There’s something extremely bizarre taking place within the brain-matter of climate change zealots. Take for example the ghoulish, grisly and grotesque proposal of Swedish scientist Magnus Soderlund who is suggesting that one way to combat climate change is to eat another human-being, preferably deceased.
If this sounds like something out of the popular TV sci-fi series “The Walking Dead” you might not be that far off. The acclaimed behavioral scientist appearing on Swedish television channel TV4, at the beginning of this week mentioned to an interviewer an event in neighboring Stockholm dubbed “food of the future,” in which he will be participating in.
Söderlund acknowledged that he will be holding a series of seminars at the event, in which he has titled “Gastro Summit — about the future of food.”
When pressed for details regarding the subject matter Söderlund revealed that one of the topics he will be discussing within the seminar will be cannibalism, eating another human being in the name of cutting down on greenhouse emissions.
Söderlund’s research suggests that one of the biggest issues regarding eating another human is the widespread notion that eating human flesh is taboo; moreover conservative attitudes could make it hard to convince Swedes to take up the practice of cannibalism.
Another loon advocating eating human flesh is atheist Richard Dawkins who has been pushing this disgusting theory of cultivating and eating human “meat” for quite a while, to help society overcome its “taboo” against cannibalism.
Commenting on an article from the UK’s Independent newspaper, which touts the benefits of lab-grown “clean meat,” Dawkins tweeted out earlier this month that perhaps something similar could be done with human flesh, which would assist western culture in “shedding yet another irrational remnant of its Judeo-Christian roots.”
This pretty much tells you all you need to know about Dawkins – who believes that human beings are simply a higher form of animal to be exploited without reservation.
He denies the existence of anything that cannot be measured by science; he’s an amoral secular progressive who believes only in what he can touch and see through the lens of a microscope.
In another article for Newsweek last month Psychologists, Jared Piazza and Neil McLatchie of Lancaster University also questioned the taboo on cannibalism; however, the duo did not ultimately endorse the practice.
Stating, “Many people develop disgust for all kinds of meat, while morticians and surgeons quickly adapt to the initially difficult experience of handling dead bodies,” they note. “Our ongoing research with butchers in England suggests that they easily adapt to working with animal parts that the average consumer finds quite disgusting.”
The duo also noted the revulsion experienced over the prospect of consuming human flesh is not the product of reason, citing the infamous plane crash in the Andes Mountains, in which survivors eventually ate those that had perished in the disaster.
“Survivors of the famous 1972 Andes plane crash waited until near starvation before succumbing to reason and eating those who had already died,” they propose.
Cannibalism is not the only “alternative meat” advocated by climate change activists. Many have embraced plant-based meat imitations, while others have put their support behind “meat made of insects as a way to cut down on greenhouse emissions and save on land and water use.
There’s little doubt that the issue of climate change whether real or imagined has created some pretty extreme individuals, with ideas that have gone way beyond the norms of civilized discourse, into a world of depravity and moral corruption.