It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by bobafett1972
Is this why Ted has bought up half of the mid-west?
Heck Ted, with all of the land you own, you could grow something to help out no?
If I am alive in 2040, Ted won't be but I am going to dig him up and eat him anyway...
Originally posted by dk3000
Well this is one way to thin the herds which would benefit society! I am going to begin writing a cookbook!
Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
If they were dead first then sure
Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Originally posted by dk3000
Well this is one way to thin the herds which would benefit society! I am going to begin writing a cookbook!
Helps with over-population I suppose but...
Society eats itself and that is benifiting Society how? Kinda oxymoronic.
It doesn't help the people that get eaten, and they are members of Society too, no? If they were dead first then sure, but if times become as drastic and desperate as Turner is claiming, then I highly doubt people will wait for cadavers to turn up. I mean, people are eating human meat! It's not too big of a moral jump to hunt for it at that point
Originally posted by Harman
In the netherlands we have a saying: "zoals de waar is vertrouwd hij zijn gasten' loosely translated: The way someone is dictates how he trusts someone else.
First in my argument, I present the fact that in the United States, we have many unwanted individuals. For example, criminals such as murderers and rapists that have so violated the rules of society, that they have nullified their right to live; it is my suggestion that these criminals be liquidated from society because we as a society must establish a moral foundation. However, this poses a question. What should we do with the bodies of criminals? Should we waste these bodies by burring them? Thus, allowing innocent people to starve in third world countries? Of course not! So the answer is simple. We must do the only moral thing, and use these bodies to feed the world’s hungry.
Second, this solution is not only effective, it is also extremely efficient. Currently, society has a surplus of people, but a shortage of food; therefore, it is ultimately efficient to allow the world’s innocent hungry to consume those individuals that have forfeited their right to live. This would in turn, eliminate the immense burden that feeding the aforementioned criminals would have on our society. This would also lower the surplus of people, therefore, establishing a more germane and balanced relationship between humans and food.
Third, by using criminals to feed the world’s hungry, we can establish a moral foundation for our society. This would happen by diminishing crime because people would be less likely to commit crimes if they knew that they would be slaughtered like cows and used for food. Thus, by lowering crime rates, we can assume that our world would therefore become a safer and better world, which would allow for the world’s populous to live in peaceful harmony, therefore, establishing a moral society. Who would have thought that cannibalism would help establish a moral and peaceful society?
In conclusion, today’s society is one where criminals—such as murders and rapists—are a burden on society, while on the other hand, innocent people in third world countries starve. Do you think it is right or moral to allow innocent people to starve, while criminals burden our society? It is therefore my conclusion that a moral society would liquidate its criminals and feed the hungry, and through the magic of cannibalism, we can do both. So why not kill two birds with one stone? Why not give aid to those in desperate need, and at the same time establish a moral and peaceful society?
Originally posted by malcr
The claim that we are not overpopulated is wrong.
The idea that there is lots of open spaces and untouched wilderness out there and so how can we be overpopulated is a simplistic argument. What matters is that the balance between what humans consume compared to what the earth replenishes.
We passed the tipping point just recently and we are now quite literally over consuming the earths resources so those open spaces will be consumed at some point.
Now it is true that this could be reversed by the , mainly, west changing its wasteful over consumption. However, this is again very simplistic and assumes that should the problem be identified (it has) and the solution found (it has) millions of people would quite happily conform.
There is far too much greed and denial in the world for that to happen.
These extreme changes only occur after extreme events when the population has had a proverbial exceptionally painful kick up the butt. This usually takes the form of war.
China and India are coming on stream with their population starting to consume resources at the same rate as the west so the problem will accelerate and quite rapidly as well, probably a decade left before something somewhere breaks.
My guess is oil, the west will try and "protect" the middle east and african supplies and the emerging nations, mainly China, will "protect" their supplies as well. Iran for instance who just happen to supply most of China's oil.
Now it is sad that I believe this but there is absolutley NOTHING happening in the west at present to suggest the problem is being addressed, business as usual denial basically.
Therefore the only solution will be the default one.
Advanced economies do indeed have low population growth, some even reverse. So that coupled with a more managed use of resources would avoid war and starvation. IT IS NOT HAPPENING. We are tinkering at the edges with token wind farms, green recycling bins etc etc Yet we continue to build airports, fly more, consume more, throw away more and bitch and complain bitterly (like here) about having to change our ways.