There appears to be a paucity of good recipes/cooking instructions.

I did find this:

how-to-eat-human


The above is just the teaser for your ethical entanglement discussion. Ready, set,..........Lets get cooking!

[/thread]

Zeno, think you crossed the line this time.

Close thread fast. This includes murder, is disgusting, and is a notch worse than all DS's threads.

Report sent.

I am not a cannibal because i value the existence of another brain and all the experiences and wisdom that will be created because of it more than the nutritional value of the consumption of human protein.

The overall rise of complexity is inhibited if very advanced brains have to wonder every day whether someone will eat them!

In a famine situation, where there are recently dead and preserved people, it becomes necessary to survive and i give the right/authorization to others to consume my body if they know for sure i am dead , it cannot be used for something more important and it will help them survive (but preserve my brain/head and heart as your symbolic gesture of respect for the dead body and spirit lost) . Every human being should be able to say that and help others live beyond that horrific decision point if they can tolerate the experience at a personal level and ignore the initial horrific symbolism of cannibalism, recognizing instead that the ultimate message here is that of survival and minimization of the overall human loss in the tragic sequence of events that take us there.

I would have personally a very hard time to do it mentally for obvious cultural reasons but if all else has been lost and there is no exit and starvation cannot continue i would be hard forced to think rationally and not emotionally. Rationally all that happen is that a system of high intelligence has been lost forever and is now decaying and consumed by lower lifeforms and another system will also decay - making it an even bigger win for the lower life forms- if some macro-molecules from the dead body are not used by macro-molecules of the still alive body. It is entirely rational to do that in order to save the remaining intelligence!

When you accept an organ transplant the very same process takes place with a few details different but essentially the same end result is that another's molecules help yours survive by joining forces with them.

Report read. Thread stands. This is ethics; not some political drivel for the brain dead. Part II will be a discussion of the ethics of Human Sacrifice. But let's nail this down first.

Victory.

Essay by MICHEL DE MONTAIGNE,

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3600...m#link2HCH0030

Because you don't like chicken?

What sacrifice is that, the stupid religious kind or the sacrifice for a greater meaningful purpose as seen by those deciding to give up everything else but that final victory and the eternity of victories that may result from this "choice"?

Counterpoint: Kuru

See i cared for them by suggesting to not consume my brain/head. Empathy even in cannibalism!

Because it's not part of your culture and you value that culture and/or because you're a coward(/inauthentic) and/or because you don't enjoy human meat.

Ethical dilemma. There's a train hurtling down the tracks. There's a lever you can pull - left kills 2 people with down syndrome. Right kills five normal people.

If you eat some meat from your dead friend, you get to control the lever. Otherwise it will head down the track that kills 5 normal people.

Do you eat the meat?

Why are you assuming that the people without down syndrome are the normal ones? Are you implying a "normal" person as you put it always has a more positive impact on the world around them than those with down syndrome? What if one of the 5 goes on to murder 20 people?

I'm not eating my friend because your example sucks.

Because I'm a disciple of Sklansky, and he gets to posit what he wants. If that's too hardcore for you, 2 randomly selected downies vs 5 randomly selected normal people.

Of course they will.

If all the normal people in the world die, the downies will waste away in hunger and feces and cannibalism.

If all the downies die, the world would be a better place - less burdened, more stylish.

Thus normal people are better than downies.
That's perfectly valid.

Anyway, just a bit of fun. Back to the important question of the ethics of cannibalism.

I'm not sure what you're asking here. If it's ok to eat humans, or what's the best recipe?

I suppose as long as murder is not involved, and one doesn't care about the added risk of prion diseases, then cannibalism is fine. Why should Judeo-Christian cultures get to dictate their rules to everyone else? I personally wouldn't do it even if it was healthy, because i can't imagine that the meat from someone who died a natural death would be very yummy. But if i was starving to death, i might nibble. Does anyone begrudge the inhabitants of Leningrad during the German siege their daily calorie intake?

If EVERYONE died, the world would be even better off. Shall we wipe out humanity and save the planet?

I was talking about the lives of humans.

Regardless, I don't agree the world would be better off without humans. The world can easily sustain a billion humans and keep most of its wild places intact and untouched. It's the other 6 billion that are the problem. I think the world is enriched by an intelligent species that makes it more beautiful.

Revulsion toward cannibalism seems fairly widespread among cultures that most would call civilized.

I think it's a natural human state to not be cannabilistic. Freaks in the jungle who think the life force is in the flesh, notwithstanding. Even there they only ate the dead to adsorb their life force - not as a normal part of their diet.

Untouched land is almost always more beautiful than land where humans have settled. Except for maybe the occasional wood-log house, "civilization" has been a blight on the planet. I bet most of the animals would agree.

Main course:

ritual-cannibalism-occurred-stone-age-england

Fun side dish:

cannibal-holocaust movie

Dessert

Endocannibalism

And the after-dinner port:

Hamatsa

Points so you can go hang yourself:

Ethics are equally justifiable and malleable according to time and/or location.
Ethics are not rationally explored in depth by any majority of people and are broadly accepted without question based on the social group, the cultural indoctrination, and the rituals, ceremonies, religion, and accepted norms of all the diverse groups humans divide themselves into. Nothing all that revelatory about the above.

Exploring this fact is verboten. It calls into question all your accepted assumptions, preconceived notions, set standards of ethics and makes you uncomfortable in a host of other ways. Example: The Practice of Cannibalism - Which can broadly be divided between cannibalism that is classified as ritualistic (socially forced for a variety of reasons) and that which is forced upon some group of individuals by circumstances alone, for survival (e.g. Donner Party).

In the later example should you eat the men first, feeding them to the women and children? Do you vote on it? Or is it done by fiat by whomever is the leader?


To beat a dead horse with another grand example:

1.A fetus is just a lump of cells
2.To avoid wasting useable food material aborted fetuses are hung up in a local sandwich shop
3.Your choice is between eating a fetus sandwich or a chicken sandwich.
4.Make a choice…….(side choice is whether to eat the fetus raw, cooked, or just ground up like liverwurst).


I choose the fetus sandwich* (always so tender and juice), hold the mayo and make sure I get the pickle this time, please. Cashier says, “Of course – that will be 11.98 plus tax. Do you want the Brain Pâté also? And do you wish to round up and make a donation to Planned Parenthood? “ “No to both”, I reply – “the sandwich is plenty, thank you.” “And it is against my religion to give to charities”.

*A fetus is not a human being thus technically I will not be a cannibal by eating a fetus sandwich. True or false? Also instead of use as a food material all aborted fetus waste could be ground up to use as fertilizer, thus relieving the populace of the ethic problem of whether to eat the fetus sandwich or the chicken sandwich. And reducing the amount of chemical fertilizers used to grow eggplants, corn, peas, garlic and assorted herbs, etc..


Is eating a fetus sandwich carbon neutral?

Oh, And how much is that fetus in the window? would be a great song title.

So what's the utilitarian position on this?

I have no idea what old Jeremy would think but he certainly looks a little haggard and his hands are green - and why is he in a box; is he poisonous to the public? And that hat is completely silly.

Hitler is exactly what Cannibals need. That would finally make sense! All the ritual primitive people cannibals can go to hell for all i care too. End this lunacy and i spit on the grave of their bs culture.

Ancient Greeks had a lot to say about it too.

Look at these characters for example;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atreus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oresteia

"The House of Atreus began with Tantalus, son of Zeus, who murdered his son, Pelops, and attempted to feed him to the gods. The gods, however, were not easily tricked and so banished Tantalus to the Underworld and brought his son back to life. Later in life Pelops and his family line were cursed by Myrtilus, a son of Hermes, catalyzing the curse of House Atreus. Pelops had two children, Atreus and Thyestes, who are said to have killed their half-brother Chrysippus, and were therefore banished. Thyestes and Aerope, Atreus’ wife, were found out to be having an affair, and in an act of vengeance, Atreus murdered his brother's sons, cooked them, and then fed them to Thyestes. Thyestes had a son with his daughter and named him Aegisthus, who went on to kill Atreus. Atreus’ children were Agamemnon, Menelaus, and Anaxibia. Leading up to here, we can see that the curse of the House of Atreus was one forged from murder and deceit, and continued in this way for generations through the family line. To put it simply, the curse demands blood for blood, a never ending cycle of murder within the family. Those who join the family seem to play a part in the curse as well, as is seen with Clytaemnestra when she murders her husband Agamemnon, as an act of revenge for him sacrificing their daughter, Iphigenia.[20] Orestes, goaded by his sister Electra, murders Clytaemnestra in order to exact revenge for her killing his father. Orestes is said to be the end of the curse of the House of Atreus. The curse holds a major part in the Oresteia and is mentioned in it multiple times, making it obvious that many of the characters are very aware of the curse's existence. Aeschylus was able to use the curse in his play as an ideal formulation of tragedy in his writing."


Horror movies of today hahaha, jokes! Look at the master above https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeschylus ! How more ugly can it ever get than the bolded!

Also more details;

Atreus then learned of Thyestes' and Aerope's adultery and plotted revenge. He killed Thyestes' sons and cooked them, save their hands and feet. He tricked Thyestes into eating the flesh of his own sons and then taunted him with their hands and feet. Thyestes was forced into exile for eating the flesh of a human. Thyestes responded by asking an oracle what to do, who advised him to have a son by his daughter, Pelopia, who would then kill Atreus. However, when Aegisthus was first born, he was abandoned by his mother who was ashamed of the incestuous act. A shepherd found the infant Aegisthus and gave him to Atreus, who raised him as his own son. Only as he entered adulthood did Thyestes reveal the truth to Aegisthus, that he was both father and grandfather to the boy. Aegisthus then killed Atreus, although not before Atreus and Aerope had had two sons, Agamemnon and Menelaus, and a daughter Anaxibia.

More nasty details here; https://www.thoughtco.com/what-were-...nnibals-119920

A culture that places such emphasis on such crimes in myths and tragedy is indeed very aware of the evil in them. Too bad mankind has a hard time learning the lessons.

Atreus, an unintentional cannibal, was a descendant of Pelops. He and his brother Thyestes both wanted the throne. Atreus possessed a golden fleece that conferred the right to rule. To get the fleece, Thyestes seduced Atreus' wife. Atreus later retrieved the throne, and Thyestes left town for some years. During his brother's absence, Atreus brooded and plotted. Finally, he invited his brother to a reconciliation dinner. Thyestes came with his sons, who were strangely absent when the meal was served. When he had finished eating, Thyestes asked his brother where his sons were. Thyestes took the lid off a platter and displayed their heads. The feud continued.

Given the worsening situation in Southern Sudan, what is the probability of an outbreak of cannibalism, for survival purposes?

In reference to the good old Greeks (thanks Masque) the story (or myth) of Iphigenia is illustrative. It ties this thread to the next purposed ethical thread, one on human sacrifice. The Greeks started it all apparently (for western civilization anyway).

Iphigenia

for sure