Wow. I registered with this forum purely because I felt the need to respond to this. I am horrified by the close-minded and flat-out ignorant comments that have been made here. I wish I could say that I'm shocked, but sadly that would be a lie.
First of all, I'd like to point out something in answer to the people who are saying that a lifegem won't last forever. Clearly, you need to do some research. That's what I've been doing. (Coincidentally it's how I found this thread - I was researching the whole lifegem concept and synthetic diamonds in general.) Synthetic diamonds, which is what these are, are physically the same as natural diamonds. Seriously. No difference. Same hardness, same durability, everything. In fact, the main way to tell the difference, apparently, is that synthetic ones are often "too flawless". That is to say that they have less of the imperfections that many of lower grades of diamonds have. In other words, they're too perfect. Otherwise, exactly the same. In fact, most of the research into producing synthetic diamonds has been done for technology such as using diamond to make computer chips (processors could be faster without melting). Clearly the diamond used for scientific purposes must be chemically the same. The idea that natural diamonds are superior has been promoted by DeBeers to keep their stranglehold on the market. It doesn't really mean that natural diamonds ARE superior. It's just marketing. Synthetic and natural diamonds are exactly the same, physically speaking. More to the point, a synthetic diamond, including one made from dear Aunt Franny, will last every bit as long as a natural diamond. In addition, it is virtually impossible to tell the difference between the two with the naked eye or a jeweler's loupe. So do your research lest you look silly. With that out of the way, let's go on to more fascinating moral arguments, shall we?
How is it "sick" for someone to want to keep something to remember a loved one? If that's really how you feel, then throw away any heirloom that's ever been given to you. If you really believe there's something pitiful about a person wanting a physical memento of a loved one as comfort after they die, then you need to go take your deceased dad's pocket watch, your deceased grandparents' wedding rings, your great-grandfather's military medal, or your great-great-grandmother's pearls and trash them or pawn them. Otherwise you are a hypocrite. For that matter, burn all your old pictures. They're mementos too, right? That may sound harsh, but it's true. It's not uncommon, or weak, or pitiful for someone to want a keepsake of departed friends or family.
I can agree that it might be a touch creepy for the memento to actually be made from the person's remains. However, if it doesn't creep out the person who is having it done, how is it "wrong" or "sick" or "disgusting"? Of course, you can choose to have your organs removed from your body, your body filled with weird chemicals, all kinds of parts sewn up, have make-up ground into your skin, be put into a shiny box, and have all of your loved ones weep and stare. Then you get to be lowered into a big hole and covered with dirt and mud. Then your relatives can come visit you while you rot surrounded by a hundred other rotting corpses and cry over a stone that has your name carved on it. Personally, I think that's about a hundred times creepier than being burned to ash and put in a vase above a fireplace and it's about a thousand times creepier than being burned to ash and then having a scientific process turn carbon from that ash into a sparkly rock. I think it's about ten thousand times creepier than being burned to ash and scattered somewhere. That's my opinion, though. If the whole chemicals and worms thing brings you or your loved ones comfort, then it's not my business to say it's wrong or sick. In the same token, some religions may prohibit the burning of the dead, but if my religion doesn't and I'm not involving you, then it's none of your business to tell me that I'm doing wrong.
I'm also a little confused. Some people have said that it's stupid to want a lifegem because the person is not the body so the lifegem is just another rock, but then also said (in the same post) that the dead bodies deserve respect. How does that make sense? It's either one or the other. Unless you want to argue that the dead bodies deserve respect so as not to upset the living. In that case, though, if this is what comforts them, then why are you still on your high hobby horse? For that matter, to the people who do this, this IS respect. Read the feedback or watch the news clips that feature people who have done it. They think of it as a way to keep their loved one's memory alive in a beautiful way. How is that anything but respect?
Unless you're talking about the people running the business. Ok, I can agree that it's screwed up to try to make a dime from someone's grief. Except... how much do you think this process costs them? Could this kind of pressure and heat possibly be expensive to produce? Perhaps less of this is profit than you might think. Even if it is pure profit, how are these people sicker than coffin makers and funeral homes who charge a FORTUNE for funerals? At least with a lifegem you get something in exchange. At least they're trying to do something new and unique to comfort grieving families. That's not to say that they can't possibly be just as greedy as some of you think. I'm just pointing out that it's not the only possibility.
Yes, this idea has the possibility for some majorly creepy things. For instance, when I first read about it I immediately pictured a 90 year old rich man who would make his new young wife wear a necklace made of the diamonds from his old wife's remains. In bed. Both sick and slightly funny. And yes, one can think of someone trying to tell a kid "this ring was your grandpa." Screwed up. But realistically, who's going to try to explain that to a little kid? Wait until they're old enough to understand. Use some common sense people.
In fact, all of the creepy stuff is no longer necessary. They now have the technology to make these diamonds from some hair. That's it. A lock or so of hair. No one has to be dead. Although they can be. Apparently they auctioned off one of three diamonds made from some of Beethoven's hair. Seriously - google it. Or go to their site. However, the diamonds no longer HAVE to be made from dead people. A living person and their living fiance can send their hair off and have it mixed and then made into diamonds for their wedding rings. Perhaps a bit extreme, but can someone really deny that it's sweet and deeply symbolic? If you're just going to hold onto the idea that it isn't, try to think back to older movies and books. How common was it for someone to give their sweetheart a lock of hair? How many parents save a lock of hair from their baby's first haircut in a baby book?
As far as the possibility that the company just takes the ashes (or hair), throws them away, and sends a random synthetic diamond... that seems like it could be possible. However, the company has been around for years now (I first heard about them in 2003) and one would think, especially with all the news coverage, that they would have been exposed by now. It also seems like a stupidly huge risk to take, especially as they grow. Especially because they could just make the synthetic diamonds and sell them as synthetic diamonds. Why bother with the cover? That's only a little gain for a whole lot of risk.
Anyway, that's my two cents. It might be long & rambling, and it might be harsh, but at least it's decently researched and logically considered. I just hate the knee-jerk reaction that it's somehow morally wrong, especially since that's completely contradicted by the other complaint (often made by the same people) that a body is just a body. Just because you think it's creepy to wear a necklace made out of Aunt Marge doesn't mean that someone doesn't get a little bit of comfort from seeing it sparkle and being reminded of her smile. That's what it's really supposed to be about, right? Just comfort. And if you can't at least see the merit in that, there's something REALLY wrong.
Reply
Jul 20, 2008
