Hmm, well, imagine this turning up on HN! I attend 1,2-maybe-3 funerals every year because of this exact project, and while every one of these is very different, the experience is always humbling.
Most of the time, literally nobody will show up. So, you'll pay your respect to the deceased using a short speech that is based on the information provided (which is usually pretty scarce, like: "found abandoned, identified, but no next-of-kin responded") complemented with Google and your imagination, and that's about it.
Then, there are the occasions where one or two people will attend. These are usually the hardest: you have to make clear that you don't actually know the first thing about the deceased, other than what Google told you, and that might be ENTIRELY wrong, but still have to deliver a coherent eulogy. Poems work best for these situations, and sometimes talking to the visitors is quite revealing as well.
And then, there are surprises, like a room full of people turning up, and you being able to elicit stories from family and friends, and basically having a regular funeral. But I admit that happened once in like the past decade or so.
Anyway, I think it's important that nobody is left to their final resting place without witnesses, and I also find avoiding that is a good way to engage with your community...
Something I feel like you've left out that is important: It's a gesture of respect, ensuring that no one's passing goes unnoticed.
And more of a comment to the other replies; a relative being unable to be contacted currently doesn't mean they don't care. Them finding out later and knowing, despite everything, they got a dignified ending might give them some peace. These funerals are not being held for the people attending them but at the same time you can't have a funeral without someone attending them.
It would probably be emotionally harder to spend the same energy on visiting the dying in hospice care but it would be more than symbolic. I'd rather have you show up and say "Hi, want to talk?" than go to my wake.
But since I don't do either you're a more compassionate person than me either way.
I notice several people saying the energy is better spent on hospice, but these seem like different activities to me?
Not everyone who dies spends time in hospice. Wikipedia says 7-8% die from accidents and violence, and over 30% die from heart disease, which would include sudden death due to things like heart attack. I'd also expect those who die in hospice to be less likely to have unattended/low-attendance funerals. Family and friends have time to plan and gather for the death because they know it's coming. They also have time to adjust start the grieving process.
If someone I knew died suddenly and I was the only one who could make it to their funeral, I would certainly appreciate having someone else there as a witness, even if they didn't know much about the deceased.
Internet commentators here trying to critique and optimise your time spent turning up to funerals to say something nice when nobody else has is a little disappointing.
As a thing that happens in the world, an empty funeral is a sad thing. Zoom out folks.
To be honest, I sort-of-expected a lot more conversation around the mechanics of the ceremony (after all, with a lonely funeral, you're the director!), which is a fascinating topic on its own.
Instead, reactions were more like those to a viral video: how dare you pay attention to someone who clearly doesn't deserve it? I did not manage to complete all responses I started typing out because of, well, feelings, but that strangely helped to justify the handful of hours I spend on this particular project every year...
When I zoom out, I wonder who you do it for, and indeed I come to the conclusion there is so much hatred in this world (including in and around Amsterdam), where people would be better off with giving each other love and attention while alive. There's also people who like solitude.
Whereas for the person doing this, it is a (hopefully fun) hobby, and totally within their right to do so. But to say they do it for others? No. After all, nobody notices, there is no meaningful impact whatsoever. Which, to be honest, is a sad realization.
You see, the last funeral I went to, was a good friend of my mother. We had to travel throughout the country. I didn't see her much past years, and she wasn't a friend of mine, but I liked her. Why did I go? To support my mother, and because she was a kind person as far as I knew her, and to support the family (her kids especially). In a lone funeral though, none of these factors apply.
There's another aspect when I zoom out: why funeral? Why not a different way to leave earth? There are much less impactful methods. Especially Amsterdam is a crowded city. The friend of my mother, for example, went to a natuurbegrafenis (natural burial?) which fits her character very much. It was beautiful.
Funerals are not for the dead. They are for the living to reconcile together with loss. The fact nobody shows up is telling about the state of society.
> Nobody notices, there is no meaningful impact whatsoever.
In the article it's stated that the project was started by some poets.
The world would be a cold(er), dark(er) place if we took a critically rational knife to every tiny instance of emotional reasoning.
I'm probably as rationalist as they come with regards to death, but if we're being critical we should also ask if we're questioning someone's community gesture in earnest or if we're just building another quick soapbox from which to broadcast our personal philosophy. Or (if there's even a distinction), to justify our own self interest when affronted by what could appear to be a selfless gesture.
Yeah, you can call something art and get away with it. Because suddenly it is 'an expression', and it does not matter what the use is. If you don't like it, it is a matter of 'taste' and if you don't agree with it 'you don't understand it' or 'you are looking at it from the wrong angle'.
The fact of matter is nobody would've known about this if it weren't in the media. That alone tells us these poets don't have reach/impact. I'm all for poetry and art (there's plethora of both which I've enjoyed). I'm also all for this project from a personal PoV, as an experiment, it is a free society where this is (apparently?) allowed.
But... do not pretend like it has reach/impact, cause it clearly hasn't. And do not tell me that I have to appreciate it when I clearly disagree with the principle of having a funeral in the first place.
All of this can be summed up in one acronym: LARPing. Perhaps without the LA, so just roleplaying would suffice.
> The world would be a cold(er), dark(er) place if we took a critically rational knife to every tiny instance of emotional reasoning.
There are loads of methods to make an impact on society on living beings, and there's only so much time.
Oddly enough, I actually tried to make something like this happen at my high school. My high school was a private and catholic one. We had a strong relationship with a lot of the local parishes and shelters and there was always a need for some paulbearers or otherwise "witnesses" for individuals with no family (older, homeless etc) who had passed.
Initially I would just attend a few burials. I did not say much (if anything), nor do much. I just tried reflecting on the person and hoped they found some peace and comfort.
When I tried getting it off the ground into something more formal we ran into some bureaucratic issues. Makes me kind of sad. Maybe I should reach back out and see if I could get it started again.
I don't understand this project. If you want people to feel less lonely, then do it while they are alive. I know I wouldn't want a funeral attended by strangers that didn't know me, for me it feels even sadder than a funeral attended by no-one.
What do the poets gain from this, an avenue to exercise their creativity? I'm sorry if I sound rude but I genuinely don't get it
This really depends on whether you think that someone who is dead has the ability to care.
In my opinion, funerals are for the living, for those left behind. And it’s those who don’t like the thought of non-attended funerals who organize this, and it’s really for them, not for the dead, whose lives are already over and done. Dignity is for those who can experience the dignity or lack thereof.
> Acedia comes from the latin acedia, which itself comes from the Greek akedia, which translates as “lack of care”. Prior to the Christian era, ~the word denoted the act of not burying one’s dead. Thus it connotes a dehumanization~. Man buries his dead; animals do not.
I imagine poetry as an often misanthropic and lonely hobby with virtually zero demand for it’s output. Whether written or spoken. Moreso now there are LLMs.
If I die unrespected and socially isolated I like the thought of donating my body to medicine while providing a funeral for poets to crash and get their words out. It is an absurd concept, it would be nice if they connected socially before I died and provided the respect they are concerned about. But given the constraints of their own lives it is nice knowing my lonely death could provide social support to probably introverted intelligent thoughtful people who are likely at risk of social isolation themself.
What is the purpose of a funeral is an interesting question. I think it is to help the living to socialise and forge ahead with a cohesive story of the deceased ‘s contribution to their own lives and to navigate the gap and hierarchy left in the modified social network. I’m guessing this process reduces grief and conflict as people feel loved and supported through the process.
If you die alone you leave no gap. I think it’s brilliant that Poets seized this opportunity to get a reading in and strengthen their own social network. They are also attributing value and respect to life, no matter how meaningless, which is another positive. The futility and absurdity of the human condition is a beautiful thing we all wrestle with whether socially connected or not and I think this is the point they are getting across while having someone listen to their poetry.
> I imagine poetry as an often misanthropic and lonely hobby with virtually zero demand for it’s output. Whether written or spoken. Moreso now there are LLMs.
(1) In any big city in the US, you can easily find poetry workshops/meeting groups. I'm currently in one (Boston), we read each others' poetry and talk about poetry every week. It's absolutely ridiculous to think there is no demand for poetry, poetry is one of the -- if not the -- oldest art forms, I mean yeah there are people who read poetry even in 2024. My generic bookstore still has a poetry section where I pay $$$ to exchange for poetry books. There is even a dedicated poetry book shop in Harvard Sq (i.e. they exclusively sell poetry books) and they pay the same (expensive Boston) rent any other business pays.
(2) LLMs write dogshit poetry. Comparing a "good" poem with a GPT-4 generated poem is like comparing "2001: Space Odyssey" and "The Room". Other than the fact that they're both arguably "movies" the quality difference is extremely obvious to people who are familiar with this art form.
about a decade ago i stood in as a pall bearer for someone who didn't have enough people and i decided it was important to be able to convene a party of six. found a fraternal organization and after some vetting, joined. it's what you make it, someone dies every couple of years and the loss of loose acquaintances and casual friends gives you some valuable perspective on lives lived and how to apply the time you are given. overall, recommend.
It is interesting that the first two comments on here are in relation to the living. Yes we should strive to reduce the suffering of the living to the fullest extent possible. But, just as much, the dead do deserve our attention and respect.
Is it “pointless” from some sort of “efficient use of time and resources”? Of course it is. That isn’t the point. Much of what gives meaning and purpose in life can be deemed “pointless” (music, fiction, liturgy). As Aristotle said:
> we are unleisurely in order to have leisure
The dignity of a person doesn’t cease when they are dead.
I used to look down on the "spiritual, but not religious" thing. But now I think that being spiritual means choosing to keep some things sacred. You can do this without believing in anything supernatural (I believe we all do to some extent or another).
> But, just as much, the dead do deserve our attention and respect.
They do in a way, but don't fool yourself that it's actually about the individual dead. It's about humanity in general, and the contribution – good, bad, or meaningless – that every single human life has made to our collective existence. It's good that we admire rainbows, but that doesn't mean we should revere every droplet of water.
> The dignity of a person doesn’t cease when they are dead.
It doesn't 'cease' inasmuch as it becomes a meaningless term. The dead don't have dignity, they are no longer people. It's the memories of the dead have dignity. Those memories are not a part of the dead, they are a part of the living that remember them.
I'm not sure you believe what you're saying. The dead don't have dignity? They aren't people anymore?
Treating the dead with dignity isn't solely for the sake of the dead, it's literally one of the oldest cultural norms of homo sapiens and perhaps even our homonid ancestors.
A homeless man is found dead outside city hall. He is nominally identified, but no relatives can be identified. What should the city do with him or - excuse me - his remains?
> Treating the dead with dignity isn't solely for the sake of the dead, it's literally one of the oldest cultural norms of homo sapiens and perhaps even our homonid ancestors.
When people thought the dead were in an afterlife wherein their circumstances depend on how good their funerary arrangements are? (There's people who still think that, by the way.)
> Is it “pointless” from some sort of “efficient use of time and resources”? Of course it is. That isn’t the point.
Small nitpick, but the "pointlessness" of it is actually the point! It's the sacrifice for no other reason that makes it a sacrifice and, thus, worthwhile.
Since they're already dead, it's arguably "never". Funerals exist for the survivors, and for the sake of society.
I wouldn't go as far as to say it's pointless, and I also don't believe it is. But "too little, too late" does apply here. All respect to the people who do it...
And at a wider level, I and many others on the internet have a renewed appreciation for human kindness and the depths of feeling that people can have for each other, for the value we can place on having lived.
No, contacting relatives might be impossible but become possible over the years, them knowing someone they lost contact with but still loved was given a proper burial might relieve some of the shock of finding out they're dead.
In a similar vein, the "Confrérie des Charitables de Saint-Éloi" was founded in Béthune (France) in 1188 during a plague epidemy and is still active today.
It's too late for the person to receive any benefit. They won't know or care.
If it's not accurate and you're making stuff up, this feels like a creative writing exercise to make the eulogizers feel good. Like getting a dopamine kick off of someone's macabre death.
I don't think I'd like if I knew people would do this to me.
Whatever the case, death sucks. Loneliness sucks. We have a lot of problems to solve.
> It's too late for the person to receive any benefit. They won't know or care.
Funerals are rarely for the dead, despite what we tell ourselves they are mostly for the living.
The benefit of the program, as I see it, is the reassurance that even if they lost everything tomorrow they will at least have a kind stranger show up to their funeral. I admit it’s not a lot to offer, but I find it to be a small consolation.
I think they're compatible. There is warmth and hope to be found (for the living) by considering that when they die, at least someone will care.
Knowing that someone will remember them, at least in a fashion, after they're gone is an important component of present-day [alive] mental wellbeing for many people.
Not really but sorta? I don't know that I'd call it contradiction so much as working with limited information.
When we are alive, we want to be acknowledged, at the very least. We might think about making arrangements for our stuff after we are gone, or trying to reconnect with someone to say goodbye before it's too late, etc. Knowing that we will die tends to inform some of our behavior when we're alive.
Now, we die, and that's that. Maybe we experience something after, maybe we don't. We don't know. There's lots of good guesses out there, some more coherent than others, but even if we lean toward oblivion, we cannot conceive of it, of non-existence.
So, we don't focus on that part. It's not a useful thing to examine and results in crisis for some. Instead, we focus on life, because that is knowable to a degree. Funerals are as much for the living as they are for the dead who were previously alive. We die knowing, or hoping maybe, that we will get acknowledgement that yes, we existed, after we pass, even if we do not directly experience it.
It's valid to want things (for) after you're dead and no longer exist.
It's an awkward concept, probably because you have to draw a line somewhere or else we'd be faced with extrapolating the wishes of millennia of dead people into the future, and crippled by trying to be respectful to what it seems they would have wanted but what they shouldn't really have any say over. They shouldn't have any say over stuff they're not involved in and don't understand (because they're dead). But being involved in stuff and understanding stuff doesn't have to cease exactly when you die and cease to function, it can be extrapolated beyond that a bit, based on what the person said back when they existed. Hence, last wills. Which largely get ignored and revised, and mostly only serve to distribute property, but a dead person's last wishes still do get respected, a bit, sometimes, and should be, because people are basically a bunch of ideas and their last wishes after death are ideas too.
That's an assumption, not a fact, and there are very rigorous philosophical arguments for personal immortality. But even given personal survival of death, and given that the remains are not technically a body anymore as a body is part of a living person (a severed hand, as long as it remains severed, it not a bona fide hand), it is still a show of respect for each person and the memory of them, of the fact of their existence. It isn't a matter of what they would or would not have wanted, or do or do not want, but our own relationship toward people. How we treat remains has enormous importance and consequences for our sense of human dignity; it both reflects and shapes that sense of dignity. Treating a corpse like trash translates into a devaluation of human life and the life of the person who has died. The implication is entailed. But treating it with respect also entails a conclusion: this was a person, and that we treat their remains with respect must mean that respect is due, and it is due because they are the remains of a human person. We consider attacks on statues and other images of the dead hateful and disrespectful. How much worse is it to attack and disrespect someone's remains! Religious images, also clearly not remains, are likewise disposed of in a respectful manner according to religious law and custom because of what they depict.
The Greeks felt you pass twice, first when you die and then when no one who said your name is still alive. So this might extend that second phase a little for this cohort.
Not at all. The living can know of this program, and know that this is true of them. It just seems like you're not a very spiritual or sentimental person when it comes to this topic, but I don't see how these statements contradict each other at all.
But: if you die, and nobody is around to eulogize you, would you rather be completely forgotten, or have a total stranger think about what happened to you and make a short-and-ultimately-meaningless speech accordingly?
> if you die, and nobody is around to eulogize you, would you rather be completely forgotten
If i die and there is nobody around to eulogize me then I am already forgotten.
> or have a total stranger think about what happened to you and make a short-and-ultimately-meaningless speech accordingly
I would prefer that not to happen. It feels fake.
Of course your time is your time, you spend it as you see it best fit, but haven’t you thought about reaching out to someone old and lonely before they die? That would feel to me much more likely to be meaningfull.
Differing perspectives I suppose. It's comforting to me to think that no one would be bothered if tomorrow I dropped dead. I'd actually be somewhat happy if they could just leave my corpse to rot somewhere in a field, or at least be disposed of in a landfill. No funeral, just compacted in the back of a garbage truck and then tossed as refuse.
Somewhat a little harsh, but at least I'd rather people worry about the living then fretting about my remains. By the point, I would be beyond caring.
Please forgive my ignorance but who pays for these funerals?
Here in the USA, funerals easily cost thousands of dollars, even without a casket or burial plot. To my knowledge, unclaimed remains end up in a mass grave with no fanfare.
It’s nice that in the Netherlands, EVERYONE gets a little dignity at the end, no matter who they were.
>Anyway, I think it's important that nobody is left to their final resting place without witnesses, and I also find avoiding that is a good way to engage with your community...
Funerals, like life, are for the living. The dead don't care -- they're dead.
This seems like a ghoulish way to make oneself feel more compassionate and caring, and does absolutely nothing for the deceased. As I said, they're dead -- they don't care.
That said, if using a dead person as as a prop to make you feel better about yourself, go for it. The dead person doesn't care -- they're dead. But pretending that it somehow makes a difference to the dead person is rather silly -- they're dead, they don't care.
> Yikes. Some people have different belief systems, some of those belief systems believe in the afterlife.
That is fine, there are also people who follow the Flat Earth Society (with 'members all around the globe') or who follow the flying spaghetti monster (my wife is a card carrying member). Honestly, I actually thought for quite some time the Flat Earth Society was a joke. I wonder how many members consider it as such.
Now, you may have such beliefs. They're not based on facts though. And when it comes to beliefs, you should prepare to get ridiculed as they're not fact-based. When you face such ridiculousness, you may stand fierce, and decide to prove your point. But if it is not a factual-based point, and you are unable to prove it, do not be surprised when you are not taken seriously.
For me, belief is very simple. I am not going to believe in a God, and I only need to look at the suffering happening in one country in this world (which I am not going to name since the name is irrelevant). The immense suffering of people in this country, on both sides of the conflict, leads me to the simple conclusion that if there is a God it must be a cruel, conflicted being. Besides, why can these religious people not agree on the basics of their belief systems? Why would a loving God divide people like that?
Instead, I take a more simple approach to God and Devil. They're just bastardizations of the words and concepts of good and evil, and that is it. Concepts which had to be enforced onto people when law was weak, unjust, and fundamental democratic principles like Trias Politica did not yet exist. As far as these concepts ever worked well to begin with, we no longer need God and Devil.
>And when it comes to beliefs, you should prepare to get ridiculed as they're not fact-based.
You think it's fair game to ridicule people with other beliefs, I think that's sad.
I don't believe in god. But I'm also not going to ridicule people, or tell them that they're "using a dead person as as a prop to make you feel better about yourself", if they do believe in god. Being smug about your fact-based beliefs, or whatever, is just dumb.
> You think it's fair game to ridicule people with other beliefs, I think that's sad.
Oh, you do? I just read there's priests flying over flooded places in Russia to pray. How is that going to help anyone? Meanwhile, the institution they stand for OK's genocide in Ukraine. The (Catholic) pope also had a word to say about Ukraine, saying they should raise the white flag (ie. give up). Religious institutions are a means to an end for political gains.
For thousands of years we atheists have lived under the repression of popular religions, and those who followed different cults (such as one's using herbs and psychedelics) were repressed. We are not allowed to make fun of these religions, given how ridicule and non-evidence based they are? I'm glad we are able to in the society I live in (NL), even though I often find such humor extremely bo(oo)ring.
Now, during COVID crisis we had some crazy people, including with religious background cause 'vaccines are bad, mmkay?' and they were manipulated by populism and what not. It is almost like a new cult is started, and we've seen various people such as Elon Musk fall into the trap. According to you, I'm not allowed to make jokes about such either?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence should count for religions just as well. You should not be able to get away with 'I have a large amount of followers, come at me'.
I'll give you this though: it isn't worth it to focus on this very small cult/belief system. There's much bigger ones which are far, far more nefarious.
>I just read there's priests flying over flooded places in Russia to pray. How is that going to help anyone?
Did they stop once they realized you were ridiculing them?
I agree that every issue you brought up is a legitimate issue. I just don't think ridicule is the solution.
And I especially don't think ridicule is warranted when we're talking about someone attending a funeral that no one else attended.
>According to you, I'm not allowed to make jokes about such either?
By all means, you are completely free to ridicule them, just as I'm free to call it out as unproductive and sad. I'm not sure why you and the other poster resort to this "are you trying to censor me?" rhetoric.
>Yikes. Some people have different belief systems, some of those belief systems believe in the afterlife.
That's great. And they can post what they think here too.
I made a comment which reflects my thoughts on the matter. That there are those who disagree is of little consequence to me WRT posting a comment on HN.
Are you suggesting that I censor myself so as not to upset folks who don't share my beliefs?
>Are you suggesting that I censor myself so as not to upset folks who don't share my beliefs?
No, lol. Where or how do you even get that out of what I typed?
You're free to type out whatever you want, all you want. And I'm free to say "yikes" because your comment is pretty rude and lacks any consideration for anyone with different beliefs than yours.
Yikes is a pretty bad response thought, let's be honest. It's passing judgement without an explanation. And if you follow it up with an explanation you can just remove the "yikes" part and your post instantly becomes so much better.
Burying the dead is, according to Christian belief, one of the corporal works of mercy:
In the days of Shalmaneser I performed many acts of charity to my brethren. I would give my bread to the hungry and my clothing to the naked; and if I saw any one of my people dead and thrown out behind the wall of Nineveh, I would bury him.
The bodies of the dead must be treated with respect and charity, in faith and hope of the Resurrection. The burial of the dead is a corporal work of mercy; it honors the children of God, who are temples of the Holy Spirit.
Praying for the souls of the dead is one of the spiritual works of mercy:
This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin." From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God. The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead: "Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them."
I don't have anything against any of the above. If that's what you (and/or others) choose to do, knock yourself out and more power to you.
But argument from authority[0] isn't a real argument, especially since the tenets of the Catholic Church are based upon the idea that there's an invisible sky daddy somewhere who actually gives a rat's ass about humans.
That's laughable at best and (as history has shown over[1] and over[2][3][4][5] again) often causes brutal, evil deeds to be done to others.
So yeah, if an imaginary sky daddy fries your clams then, by all means, pay attention to what other believers in such fakery claim. And go right ahead -- I have no issue with it. But don't expect me to buy into that particular pile of horse manure.
I was not attempting to make an argument from authority. Instead, I was offering a perspective from Christian beliefs re: your "make oneself feel more compassionate ... does nothing for the deceased".
Rather than leave it hand-wavy ("because of God and stuff") I cited Sacred Scripture and the Catechism to show that respectful burial and praying for the souls of the dead are positive obligations of the Christian faithful per the precept of charity, at least according to Catholic belief.
In the context of the OP, the sense of religious and moral obligation is not necessarily present, I grant that.
As for the rest of your reply to me, well ... for one, what do you hope to accomplish with such condescending language?
Re: "brutal, evil deeds", that seems to fall in the category of the problem of evil. More specifically, a variation along of the lines of: "If God has revealed Himself as Christians claim, and arranged it such that the transmission of that revelation across time and space is so crucial, then why does He permit Christians, especially their leadership, to commit evil acts, since those acts can so easily detract from their credibility?"
Those are just things to think about. I don't intend to make another reply in this thread.
Well, it's kind to their relatives. Not to the person in question, given they're dead. The theory here is that the dead person is looking down from above?
That works if the person giving the eulogy is also religious. If they aren't, then they shouldn't be believing that.
When you were a baby, many people were kind to you in ways that you don't remember. Was that also pointless?
I also think this goes well beyond the relatives. Part of being in a society is caring for one another. Here I am on another continent, and I feel better that these people are taking a moment to mark someone's passing. If it doesn't matter to you, fine, you don't have to do it. But I don't get why you're putting so much energy into being negative about it.
You don't necessarily need to be religious to have a belief in the afterlife, or at least a strong enough suspicion of it to want to be respectful. As an analogy, there's some evidence that people form memories when in a coma. Even if you can never prove that an individual is aware of you, it is still compassionate to assume that they can hear what you say about them.
But we'll all be dead one day! It's a compelling idea that if something happens to me and I lose touch with all my relatives, there might still be someone at my funeral.
Most of the time, literally nobody will show up. So, you'll pay your respect to the deceased using a short speech that is based on the information provided (which is usually pretty scarce, like: "found abandoned, identified, but no next-of-kin responded") complemented with Google and your imagination, and that's about it.
Then, there are the occasions where one or two people will attend. These are usually the hardest: you have to make clear that you don't actually know the first thing about the deceased, other than what Google told you, and that might be ENTIRELY wrong, but still have to deliver a coherent eulogy. Poems work best for these situations, and sometimes talking to the visitors is quite revealing as well.
And then, there are surprises, like a room full of people turning up, and you being able to elicit stories from family and friends, and basically having a regular funeral. But I admit that happened once in like the past decade or so.
Anyway, I think it's important that nobody is left to their final resting place without witnesses, and I also find avoiding that is a good way to engage with your community...