A case for cannibalism in society

[genkaus]

The homosexuals had a compelling reason in that the expression of human sexuality is a fundamental need.

The cannibals might argue that the expression of cannibalism is a fundamental need for them. In fact, a lot of the cultural cannibals do argue that.

Moreover, homosexuality existed in the wild, so its supposed harmful effects were not based on any evidence. (Our experience with cannibalistic populations is almost zero.)

On the contrary, we do have knowledge of a lot of cannibalistic species in the wild - such as in pigs, cats, crocodiles and chimpanzees. And so far, we haven't seen much of the harmful effects.

Moreover, nobody 'gave' homosexuals the rights they have as much as they fought for them.

That was my point. They shouldn't have had to.

And cannibalism is not a basic need.

How do you determine a "basic need"?

Moreover, we have experience of homosexuality both in other cultures, underground cultures and other species.

The same goes for cannibalism. You can experience it in other cultures, underground cultures and other species.

I understand the point you are making and it is a good one. However things like the rabbits in Australia, the Asian jumping carp which is poised to destroy the fishing industry in the great lakes, genetic pollution, and other potential disasters have to be weighed against benefit. Note that I didn't put up an absolute bar, but a relative one in which the benefits need to be weighed against the risk. I never stated that we shouldn't "explore" the prospect, but that without compelling interests, movement toward them should be conservative. The example you suggested put up an absolute bar. What if one of Chuck's prion's results in a form of acquired psychopathy. What benefit to cannibals and their suppliers justifies that? Should we introduce the Asian jumping carp into other lake systems, just to see what happens? We wouldn't want to bar exploration. Or perhaps there is a continent lacking in Kudzu we should try? There are environments where alien pythons haven't invaded yet. Let's get some snakes on a plane.

The difference is that while experiments in can and do get out of hand very quickly, the same is not true for human societies. You keep comparing allowing cannibalism to genetic pollution, but there is simply no evidence that it is on the same scale. In all the cases where the genetic pollution resulted in a disaster, the key factor of rapid and near-uncontrollable spread of the polluting agent through the entire ecosystem. The same would obviously not be true for cannibalism. Even of cannibalism is legalized, the entire population is not going to become cannibalistic overnight. In fact, I'd think that things would remain pretty much the same for a long time.

It'd be pretty much the same as introducing any new food-product. There'd be companies that make and sell the product, only on this case, a select demographic. The existing social taboo would prevail and prevent much spreading for years. If negative health effects do come to light, then the people are going to sue the manufacturing companies - like they always do. If the scientists find out harmful health effects of cannibalism, then they'd publish their findings and the legalization may be repealed or atleast a warning label attached depending on how powerful the cannibal lobby has become. And the fundies will hit the roof no matter what.