In Defence of State-Endorsed Cannibalism
J. K. Giih
As long as there are states, people will be citizens owned by the states. Consequently it is somewhat surprising that no state I'm aware of is executing its right to utilize the corpses of its dead people as food as opposed to ditching them in pits in the ground to rot. According to research, if even half of the people who have died so far during the history had been eaten, it would have been completely unnecessary to aggrandize farming to the extent that all the work can no longer be done without the aid of a tractor and other destructive machinery. Have you ever heard the phrase »you're so cute I could eat you»? There is deep wisdom hidden in these words, namely that humans have a natural tendency to eat things they find appealing and not to eat things they find repulsive. There is absolutely no risk in eating a beautiful person if it doesn't look infected or partly decomposed or anything like that. If we, on the other hand, try to think of reasons not to eat a beautiful person, we can't find any. What other uses could a dead body possibly have? Some might be tempted to have sex with one. But as we know from experience you can only do that a limited number of times before the meat is completely rotten and you might eventually scratch your penis on a sharp edge of a bone. As it says in the great book, invest ye not in temporary rewards. But, you may ask, is food not also temporary? Perhaps as we shoulnd't make love to those who have passed on we shouldn't eat them either? Surely this is valid reasoning? But, to take a practical view, as long as there are people there will be people eating something. Is it not better to eat people than chicken? After all, and here we conclude our proposition, people are much bigger than chicken.