I think you lot are being far too squeamish about this. Dr Jonathan Swift's modest proposal of 1729 would have alleviated the Irish famine no end, and it would also have the affect of stimulating the economy. Now as the world is approaching a position that the human population becomes difficult to support, and the economy is in difficulties, this would be an ideal solution. Now I am the first to admit cannibalism does present difficulties, but these can easily be overcome. Prions are only a danger in an enclosed system, so as long as we don't eat cannibals there is little danger. To do this all we have to do is divide the human population into those to be eaten and those that will do the eating.
Now I know you will say who would want to be eaten, and it would be unfair, and create a very unequal society. I can dispose of these trifling objections. We can give certain inducements that would be attractive to people to become the stock in our new farms, we could offer them a pleasant lifestyle and a good life with all the advantages, they can be reared in wonderful surroundings so that they have a great life that ends without pain in the blink of an eye. In short I propose we eat the rich.

HG Wells has shown it could work and who would not like nibbling on a little bit of eloi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9miqKm0aB0

I can imagine in a post-apocalyptic situation where society broke down and the system of economics was forfeit that cannablism would become quite popular.
I mean if you have a lack of food and severe overpopulation what do you think is going to happen?
I'll tell you whats going to happen;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq14GxxdeDk
I prefer a leaner steak.

(September 13, 2012 at 4:13 am)Puddleglum Wrote: I don't eat any meat. I find the whole idea of killing any sentient creature for their flesh obscene.

So creationists are fair game then?

(September 14, 2012 at 7:31 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(September 13, 2012 at 4:13 am)Puddleglum Wrote: I don't eat any meat. I find the whole idea of killing any sentient creature for their flesh obscene.

So creationists are fair game then?

However sentience refers to being able to 'feel' in my moral world rather than think intelligently and although they rate somewhere between my hounds and the Lizards on the wall they still feel pain and distress so no.

Added ,to whit, all that bile, piss ,wind and gristle would make them taste pretty bad.

First point, not advocating killing, just the consumption of someone who is already dead. I've yet to see a reasonable ethical counter-point, but a lot of cultural judgements. I agree that its fucking gross and I'm not exactly advocating it as a major practice but simply as one that doesn't violate any ethical standard (other than theological) that I've met with. Realistically, we are far more sustainable as cannibals than as regular carnivores.
Admittedly, the diseases would be an issue but some simple control and regulation would surely alleviate this to some degree, would it not? If not then sure, t may be impractical and dangerous, but not unethical.
In answer to who would be eaten? well, pretty much anyone if it became a major thing but, otherwise, I'm cool with it. I'd happily donate my body to some cannibal other in my will. Seems more useful than rotting in a box underground. But then again I like the way that Neil DeGrasse Tyson put burial:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afGkv0IT4dU 1:16 - 1:38

Will address other things as they come

P.S- starving on a desert island? I'd certainly rather eat human (as long as I haven't killed it) than die, the former is just a ridiculous waste of life in my opinion, but that proves little. I think the best way I could express my opinion is that the choice is one which would be ethically acceptable, regardless of action thereabouts.

(September 14, 2012 at 12:28 pm)liam Wrote: It may be impractical and dangerous, but not unethical.

A case can be made that if it is impractical and dangerous, then it is unethical as well. If the purpose of an ethical theory is to guide you on how to live a long, healthy and fulfilling life, then anything that is impractical and dangerous would be unethical.

(September 14, 2012 at 1:11 pm)genkaus Wrote: A case can be made that if it is impractical and dangerous, then it is unethical as well. If the purpose of an ethical theory is to guide you on how to live a long, healthy and fulfilling life, then anything that is impractical and dangerous would be unethical.

The case can be made, yet that is assuming that it is and that it is the correct one. Yet there is little to say that practicality and happiness are synonymous, murder can be useful, but not necessarily moral all at once. It is as easy to claim that a case may be stated that morality is entirely separate of usefulness and happiness. Furthermore, there are in this some assertions that a long, healthy, fulfilling life are those which are pragmatic and a reasonable end. While it certainly seems a reasonable end to strive for it does not necessarily have to be the only one or supporting of the claim of the view you proposed.

Think I'll stick to being cremated.

(September 14, 2012 at 1:37 pm)liam Wrote: The case can be made, yet that is assuming that it is and that it is the correct one. Yet there is little to say that practicality and happiness are synonymous, murder can be useful, but not necessarily moral all at once. It is as easy to claim that a case may be stated that morality is entirely separate of usefulness and happiness. Furthermore, there are in this some assertions that a long, healthy, fulfilling life are those which are pragmatic and a reasonable end. While it certainly seems a reasonable end to strive for it does not necessarily have to be the only one or supporting of the claim of the view you proposed.

You misunderstand my point. I am specifically talking about an ethical theory constructed towards the purpose of long, healthy and fulfilling life. You stated that you had not come across any ethical objection towards cannibalism except for vacuous religious ones and all objection simply classified it as impractical or dangerous. Assuming that you do not believe in a singular universal moral theory, you should be acquainted with a multitude of them which equate impracticality/danger with immorality and provide you with an ethical objection to cannibalism - if it is in fact dangerous.