DeletedUser
I once had this philosophical/scientific debate with my parents. Here's the circumstances:
1. People are trapped without any source of food.
2. People KNOW 100% that they will not live by the time the rescue comes, except for perhaps living off their own body fat.
3. There is no way to escape.
4. Due to whatever reason, they can't cannibalize their companions if they die of natural causes.
The question is this: who do you eat first?
This seems a simple enough question at first, but there are a lot of different things to take into consideration, mainly these several points.
NOURISHMENT VS USEFULNESS
A lot of the time, if people I know are joking about the subject, they refer to eating the fat person in the group. (this is often me)
Usually, my rebuttal is that we should eat the muscular person. This is based off some science. Suppose you have two people the cannibals are thinking of eating: Person X, who is your stereotypical fat, weak person, and Person Y, who is your stereotypical muscular, fit person.
Fat is loaded down with carbohydrates, and it tastes good (at least when cooked with something). Muscle is the actual "meat" though. So who should you really eat? Plus, I don't know how long it takes kwashiorkor to set in, but that is caused by lack of protein, which comes from muscle.
Of course, the nutritional value of a dead person must be balanced against the value of a living person. Person Y might be helpful, since he/she has a fit body. But then again, maybe Person X has some special skill.
DESERVING
Here's another way to judge: how deserving a person is to live. If Person X or Person Y lived like Mother Theresa, but you are also trapped with Person Z who is abusive, a layabout, and has committed many thefts and burglaries (and isn't going to reform anytime soon), who would have to be sacrificed for the safety of the group?
WILLING SACRIFICE
Suppose Person V is such a good person they would willingly lay down their life for the good of the whole. However, they are skinny, and in the long run you could benefit more from killing Person X or Y. The problem here is that V is the only willing person to die in the group.
IMPORTANCE
Maybe, back at home, Person U is President of (insert nation) or a CEO, or just somebody general important in the grand scheme of things. Do you save them, even though they might be the most ideal person to kill based on other reasons?
GO WITHOUT
This is the last option. You and/or the rest of your party would rather ALL die than have somebody's blood on your hands.
1. People are trapped without any source of food.
2. People KNOW 100% that they will not live by the time the rescue comes, except for perhaps living off their own body fat.
3. There is no way to escape.
4. Due to whatever reason, they can't cannibalize their companions if they die of natural causes.
The question is this: who do you eat first?
This seems a simple enough question at first, but there are a lot of different things to take into consideration, mainly these several points.
NOURISHMENT VS USEFULNESS
A lot of the time, if people I know are joking about the subject, they refer to eating the fat person in the group. (this is often me)
Usually, my rebuttal is that we should eat the muscular person. This is based off some science. Suppose you have two people the cannibals are thinking of eating: Person X, who is your stereotypical fat, weak person, and Person Y, who is your stereotypical muscular, fit person.
Fat is loaded down with carbohydrates, and it tastes good (at least when cooked with something). Muscle is the actual "meat" though. So who should you really eat? Plus, I don't know how long it takes kwashiorkor to set in, but that is caused by lack of protein, which comes from muscle.
Of course, the nutritional value of a dead person must be balanced against the value of a living person. Person Y might be helpful, since he/she has a fit body. But then again, maybe Person X has some special skill.
DESERVING
Here's another way to judge: how deserving a person is to live. If Person X or Person Y lived like Mother Theresa, but you are also trapped with Person Z who is abusive, a layabout, and has committed many thefts and burglaries (and isn't going to reform anytime soon), who would have to be sacrificed for the safety of the group?
WILLING SACRIFICE
Suppose Person V is such a good person they would willingly lay down their life for the good of the whole. However, they are skinny, and in the long run you could benefit more from killing Person X or Y. The problem here is that V is the only willing person to die in the group.
IMPORTANCE
Maybe, back at home, Person U is President of (insert nation) or a CEO, or just somebody general important in the grand scheme of things. Do you save them, even though they might be the most ideal person to kill based on other reasons?
GO WITHOUT
This is the last option. You and/or the rest of your party would rather ALL die than have somebody's blood on your hands.
Last edited by a moderator: