The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Waste not, want not: it's time to initiate the international trade in human flesh

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/2/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 682 times Debate No: 35224
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




There are 7 billion people on this planet and around 57 million of them die each year (1). With the average weight of a human adult being 70.25kg / 154lb, that means about 4.1 million metric tons / 4.4 million imperial tons of valuable flesh is going to waste annually (2).

Meanwhile, fertile land on which to grow enough crops or rear enough livestock to feed the world's rapidly growing population is in increasingly short supply, and over-fishing has seriously depleted stocks of edible fish worldwide (3,4).

The solution to this problem is obvious: grind the corpses of deceased old folk up to use as fertilizer on unproductive land; while the better quality dead bodies of younger people (who perhaps died in accidents or in natural disasters) can be butchered and used to feed carnivorous fish such as tuna.

Today I am calling on governments around the world to support the good people at Eggleston's Ethical Enterprises who are pioneering the trade in human flesh in order to provide an abundance of cheap food for everyone, with ultimate goal of consigning famine to the history books (while making a modest profit at the same time).

However, I do recognise that there are bound to be some religious people that will object to this noble and environmentally-friendly endeavour. To help allay any reservations the pious and the devout might have I should like to make I clear that it will still be possible to mark the passing of loved ones with funeral services.

Mourners will not notice any difference in the proceedings at cremations but as the coffin of the deceased goes through the curtains, instead of the body being incinerated, it will be loaded into a waiting truck parked discretely round the back. Similarly, at burials, coffins will be emptied of their contents prior to being lowered into the ground and the cadavers will be collected later once the mourners have departed. Naturally, the undertakers will get a nice little kickback to 'cover their expenses'.

So, since I can't think of any other objection anyone could possibly have, I duly affirm that it's time to initiate the international trade in human flesh.

Thank you.



My opponent has brought up an extremely unorthodox idea that would surely benefit the world, however, his only mistake was to take a less direct approach. Personally, I would not mind donating my corpse to such an insightful adventure, but on particularly different conditions. I request my opponent to maintain his stance on "Trading flesh for agriculture", instead of "Trading flesh in general". Such an outlook would introduce a lot of complications anyway, bringing us to the dark ages of corspes sold to evil doctors in their efforts to perfect monsters of Frankenstien.

As I pointed out, my opponent made a mistake. It actually happens to be similar to Bill Gate's mistake of introducing tablet PCs at the wrong place and time. In short, my opponent's idea was unorthodox, but not enough as to be revolutionary. I'll try to illustrate this point.

Would it not be better to grind human meat to the consistency of paste, add artificial flavours to it (safe flavors, mind you) , pack it into tin cans and sell it back to the corpse's family? However, if the family happens to be vegetarian, no one should force them into buying it. But I believe, it would still be an incentive for the dying man- to agree to be ground to pulp- and be useful to his family even after death.

My opponent also failed to make sense when he put forth his proposition to feed such valuable meat to tuna instead. Now, I'm sure that the numbers of edible fish worldwide have drastically plummeted, and those links he provides are testament to it. However, I fail to see how feeding human flesh to tuna would make any difference- unless human flesh acts as an aphrodisiac and leads to increase in the amount of coitus in fish. I'm also quite certain that no scientist in his right mind has yet researched whether the amount of food avaliable to tuna is plummeting as well, therefore my opponent raised quite a moot point.

In addition to this, I propose the corpses of loners, bankers and chartered accountants to be ground and distributed freely to charities around the world. This would promote their image- as a whole- of being useful at least after death.

I have more points, obviously, but I wait for my opponent to put forth his justifications first.
Debate Round No. 1


First of all I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and secondly, I would like to address his alternative proposal of canning the bodies of the deceased and selling them to their families. This is an interesting idea that deserves due consideration.

Despite what my opponent says, by the way, canned cadavers would actually be suitable for vegetarians: it is common in the third world, and among celebrity mothers such as Kim Kardashian, to eat the placenta after giving birth (1). Vegetarians also eat placentas - they only abstain from non-human meat (2) - so canned old folk and tinned accident victims should be fine for them to eat as well.

That said, however, I think I'd have to be pretty hungry to resort to eating my preserved relatives, and I"m not a fussy eater. Still, in time, the taboo may be broken and all around the world we might see the people consume the following repasts.

Cousin Hank-burger
Uncle Phil cheese steak
Green chilli Stewie
Gran chowder
Uncle Rueben sandwich
Biscuits 'n' Davy

Crispy aromatic Chuck
Chopped Sue-y
Dim son

Trish 'n' chips
Soup of the Dave
Roast Eve and Yorkshire pudding

Dirk a l'orange

Uncle Frank-furter
Cousin Brad-wurst

Aunt Tanya-doori masala
Nan bread

Smoked Sharon and cream cheese bagel

Pizza Ma Greta

Uncle Terry-aki
Auntie Sue-shi

Uncle Bill-gogi
Auntie Kim-chi

Uncle Harris, tatties and neeps

Cousin Keith-bab

But I'm sure this will be a niche market for a long time to come and the main value in recycled relatives will be in fertilizer and fish food.

To illustrate this point, think about when you buy a new car: the paintwork is flawless; the interior is immaculate and smells nice; the engine purrs along beautifully and there are no rattles or squeaks when you drive it. However, as the years go by and you clock up the miles the car deteriorates in every way until, finally, you have no option but to take it to the scrapyard. There may be one or two parts that can be salvaged but the car's only real value is as scrap metal so it is crushed and recycled.

Otherwise, you might buy a new car and take it down to the pub to show it off to your drinking buddies, and after drinking your age in pints, you get back in the car and set off home, except you are as drunk as a lord and you lose control on a bend and roll it into a ditch where it catches fire. You are okay, but the car is a total write-off and has to be scrapped.

It's like that with humans too, for the most when people die of old age, or are killed in an accident or natural disaster, they are totally knackered: there may be one or two internal organs that can be harvested and sold to back-street doctors in Calcutta, Lagos or Sao Paolo, but for the most part, the corpses are only fit to be used as fertilizer or as fish food.

Which brings me to my opponent's point about feeding body parts to tuna: just to clarify, like most species of animal, the population of tuna rises or falls according to the availability of food so if the fishermen feed them lots of nice juicy cuts of human flesh the numbers of tuna will rise, so there will be more tuna for the fisherman to catch and the more tuna reach the market the lower the prices will be. With bluefin tuna fetching up to $1.7 million each at market (3) this fish has become a delicacy enjoyed only by the decadent and wealthy few, rather than being the staple source of protein for the poor as it used to be.

So, in conclusion, for the sake of the world's poor and hungry, as well as the of Eggleston's Ethical Enterprises' shareholders, I reaffirm that it's time to instigate the international trade in human flesh.

Thank you.



I thank my opponent for the misguided information, and as a token of appreciation, promise to be as misguided as humanly possible.

My opponent appears to suffer from the common issue of "partial knowledge" and that indeed is the cause of his downfall (that and the banana peel I placed discreetly).

Wikipedia, on the other hand, is a source of partially useless knowledge, from whence I unearthed this gem which will assist me in disproving my opponent's contention-

The word placenta comes from the Latin word for cake[1]

I hope my opponent now realizes wherefrom all the hype behind eating placentas originated. However, I believe that my opponent is qualified enough to know that a word root is not the same as the word itself. Had Kim Kardashian been provided a decent education (which the third word countries lack as well), she could have concluded this all by herself.

But that is beside the point, when my opponent informs me that Kim Kardashian would happily lap up semi-solid paste of human cadavres in various stages of rot, I can assure him that no one [not even Kim] could be happier [than me] to know it. Thus, we can safely conclude that as long as we mark cans of human meat with the word "cake", our business is going to be taken seriously.

As the audience might have noted, my opponent even provided us with brand names for such products if marketed in different parts of our planet- and as if that wasn't enough - he arranged them alphabetically.

Now, I am sure that you noticed how, in the manner of an escort who abruptly ends her ecstatic orgasm at the end of her paid hours, my opponent in a most anti-climactic manner rubbished these ideas claiming them to be a niche market. Again, I would like to reference Steve Jobs, who was similarly ridiculed for introducing an iPad- not that I am endorsing Apple products in any imaginable sense- yet that particular anecdote is a matter of convenience.

My opponent has now twice proved himself to be a worthy successor of Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer. Perhaps, instead of day dreaming about his "flesh for agriculture" initiative, he should apply as a CEO in Microsoft.

The reasons as to why the proposed enterprise would be successful-

Cannibalism is rare and is not illegal in most countries. People who eat human flesh are usually charged with crimes other than cannibalism, such as murder or desecration of a body. [2]

Hence, laws will not have to be modified comprehensibly.

After men acquire a taste for human meat, the demand for corpses will exponentially increase and ridiculous amounts of money would be spent on fresh corpses. Most of the residents of the third world countries would sell their young bodies in return for large sums of currency in order to support their families- however, this money wouldn't stay in their hands for long due to heavy taxes imposed by their governments. In nearly 20-30 years, after old men and women in third world countries would have become extinct, the average equilibrium age would settle down to 35-45 years. Thus, humanity would finally embrace its age old dream of remaining young forever. In any case, fresh corpses would always be in demand and to supplement this demand, the amount of procreation in third world countries would increase- essentially developing a vicious cycle.

But I'm sure this will be a niche market for a long time to come and the main value in recycled relatives will be in fertilizer and fish food.

Opponent's claim has been refuted.

Developed countries would continue to savour the taste of human flesh- even reducing the consumption of other kinds of meat such as tuna. This tuna woould instead be devoured by the now sufficiently prosperous residents of the third world, and the governments of these countries - after having stolen enough money from the state coffers- would start to use the currency obtained from heavy tax collections for the common good. Thus, the infrastructure and economy of third world countries would start to improve.

A time would come, when the third world countires would be fully developed- and let us call this the tipping point- at this point of time, these countries would decide to stop selling the fresh corpses of their young citizens (and stop killing them as well). However, the demand for human flesh would still be very high- since the initially-developed-countries would, by now, have been habituated to eating it. Thus, to supplement this deficiency, they would start devouring from their own- perhaps, even disintegrating into anarchy.

All of this, however, is beyond the point. I have given sufficient proof that such an enterprise would be profitable enough. I hope my opponent can see the light of the day and switch to the side of a cannibalistic future.

Thank you.

Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by damienvox 3 years ago
I am not sure if I can comply with your response.
Have you never heard of animals getting a taste for human flesh and how about for example on cannibalism, the whole mad cow disease. Cannibalism isn't a good idea and feeding us to animals isn't either. If you proposed just as fertilizer that would have been one thing but these other dimensions you took it to is just plain wrong.
Posted by prunesquallor 3 years ago
Tell me, then, how did they actually go about proving what you call common knowledge? I was told that for a proof to be satisfactory, there has to be enough data. Where exactly did these authorities mine their data from? And I'm quite surprised that you are endorsing this proof- to think of the number of humans they must have cannibalized to build a reasonable theory.
Posted by damienvox 3 years ago
This is sick your both sick in the head but i digress lets make a few good points to you both.
Its been proven and common knowledge that human flesh consumption can have bad effects on animals by making them man eaters where as it can drive a human insane.
So with this in mind why on earth would we feed it to anything.
On the fertilizer point that isnt so bad but if it did happen should strictly be optional and besides do you really believe the whole world cant be maintained at its current state.
It isnt that the world cant support us its that the world cant support how wastfull we are.
No votes have been placed for this debate.