Cannibalism? pro? cons?

We could solve overpopulation and world hunger by eating each other.

18 Answers

Relevance
  • PM
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    There are more constructive and civilised methods to solve social issues like over-population and world hunger.

    Pros of cannibalism? Cannot think of any because if that happens, we will lose our title as the most intelligent animal on Earth.

    Cons - Well, is there anybody who would be willing to be eaten? And what would happen would be a situation of the true sense of "Survival of the Fittest".

  • 1 decade ago

    You can bet your bottom dollar that if I'm hungry and there is no food to be found you had better watch your back, I will take a bite out of it, I don't have a problem with eating people but I hope I never have to kill to do it, it would be better if I just happened upon a recently dead person, or maybe just chop off an arm or leg and chow down. The government already has several plans in the works for overpopulation, I am pro cannibal though!

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    As someone else adeptly answered this was already proposed by Johnathan Swift in his short story: A MODEST PROPOSAL.

    Yet to take an objective look at cannabilism as it was and is still practiced today, there seems to be only a ritualistic use of cannabalism rather than a nutrient use (out side of acts of desparation to avoid starvation).

    In the movie: SOYLENT GREEN, the population was 'recycled' by reducing the elderly to 'crackers' and feeding them to the starving masses.

    In the 1990s the U.N. had twiced confirmed the reports of widespread acts of cannabilism in Zimbabwe Africa. After a poplitical prisoner was shot villagers and street people were running up and cutting off hunks of flesh to take home and eat. There were reports of this from the 1960s by the French Foreign Legion operating in the Belgium Congo during the various up-risings.

    Widely practiced cannabilism out in the South Pacific Islands in the 1980s was usually done by relatives ritualistically dining on the remains of an uncle or parent or something to take in their soul or some other kind of belief. The communicable brain disease called 'KURU' was traced in 1979/80 to cannabilism from islanders feasting on the brains of their dead relatives.

    There does not seem to be any 'pro' or 'con' about cannibilism since it is a cultural phenomenon, except to the extent that starving westerners resort to cannibalism as an absolutely last resort to avoid starving to death (and then they get prosicuted for it).

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    There are actually 2 different types of cannibalism, which may be called

    'opportunistic cannibalism' and 'initiative cannibalism'. 'Opportunistic

    cannibalism' means eating people that have died or were killed for other

    reasons, such as old age, starvation, disease, war, crime, etcetera;

    it is the type of cannibalism with comparatively low shock value.

    'Initiative cannibalism' means killing people mainly for the purpose of

    eating them; it is the type of cannibalism with comparatively high shock

    value.

    There is no reason not to use opportunistic cannibalism, and it might

    even be politically viable due to it's relatively low shock value. Initiative

    cannibalism is much less politically viable, due to it's high shock value.

    It is logical for a starving population to kill and eat eachother before

    people actually die, so that the dying do not uselessly take up food,

    which would result in the death of the whole community (i.e. some

    die now, or all die later). Furthermore, such cannibalism can also

    serve to eliminate diseases by eating the infected, and it can

    serve a eugenic purpose by eating the most geneticly-poor

    individuals. Each such starving community should have the freedom

    to choose whether or not they will use such initiative cannibalism,

    such that the ones that use it will live, and the ones that do not will

    die.

    Funny that PM states the polar opposite of the truth, since salvaging

    dead bodies for food or for other practical purposes is a sign of

    enlightenment and intelligence, indicating that one has rid oneself

    of one's detrimental blind instincts.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    pros- as long as you have a friend you have a food source

    Cons- it goes against many social norms. Many people are just uncomfortable with the idea of you eating them, their mother or daughter. Religions help require what should be done with the body at death.

    Cannibalism can also cause a disease called kuru, which is like mad cow disease. Animals are just not supposed to eat their own kind on a regular basis.

  • 1 decade ago

    Mankind can solve overpopulation and world hunger by breeding less.

  • 1 decade ago

    lol@mark. I think Swift was being sarcastic. I'd rather die of hunger to eating another person. Had I known I would be asked such question, I wouldn't thought of studying anthro. LOL. Cultural relativism has its limist you know... Why not try irrigation of dry lands?? That could help as well.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    There are no pros for cannibalism.

    The con is it deprives the victim the right to a decent burial.

    Would you want some guy to eat you.

  • 1 decade ago

    Weird

  • 1 decade ago

    well canabilism works well in certain tribes, death was a way of punishment and they had to eat the remains cos it would be seen as a waste of resources and a communial activity.

    So could we see the new burger - death row burger

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.