Well said, Sarah. I can hardly wait to hear what voices from the Progressive Christianity might say about this topic. Well, perhaps, that is not true. The idea of "pious" voices comparing the actual eating of the dead to the Eucharist in not something I would really look forward to hearing. But I am sure someone in clerical garb or a pro…
Well said, Sarah. I can hardly wait to hear what voices from the Progressive Christianity might say about this topic. Well, perhaps, that is not true. The idea of "pious" voices comparing the actual eating of the dead to the Eucharist in not something I would really look forward to hearing. But I am sure someone in clerical garb or a professor from a religious studies department will make that connection. Such people will, I suspect, claim that this was the real meaning of the Last Supper--cannibalism to save the earth.
In Soylent Green, which was set in 2022, as you point out, the idea that the Soylent Company was turning human corpses into food was still regarded by the public as horrifically shocking. That is what gave the story its punch. Even the characters in the film found the knowledge that "Soylent Green is people" unendurable. The story's theatrical release was in 1973, so the movie, itself, is now fifty years old. It is not clear to me that the public is as horrified today by the idea as it was a half-century ago--the backlash to the NYT's article notwithstanding. In a popular culture that places emotional choice above biological realities, that cannot seem to define what a woman is, that celebrates the barbarism of abortion, and that mindlessly embraces the motto "love is love" as if it were a rational proposition, can the mottos "meat is meat" or "I see dead people for dinner" be that far behind? Given this social trajectory, the question "What's eating you?" may soon become quite literal and not metaphorical. In fact, a Swedish economics professor and researcher, Magnus Soderlund, believes that eating human meat derived from the dead would be a swell way to fight climate change.
From the standpoint of philosophical materialism, in which human beings are seen as no more than matter in motion, the idea of repurposing cadavers for the menu may even appear to be rational and practical. Magnus Soderlund proves that contention. All we need is a really good sounding excuse to feed on the dead. Climate change certainly fits the bill and promises to draw people to the table--each holding his or her fork and steak knife with self-righteous anticipation. Where does that leave us? Well, the idea of human value and dignity is being pushed ever closer to a precipice. Civilization will not survive the fall onto the rocks below. But the new dark ages, I suspect, will come with its own set of specialty cookbooks focusing on the preparation of what Pacific Islanders called Long Pig. In that new reality, perhaps, Magnus Soderlund will become that age's Emeril Lagasse.
Well said, Sarah. I can hardly wait to hear what voices from the Progressive Christianity might say about this topic. Well, perhaps, that is not true. The idea of "pious" voices comparing the actual eating of the dead to the Eucharist in not something I would really look forward to hearing. But I am sure someone in clerical garb or a professor from a religious studies department will make that connection. Such people will, I suspect, claim that this was the real meaning of the Last Supper--cannibalism to save the earth.
In Soylent Green, which was set in 2022, as you point out, the idea that the Soylent Company was turning human corpses into food was still regarded by the public as horrifically shocking. That is what gave the story its punch. Even the characters in the film found the knowledge that "Soylent Green is people" unendurable. The story's theatrical release was in 1973, so the movie, itself, is now fifty years old. It is not clear to me that the public is as horrified today by the idea as it was a half-century ago--the backlash to the NYT's article notwithstanding. In a popular culture that places emotional choice above biological realities, that cannot seem to define what a woman is, that celebrates the barbarism of abortion, and that mindlessly embraces the motto "love is love" as if it were a rational proposition, can the mottos "meat is meat" or "I see dead people for dinner" be that far behind? Given this social trajectory, the question "What's eating you?" may soon become quite literal and not metaphorical. In fact, a Swedish economics professor and researcher, Magnus Soderlund, believes that eating human meat derived from the dead would be a swell way to fight climate change.
From the standpoint of philosophical materialism, in which human beings are seen as no more than matter in motion, the idea of repurposing cadavers for the menu may even appear to be rational and practical. Magnus Soderlund proves that contention. All we need is a really good sounding excuse to feed on the dead. Climate change certainly fits the bill and promises to draw people to the table--each holding his or her fork and steak knife with self-righteous anticipation. Where does that leave us? Well, the idea of human value and dignity is being pushed ever closer to a precipice. Civilization will not survive the fall onto the rocks below. But the new dark ages, I suspect, will come with its own set of specialty cookbooks focusing on the preparation of what Pacific Islanders called Long Pig. In that new reality, perhaps, Magnus Soderlund will become that age's Emeril Lagasse.