. It pushed back on the medical field over medicalising death. It encouraged people to talk openly about death instead of treating it like a failure.

    It created and pushed for genuine alternatives to traditional burial: natural burial, alkaline hydrolysis, human composting, home funerals. These are good options. The people who built this movement did important work and continue to do so. Full stop. But movements don’t stay still. They grow. And sometimes what grows in is not what anyone intended.

    Navigating End-of-Life Matters?

    Get factual, non-judgmental, and supportive guidance on Advanced Care Directives, local resources, and options for individual end-of-life planning and bereavement.

    Book a Consultation with Sam

    The Rise of the Performance Crowd

    At some point, a particular type of person discovered the death positive movement and decided it was exactly what they’d been looking for. Not because they were processing grief or working in end-of-life care, but because it offered a moral identity with visible markers of compliance.

    You can spot them by a few reliable tells. They don’t just prefer natural burial. They imply, with great warmth and very little subtlety, that anyone who doesn’t prefer it is failing their family, failing the environment, or failing to have properly confronted their own mortality.

    They’ve developed an aesthetic vocabulary that functions as a kind of ideological passport. “Meaningful.” “Intentional.” “Connected.” “Returning to the earth.” If you’re using these words, you’re in.

    If you’re arranging a conventional funeral because that’s what your Catholic mother wanted, because it’s what your Vietnamese family has always done, or because you are already drowning in grief and you don’t have the bandwidth to investigate composting options right now — you are, apparently, doing death wrong.

    The Problem with Making Grief a Performance Review

    Here’s what this newer crowd completely ignores: the original advocates weren’t claiming to have invented natural burial. They were saying: we broke something that most of the world never broke, and we should try to get it back.

    Billions of people have been doing exactly this for centuries. Indigenous burial practices. Muslim funeral rites. Hindu cremation traditions. Jewish burial customs that prohibit embalming and require simple shrouds. These communities didn’t lose the thread. Their relationship with death was never severed. They don’t need to rediscover what they never lost.

    The newer, morally righteous wing of the movement doesn’t seem to know this. And so you get the strange spectacle of people talking about what, for much of the world, is just a Tuesday, as some sort of revolutionary concept.

    When a Cause Becomes an Identity

    Once a cause becomes an identity, it loses the ability to examine itself. Critique from outside gets dismissed as bad faith. Critique from inside gets treated as betrayal.

    The death positive movement’s original goal was access. Accessible information. Accessible options. Accessible conversations. The energy was supposed to go toward changing laws, building infrastructure, reducing costs, and normalising conversations that our culture had made needlessly taboo.

    A significant portion of the movement’s energy now goes toward performing correct death attitudes in front of other people who are performing correct death attitudes. This is not changing anything. This is not helping the grieving family who can’t afford the funeral home’s pricing.

    Practical Death Literacy Tools

    Download guides designed to kickstart the conversation with your family or team.

    Conversation Starter Guide

    Break the ice and safely open up end-of-life conversations.

    Download Free Resource →

    Advance Care Planning Workbook

    Step-by-step documentation to cleanly record your wishes.

    Get the Workbook →

    The Real Work vs. Saying the Right Words

    If you are advocating and it feels like work, it is a hard slog. If you are just yapping and telling people they are doing things wrong, you aren’t advocating. Here’s the simplest test: If someone makes a different choice than you about how to bury their dead, what’s your response? If it’s curiosity, genuine interest, or basic respect—that’s advocacy. If it’s a slight internal flinch and a quiet judgment—that’s performance.

    If you genuinely care about access, the energy should go toward infrastructure. It looks like showing up to a local council meeting when a natural burial ground hits zoning opposition. It looks like writing a submission to a government inquiry, or donating to the organisations doing the actual legal and policy heavy lifting rather than the ones with the nicest Instagram aesthetic.

    And here’s one that doesn’t cost anything: know when to shut up. Not every conversation about death is an invitation to share your views on disposal methods. The cause is bigger than your relationship to it, and making it your entire identity makes you insufferable and useless to be around.

    Better options for how we handle death are worth fighting for. But every movement that wants to remain useful has to be willing to examine its own worst tendencies. The least we can do is approach death with a bit more humility and a bit less virtue signalling.

  • How Australia Became a Death-Avoidant Culture

    How Australia Became a Death-Avoidant Culture

    The Consequences of Cultural and Institutional Choices

    In contemporary Australia, open discussions about death remain rare and often uncomfortable. While the country performs better than some, such as the United States, it still lags behind others like Ireland when it comes to fostering healthy, open attitudes about mortality. Avoidance of death—socially, emotionally, and institutionally—is not an ingrained cultural feature, but a relatively recent development. This makes it possible, and even promising, to reimagine our collective approach, provided we first understand how we arrived at this point.

    What Does Death Avoidance Look Like Today?

    Death avoidance in Australia operates across both personal and systemic levels. While individuals may insist they are not afraid of death, cultural patterns suggest otherwise. Many Australians avoid making end-of-life plans, such as drafting a will or completing an advance care directive. Parents often sidestep conversations about death with their children, fearing these talks may cause unnecessary distress. People delay medical appointments due to anxiety about serious diagnoses. Conversations about ageing, dying, or care preferences in later life are often postponed indefinitely, if they happen at all.

    Within healthcare, avoidance shows up in the way we manage the end of life. Most people die in hospitals rather than at home, often surrounded by machines instead of loved ones. Medical training focuses on cure and prolongation of life, not on the process of dying or supporting families through grief. In social settings, individuals experiencing loss frequently report feeling isolated or abandoned. Even funerals, once spaces for shared mourning, have increasingly shifted toward “celebrations of life,” which may minimise or obscure the emotional realities of grief.

    Although death is a universal part of human experience, very few Australians have seen a dead body or witnessed the process of dying. For something so common and inevitable, this absence of exposure creates a profound discomfort and unfamiliarity that reinforces our cultural silence.

    What Death Looked Like Before the Shift

    Historically, Australians had a far more intimate and community-centred relationship with death. Dying often occurred in the home, surrounded by family members who took on both emotional and practical roles. It was not unusual for children to be present, for neighbours to offer support, and for the deceased to remain in the home until burial. Families washed and dressed the body, built the coffin, and held the wake in their living rooms or local halls. Grief was expressed openly, with rituals that were embodied, local, and deeply connected to both land and kin. Death was seen as a part of life, not as a medical or logistical problem to be managed by professionals.

    Today, death is largely managed by institutions. Most people die in hospitals, cared for by medical staff instead of family. Funeral directors now handle tasks once carried out at home, and grief is expected to be quiet and brief. This shift was gradual, shaped by war, medicalisation, and the growth of the funeral industry.

    War and the Remaking of Grief

    The two World Wars reshaped how Australians experienced death and mourning. Prior to these global conflicts, most people died at home, and grief was open and supported by the local community. War, however, pushed death to distant battlefields. Families received news of deaths without bodies to bury or rituals to complete. The absence of physical remains meant a reliance on memorials, plaques, and public ceremonies in place of private mourning.

    Grief was reframed as a national, symbolic act. The rituals of remembrance became formal and collective, often managed by government or military institutions. In the process, personal grief was subdued. Emotional restraint became a sign of dignity. Loud or messy grief was discouraged. Over time, this style of grieving permeated civilian life, encouraging silence and stoicism in the face of loss.

    War also introduced the idea that death should be meaningful. Deaths on the battlefield were often described using language of sacrifice, honour, and national pride. In contrast, deaths from illness or ageing began to feel less justifiable. This set the stage for a cultural mindset in which death without purpose seemed like a failure, rather than a natural conclusion to life.

    The Medicalisation of Dying

    As Colonel Potter famously said in the television series MASH:

    “War advances bring medical advances.”

    Developments in medical science in the decades following the wars moved death from the home to the hospital. The emergence of antibiotics, surgery, life-support technology, and intensive care shifted the focus of healthcare toward the preservation and extension of life. As a result, dying became framed as a medical problem to be solved, rather than a human experience to be supported.

    Patients, often encouraged by families, underwent invasive and aggressive treatments in the hope of a cure, even when the chances were slim. Physicians, trained primarily to heal, were not always prepared to guide patients through dying. Conversations about prognosis, comfort care, or quality of life were frequently postponed or avoided altogether.

    This shift also changed the emotional terrain. Dying became an isolated experience behind hospital curtains, where children were rarely present and families were often unprepared. The body, once cared for by loved ones, was now managed by strangers. Grief became a private burden, rather than a shared process.

    Medicalisation deepened the belief that death was something to be resisted at all costs. A death that could not be prevented came to be seen as a failure—of the patient, the family, or the healthcare system. This has left many clinicians reluctant to acknowledge when death is approaching, and many families unprepared when it arrives.

    The Rise of the Funeral Industry

    Alongside the expansion of hospitals, the funeral industry grew rapidly. Where families and communities had once been responsible for preparing the dead, these tasks were now outsourced to professionals. Funeral directors offered services that were efficient, discreet, and emotionally contained.

    This shift brought convenience, but it also created distance. The tasks of washing the body, building the coffin, or digging the grave were once acts of care and farewell. Their removal from the home eroded the personal engagement many once had with death. Funerals became increasingly standardised, often following a scripted, formalised format that left little room for genuine emotional expression.

    The industry also contributed to social norms around grief. Polished services with tasteful speeches became the benchmark for what was considered “appropriate” grief. Loud mourning or overt displays of sorrow were discouraged. As a result, Australians lost many of the communal, expressive ways they once processed loss.

    Why This History Matters

    Understanding how we became a death-avoidant culture helps explain many challenges in our healthcare system and our private lives. It clarifies why families often feel lost during end-of-life care, why doctors may hesitate to raise the topic of dying, and why individuals are left without a language for grief.

    This history also reminds us that death avoidance is not inevitable. It is the product of social, political, and institutional decisions. The wars encouraged distance in grief. Medicine taught us to see death as a problem. The funeral industry taught us to step aside.

    But there are alternatives. We can bring death back into ordinary life—in homes, in education, and in community spaces. We can restore old rituals or create new ones. We can foster environments where people are allowed to talk about death without shame and mourn in ways that feel authentic.

    Becoming more comfortable with death is not about embracing despair. It is about reducing fear, building trust, and creating cultures of care. It is about meeting the end of life with presence and dignity, just as we do with birth, marriage, and other significant transitions.

    Moving Forward

    Australia is not unique in its discomfort with death. Many modern nations have followed similar paths, shaped by war, science, and capitalism. Yet because this shift occurred relatively recently, it is possible to change course.

    Reclaiming a healthier relationship with death will take effort across multiple sectors, including education, medicine, public health, and community leadership. But it can be done. Individuals, families, and professionals all contribute to a cultural reset that makes space for dying, grieving, and remembering.

    The work begins by talking about death more openly. It continues with action—writing wills, having honest conversations, creating supportive spaces for grief. And it ends, ideally, with a society that no longer avoids death, but meets it with clarity, compassion, and care.



    Virtual 1-Hour Personal Consultation

    Guidance Tailored to You

    A$49.00 / 60 min session

    During this 1-hour educational consultation, you will have the opportunity to delve into any death or dying related topic of your choice. This session aims to provide you with valuable insights and guidance. Our knowledgeable and compassionate expert will offer a personalised approach, addressing your specific concerns and questions.

    *Online meeting via Google Meet (Appt times shown in your device’s time zone). After payment, you’ll receive a confirmation email along with a questionnaire designed to better understand your unique needs and preferences. Please note our cancellation policy and terms upon booking.

    Book Now

    Recommended Educational Resources

  • The Dark Psychology of Death Fetishes

    The Dark Psychology of Death Fetishes

    Death and sex. They are humanity’s two greatest taboos, and two topics that make a vast majority of people deeply uncomfortable. We spend most of our lives avoiding talking about them individually—so what happens when they collide?

    Today, we are diving into the complex, disturbing, and utterly fascinating world of death-related paraphilias.

    As longtime followers will know, before I worked in hospice and death education, I was a psychosexual therapist. My work often centered around fetishes and sexual disorders, and in the rarest of cases, those issues overlapped with death.

    Before we dive in, let’s set a boundary: This post is educational. We are looking at this from a psychological and historical perspective to better understand the human mind. This is not a judgment, but rather an exploration of the darker corners of human sexuality.

    This is for those with critical thinking skills and a mature fascination with the human brain. Act accordingly.

    Kinks vs. Fetishes vs. Paraphilias: Know the Difference

    Before we get into specific examples, we need to clear up some terminology. People throw these words around interchangeably online, but clinically, they are very different levels of behavior.

    Here is the most basic breakdown:

    A Kink is a non-traditional sexual behavior used to spice things up. You can take it or leave it depending on your mood or partner.

    A Fetish is a kink that has become a deep, abiding, and often necessary element for you to achieve sexual arousal.

    A Paraphilia is a fetish that has escalated to the point where it results in negative life consequences.

    Think of it like alcohol. A kink is casual drinking on a Friday night—fun, but you don’t need it. A fetish is heavy drinking—you need it to have a good time. A paraphilia is alcoholism—it is unhealthy, problematic, and destroying your life or the lives of others.

    All the extreme paraphilias we are about to discuss have lesser “kink” versions that aren’t necessarily an issue. But when taken to the extreme, they become some of the most disturbing disorders recognized by psychology.

    Necrophilia: Sexual Attraction to Corpses

    Let’s start with the most well-known death-related paraphilia. Necrophilia is universally seen as a negative and is considered a massive taboo in virtually every society.

    Researchers break this down into levels. Some individuals purely fantasize about the dead but never act on it. Others are aroused simply by being in the same room as a corpse. And then, there are those who actually engage in sexual acts with dead bodies—either opportunistically (through their work) or predatorily (killing specifically to have access to a body).

    The Psychology: Why does this develop? Theories suggest it stems from an extreme need for control. A corpse can’t reject you, leave you, or judge you. It is often linked to severe trauma, a profound fear of abandonment, or psychopathy.

    (And for the record: Necrophilia is exceedingly rare. The vast majority of people who work in death care have absolutely zero sexual arousal toward corpses.)

    Lust Murder: Sexual Arousal from Homicide

    Also known as erotophonophilia, this is when someone experiences sexual arousal from committing murder or fantasizing about doing so.

    This is arguably the most dangerous paraphilia because it inherently requires harming others. The arousal comes from the ultimate control over another person’s life and death. Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and the BTK killer all exhibited signs of this, openly admitting to receiving sexual gratification from the act of killing.

    What makes this particularly chilling is how well these individuals can mask it. Many maintain normal jobs and relationships, making it incredibly difficult to identify the risk before they act on their urges.

    Flirting with Death: Edge Play & Asphyxiation

    Some people are sexually aroused by staging situations where they are in danger of being killed. This is edge play. It is vital to note that this is not suicidal intent. They don’t want to die; they are aroused by the adrenaline of a life-threatening simulation.

    A related, highly dangerous paraphilia is erotic asphyxiation (restricting oxygen to the brain to intensify climax).

    The danger here is that passing out happens quickly and unpredictably. Autoerotic asphyxiation results in hundreds of accidental deaths every year. Because they are often found by grieving family members, these accidental deaths are frequently mistaken for suicides. Brain damage or death can occur in just a few minutes.

    Vorarephilia: The Fantasy of Being Eaten

    Usually shortened to vore, this is the arousal or fantasy of being eaten alive, eating another person, or watching someone be eaten.

    In almost all cases, this stays purely in the realm of fantasy (artwork, stories, roleplay). It’s often about total submission, losing complete control, or extreme intimacy.

    Real-world cases are exceptionally rare, but they do happen. The most notorious is the 2001 Armin Meiwes case in Germany, where Meiwes posted an online ad seeking someone willing to be killed and eaten—and a willing volunteer actually responded.

    Hybristophilia: Attraction to Criminals

    We’ve all questioned this one at some point. Why do serial killers get love letters in prison?

    Often called “Bonnie and Clyde syndrome,” this is the sexual attraction to people who have committed serious, violent crimes. Ted Bundy and Richard Ramirez married women while incarcerated. Chris Watts (who murdered his pregnant wife and daughters) still receives love letters and money in prison.

    Theories suggest it’s driven by a desire to “fix” someone, the thrill of danger without the actual physical risk (because the person is locked up), or a need to feel special (“He killed all those people, but he loves me”).

    A Quick PSA: Somnophilia & Vampirism

    There are two other paraphilias we need to touch on, specifically because of the harm they cause.

    Somnophilia is sexual attraction to unconscious people. Because unconsciousness is a death-like state, it can intersect with necrophilia. Let’s be very clear: someone who is unconscious cannot consent. This is sexual assault. It is alarmingly common for individuals to drug their partners at night, or take advantage of deep sleepers, to engage in this behavior. Yes, it is abuse. Yes, it is illegal.

    Clinical Vampirism (Renfield’s syndrome) is sexual arousal to blood. While pop culture romanticizes it, real clinical cases are different. While some practice consensual bloodletting with partners (a kink), extreme paraphilia cases have led to violent assault and murder.

    Why are we talking about this?

    I know there are some who will ask, “Why are you giving attention to these disturbing subjects?” The answer is that ignoring them doesn’t make them go away.

    By understanding these paraphilias, we can better protect potential victims, improve forensic investigations, and—most importantly—reduce the stigma just enough so that people struggling with these intrusive thoughts seek professional help before they commit a crime.

    Having disturbing thoughts doesn’t make you a monster. Acting on them to harm others does.

    These paraphilias represent the most extreme intersections between human sexuality and psychology. Understanding them isn’t about normalizing harmful behavior; it’s about acknowledging reality so we can work toward prevention and treatment. It is a stark reminder that death continues to fascinate, terrify, and sometimes pathologically attract us in ways we still don’t fully understand.

    Go talk death.



    1-Hour Virtual Personal Consultation

    Private Educational Guidance Tailored to You

    A$295.00 A$195.00

    Delve into complex psychological profiles, end-of-life planning foundations, or hard-to-navigate death education topics in a confidential, completely objective setting. Our expert psychosexual and hospice lens offers structural insight without judgment.

    Book Consultation

    Recommended Educational Resources