An article published mid-February in New Scientist attempted to argue in favor of a more relaxed view on cannibalism.
Yes, New Scientist does define cannibalism the same way you do — the act of eating other people — and apparently that’s fine. Apparently on an ethical level, “cannibalism poses fewer issues than you might imagine.”
I wish I was joking, but this is exactly what New Scientist argued before blaming our aversion to the practice on “Western religious traditions” for perceiving the human body as “the seat of the soul and [having] a whiff of the sacred.” The author, who remains sensibly nameless, then pondered whether “early modern colonialism, when racist stereotypes of the cannibal were concocted to justify subjugation” played a part in our perception.
Is it time for a more subtle view on the ultimate taboo: cannibalism? https://t.co/wRmiU8ZSrZ
— New Scientist (@newscientist) February 19, 2024
So you’re a stinky Christian racist with prejudice if you’re not inclined to eat the flesh of a fellow human, even though eating human remains, especially the brain, can literally kill you, according to MedicalNewsToday, Slate and a wealth of scientific studies? (RELATED: Dear Kay, I Find Jeffrey Dahmer Attractive. Is That Normal?)
Listen, I’m all for eating your fellow man in an apocalyptic situation. A gals gotta do what she’s gotta do to survive a dystopian landscape. But to suggest that eating other people is a good idea, and should become part of our normal societal practices, is utterly messed up.