Cannibalism

Goduznt Xzst

Ok another one of these threads. Did a search and couldn't find any discussion on it before. It probably has more to do with my Nihilism than Atheism but would a secular, atheist society sanction cannibalism? Specifically necro-cannibalism (see soylent green )

Logically I could not see any reason why it should be outlawed. I mean I have a repulsed aversion to it, but this is probably due to my cultural preening. In the end of the day, without life our bodies are merely meat or do you think a lifeless human body is greater than the sum of its parts?

Dades

I have no issue with it in theory. We are essentially meat sacks!

The problem is how the human meat comes to be on the menu. I can't think of an ethical way of providing it unless you want to eat "donors" that have died of natural causes. :pac:

seamus

A secular/atheist society would honour the beliefs or wishes of its people, so if someone wanted to be eaten, then that wouldn't be illegal, but I don't think it would sanction the eating of a person who hadn't said that it was OK to do so before they died.

In much the same way that we don't are not supposed to take organs from a body without the person's consent.

One primary reason why it would be considered dangerous is contamination. Although we freak out about animals diseases, much of what would kill a cow or a pig isn't directly transferable to a human eating that animal. Even run-of-the-mill infections for these animals tend not to cross over.
But if you're eating a human, you're leaving yourself wide open to whatever killed them and whatever other diseases or infections they may have had at the time of their death.

You would probably be best eating a baby, because it's relatively unlikely to have contracted any major diseases. I wouldn't be confident though that the adult I'm eating didn't have syphilus or chlamidia or even HIV. Yes, cooking should kill it, but would you be confident that it's all been destroyed?

sink

From a humanist perspective if both the deceased and the cannibal consent then I can't see a problem with it. But both probably have (or had in the case of the deceased) a severe psychological imbalance which may manifest itself in far more dangerous way's and therefore they should probably receive some sort of treatment. Obviously if it goes against the consent of those involved than it should not be permitted. Each would have to be dealt with on a case by case basis.

pH

Dades wrote: »

The problem is how the human meat comes to be on the menu. I can't think of an ethical way of providing it unless you want to eat "donors" that have died of natural causes. :pac:

Motorcyclists, instead of being know as "organ donors" by the medical profession will be called an "all you can eat carvery".

There's a serious point there somewhere, healthy human tissue and organs has far more value in medicine than it does as food, it's not as if we have an abundance of organ donors as it is.

robindch

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

would a secular, atheist society sanction cannibalism? Specifically necro-cannibalism

Well, I can't imagine it would be allowed, since it's ludicrously dangerous. If memory serves, certain Pacific's ni-Vanuatu tribes (who were amongst the last tribe to practice cannabilism) had terrible problems with transmission of human forms of scrapie and other nasties

Still though, people do seem to be able to get over the yuk factor without too much trouble -- remember that a significant proportion of Ireland's population queue up every week to eat what they think is somebody's flesh.

toiletduck

Pork is only gone for a day and a half and we're already contemplating this?

Doctor DooM

I'd object to it but only for health reasons/ the fact that a society that would allow my body as a food source is only a few steps away from insisting that people become a food source.

Dave!

seamus wrote: »

You would probably be best eating a baby, because it's relatively unlikely to have contracted any major diseases. I wouldn't be confident though that the adult I'm eating didn't have syphilus or chlamidia or even HIV. Yes, cooking should kill it, but would you be confident that it's all been destroyed?

ffs seamus, could you play into the atheist stereotype any more?! :pac: Way to set us back about 100 years!

robindch

And anyhow, the last time that cannibalism was suggested in this country, it was a priest wot did it. A protestant priest as well, the cheeky bugger:

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

sdep

robindch wrote: »

Well, I can't imagine it would be allowed, since it's ludicrously dangerous. If memory serves, certain Pacific's ni-Vanuatu tribes (who were amongst the last tribe to practice cannabilism) had terrible problems with transmission of human forms of scrapie and other nasties.

Yes, there was a CJD-like prion disease called 'kuru' seen in very recent times in Papua New Guinea amongst people who ritually consumed the bodies of their deceased kinsmen.

Weirdly, people in Europe were taking ground up Egyptian (and fake) mummies as medicine from the Renaissance up to the 19th Century. More here if you can stomach it.

Goduznt Xzst

I take the points on diseases spread through consuming human meat. It raises another question though, about what rights we should be allowed over our dead bodies. I mean would you be against a law that said your body became state owned once you ceased living? So that it could be used for organs, food or scientific research?

Mark Hamill

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I take the points on diseases spread through consuming human meat. It raises another question though, about what rights we should be allowed over our dead bodies. I mean would you be against a law that said your body became state owned once you ceased living? So that it could be used for organs, food or scientific research?

I'm of the opinion that once someone is dead, their organs should taken for transplantation or research, and tough luck if they don't like it. I honestly don't know why people would have an issue with it: either you're an athiest and you believe there's nothing after you die; or you're a theist and you believe that your soul/lifeforce/whatever has moved onto heaven/nirvanna/where ever (is there a religion that believes you are stuck in your body after death?). Either way, you have no use for them, so why not let some good be done with them?

Actually this leads me to a question that may be a bit off topic (I'll make another thread if people think its is): does every athiest on this board carry an organ donor card? if not, why not?

ChocolateSauce

robindch wrote: »

Well, I can't imagine it would be allowed, since it's ludicrously dangerous. If memory serves, certain Pacific's ni-Vanuatu tribes (who were amongst the last tribe to practice cannabilism) had terrible problems with transmission of human forms of scrapie and other nasties

In a healthy human only the Central Nervous System (brain stem and spinal cord) is known to be a dangerous thing to eat, as far as I know.

I can see no problem with it in principle, provided it was agreed on a case-by-case basis with the individual in question before they died. Of course there are many practical considerations, like where it came from? Some people would doubtlessly murder to sell it as it would likely be expensive.

midlandsmissus

would you actually want to eat humans though? Do we not have a natural aversion to it because it is so similiar to ourselves? I feel sick just thinking of it

Weidii

It depends on a few things:

1. If it was safe (mentally and physically) to do from the consumers point,

2. If the deceased were consenting

3. In extreme situations (that one where they were in a plane crash and ate the corpses of their friends to survive.

You have to ask though, why would anyone want to?

ChocolateSauce

Weidii wrote: »

You have to ask though, why would anyone want to?

Curiosity? To eat a loved one who passed?

I think I'd be very tasty.

On another note, I wonder how long until someone comes in and starts shrieking "It's disgusting and wrong!", and can only argue "just because"?

midlandsmissus

toiletduck wrote: »

Pork is only gone for a day and a half and we're already contemplating this?

Lean times!

midlandsmissus

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Curiosity? To eat a loved one who passed?

I think I'd be very tasty.

On another note, I wonder how long until someone comes in and starts shrieking "It's disgusting and wrong!", and can only argue "just because"?

The thing is I actually would think it's disgusting, but I am a vegetarian so wonder does that influence it...

I actually don't eat meat purely for the reason that I find it too similiar to myself,i.e i don't like the blood dripping off raw meat, or the fat, or the flesh. I've never liked meat, never ate it as a child. I think some of us are just born to be herbivores!

ChocolateSauce

midlandsmissus wrote: »

The thing is I actually would think it's disgusting, but I am a vegetarian so wonder does that influence it...

I actually don't eat meat purely for the reason that I find it too similiar to myself,i.e i don't like the blood dripping off raw meat, or the fat, or the flesh. I've never liked meat, never ate it as a child. I think some of us are just born to be herbivores!

Ah, well that is where we mainly differ...If I'm in a restaurant and my steak isn't dripping blood all over my plate, I'll send it back until they "cook" me one that is.

midlandsmissus

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Ah, well that is where we mainly differ...If I'm in a restaurant and my steak isn't dripping blood all over my plate, I'll send it back until they "cook" me one that is.

Ah choclolate sauce you're not a 'raw steaker' are you haha. :)My boyfriend likes his that way aswell, it makes me shudder even looking at it!:D What is it that you like about it i'm curious to know? is the blood tasty or what?

Dave!

midlandsmissus wrote: »

The thing is I actually would think it's disgusting, but I am a vegetarian so wonder does that influence it...

I actually don't eat meat purely for the reason that I find it too similiar to myself,i.e i don't like the blood dripping off raw meat, or the fat, or the flesh. I've never liked meat, never ate it as a child. I think some of us are just born to be herbivores!

Some (dare I say most) vegetarians are herbivores on moral grounds, ie. they don't eat meat because it involves the killing of animals. I wonder would they then be okay with cannibalism, if the deceased consents to it! I don't see any moral reason to object to it tbh. I may start a thread in the Vege forum later


BTW Steaks should be well done Yummeh!

Capt'n Midnight

Cannibalism is a bad idea on health grounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease)

Kuru is an incurable degenerative neurological disorder (brain disease) that is a type of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy found in humans. It causes physiological as well as neurological effects that ultimately lead to death. It was endemic among the Fore tribe of Papua New Guinea and was confined to the Fore population and those nearby populations with whom they intermarried. It is characterized by truncal ataxia, preceded by headaches, joint pains and shaking of the limbs, with progression to death over approximately 18 months for the most susceptible victims. It is believed to be caused by prions and is related to Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.[1]

on a side note CJD / mad cow disease was totally preventable had anyone bothered to make the link with positive feedback when a species eats itself. Kuru was 100% fatal back in the 1950's

sdep

If cannibalism had a net harmful effect, we might well expect us to evolve a taboo. Yet cannibalism is widespread in nature, and seems generally to work to the advantage of the diner. So why have we stopped?

Researchers looking into it (here) found only two diseases passed predominantly through cannibalism, one being kuru in humans. The scientists did some maths and reckoned that the size of the luncheon party was a key factor: if cannibalism is one-on-one, an infected lunch only brings down one luncher, so diseases won't spread much. But if lots of people jointly eat the same sick individual, then they can all get the bug.

So communal staff canteens were what stopped us being cannibals, and the fact that most of us now bolt down a hasty sandwich at our desks should be a grave concern.

ChocolateSauce

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Ah choclolate sauce you're not a 'raw steaker' are you haha. :)My boyfriend likes his that way aswell, it makes me shudder even looking at it!:D What is it that you like about it i'm curious to know? is the blood tasty or what?

The blood is tasty and it mixes well with mashed potatoes and I dislike the texture of well-done meat. That's all I can think of really...but I can't stand a well-done steak! It seems like such a waste.

Wacker

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Actually this leads me to a question that may be a bit off topic (I'll make another thread if people think its is): does every athiest on this board carry an organ donor card? if not, why not?

Well I do, and I donate platelets every month. It's the one thing that stops me getting AC/DC tattooed across my rib-cage.

seanybiker

when im dead feel free to eat me sack. Will keep a small village going for weeks

Tar.Aldarion

Dave! wrote: »

Some (dare I say most) vegetarians are herbivores on moral grounds, ie. they don't eat meat because it involves the killing of animals. I wonder would they then be okay with cannibalism, if the deceased consents to it! I don't see any moral reason to object to it tbh. I may start a thread in the Vege forum later

I have no moral qualm against eating something that has died of natural causes, consent or not.
I would eat a human under the same circumstances I would eat any different animal, you are all the same to me. Although I probably wouldn't on a regular basis.

Would you be willing to carry a 'people can eat me' consent card?
/eyes you up.

Mark Hamill

Weidii wrote: »

You have to ask though, why would anyone want to?

Well, you know how it is, its after the christmas holidays, everything been eaten, but you're still hungry. A census taker arrives and all you can find in the house is some fava beans and a nice chianti....

Goduznt Xzst

midlandsmissus wrote: »

would you actually want to eat humans though? Do we not have a natural aversion to it because it is so similiar to ourselves? I feel sick just thinking of it

What about human leather? Would you wear human leather? Do you wear Cow leather in your shoes or clothes?

imo, it's a waste of a good source of food, organs, blood and supplies to just bury or burn humans. Those organs and blood could go on to help more humans live longer, your skin could be made into leather so your family and friends could have parts of you to use as bookmarks

For all the ways that we use animals we could do likewise with humans after they have lost their life.

Also, is it not odd that people have no aversion to having foreign human blood and organs put into their bodies but then they are repulsed with the thought of consuming these.

Weidii

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Well, you know how it is, its after the christmas holidays, everything been eaten, but you're still hungry. A census taker arrives and all you can find in the house is some fava beans and a nice chianti....

Replace census maker with Jehovas Witness and you're in the money