https://pjmedia.com/trending/swedish-prof-urges-eating-human-flesh-to-save-the-climate/
“Söderlund appeared to equate resistance to cannibalism with capitalist selfishness. ‘Are we humans too selfish to live sustainably?’ he asked.”
PJM: Swedish Prof Urges ‘Eating Human Flesh — to Save the Climate’
Published
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Charlton Heston would have a problem with that, but Edward. G. would donate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rocko wants more??
LikeLiked by 1 person
It would probably be safer to use people for chicken feed and then eat the chickens. We don’t share prions with birds.
LikeLike
If you’re going to be serious: eating cooked human meat is no more dangerous than eating a pig. However, the brain tissue is a potentially fatal problem (Kuru).
Throughout history many cultures have embraced consuming the dead as a way to honor their passing and would view the maggot train we’ve created in our society as barbaric.
Besides, I don’t want to become “chicken shit” even in death….
LikeLiked by 1 person
While ghoulish — think Soylent Green New Deal — PJM’s editorializing gets at a proposition I often run into in discussions about the virtues of capitalism. It is the notion that our communities our more important than ourselves, or that we owe a debt or duty to our community because that is where our very welfare as persons comes from.
Well, here’s a test case. Does, “You didn’t build that” mean we should donate our own corpses to the local food bank?
I say, No. Period.
If you believe that human beings are sacred, or (more humanisticaly) that they are deserving of fundamental respect and consideration, then anything which compromises that value must be off limits. The compromise might be subtle or profound. It might be as minor as a bad habit for insulting your friends, or as major as a new entry on the Happy Meal menu. But, as a practical matter, it must be forbidden.
The point is that the practical dimension is the one that’s absolute here. Whether or not human beings are good is a complex moral question you can decide in isolation. Once you do, whether or not human beings are good to eat is either Yes or No.
LikeLike
“Well, here’s a test case. Does, “You didn’t build that” mean we should donate our own corpses to the local food bank?”
Yeah, but what of the organ bank? I’d go, “yes” on that. All viable organs should be harvested for transplant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Yeah, but what of the organ bank?”
Good question. Is donating one’s organs a desecration? Is it only a desecration when they are used in one way, and not another?
As a matter of principle, I’d say a case can be made for forbidding organ donation. But that would only mean the prohibition is legitimate, not that organ donation isn’t.
Something more is needed to make a satisfying answer. Good catch, Ms. Pope.
LikeLike
Pope nope. Bill Richard
LikeLike
“If you believe that human beings are sacred, or (more humanisticaly) that they are deserving of fundamental respect and consideration…”
Sacred or not, respect for human beings is a laudable position.
But a dead body is really no longer a being. It is just a dead body that has started to decompose within minutes of death. The best preservatives or the largest mausoleum will not change that but rather just slow it down.
Whether humans are good or not is a question by the living for the living. The best we can do upon death is for the survivors to debate whether he WAS good when alive.
After a respectful period of mourning of course. I have never seen an obit that said “he was a jerk and a pain in the ass”. Closest was “he was feisty”.
Yes, a certain reverence for the deceased is warranted in most cases. Mussolini dragged through the streets of Rome belies that. Although that was the fate of disgraced leaders in ancient times.
IMHO
LikeLiked by 1 person
So one has to wonder about whole new meanings for:
Eat your heart out.
Finger food.
Keep an eye for me.
Are you kidney? (Ok, that’s a lame one.)
Toe jam.
I think I’ll stop now. Cabin fever’s early signs are subtle.
On a more sober side, is cannibalism any more repugnant than embalming and burial in sealed vaults?
That practice just delays the “dust to dust” cycle which every living animal or plant will go through. Never mind adding more chemicals and slow to deteriorate materials like brass, steel, polyester tufting, linings and other plastics.
Face it, exhume anybody after a period of time and see how they would look playing a harp or cavorting with young virgins. Cremation, or the new trend of composting, along with passing on memories to future generations will, like yeast, serve better to raise the stature of the deceased as decades turn into history.
Cemeteries are at their most base definition just human landfills that we never cap and turn into parks or golf courses.
So praise the Lord and pass the ladyfingers.
Or start the fire.
IMHO
LikeLiked by 3 people
Sounds like a free market solution to me. But, I still won’t trade in my vanity tags, “3M-TA3” and the wife’s Family and Children’s Trust Fund of Virginia license plate, that says “EAT THE”.
LikeLiked by 1 person