I think you have an incredibly romantic view of human death, and I don’t particularly want to disabuse you of that. So in that spirit, I will spare you the full gory details of what happens to donated human remains / medical cadavers.
Full Disclosure: In my personal collection I own a number of human bones (most but decidedly not all) given to me by the friend who’s bones they were. I use the fingers as a fidget toy sometimes. Also, the persecution of cannibalism is one of the great crimes of the western world. I include these to amuse characterize myself and, hopefully by extension, my explanations below.
To answer your questions:
If they don’t even know how old they are
The reason stores like The Bone Room do not have personal or demographic information on the remains they sell is because medical cadavers are anonymized. The Bone Room respects that, even in cases where they have purchased bones with a known provenance, and the topic is extremely complex. In short however, this means that the morality of the remains being sold is almost entirely dependent on the reputability of the person selling the remains, and retailers are comprehensively vetted and monitored because of this (there are obviously exceptions, but they are immensely rare).
[...] how can they know with any certainty the circumstances of their death?
It is extremely rare for educational remains to be initially sold as parts (though there are of course examples where it did happen). In the wild and vast majority of cases, an individual bone is the result of donated remains being reduced over time through repeated dissections to the point that only the bones are left. Because of this, it is safe to say that medical cadavers are the most exhaustively inspected remains on the planet, and signs of foul play would undoubtedly be noticed (there are quite a few examples of this).
Where in the world can you just find an unclaimed skull to sell?
China and India were the sources of most modern medical remains, though both countries have stopped the export of human remains. While yes, I cannot deny that there were instances where questionable methods were used to obtain the remains (the term is ‘anatomy murder’), I only know of two specific examples off the top of my head. The first is the Burke/Hare murders, which were committed during the early 1800s, and the second is the very famous Body Worlds exhibit (and hoo boy is that horrifying). Both of these were the impetus for sweeping global legislation to prevent similar situations, and Body Worlds is the primary reason China stopped exporting medical cadavers (because, and I am being uncharitable, it is hard to credibly deny your crimes against political prisoners when you ship the bodies of said prisoners to western countries with bullet holes in their skulls).
What are the chances that these skulls aren’t the skulls of poor people [...] ?
Aside from cadavers sourced from india and china (which again are no longer allowing the export of educational corpses), the remaining remains on the market come from legitimate pre-mortis consent given by the former owner of the parts in question. There are many, many examples of this - leaving your body to medicine/science is quite common in the US, and is an absolutely vital part of our medical infrastructure, and is generally considered a very noble choice to make. It is important to explain here that medical cadavers in the US are shown a degree of respect that can quite accurately be described as veneration, and disrespect of donated remains is emphatically not tolerated. And while US-sourced medical remains are rare to see sold outside of a medical context (US law is extremely strict on this matter), it does happen. I urge you to consider why you think this would not happen in other cultures, or why they would not have similar attitudes towards body donation and donated bodies.
A specific example of a non-western attitude towards funeral practices (and oh boy is that a complex topic) would be memorial Japmala beads - a Nepalese tradition whereby Japmala (kinda like a rosary but for asian-originating religions) are made from bones donated to the temple by a (usually devout) person and are thence sold to raise funds. While done with consent, remains sourced from this practice are not infrequently sold for medical use on the condition that when the bodies are reduced to bones, they be returned to the temple. If some are removed, or missing (say, because they are a good example of some condition), or they were destroyed as part of their work, this isn’t objectionable - so long as the remains are treated with respect, it’s seen as benefiting the community as a whole.
This does not specifically translate in this case, but I’ve included it as an example of ethical sourcing of remains that really does not gel with traditional western views on the subject.
And two brief points:
It doesn’t take much imagination to draw the conclusion that the ethics surrounding the buying and selling of human skulls [...] ?
I can imagine a great many awful things, but that does not mean they are happening. This specific argument has really irritated me, in a way that I strongly suspect is unfair.
[...] than the momentary entertainment of of the global 1% [...]
Mythbusters began almost a quarter century ago, and has had an outsized impact on science literacy and education. I think it’s unfair to characterize this as mere passing entertainment for the global 1% (and additionally it totally ignores the US’ cultural hegemony). Although certainly not a traditional use of human remains, the fact that we are still having a discussion about the topic twenty years later as a result of the episode could easily be argued to be a sign of the great impact the show has had on culture in general and thus tautologically justifies its own existence.
Alright, hopefully that was less tiring to read than it was to write.
In truth there’s only ever been one example of Prion disease transmission through cannibalism in humans - Kuru - a disease present in one incredibly tiny population (the Fore) in Paupa New Guinea, once. Incidentally, it was essentially only transmissible if you consumed the brain (or spine) of an infected person, which was the part reserved for young children / pregnant women. Stopping the practice of eating the brain would have effectively eliminated the disease, and conveniently the australian colonial government and local christian missionaries had recently outlawed funerary cannibalism. I’m sure that, by their reputation for extreme tolerance and cultural sensitivity, they would never exaggerate the dangers of cannibalism to back up their claims.
Anyways, no new cases of Kuru have occurred since the Fore stopped practicing funerary cannibalism (voluntarily, once someone stopped just beating them and took the time to explain what was happening) and the disease has essentially been eradicated. So, though it’s probably best not to eat another member of your species without checking to make sure they don’t have parasites (and hypothetically Creutzfeldt–Jakob’s disease. Although there’s never been a case of it being transmitted via cannibalism, that’s simply because it’s vanishingly extreme rarity means it’s likely never had a chance to happen), there’s no particular harm that’s going to happen because of it.
It’s almost like prion disease is rare. If you can get vCJD from eating meat of a cow that had BSE, you can very likely also get it from eating a human that had vCJD. Particularly given that it is proven to be transmissable via blood transfusion. And that cows can get BSE from eating other cows. BSE outbreaks are also pretty much the only instance in which we actually have enough data on cannibalism and the potential of disease spread.
The reason we don’t have many cases is that we don’t eat people and that the diseases that you’re likely to contract from doing so that don’t die from cooking are very rare. Add to that that even cultures that do consume human meat generally only do so to a very limited degree (and often from people that died violently rather than disease or old age), and of course not much has been recorded.
Since prions can occur spontaneously, it is very possible that a culture of frequently consuming human meat indiscriminately could even eventually lead to some new prion disease spreading which happens to transmit via meat consumption at an above average rate.
I think I said most of that already, I’m sorry I’m not quite sure what your point is. The risk of getting a prion disease is already extremely low, and even within that the majority of CJD infections are spontaneous. That’s sure the consensus in the literature, fwiw. An above average transmission rate would therefore be spectacularly unspectacular, given how few new cases would be needed to achieve that.
I don’t think it’s an “incredibly romantic” position to wonder if it’s disrespectful or scientifically necessary to wrap a human skull in pig skin and then punch it with a robotic fist until it collapses for television.
Nnnno, you can hold that position independent of your feelings towards death. I am curious why you think it’s unnecessary to do that, though. It’s (relatively) common to use human remains for destructive testing in all manner of experiments. Is the problem that they’re filming it instead of publishing the skull fracture patterns of knapped stone clubs in the journal of archeology? This really isn’t any worse than, say, seeing how long it takes for human remains to fully liquefy when sealed in plastic and subjected to various conditions (more importantly, the rate at which organs decay while submerged in that soup). Is it worse than melting regions of a body with acid to test a theoretical new skin-grafting technique? Flaying their skin and muscles from the bone then macerating it to a homogeneous mixture to test for microplastic distribution rates in the 35-40 Indonesian Female demographic? Anything that happens to remains on a body farm? Those are all real examples. Thinking what they did is somehow worse than what bodies normally go through, that’s the romantic view of death I was referring to.
Is the problem that they’re filming it instead of publishing the skull fracture patterns of knapped stone clubs in the journal of archeology?
The problem is that “what happens when a superhuman being with a ring on punches you in the forehead” isn’t exactly an important question to answer.
This really isn’t any worse than, say, seeing how long it takes for human remains to fully liquefy when sealed in plastic and subjected to various conditions (more importantly, the rate at which organs decay while submerged in that soup). Is it worse than melting regions of a body with acid to test a theoretical new skin-grafting technique? Flaying their skin and muscles from the bone then macerating it to a homogeneous mixture to test for microplastic distribution rates in the 35-40 Indonesian Female demographic?
Again, yes. As it is not for science, it is for entertainment. Adam and Jamie are not scientists, they are special effects artists. And they are not conducting experiments, they are staging entertainment. They are not in a lab, they are in a special effects warehouse. They are not publishing their findings to Nature, they are editing them for a television audience. Mythbusters is not hard science, it is science themed entertainment. Which is fine. But these skulls belonged to real people and there is a power dynamic involved in where they come from, and who buys them, and what they’re used for.
You can’t see the applicability in investigating the creation of surface indications of handheld objects on skin being subjected to various degrees of force, or demonstrating a method of investigating that question to the general television viewing public? Not even being slightly sarcastic or insincere here, I’m very curious what qualities qualify something as being ‘science’ to you. Not being in a lab excludes archaeology, and not publishing your findings to Nature excludes me the unfathomably vast majority of scientists from counting as ‘scientists’.
The priority on Mythbusters is always entertainment first, not science. It’s not best practices, it’s what is visually appealing. It’s not data driven, it’s shooting schedule. The skulls are not necessary tools, they are props. Adam Savage himself states that the goal is to “replicate the circumstances, then duplicate the results”, or in other words, create a spectical. Which again, is fine, but is not hard science. If you can’t tell the difference between hard science and television I don’t know what to do for you.
But I suspect you understand this already, and are motivated more by the excitement of eliciting a response by adopting a posture of “enlightened” objectivty, blowing the minds of us lesser beings, us superstitious cave dwellers, than by legitimately considering the finer points of profiting off of human remains or the needless destruction therof.
I think you have an incredibly romantic view of human death, and I don’t particularly want to disabuse you of that. So in that spirit, I will spare you the full gory details of what happens to donated human remains / medical cadavers.
Full Disclosure: In my personal collection I own a number of human bones (most but decidedly not all) given to me by the friend who’s bones they were. I use the fingers as a fidget toy sometimes. Also, the persecution of cannibalism is one of the great crimes of the western world. I include these to
amusecharacterize myself and, hopefully by extension, my explanations below.To answer your questions:
If they don’t even know how old they are
The reason stores like The Bone Room do not have personal or demographic information on the remains they sell is because medical cadavers are anonymized. The Bone Room respects that, even in cases where they have purchased bones with a known provenance, and the topic is extremely complex. In short however, this means that the morality of the remains being sold is almost entirely dependent on the reputability of the person selling the remains, and retailers are comprehensively vetted and monitored because of this (there are obviously exceptions, but they are immensely rare).
[...] how can they know with any certainty the circumstances of their death?
It is extremely rare for educational remains to be initially sold as parts (though there are of course examples where it did happen). In the wild and vast majority of cases, an individual bone is the result of donated remains being reduced over time through repeated dissections to the point that only the bones are left. Because of this, it is safe to say that medical cadavers are the most exhaustively inspected remains on the planet, and signs of foul play would undoubtedly be noticed (there are quite a few examples of this).
Where in the world can you just find an unclaimed skull to sell?
China and India were the sources of most modern medical remains, though both countries have stopped the export of human remains. While yes, I cannot deny that there were instances where questionable methods were used to obtain the remains (the term is ‘anatomy murder’), I only know of two specific examples off the top of my head. The first is the Burke/Hare murders, which were committed during the early 1800s, and the second is the very famous Body Worlds exhibit (and hoo boy is that horrifying). Both of these were the impetus for sweeping global legislation to prevent similar situations, and Body Worlds is the primary reason China stopped exporting medical cadavers (because, and I am being uncharitable, it is hard to credibly deny your crimes against political prisoners when you ship the bodies of said prisoners to western countries with bullet holes in their skulls).
What are the chances that these skulls aren’t the skulls of poor people [...] ?
Aside from cadavers sourced from india and china (which again are no longer allowing the export of educational corpses), the remaining remains on the market come from legitimate pre-mortis consent given by the former owner of the parts in question. There are many, many examples of this - leaving your body to medicine/science is quite common in the US, and is an absolutely vital part of our medical infrastructure, and is generally considered a very noble choice to make. It is important to explain here that medical cadavers in the US are shown a degree of respect that can quite accurately be described as veneration, and disrespect of donated remains is emphatically not tolerated. And while US-sourced medical remains are rare to see sold outside of a medical context (US law is extremely strict on this matter), it does happen. I urge you to consider why you think this would not happen in other cultures, or why they would not have similar attitudes towards body donation and donated bodies.
A specific example of a non-western attitude towards funeral practices (and oh boy is that a complex topic) would be memorial Japmala beads - a Nepalese tradition whereby Japmala (kinda like a rosary but for asian-originating religions) are made from bones donated to the temple by a (usually devout) person and are thence sold to raise funds. While done with consent, remains sourced from this practice are not infrequently sold for medical use on the condition that when the bodies are reduced to bones, they be returned to the temple. If some are removed, or missing (say, because they are a good example of some condition), or they were destroyed as part of their work, this isn’t objectionable - so long as the remains are treated with respect, it’s seen as benefiting the community as a whole.
This does not specifically translate in this case, but I’ve included it as an example of ethical sourcing of remains that really does not gel with traditional western views on the subject.
And two brief points:
It doesn’t take much imagination to draw the conclusion that the ethics surrounding the buying and selling of human skulls [...] ?
I can imagine a great many awful things, but that does not mean they are happening. This specific argument has really irritated me, in a way that I strongly suspect is unfair.
[...] than the momentary entertainment of of the global 1% [...]
Mythbusters began almost a quarter century ago, and has had an outsized impact on science literacy and education. I think it’s unfair to characterize this as mere passing entertainment for the global 1% (and additionally it totally ignores the US’ cultural hegemony). Although certainly not a traditional use of human remains, the fact that we are still having a discussion about the topic twenty years later as a result of the episode could easily be argued to be a sign of the great impact the show has had on culture in general and thus tautologically justifies its own existence.
Alright, hopefully that was less tiring to read than it was to write.
I agree with you in general but cannibalism is actually bad because prion disease. Not eating other people makes sense for simply health reasons.
I mean I still think if everyone involved consents it should be allowed, but there’s a good reason we don’t like it as a society.
That sure is the conventional wisdom, isn’t it?
In truth there’s only ever been one example of Prion disease transmission through cannibalism in humans - Kuru - a disease present in one incredibly tiny population (the Fore) in Paupa New Guinea, once. Incidentally, it was essentially only transmissible if you consumed the brain (or spine) of an infected person, which was the part reserved for young children / pregnant women. Stopping the practice of eating the brain would have effectively eliminated the disease, and conveniently the australian colonial government and local christian missionaries had recently outlawed funerary cannibalism. I’m sure that, by their reputation for extreme tolerance and cultural sensitivity, they would never exaggerate the dangers of cannibalism to back up their claims.
Anyways, no new cases of Kuru have occurred since the Fore stopped practicing funerary cannibalism (voluntarily, once someone stopped just beating them and took the time to explain what was happening) and the disease has essentially been eradicated. So, though it’s probably best not to eat another member of your species without checking to make sure they don’t have parasites (and hypothetically Creutzfeldt–Jakob’s disease. Although there’s never been a case of it being transmitted via cannibalism, that’s simply because it’s vanishingly extreme rarity means it’s likely never had a chance to happen), there’s no particular harm that’s going to happen because of it.
It’s almost like prion disease is rare. If you can get vCJD from eating meat of a cow that had BSE, you can very likely also get it from eating a human that had vCJD. Particularly given that it is proven to be transmissable via blood transfusion. And that cows can get BSE from eating other cows. BSE outbreaks are also pretty much the only instance in which we actually have enough data on cannibalism and the potential of disease spread.
The reason we don’t have many cases is that we don’t eat people and that the diseases that you’re likely to contract from doing so that don’t die from cooking are very rare. Add to that that even cultures that do consume human meat generally only do so to a very limited degree (and often from people that died violently rather than disease or old age), and of course not much has been recorded.
Since prions can occur spontaneously, it is very possible that a culture of frequently consuming human meat indiscriminately could even eventually lead to some new prion disease spreading which happens to transmit via meat consumption at an above average rate.
I think I said most of that already, I’m sorry I’m not quite sure what your point is. The risk of getting a prion disease is already extremely low, and even within that the majority of CJD infections are spontaneous. That’s sure the consensus in the literature, fwiw. An above average transmission rate would therefore be spectacularly unspectacular, given how few new cases would be needed to achieve that.
I don’t think it’s an “incredibly romantic” position to wonder if it’s disrespectful or scientifically necessary to wrap a human skull in pig skin and then punch it with a robotic fist until it collapses for television.
Nnnno, you can hold that position independent of your feelings towards death. I am curious why you think it’s unnecessary to do that, though. It’s (relatively) common to use human remains for destructive testing in all manner of experiments. Is the problem that they’re filming it instead of publishing the skull fracture patterns of knapped stone clubs in the journal of archeology? This really isn’t any worse than, say, seeing how long it takes for human remains to fully liquefy when sealed in plastic and subjected to various conditions (more importantly, the rate at which organs decay while submerged in that soup). Is it worse than melting regions of a body with acid to test a theoretical new skin-grafting technique? Flaying their skin and muscles from the bone then macerating it to a homogeneous mixture to test for microplastic distribution rates in the 35-40 Indonesian Female demographic? Anything that happens to remains on a body farm? Those are all real examples. Thinking what they did is somehow worse than what bodies normally go through, that’s the romantic view of death I was referring to.
The problem is that “what happens when a superhuman being with a ring on punches you in the forehead” isn’t exactly an important question to answer.
Again, yes. As it is not for science, it is for entertainment. Adam and Jamie are not scientists, they are special effects artists. And they are not conducting experiments, they are staging entertainment. They are not in a lab, they are in a special effects warehouse. They are not publishing their findings to Nature, they are editing them for a television audience. Mythbusters is not hard science, it is science themed entertainment. Which is fine. But these skulls belonged to real people and there is a power dynamic involved in where they come from, and who buys them, and what they’re used for.
You can’t see the applicability in investigating the creation of surface indications of handheld objects on skin being subjected to various degrees of force, or demonstrating a method of investigating that question to the general television viewing public? Not even being slightly sarcastic or insincere here, I’m very curious what qualities qualify something as being ‘science’ to you. Not being in a lab excludes archaeology, and not publishing your findings to Nature excludes
methe unfathomably vast majority of scientists from counting as ‘scientists’.The priority on Mythbusters is always entertainment first, not science. It’s not best practices, it’s what is visually appealing. It’s not data driven, it’s shooting schedule. The skulls are not necessary tools, they are props. Adam Savage himself states that the goal is to “replicate the circumstances, then duplicate the results”, or in other words, create a spectical. Which again, is fine, but is not hard science. If you can’t tell the difference between hard science and television I don’t know what to do for you.
But I suspect you understand this already, and are motivated more by the excitement of eliciting a response by adopting a posture of “enlightened” objectivty, blowing the minds of us lesser beings, us superstitious cave dwellers, than by legitimately considering the finer points of profiting off of human remains or the needless destruction therof.