Cannibalism

What about other options; like a little sheet with little options for burial or eating or testing or cremation or other? I am thinking some people could not send their loved ones to be sold as cuts.

 

Ahh. Trying to think how many people would decide to do that...

 

I'd just like to make a couple quick corrections...since people have started talking Nutrition.

Trophic levels denote how much energy remains FROM THE SUN. Plants use photosynthesis, so all the energy you gain from eating a plant is designated to have come from the sun.

Each subsequent layer loses 99% of that energy...it doesn't mean that human beings contain no energy when ingested. Einstein would be furious if he heard that (E = mc^2 after all).


As for diet, the amount of energy we get is simply thermodynamics (and calorimetry).

Carbohydrate provides us with 4kcal/g, Fat provides us with 9kcal/g, and protein provides us with 4kcal/g. (If anything, getting an excess of energy will make us fat)

And lastly, the human body wasn't built stupidly (in general). It doesn't try to eat itself at the drop of a hat, it only does so in times of dire emergency. The first place it goes is, you guessed it, its energy stores: fat cells. (As well as sugar floating around in blood/in the liver). Sugar being the most important, as Glucose (a simple sugar) is the only fuel the brain can use (and ultimately, the brain is what counts). In times of dire emergency, Fats/Proteins are primarily converted into Glucose since the brain needs it (called Gluconeogenesis). This chemical reaction however, in the case of protein, leaves an acidic biproduct that collects in the stomach. (Which is why malnourished people have swollen bellies)

It's also a fact that after death, glycogen (a complex, long chain sugar) stored in Muscle cells, rapidly decays...so the energy gained from eating meat (in general, any animal source) is predominantly fat and protein, with almost no sugar.

So if you really wanted to sustain people in Africa, give them a renewable source of sugar, and send all the fat from liposuction patients over and let them feast.

 

Thanks for the correction. I always seem to get something wrong.

 

It is true what Desert Warrior stated. Every time you go up the food chain, energy is lost. Plants have the highest energy level than us because their food source is only water and the sunlight. Animals who eat plants, gain that energy level also, but it is only a little. Animals who eat other animals who's only food source is plants also gain those energy level, but again it is only a little. Cannibalism is like scavengers, their only purpose is to find food source in order to survive. With the energy source, it is like regurgitating your food over and over. Plants ---> Herbivores -----> Omnivores. We are humans. We can eat both. We can get muscle and proteins from meat, or we can get vitamins and energy from plants.

Also, to elaborate on diseases, what if they have something that we can't detect? What if they have a condition? And what of the blood, do we drink that too?

There is nothing wrong with Cannibalism, but it is the matter of is it morally wrong or right. I think it is wrong, and their are other food sources than humans. Have you tried Lion's meat, Zebra's meat, or even Crocodiles' meat?

 

sick thought why would anyone want to do it any way.

 

Umm... Now I really have to think.. I would never do it myself, but.. I can agree with u, rikulover, at least a little. ^^

 

Energy is not lost when you go up the food chain (in the sense you're implying). Unfortunately, I think the same thing is confusing both Yukou and Desert Warrior. I'll try to explain the subtle difference here.

First, to open my point, The Trophic Level scenario is a model of how ecosystems work...Thermodynamics is a law that governs energy exchange. Right off the bat, that hints that if the first is contradicting the second, the mere nature of 'who's more important and credible' should be at play. But that's hardly an argument, so I will explain exactly what happens.

First, the thermodynamic point of view. Take one gram of fat. Just imagine you had a little ball of fat that was exactly one gram. If I ate this fat, I would gain as much chemical energy from this fat, as is present in the fat...regardless of where it came from. It doesn't matter if it came from an herbivore, carnivore, omnivore, or none of the above. Chemistry is chemistry, and thermodynamics is thermodynamics.

Now, what happens when you eat something higher up on the chain vs. something lower? Well, body composition differs...a plant (usually) has no fat, but lots of complex carbs. An animal has lots of fat and protein, and generally no complex carbs (I described the reason in a previous post).

But pound for pound, what is actually changing? Absolutely nothing. If I took a pound of human muscle tissue, and a pound of let's say cow's meat (and assume they have similar structural compositions), and analyzed how much energy was obtained from ingesting both, it'd be the same. Do any google search for calorimetry, and it'd come out with the same numbers, 4, 9 and 4 kcal/g. (These are of course, estimates of the average)


So what is the trophic level telling us? Seems like I'm saying it's a flat out lie....

Well it's not...but it's not a relevant topic for discussion I'm afraid.

If we look at a trophic pyramid, what does it mean? It measures what's known as biomass...how much organic material is there, in a given level? As you go higher up, there's less.

This means, if some really fat person (let's say) ate all the plants, they would get more energy than if they ate all the human beings...because human beings comprise a lot less of the biological matter in the ecosystem, than the plants do. This means as you go up from level to level, there is a drastic decrease in the TOTAL energy contained in that level...this however, gives absolutely NO information regarding whether or not one person will give more energy than one plant. Ecology studies the collective nature of groups, not the individual nature of its members.

Infact, on the contrary. I believe Ecologists will say that the higher up the trophic pyramid you go, the higher the energy requirement. This keeps everything in perfect balance, as there is plenty of lower level biomass to be ingested. If the population of humans suddenly doubled, half of them would die off because there wasn't enough food to sustain them. However if we grew more plants, more lower level consumers would start to live, and with time we would be able to support a larger population than we currently have. That's all the trophic levels get at.

Note that of course I'm simplifying a bit here...but the point of this was to explain the difference, not to be scientifically accurate. The reason we need models like the trophic system for ecosystems is that biochemistry is not simple. There are many different types of fatty acids and simple sugars, each providing a different amount of energy when ingested.

EDIT: I removed some extraneous points...I think they were just confusing if anything.

 

1. It's illegal
2. Many consider it morally wrong

 

Agree with it being morally wrong? Or about eating people?

 

I dont agree eating humans. Its really wrong about it. I know there isn't going to be a day that everyone's going to 'hunt' humans and eat themselves.

 

I don't know about you but any body that lives in Britian should know about the man who scammed the goverment by faking his own death,he pretended that he had died at sea and his wife claimed the money.
Meanwhile he stayed in England and took a deceased persons name and changed his appearence.
The story goes on but,I'm pointing out the bit about taking the name.The family was so upset because he took the name of a child who died at the age of 2.
Would you not be upset to find that your mother who you loved so dear but sadly passed away was eaten by somebody?I guess this falls into respect for the deceased.We will find it morally wrong as well I'm guessing this is phsycological(sp?).

 

I don't agree with the tabbo-ness (I know, it's not a word - sue me) being predominantly religious, I think it's mostly a part of human nature. The knowledge of the person once experiencing life as other human beings and so on, experiencing deeper and more complex emotions, thoughts and so on than we believe animals to, which makes it unthinkable to most people. I suppose on some level it's the same as the way we wouldn't eat our family pet, but don't think twice about eating other meats.

Anyway, I digress - I don't think that it's right to eat a fellow human being. Like Dyl said, partly out of respect, mostly out of just not being able to bring myself to do it. And @Dyl: Yeah, there's a part of the brain at the back that tends to be larger in canibals than non-canibalistic humans. That's thought to over-ride the more reasonable part of your brain and cause you to crave human meat.