THE SERVANT GENERAL
ON FAITH, FAMILY AND LIFE
THE CLIMATE CHANGE HOAX – 10
September 14, 2019
A behavioral scientist has proposed eating people after they
die as a way to combat climate change. Your initial reaction
of course, like most other people, would be “No way.”
But many things that were not acceptable or even taboo some
decades back are now very acceptable and even celebrated.
Take abortion; take late-term abortion; take infanticide after
the baby survives abortion and is just born.
Take all the other aspects of the culture of death. What was
bad before has become good. What was ridiculous before, like
men saying they are women, has become accepted.
I remember the 1973 movie Soylent Green. Dead people were
processed into food for human consumption. The 1970s saw the
growth of the environmental movement, which today has captivated
most people. There is hysteria about global warming (now renamed
climate change because the globe had not warmed significantly;
oh, why can’t nature cooperate with the false prophets
of doom?). There will be food and energy shortages, all blamed
on overpopulation. So don’t have babies, if you get
pregnant then get an abortion, if you are old or sick then
be euthanized. All for the sake of the planet.
And, since there might be food shortages (resulting no doubt
from banning cows that fart), then we might as well eat people
who die. The movie Soylent Green was situated in New York
City in the year 2022, when things had gotten really bad.
From the way liberals talk, that is where we are headed. Well,
if they have their way, we really will get there.
Globalists that are depopulationists want to radically reduce
world population from 7 billion to 500 million, looking to
a utopian world. What they will get is a dystopian world.
So much for the climate change hoax.
Scientist proposes eating people after they
die to combat ‘climate change’
13, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Back when I was still a university
student in British Columbia, I used to travel to other campuses
quite often to help out with pro-life displays. Debating secular
university students is an always interesting and sometimes
infuriating experience, and one of my friends used to box
pro-abortion philosophy students into admitting that if their
position on the value of pre-born human life was an ethically
sound one, society might have a moral responsibility to use
fetuses for meat (lower carbon footprint, ready supplythe
benefits were endless.) It was a savage and clever way of
illustrating just how awful the consequences of denying the
humanity of human beings of a certain age group could be.
Unfortunately, it sometimes seems as if those of us who point
out the potential results of an anti-human worldview are just
giving our ideological opponents ideaswho, after all,
would have thought that infanticide would be such a debate
in 2019, and that the Democrats would refuse to condemn itincluding
almost every single major Democratic presidential candidate?
But I still did a double-take when I spotted a headline reading:
“Swedish Scientist Proposes Cannibalism to Fight Climate
I suppose in some ways it was only a matter of time. Climate
activists have been desperately attempting to convince human
beings to stop giving birth to more human beings so we can
save our planet for future human beings (the ones we shouldn’t
be having, presumably.) Prince Harry promised
that he and Meaghan Markle are only going to have two kids
to protect the planet, which most people are okay with if
it means we hear less about them. The trend of people deciding
not to have children in order to reduce carbon emissions is
growing, and I’ve heard interviews with advocates of
this position a half dozen times on the radio this summer
alone. If we sacrifice enough children to the sun god, the
feeling goes, perhaps he will smile on us.
But Magnus Soderland, a Swedish behavioral scientist, has
moved beyond the population reduction plans of these climate
pikers. On the Swedish television channel TV4 earlier this
month, Soderland proposed eating
people after they die as a method of combatting climate change.
His research, he noted, discovered that one key problem with
his plan is the “widespread taboo” surrounding
“eating human flesh,” which pretty much anyone
could have told him before he started this research. Eating
people has been a nearly universal taboo for a very long time
(although CNN’s Reza Aslan, a noted progressive, did
chomp down a bit of human brain on TV awhile back.)
Soderland also said that “conservative attitudes”
make it difficult to sell the idea of cannibalism to the public,
but that it was important to consider this option in the name
of sustainability, inadvertently making the case for the more
widespread promotion of conservative attitudes. Interestingly,
he’s not the first secular climate alarmist to call
cannibalism a “taboo” recently, eitherfamous
atheist Richard Dawkins tweeted out last year about the potential
for lab-grown “clean” meat, and wondered: “What
if human meat is grown? Could we overcome our taboo against
cannibalism? An interesting test case for consequentialist
morality versus ‘yuck reaction’ absolutism.”
As Dawkins accidentally highlighted, when
an absolute morality is abandoned in favor of consequentialist
morality, all we’re left with is “the ends justifies
the means”and the freedom to justify pretty much
any ends we choose to. So dismembering pre-born
human beings developing in the womb, killing them just after
they are born, burning their bodies for energyall of
this is okay. And if you object to eating fetusesand
this has actually happened, in case you think that’s
an insane scenariothen perhaps you simply need to get
over your “yuck reaction absolutism,” as the enlightened
Dawkins would put it.
To me, however, it appears that this morality is the only
thing standing between us and a horribly primitive darkness.
Jonathon’s new podcast, The Van Maren Show, is dedicated
to telling the stories of the pro-life and pro-family movement.
In his latest episode, he interviews Mary Eberstadt
about the sexual revolution. Eberstadt provides an incredibly
influential, intellectual, precise commentary about current
culture, philosophy, and the fate of the post-modern man.
She has a recently released book titled “Primal Screams:
How the Sexual Revolution Created Identity Politics,”
but also wrote, “How the West Really Lost God”
and “Adam and Eve after the Pill.”