Avertide
18-12-2005, 01:24
Well, now you know the reason why I was asking about the objections to and merits of cannibalism in my last infamous topic. It was all for a persuasive speech. So anyway, what do you, fair citizens of NS, think?
(This got me a +Favourite on DeviantArt in the first 10 minutes since I posted it. Also, equally impressive, my favourite English Teacher laughed his ass off after reading it and actually wanted me to hear me give it. At first I'd thought he'd somehow contracted human mad cow.)
“Cannibalism” may conjure up all sorts of morbid imagery. Flesh-eating zombies run amuck on movie screens all across America. Chain-saw wielding Texans consume high school students with no sense of direction. In a restaurant, if someone calls out “Donner, Party of seven,” you might decide to eat somewhere else. Admittedly, the idea of being hunted and eaten is not something we want as part of our immediate personal futures.
Mr. Swift proposed cannibalism as a means of population control. In contrast to the aggressive consumption of Irish infants (or the infants of any other third world country), what I propose should be regarded as population support. Since the dead are, in fact, already dead, there is not the slightest hint of predatory murder. And while we’re at it, why not allow our dearly departed to serve heroically as organ donors? This would be even more population support as it would alleviate another shortage of concern to all those in dire need of organ transplants. Some think that regional food shortages might, in some areas, see an increase in the number of crimes punishable by death, and an attendant increase in the number of states imposing the death penalty. Such potential threats to civil liberty would be more than offset by the benefits to society as a whole.
Just think of this whole flesh-eating process as an efficient management of resources. High-quality protein would no longer go to waste. Large amounts of land would no longer have to be set aside for cemetery plots. Precious trees would no longer give their lives for the construction of coffins. Our country’s trade balance could be greatly improved by exporting human flesh to the Far East, where the citizens of certain Pacific Rim nations are known to regard many creepy things as great delicacies. If the idea of exporting deceased relatives has no appeal, then think of their local consumption for food as ‘keeping things in the family.’
As we plan for the inevitable, we can shift our focus to caring for our loved ones. Instead of agonizing over the clothes we want to adorn our corpses, we can recommend a favorite recipe. Contests for such recipes should begin immediately. These could be sponsored by major cooking publications as well as the makers of Crock-pots and microwaves. It could even open up a non-commercial market for larger-sized ovens, which could provide much needed manufacturing jobs in this country, at least until greedy corporations built the factories overseas.
Research has shown that many are opposed to eating dead people. Many moral objections would diminish if harvesting and preparation of the deceased were accompanied by appropriate religious ritual. For many of those cultures that formerly practiced cannibalism, the act of eating the recently dead was surrounded with ritual promoting the reverence of ancestors. Robert Heinlein, noted science fiction author, highlighted such a reverence for the departed in his novel Stranger In A Strange Land. The ultimate countering of moral objections to cannibalism might also be found in education. From childhood, we can be taught that protein is protein, and that the honored dead should be regarded as the most cherished of protein.
The objections of the very strong Funeral Home lobby could be dealt with by granting licenses for food handling and preparation to all current Morticians. Others have raised objections related to health concerns such as ‘Mad Cow’ disease and HIV. Good hygienic processing techniques would alleviate most health risks. The human form of ‘Mad Cow’ is only a risk if you eat contaminated brains. The HIV virus is denatured by the cooking process. Clearly, common objections to cannibalism can be overcome with logic and thoughtful planning.
Many cultures, down through the years, have practiced the consumption of the dead for food. In Vietnam, human flesh was referred to as ‘long pork.’ Among indigenous American tribes, eating an enemy’s flesh transferred courage and virtue. Stories of survival in adversity, such as the aforementioned Donner Party, as well as the sports team that crashed in South America in the late twentieth century, show that necessity often drives us to behavior that is frowned-upon by others. As famine continues to stalk the earth, necessity may drive us to consume many food items now considered repellant. In view of this, I suggest we stick to the tried and true ingredient that has proven itself useful time and time again: Humans… the other, other white meat.
(This got me a +Favourite on DeviantArt in the first 10 minutes since I posted it. Also, equally impressive, my favourite English Teacher laughed his ass off after reading it and actually wanted me to hear me give it. At first I'd thought he'd somehow contracted human mad cow.)
“Cannibalism” may conjure up all sorts of morbid imagery. Flesh-eating zombies run amuck on movie screens all across America. Chain-saw wielding Texans consume high school students with no sense of direction. In a restaurant, if someone calls out “Donner, Party of seven,” you might decide to eat somewhere else. Admittedly, the idea of being hunted and eaten is not something we want as part of our immediate personal futures.
Mr. Swift proposed cannibalism as a means of population control. In contrast to the aggressive consumption of Irish infants (or the infants of any other third world country), what I propose should be regarded as population support. Since the dead are, in fact, already dead, there is not the slightest hint of predatory murder. And while we’re at it, why not allow our dearly departed to serve heroically as organ donors? This would be even more population support as it would alleviate another shortage of concern to all those in dire need of organ transplants. Some think that regional food shortages might, in some areas, see an increase in the number of crimes punishable by death, and an attendant increase in the number of states imposing the death penalty. Such potential threats to civil liberty would be more than offset by the benefits to society as a whole.
Just think of this whole flesh-eating process as an efficient management of resources. High-quality protein would no longer go to waste. Large amounts of land would no longer have to be set aside for cemetery plots. Precious trees would no longer give their lives for the construction of coffins. Our country’s trade balance could be greatly improved by exporting human flesh to the Far East, where the citizens of certain Pacific Rim nations are known to regard many creepy things as great delicacies. If the idea of exporting deceased relatives has no appeal, then think of their local consumption for food as ‘keeping things in the family.’
As we plan for the inevitable, we can shift our focus to caring for our loved ones. Instead of agonizing over the clothes we want to adorn our corpses, we can recommend a favorite recipe. Contests for such recipes should begin immediately. These could be sponsored by major cooking publications as well as the makers of Crock-pots and microwaves. It could even open up a non-commercial market for larger-sized ovens, which could provide much needed manufacturing jobs in this country, at least until greedy corporations built the factories overseas.
Research has shown that many are opposed to eating dead people. Many moral objections would diminish if harvesting and preparation of the deceased were accompanied by appropriate religious ritual. For many of those cultures that formerly practiced cannibalism, the act of eating the recently dead was surrounded with ritual promoting the reverence of ancestors. Robert Heinlein, noted science fiction author, highlighted such a reverence for the departed in his novel Stranger In A Strange Land. The ultimate countering of moral objections to cannibalism might also be found in education. From childhood, we can be taught that protein is protein, and that the honored dead should be regarded as the most cherished of protein.
The objections of the very strong Funeral Home lobby could be dealt with by granting licenses for food handling and preparation to all current Morticians. Others have raised objections related to health concerns such as ‘Mad Cow’ disease and HIV. Good hygienic processing techniques would alleviate most health risks. The human form of ‘Mad Cow’ is only a risk if you eat contaminated brains. The HIV virus is denatured by the cooking process. Clearly, common objections to cannibalism can be overcome with logic and thoughtful planning.
Many cultures, down through the years, have practiced the consumption of the dead for food. In Vietnam, human flesh was referred to as ‘long pork.’ Among indigenous American tribes, eating an enemy’s flesh transferred courage and virtue. Stories of survival in adversity, such as the aforementioned Donner Party, as well as the sports team that crashed in South America in the late twentieth century, show that necessity often drives us to behavior that is frowned-upon by others. As famine continues to stalk the earth, necessity may drive us to consume many food items now considered repellant. In view of this, I suggest we stick to the tried and true ingredient that has proven itself useful time and time again: Humans… the other, other white meat.