Monday, February 27, 2006

I'm no longer allowed to cook.

Though probably it was the timing of the question, not necessarily the question itself. All I asked was, "Why is cannibalism considered bad but organ, blood and tissue transplants are considered good?"

Aren't they really the same thing, just on a different scale?

Oh well, I'm sure I'll be let back in the kitchen by next weekend. The question arose in my mind while reading Alive. Okay, technically the question came to me at 3:30am Sunday morning while exploring a burned out house with a repo man after drinking too many rum and cokes (a totally different story), but I didn't actually ask it until having supper with Misseswether that evening.

For those of you who don't know, Alive is the true story of a group of sixteen rugby players whose plane crashed in the middle of the Andes mountains. They were trapped for seventy days with no food.

Well, no food except the 34 people who didn't survive...

So, thoughts*?

Adventure! Excitement! Loss of appetite!

*Note to Gizmo, I really am not a pycho.


Michael said...

Hmmm. I'd mentioned the canoeing invite to Terry and in jest mentioned you probably just wanted to get me out in the woods to make a stew. Keep in mind, I'm sure I'd be nothing but gristle. =)

Considering the difference in cultural acceptance of transplants and so forth as opposed to cannibalism, I guess my take on it is that, firstly, any tissue or blood you get was almost certainly donated by a willing volunteer and, while providing an important service to one's body doesn't directly provide nourishment and isn't done for pleasure, but is rather undertaken by necessity.

Alternately, eating in general is a pleasurable thing and generally speaking people are opposed to getting pleasure out of the taking of human life. I think we can also draw a line between understandable resortations to cannibalism, such as in the case of the Donner party and Andes crash where death would have been the result of not cannibalising the dead, as opposed to ritualistic cannibalism such as that of the Aztecs or Fore tribe of New Guinea, where cannibalism is/was resorted to even in the presence of other food sources.

What really happened to Clark????


Merriwether the Adventurer said...

"eating in general is a pleasurable thing and generally speaking people are opposed to getting pleasure out of the taking of human life."

For some reason I really like that statement. In my original question I should have put a qualifier about how the transplant/cannibalism would be the only option to prevent death. But then it wouldn't have been as funny! =-)

In the case of the Rugby team the main argument for eating the dead was based on a Catholic/religous reasoning going back to the "body of Christ" business. being Catholic myself, I see where they were coming from. The team consisted of all boys ages 19-21, plus one older gentleman. all of them were brought up VERY Catholic so it makes sense that that would be the most powerful argument. This took place before widespread organ transplants, so that whole line of reasoning wouldn't even occur to them, though later on one of the priests helping them recover did compare thier cannibalism favorably to a blood transfusion.

As for the "willing donor" a number of deaths occured well after the crash due to assorted crash-induced injuries. In these cases those boys did tell the others to eat them if/when they died. How's that for "love thy neighbor"?

As for Clark, um, he's around somewhere. This sixty pounds of beef jerky was just the result of a really good sale... ;-)


Michael said...

Love thy neighbor indeed. If it came down to it, I wouldn't consider it a bad thing to be eaten by my buds if they needed it. Getting eaten by some anonymous jerk, though, well, that's adding insult to injury!

I need to lay up some more food stores...

Reagrding the Clarkjy, as long as it's not teriyaki, I'm good. =)