By UAF Contributor Jane Darcy
Appearing on a Swedish television show, Magnus Soderlund, said he would be holding conferences based on the necessity of consuming human flesh in order to “save the planet.” Many climate deranged scientists are of the consensus that animal agriculture, namely meat production, is the source of so called climate change. What better way to overcome this problem than by cannibalism?
This is not the first instance of questioning the consumption of human flesh in recent months. An August 20, 2019 article published in Newsweek also presented the question of cannibalism in humans. While the article mainly discusses the taboo that surrounds human cannibalism, one paragraph is certainly chilling:
“Philosopher William Irvine has us imagine a ranch that raises plump babies for human consumption, much like we fatten and slaughter cattle for beef. Irvine suggests that the same arguments we apply to justify the killing of cows also apply to babies. For example, they wouldn’t protest, and they’re not capable of rational thought.”
The article goes on to say that the quote is largely satire, meant to lead people to question the ethics surrounding the consumption of meat in general, however the implications are interesting. Are mainstream media sources trying to normalize the conversation surrounding cannibalism, or simply trying to steer the general populace away from meat consumption all in the name of environmentalism? It may be hard for one to determine this, considering the rash of late term and even post term abortion laws passed recently, or the failure to pass a born alive bill. Is it that far of a leap to think that we could be hearing, “Well the fetus was going to be killed anyway, we may as well eat it,” in the near future? The United Kingdom already uses the powdered flesh of aborted babies to heat hospitals. As InfoWars reporter David Knight says, “Our children are being sacrificed on the altar of efficiency.”
Another interesting trend in recent mainstream media publications is the normalization of consuming insects. A BBC article published July 29 opens with the paragraph:
“Swapping your favourite burger and chips for a crunchy insect sandwich might not sound the most appealing option, but eating insects could help save the planet. Insects have been eaten for thousands of years in many countries around the world. In fact,
around 2 billion people regularly eat insects as part of their diet. So should more of us be doing it?”
A Yahoo News article sings the praises of a pop-up restaurant in Cape Town South Africa that serves insect dishes. In the article, you find the following argument:
“The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization has said insects emit fewer greenhouse gases and less ammonia than cattle or pigs, require much less land and water, and that there are more than 1,900 edible insect species.
Scientists have touted insect-based food as a sustainable and cheap food that is high in protein, fiber and minerals.”
It is clear that the populace is being pushed to accept consumption of “foods” that are undesirable, or in the case of cannibalism, outright immoral all in the name of climate change. How far down this path are we going to allow ourselves to be pushed?