A Swedish professor, Magnus Söderlund, declared that in order for the planet to survive the effects of “climate change,” human beings would need to make radical changes to their way of life, including their diets. Among the recommendations are the legalization of cannibalism, saying that it would be limited to dead bodies:
Anyone who watched TV4 After five on Tuesday may have been, to say the least, surprised. There, the idea was presented to start eating people.
The feature is about the fair “Gastro Summit – about the future of food” in Stockholm, where the behavioral scientist Magnus Söderlund holds seminars on the possibility of eating human flesh – to “save the climate”.
– What makes most of us react instinctively with disgust when talking about eating human flesh to save the climate ?, wonders host Tilde de Paula.
Magnus Söderlund answers:
– First of all, it is that this person who is to be eaten must be dead.
One problem could be that dead bodies overall are taboo. In addition, criticism arises against defiling a dead body. Another explanation, says Söderlund, is that many are “slightly conservative” when it comes to eating something they are not used to, ie other people.
The conclusion is that it can be difficult to get the Swedes to become cannibals for the sake of the climate. However, according to the researcher, it is important from a sustainability perspective to discuss different options for the future. (source, source)
Professor Magnus Söderlund has an interesting background. He is not a “scientist” in the way that one would think of when discussing environmentalism or the effects of “climate change” (despite how the Earth’s climate changes throughout history), but rather is a social scientist whose specialty is in marketing. Specifically, his area of research is into human reactions on a given topic. He has even written a book entitled “Experiments with People”, as his biography in Wikipedia notes:
Söderlund holds courses in consumer-related marketing and has written several books on the subject. Two of them have been named “Marketing Book of the Year in Sweden.” His research can be found in the field of consumer behavior ( English : consumer behavior, consumer research ), where you study how consumers acquire, use and dispose of products. His research focuses on how consumers react when they encounter marketing elements, such as a seller in a store or an ad. Examples of reactions in these studies is customer satisfaction , fairness perceptions ( English : perceived justice ), emotions, intentions andcustomer loyalty . These reactions are common in consumer behavior research , which is often about psychological reactions that are believed to influence consumer behavior in the form of purchases and repurchases. Many of Söderlund’s studies are experiments , which means that participants are randomly allocated to different groups, who receive different treatments, and then the groups’ reactions are compared after the treatments. An introduction to the method is given in Söderlund’s book Experiments with people (Liber, 2010) (source, source)
So what does this mean? Is Professor Söderlund really advocating for cannibalism in the true sense?
It is possible. However, noting that his specialty is in public reactions for marketing, could it be that this professor was paid to make this statement to see how people would respond?
Sometimes in news and media, something called a “trial balloon” is performed. This is when an organization makes a statement, usually something that is over-the-top, in order to see how the public responds. This is done usually because some form of the idea wants to be legitimized, and there is an attempt being made to see (a) how people will respond, (b) what arguments for or objections to they have, and (c) how to temper the message for the future based on the current conditions. It is a way of social programming.
The evidence suggests that cannibalism is going to become a major issue in the future, and far more than just stories about criminal behavior. To the contrary, it will be the social legitimization of the practice and would logically begin with legitimizing the consumption of either (a) parts of oneself or (b) dead bodies, especially those of unborn or aborted babies or criminals. Shoebat.com has covered this issue, noting that it is being presented to the public through the consumption of human placenta, be it raw or in capsule form, in the name of health. Cannibalism is also reviving in cases where people are eating parts of dead family members, or parts of themselves. There was the case of a Dutch woman who made blood sausage from her own blood, the man who chopped up his own foot and served it with tacos, or the Latvian artist who in the name of “art” cut tissue from a man and a woman, cooked it, and they ate it as part of a weird “performance”.
Likewise, remember the Hegelian dialectic. It is a way of reasoning that is used to determine truth not by seeking an absolute standard, but through dialogue between two opposing points and seeking a resolution by “meeting in the middle.” The way it works is that the first person proposes an idea, which Hegel called a “thesis,” and another person proposes the opposite idea, called the “antithesis.” Since the assumption is that “truth” lies somewhere between these two extremes, the “thesis” and “antithesis” argue with each other to form a new outcome, which Hegel called the “synthesis.” If “truth” has not yet been reached, then the “synthesis” is proposed as the new “thesis,” a corresponding anthesis is proposed as well, and a new “synthesis” is developed.
From what it seems, this story is about preparing the public to accept the disgusting but commonly practiced in the world of antiquity practice of cannibalism. This only makes sense, for the more that Christianity and the traces of her disappear from society, the more that the old heathenry returns to fill the void. In this case, cannibalism is being proposed as the “answer” (thesis) to the problem of climate change (issue), to which the antithesis will be “cannibalism is not an answer.” Eventually, through enough “trial balloons” and social manipulation, there may come a point where a new thesis is reached that legitimizes cannibalism in some cases, which will then continually be pushed until all forms of eating people are normalized.
Don’t say it could not happen. People three, four, and five decades ago did not believe that sodomy could be accepted, but today sodomy is not only accepted, but if you do not accept it you are a social outcast. Men complain that they “did not see it” coming, but the signs were all around them for many years. It was not that they did not see them, but that they refused to pay attention.
Don’t be caught unaware about this issue, because in the world of the Internet, where even the laziest of men, whose days are spend in humid basements on fetid couches and feed on nacho chips and chicken tendies to the company of the occasional fly, roach, or rat, even they can, through their computers, talk to people from around the world, stay up with global news, and learn more skills than people just a few decades ago could dream of.
There is no more excuse.