Swedish Scientist Proposes Cannibalism to Fight Climate Change

originally posted by: Gandalf77
Sounds like a Modest Proposal...

It certainly does, but Swift was only speaking of fattening Irish born children. For a top notch final solution (to rid the earth entirely of Humanity by canniblism) suggests a realistic plan would be put in place; and best candidates for the job Himmler and Eichmann are dead.

Humans are too stressed for our meat to taste good. Also consider the crap most of us eat... gets passes on.

If anyone, it would ironically probably be most tasteful eating yoga practicing vegans xD

And I just can't see no humor About your way of life And I think I can do more for you With this here fork and knife [Chorus:] Eat the Rich: there's only one thing they're good for Eat the Rich: take one bite now - come back for more Eat the Rich: I gotta get this off my chest Eat the Rich: take one bite now, spit out the rest

Aerosmith "Eat The Rich"

originally posted by: The2Billies
a reply to: FredT



So we'll have to have human milking factories.

Count me in!

Well, if GMO food does not be labeled maybe int he future meat will be also without a label, it will be just meat. it could be cow, pig, chicken, rat, dog, or even human.

Once you start considering con-artists like Richard Dawkins* as serious scientists you've lost the plot. *: who like to tickle people's ears, telling them intriguing things or things that draw attention in order to sell their pseudoscience.

2 Timothy 4:3,4 warns:

For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] 4 They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.

Dawkins' evolutionary philosophies and storylines are a prime example. Heavily promoted by the MSM as well, especially Sci-Fi shows and movies. Stuff like this (this thread), merely shows their true nature.

In case anyone is wondering why I brought evolutionary philosophies into this discussion, it's because the subject of this thread ties into this evolutionary idea that we are animals. Which we're not, there's a legitimate reason a distinction is made between animal and human. There's a huge gap between us and the animal kingdom. We did not evolve from animals. There's no justification for some humans to behave worse than animals either (the notion that we evolved from animals often being invoked as a justification for animalistic behaviour and worse, including the notion of 'survival of the fittest').

In a 2004 report entitled “Can the Planet Feed Us?”, an environment correspondent, stated: “The world does produce enough to feed everyone. But the food is often in the wrong place, or unaffordable, or can’t be stored long enough. So making sure everyone has enough to eat is more about politics than science.” With proper oversight of the earth and efficient management of its resources, there should be no reason to fear a shortage.

According to projections of the UN Population Fund, world population may reach 14 billion before leveling off. Others, however, estimate that it may peak at between 10 billion and 11 billion. Whatever the case, even if the world population should grow to the extent predicted, the number of people is not the problem.

Can the earth produce enough to feed 10 billion or 14 billion people? That is a difficult question to answer because it depends on what is meant by “enough.” While hundreds of millions of people in the world’s poorest nations cannot get enough food to maintain even a minimum, healthful diet, people in the rich, industrialized nations are suffering from the consequences of an overly rich diet​—strokes, some types of cancer, heart disease, and so on.

As far as the total quantity of food produced is concerned, note what the book Bread for the World says: “If present world food production were evenly divided among all the world’s people, with minimal waste, everyone would have enough. Barely enough, perhaps, but enough.” That statement was made in 1975. What was the situation in 1991? According to the World Resources Institute, “over the past two decades, total world food output expanded, outpacing demand. As a result, in recent years, prices of major food staples in international markets declined in real terms.” Other studies showed that the prices for staples like rice, corn, soybeans, and other grains dropped by half or more over that period.

What all of this boils down to is that the problem of food lies not so much in the quantity produced as in the level and the habits of consumption. New genetic technology has found ways to produce varieties of rice, wheat, and other grains that can double the present output. However, much of the expertise in this area is concentrated on cash crops, such as tobacco and tomatoes, to satisfy the appetite of the rich rather than to fill the stomachs of the poor.

More and more, those who are keeping a close eye on the subject are coming to realize that population growth is only one of the factors posing a threat to mankind’s future welfare. For example, the authors of the book The Population Explosion argue that countries like the United States are overpopulated, not because they have too many people, but because their level of affluence depends on a high rate of consumption of natural resources and technologies that exact a heavy toll on the environment.

Other studies seem to bear this out. The New York Times quotes economist Daniel Hamermesh as saying that ‘greenhouse emissions are more closely related to the level of economic activity than the numbers of emitters. The average American generates 19 times as much carbon dioxide as the average Indian. And it is entirely possible that, say, an economically vibrant Brazil with slow population growth would burn down its tropical forests more rapidly than an impoverished Brazil with rapid population growth.’

Making basically the same point, Alan Durning of the Worldwatch Institute observes: “The richest billion people in the world have created a form of civilization so acquisitive and profligate that the planet is in danger.”

It becomes apparent that blaming population growth alone for the woes facing mankind today is missing the real point. The issue facing us is not that we are running out of living space or that the earth is incapable of producing enough food or that all the natural resources will be used up anytime soon. These are merely the symptoms. The real issue is that more and more people are aspiring to a higher and higher level of material consumption without considering the consequence of their actions. This insatiable desire for more is taking such a heavy toll on our environment that the earth’s carrying capacity is fast being exceeded. In other words, the basic problem lies not so much in the number as in the nature of humanity.

Writer Alan Durning puts it this way: “In a fragile biosphere, the ultimate fate of humanity may depend on whether we can cultivate a deeper sense of self-restraint, founded on a widespread ethic of limiting consumption and finding non-material enrichment.” The point is well-taken, but the question must be asked, Is it likely that people everywhere will voluntarily cultivate self-restraint, limit consumption, and pursue nonmaterial enrichment? Hardly. Judging by the self-indulgent and hedonistic life-style so prevalent today, the opposite is more likely to occur. Most people today seem to live by the motto: “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we are to die.”​—1 Corinthians 15:32.

Even if enough people wake up to the facts and start changing their way of life, we would still not be able to turn things around anytime soon. Witness the many environmental activist groups and alternative life-styles that have appeared over the years. Some of them may have succeeded in getting into the headlines, but have they had any real impact on the ways of so-called mainstream society? Hardly. What is the problem? It is that the entire system​—commercial, cultural, and political—​is geared to promoting the concept of built-in obsolescence and throwaway consumerism. In this context there can be no change without a thorough reconstruction from the foundation up.

The situation may be likened to that of a family living in a furnished and fully equipped house provided by a benefactor. To make them feel completely at home, they are given permission to use all the facilities in the house to their satisfaction. What would happen if the family began to damage the furniture, tear up the floor, smash the windows, clog up the plumbing, overload the electric circuits​—in short, threaten to ruin the house completely? Would the owner just passively observe and not do anything? Not likely. He would no doubt take action to remove the destructive tenants from his property and then restore it to its proper condition. No one would say that such action was not justified.

Are we not like tenants living in a well-furnished and superbly equipped house provided by the Creator, Jehovah God? As the psalmist put it: “To Jehovah belong the earth and that which fills it, the productive land and those dwelling in it.” (Psalm 24:1; 50:12) God has not only supplied us with all the necessities that make life possible​—light, air, water, and food—​but he has also provided them in great abundance and variety to make life enjoyable. Yet, as tenants, how has mankind behaved? Unfortunately, not very well. We are literally ruining this beautiful home in which we are living. What will the owner do about it?

“Bring to ruin those ruining the earth”​—that is what God will do! (Rev. 11:18) And how will he do it? The Bible answers: “In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite.”​—Daniel 2:44.