Waste not, want not: it's time to initiate the international trade in human flesh
Debate Rounds (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.
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.
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.
Uncle Phil cheese steak
Green chilli Stewie
Uncle Rueben sandwich
Biscuits 'n' Davy
Crispy aromatic Chuck
Trish 'n' chips
Soup of the Dave
Roast Eve and Yorkshire pudding
Dirk a l'orange
Aunt Tanya-doori masala
Smoked Sharon and cream cheese bagel
Pizza Ma Greta
Uncle Harris, tatties and neeps
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.
I thank my opponent for the misguided information, and as a token of appreciation, promise to be as misguided as humanly possible.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.