This may be in the cesspool in no time but I needed to ask. If you were stranded on a remote place with two more people, lost, hungry and exhausted would you eat another human for survival?
If I'm stranded on a place that is so desolate that there isn't any form of life -plants, animals, insects, or fish- I'd start looking for a way to kill myself.
I'll start with the blood unless its absolutely necesary I have to eat something solid. I sure as hell won't kill myself, besides what are you goin to use to do that without enormous pain
Well ya I see your point, though, it's hard to imagine a place so desolate that there isn't any life.
middle of the Pacific or Antartica, or even the sahara desert. There was a British novel flight that crashed in the middle of the Sahara desert in the 80's, worst place to crash in my opinion.http://planecrashinfo.com/
there was also that rugby team that crashed in the middle of mountains, where everything was covered in snow, and they did resort to eating the dead. Book and movie are called "Alive".
Adusting the scenario to make it easier to deal with the problem itself instead of the implausibilities, let's say you're stranded in a place where there's a chance of being rescued, but it might take a long time and you only have a short supply of food. Options: 1. You share the food and hope help comes before you run out. 2. You kill the other two people so you don't have to share the food and it will last longer. 3. You draw straws and kill one of the people. I suppose the carcass will yield about fifty pounds of meat which you might be able to get down if you cook it and close your eyes. More if you can stand to eat "byproducts." That might get the two of you through two months if you can cure the meat so it doesn't spoil. 4. If help hasn't arrived you draw straws again. This time the fifty pounds of meat will last one person four months. If help hasn't arrived by now it could be years (like "Lost") so don't beat yourself up over the fact that you didn't eat the byproducts. You could also let nature make the choice, share the food, and just wait until the first person dies of starvation, then go to Option 3. You may be thinking, "Draw straws hell, let's eat the fat lady." I believe that's fallacious. The fat lady can metabolize her own fat and lose a couple of pounds each week before she has to start sharing your food. For that matter, it's got to be more efficient for her to metabolize her own fat than for you to dress it and eat it. She would probably survive longer by eating you than vice versa. And for the first time in her life whe would be HAPPY that losing weight is such a slow process! (Sorry, I had to make it a fat lady because few fat men are obsessed with the mathematics of weight loss.)
If there was a chance of survival then yep, them human bones'll make a fine roast, indeed. So it's a human, big deal. Meat is meat. I don't really care for hypocritical ethics making humans somehow more sacred than the next beast. - N
fraggle, By the time the person dies of starvaton I doubt there will be enough, at least the uninfected tisssues, however in an American movie a MAN EAT MAGGOTS in order to survive starvation during a war. Anyway I think this thread is a bit too wired.
If by eating them increases my chances of survival, i'd smashing their faces with a rock while they are sleeping.
I am a concieted jerk. I am going to do everything in my power to survive. They are not worthy. I must live on to carry on my master genes.
