The Environmental Benefits of Cannibalism

[Forty Two]

Processing humans for consumption and product development would result in significant environmental benefits, and we cannot afford to ignore any option which will benefit the planet, given the dire condition of our world and the proven danger to humanity.

If we take just those who did not die from intentional homicide, we would save significant acreage that would otherwise go to cemeteries, and we would save the emissions from crematoria. We would have huge amounts of edible matter, as well as lots of bio material that can be used in industry (which we currently get from non-human animals only).

There would be favorable impacts on world hunger, as well as the environment. As a species and as good stewards of the planet, is it immoral not to utilize the huge amounts of material that are now simply discarded?

[Svartalf]

Soylent green.

[pErvinalia]

[Feck]

A Modest Proposal
For Preventing the Children of Poor People
in Ireland, from Being a Burden on Their Parents
or Country, and for Making Them
Beneficial to the Publick
https://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/modest.html

[Hermit]

A Modest Proposal
For Preventing the Children of Poor People
in Ireland, from Being a Burden on Their Parents
or Country, and for Making Them
Beneficial to the Publick
https://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/modest.html

Copypaste makes for swift posting.

[Forty Two]

He may have his math off a bit. If we only eat the rich, then there wouldn't be enough to go around. We'd soon be done munching the top 1%, and have to move on to the top 5%, and so on.

[pErvinalia]

But if we ate the rich the rest of us would get more wealth and we could afford to import Ethiopians to eat.

[Forty Two]

If you gained the wealth, as opposed to what you'd probably do (squander it), you'd then become "the rich" and you'd be on the menu.

[pErvinalia]

Bite me.

[Forty Two]

Your mom.

[Feck]

If you gained the wealth, as opposed to what you'd probably do (squander it), you'd then become "the rich" and you'd be on the menu.

If you take a million dollars from one rich person and share it with a million people they don't become rich they have an extra dollar.
Or does that level of complicated mathematics confuse you ?

[Forty Two]

Where was the assumption stated that any wealth would be distributed equally?

Even if we assume equal distribution, if you take the wealth of the top 1%, or 5% or whatever is defined as "rich", and distribute it equally among the other 99%, then you'll still have a new 1%, or 5% or whatever, who would then be on the menu.

Equal distribution would not be fair, would it? Equal distribution would be a windfall for those of more means as compared to those of less means, because the "poorest among us" would get only a dollar, while those with moderate and higher wealth (although not to the level of "the rich") would also get a dollar. A truly progressive solution would be for the higher wealth persons to get a few pennies only, and then increase the distribution to the lower wealth persons, on up to the "poorest among us" who would get the largest share.

[Svartalf]

A Modest Proposal
For Preventing the Children of Poor People
in Ireland, from Being a Burden on Their Parents
or Country, and for Making Them
Beneficial to the Publick
https://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/modest.html

[JimC]

Beware Kuru...

[Woodbutcher]

Beware Kuru...

Don't make me laugh...!