Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Given the taboo about cannibalism I can't really see this catching on in the near future but in a post-apocalyptic world it may be a necessity.


It would certainly introduce a new dimension to the ritualisation of death. Instead of the coffin being lowered into the ground or disappearing behind a curtain, the body is skilfully prepared by retrained butchers and put into a large pot or cauldron along with a pile of seasonal veg.


It also throws up a few questions. Would vegans' cadavers be too scrawny? Would those brought up on microwave meals and MacDonalds be regarded as the equivalent of geese force fed for foie Gras and thus shunned by some?


Also, would you need to carry a card in your wallet/purse similar to donor cards stating you wish to be eaten when you die?

I'm okay with it in general, but I'd prefer if you didn't (a) tell me first, or (b) look at me hungrily.


Historically it would have been a very unhealthy practice, but I suppose modern hygiene techniques make it less so?

Also isn't there a particularly high incidence of CJD among headhunter cannibals who eat the brains of their victims?


I guess most people dying of old age won't make a very nice meal. Slow casserole to make it palatable.

Cue jokes about cock-au-vin

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm okay with it in general, but I'd prefer if you

> didn't (a) tell me first, or (b) look at me

> hungrily.

>

> Historically it would have been a very unhealthy

> practice, but I suppose modern hygiene techniques

> make it less so?


No (sadly?) it doesn't. One of the problems with prion disease it that prions are not easily deconstructed (technically: denatured, as they are misfolded proteins) by sterilisation techniques. Their misfolded shape is very stable and resistant to change. Furthermore they do not require nucleic acids for replication and can replicate simply by converting the host's healthy proteins into the disfunctional shape directly. In addition, eating old/healthy dead people would not help (as opposed to eating younger/diseased dead people, who obviously died of nvCJD or similar), because prion disease is cumulative. Prions can accumulate in tissue and be passed on and further accumulated through consumption of diseased tissue from one generation to the next, until the disease manifests a clinical threshold. This is my understanding of prion disease as presented through a lecture series at King's College London in 2006.


Also here's what Wiki has to say:

Prions are generally quite resistant to proteases, heat, radiation, and formalin treatments,[56] although their infectivity can be reduced by such treatments. Effective prion decontamination relies upon protein hydrolysis or reduction or destruction of protein tertiary structure. Examples include bleach, caustic soda, and strongly acidic detergents such as LpH.[57] 134?C (274?F) for 18 minutes in a pressurized steam autoclave may not be enough to deactivate the agent of disease.[58][59] Ozone sterilization is currently being studied as a potential method for prion denature and deactivation.[60] Renaturation of a completely denatured prion to infectious status has not yet been achieved; however, partially denatured prions can be renatured to an infective status under certain artificial conditions.


So maybe if you wanted to eat dead people, try this method first:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkaline_hydrolysis

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14114555


But seriously, who wants to eat what's leftover after that?


Although it might make a good marinade...

Saffron, really interesting, it goes some way to answering the imperfections of human disposal as it stands.


Are prions not just confined to brain and spinal cords?


I understand this subject is a bit morbid and taboo but getting over the taboo for the purpose of discussion brings up interesting stuff like your post (amongst others).

-Heinz-, no, prions can contaminate lymph tissue as well as nervous tissue, making contaminated tissue extremely difficult to dissect. In addition, if dissecting tools accidentally become contaminated with prions, the prions can spread to healthy non-affected tissues such as a dissected muscle. If that muscle were then to be consumed, the prions could migrate into the host's lymph and nervous tissue where they would accumulate, convert additional prions to the misfolded shape, and (provided a clinical threshold was reached) produce the neurodegenerative sypmtoms of disease.


There may one day be an immunisation against prion disease or an antibody treatment for it, but currently there is nothing clinically available to the best of my knowledge.


From the MRC prion unit: http://www.prion.ucl.ac.uk/research/university-departments/prion-immunology/ .


Also interesting: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/217415.php .


At this point in time, I don't think evolution favours cannibalism for H sapiens.

I'd be indifferent to being used as meat for human consumption. I'd not be worried about catching anything, but I'd not see any of the benefits, either.


For the above-noted health reasons, it's probably best if we keep things as they are, with at least one stage in between. Nobody is upset when ashes are scattered on the veg patch or blackberries picked at the cemetery, and neither have led to any second-hand plagues.


We shouldn't ignore the ethical considerations, though, and turning cadavers into commodities, comestible or otherwise, is fraught with ethical problems. That's not least because, when it has been done in the past, it's been done by some very nasty people, who have left a bitter heritage. Hence the outcry over the innocuous use of crematoria to heat swimming pools..


Nor the cultural issues, which are just as important. For example, our understanding of a body's ownership doesn't mesh easily with the legal understanding. In law, death turns your body into somebody else's property and, in theory, there's not much they can't do with it. In reality, however, we surround the dead with assumptions of dignity and restfulness and respect of what their wishes might have been. Things that that aren't naturally compatible with, for example, being rendered for lip-gloss or extruded for pies.


Many of those issues are created by our need for reassurance. We like to imagine that, when it comes to our turn, we'll pitch up with closed eyes, modest clothing, crossed wrists, touched-up faces and an absence of bodily fluids. We want to think we'll just be 'resting', and our death will be a smooth, painless and dignified transition. It's an unlikely ambition, but one that we go to enormous lengths to reinforce.


However implausible that aspiration, it's persistent, and I don't see any likelihood of a shift. The cool, dark earth of the grave, or the cleansing fire of the furnace are hardly matched by a microwave at a Wetherspoon's or an accountant's gut, if only because of the scriptural allusions. Even if we don't believe in God or an afterlife, we won't really know if we have a soul until it's too late, and so tend not to gamble too much where eternity is involved. When the Trump sounds for the Day of Resurrection and we're supposed to rise again, whole and clothed in flesh, anyone turning up in pieces clad in pastry is very likely to get teased.

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

See "Soylent Green"- 1970's sci-fi flick. New York 2022 has undergone a massive population explosion- a new source of high protein food is found. It goes on the market with a convincing cover story, and everyone loves the taste, mmmmm soylent green!


Anyhow,unless the bodies were harvested from natural disasters and instant death wouldn't the flesh of most of the dying be contaminated with high grade pain killers and other medicines..?

  • 2 weeks later...

There is nothing intrisically dangerous about eating human flesh. The main issue is about overcoming cultural taboos (which I share).


Prions/CJD/kuru are only an issue if they are present in the cadaver to be eaten.

However they are rare, and cadavers can always be screened for infection.

Other (non-controversial) kinds of animal flesh present similar risks - for example, CJD transmission from cattle to humans.

There is a hypothesis that bovine spongiform encephalophathy (BSE) entered cattle not via being fed the scrapie-infected remains of other ruminants (mainly sheep), but rather by cattle being fed contaminated bone meal derived from human bones contaminated with CJD (ie prion disease). These bones/bone meal were purportedly obtained from companies sourcing products from 3rd world countries where unidentified bones (ie, species unknown) were being scavenged and also possibly obtained from human graveyards.


Under this hypothesis, cows fed on this CJD-contaminated feedstuff became infected with prion disease manifesting as BSE. This BSE was then passed up the food chain to re-emerge in humans as new variant CJD.


If this hypothesis is true, then the human race effectively (re)infected itself with concentrated CJD via eating this twice contaminated flesh.


There are evolutionary reasons most predators eat near the opposite end of the food chain, not each other: Biomagnification. CJD is just one example. The cultural taboo has its roots in evolutionary logic.


. . .


Nevertheless, I've been saying for years that the solution to overpopulation is simply to feed the obese people to the starving people, as the number of obese people has surpassed the number of starving people some years ago. Therefore this trefoil solution solves not only the overpopulation crisis, it also addresses the obesity crisis and resolves world hunger, thus rebalancing the population as a whole.

;-)

I don't have a problem with this provided people aren't actually killed in order to eat them.


However I don't think I'd want to eat anybody I'd once known :))


Wouldn't mind anybody eating me - don't really care what happens to me when I'm dead, provided somebody has made damn sure that I am actually dead (and not by shooting me - not that kind of making sure) :))


ETA: I don't normally venture into the Drawing Room - am I allowed to have smileys?!

  • 3 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Absolute mugs. That's what they take you for.  
    • Trossachs definitely have one! 
    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...