Slight highjack. For anyone curious about “taste cannibalism” I recommend the book “Stiff” . The author looks into the various ways dead human bodies are disposed of and/or used. There is a chapter where she investigates a story about a crematory employee in China who took human flesh, made food from it, and then sold it.
The whole book is great, but you guys may get a lot out of the cannibalism chapter.
I’m pretty sure that this would be an unconscionable contract, at the very least. (At least that was the first thing that popped in my head). So, that would violate the agreement and waivers. If the victim (for lack of a better word) lived, I’m pretty sure aggravated battery would be a slam dunk charge. I’m not sure what else the cannibal would be charged with, assuming no legislation against consuming human flesh. If the victim died, then it’ll probably be voluntary manslaughter. Of course, finally, no thread on cannibalism can be complete without reference to Armin Meiwes. (That dude just looks like a cannibal.) :eek:
Yeah, but it wouldn’t be the same as free-range.
Actually depending on methodology such a plan could run afoul of human cloning bans.
I’m not sure why this is, but I actually find this idea grosser than cannibalism.
In his book Good to Eat, Martin Harris, an anthropologist, makes a pretty good argument to explain why cannibalism is a reasonable choice in areas where human diets are extremely poor in protein, though not a good choice elsewhere.
Unfortunately, I forget the specifics (sigh) so I’ll just have to recommend you read it . . .
Great. Now my ideas are grosser than cannibalism.
In other news, I’m taking this line as a sig.
Is there any evidence to support this claim? Why would proteins similar to our own be more resistant to hydrochloric acid or trypsin? How could they be?
Once again, is there any evidence at all to suport such a claim?
Isn’t BSE simply a prion disease? And hasn’t that prion jumped species at least twice, ie from scrapie in sheep to BSE in cattle to VCJD in humans. And if it has jumped species two times doesn’t that priove that the problem has nothing to do with cannibalism or any inability to to process similar proteins?
It’s not that simple.
People can also eat almost any food that pigs. chickens or dogs can eat yet pigs, chickens and to a lesser extent dogs have a long history of domestication as food animals. The reason for that is that animals represent a protein and fat store. Because they can forage (or farm) independently of the person eating them they can concentrate energy from a wide area into a very protein and energy dense package. For example a person could eat truffles and acorns themselves but they would never gain much weight on such a diet. In contrast a herd of piglets can be set out to forage in an oak forest and they can then be slaughtered when they reach maturity.
People can be used in exactly the same manner, and occasionally have been. By putting a person to work foraging or farming you can get them to be self sufficient and grow indefinitely and then slaughter them after they have concentrated all that energy and protein in one dense package which you could never have done yourself.
and the thought the Naked lady was only decoration :eek:
Any one else having a flashback to a “Twilight Zone” episode? Something about a club for gourmets, having a dish avalable only after one of the members had died?
The fact that pigs largely rely on sources of food that are edible to humans has been advanced (again in Good to Eat) as a reason behind Muslim and Jewish strictures on eating pork; it’s inefficient when food is fairly scarce and grazing animals could be used instead as a source of protein.
On the other hand, aren’t acorns at very least pretty much unpalatable to humans?
This sort of thing doesn’t give me a great deal of faith in the book. Jews and Moslems aren’t particularly forbidden from eating pork as much as they are forbidden from eating anything but bovids and cervids. Pigs are niether more nor less prohibited than camels which are of course far more efficient in that part of the world than cattle or sheep.
The second massive flaw is the assumption that “grazing animals could be used instead”. Pigs and grazers exploit entirely different food sources with pigs resorting to grazing only under extraordinary circumstances. As such not keeping pigs doesn’t make a society more efficient it simply means that many food sources such as carrion, tubers and nuts can’t be exploited at all.
Unpalatable yes, indigetsible, no. All acorns are edible in small doses for short periods of time and after basic prepartion all are edible but most taste like shit. The point bieng that while no single human could harvest and prepare enough bitter acorns to make it really efficient it is energetically economical to get pigs or slaves to harvest them for thier food and then eat the slaves or pigs.
Once again the trick is to use the slaves to harvest abundant but energetically low yeilding food on your behalf and concentrate it in their bodies. It’s like having an acorn processor that actually runs on acorns. The cost is nil so any return is pure profit.
No French Fries? Whats the Vegetable of the day?
They aren’t? Because Muslims are specifically forbidden from pigs. The Kashrut sets criteria for what mammals may or may not be eaten, but the Quran restricts only carnivores, pigs, and animals that are improperly slaughtered. I think their are hadith recommending against the eating of shellfish and insects, but not all Muslims consider them binding. There's nothing in the Quran comparable to the specific guidelines specifying that only ruminants are edible that you find in the Torah. Far fewer animals are forbidden to Muslims, provided they’re slaughtered properly, and the pig is very specifically described as haram.
And modern interpretation of the Kashrut is that food is either kosher or treyf, but pigs, again, are specifically singled out as unclean in the Torah. I would say that if you don’t think the Qur`an and the Torah describe specific taboos against eating pigs, I’d like to see you explain that.
Um, of course pigs and grazing animals consume different foods. That’s kind of the point. I may well be misstating his theory to some extent - it was awhile ago that I read the book. But pigs and humans eat very similar diets, and while pigs eat scraps we find inedible, I think the argument was basically that they ended up competing with humans for food. They can’t just graze on whatever is available, which means raising pigs meant growing food for them. Something like that.
Assuming, of course, you live in an area with plenty of oak trees. Harris traced the development of the Jewish taboo on eating pigs to changes in the climate and (if I recall correctly) deforestation. It was a loss of natural food sources for pigs that made raising them impractical in his formulation; once it became impossible for them to find food on their own, it was either switch to grazing animals like cows and sheep or start competing with pigs for food. At one point pigs were a major portion of the Semitic diet; taboos against eating them rose when it became counterproductive to do so.
Special of the Day: Mountain Oysters
Meatloaf again?
Beverage of the Day: Pop.
I’m not yet convinced, but wondering if you have more detailed information or cites?
I mean, if acorns do cost more energy to gather than they provide, then it doesn’t matter whether it’s you or a slave gathering acorns: starvation is inevitable.
If acorns’ energy exactly equals their energy cost to gather, then your slaves survive, but there’s no food to raise baby slaves with, so you can’t replace the slaves you eat, and in the long run, they’re no food source for you.
If acorns are worth gathering, so an individual can live off the acorns they gather and still have a few left over, why not just have your slaves give you their left over acorns and live off of that? Seems more efficient than using the left over acorns to raise a population of destined-for-the-table babies until they’re large enough for eating.
And my impression was that cows, sheep, chickens, and to some extent, pigs, all are able to eat foods that humans can’t (like, for instance, acorns).
OK, I just types out a response 3 times and lost it 3 times. First time the hamsters ate it. Second s time a power spike rebooted my machine, then the machine froze.
Fuck it. Brief response.
Poor wording on my part.
Are you suggesting climate change ~700 AD responsible for Islamic dietary laws? If nor what is relevance?
Jewish dietary laws clearly not due to climate change. Camels, donkeys also prohibited despite being more efficient in drought than cattle. If dietary laws concerned with drought efficiency then camels and donkeys would not be prohibited.
Theory seems to be extreme cherry picking. Selects pig out of thousands of animals prohibited to Jews and tries to use that one species to explain laws. Blatantly ignores other species that contradict theory.
If we agree they consume different foods then why the contention that we have to chose grazing animals instead of pigs? If no competition why the need for a choice of this kind?
Problems multiplied, not reduced. Now theory needs to account for chickens which also eat scraps we find inedible. How does theory suggest that chickens don’t end up competing with humans for food? Why are chickens not taboo?
False premise. Permanently penned and exclusively fed pig recent western phenomenon. Historically and contemporary in most parts of the world pigs are left to forage near village/farm. Pigs therefore exploit nuts, seeds, tubers carrion, insects and a wide variety of other foods unavailable to grazers. A suggestion that not exploiting these food sources via pigs increases efficiency makes no sense.
No. Pigs cosmopolitan, not restricted to oak forests. Thrive for example in semi-arid regions of Australia notable for lack of oak trees. Conditions easily equivalent to Israel.
Ignores fact this was not a switch to grazing animals. It was a switch form a wide suite of domesticates to a narrow suite. Laws prohibited more domestic grazing species than non-grazing species, including several arid adapted species. As such laws made people less efficient in arid conditions.
What point in time? Pigs formed a major portion of most Semitic diets until ~700AD. What made pig production counterproductive after 700AD?
Ignores issues of nutrient density. Plants high in cellulose and toxins and low in protein and often low in energy. People may need to eat several pounds a day to reach maintenance level. That does not allow a ruler to eat dozens of pounds a day that are brought to him.
Consider a hypothetical community where each person produces an excess of barley and lentils. That diet allows the community to survive and multiply.
A tyrant who collects the excess food is still living on a diet of rice and lentils and will find it hard to gain weight even if he could eat several pounds a day. A tyrant who eats his people will be living on a diet of 3 meat meals a day. Which will get fatter? Which will have an excess of usable protein in their diet?
This is the concept of nutrient density. Eating slaves (or pigs) enables a higher nutrient throughput and a more digestible source of nutrients than eating the plant food.
Why, Ronald Reagan of course.
Well, he’s dead isn’t he?
Anyway, I’d only eat people who were slaughtered. Who wants to eat someone who died from natural causes?
Now **that ** would be a real health hazzard, eating the corpses of people who died from cancer, Alzheimer’s, liver disease, etc.
Just my two cents…
I cant’ help but notice the google add at the bottom.
Healthy Eating
Less plain, less boring, less blah. Eat more of The Other White Meat.