World Hunger: Discussion of Cannibalism as a Possible Solution

Has it ever crossed anyone’s mind to consider that a solution to fixing two of the biggest world problems is cannibalism? That’s right, it has the power to save the world. Now, considering that most replies and comments to this would mostly be negative and disagreeing before an explanation, there has to be things to think of before shooting it down immediately: The effect that will happen because of overpopulation. The more people there are on the earth, the more of the limited resources are being used. Soon enough, the world will hit its limit and consequences are going to affect the population drastically. The second topic ties in with overpopulation, which the more people you have, the more food you will need. World hunger already affects people at a high percentage. If you have ever thought about the circumstances that you would go to in order to eat, you wouldn’t believe that it would be more extreme if experienced when starving. The movie, Soylent Green, was produced in 1973 which revolves around resorting to cannibalism, but nobody knows. It takes place in the year 2022, where the world is struck by overpopulation and pollution that drastically changes the weather which causes shortages of food to eat. A company produces “Soylent Green” which they say is made of ocean plankton, but is actually made of human meat. The main character finds this out and immediately shouts, “Soylent Green is People!” (Fleischer) When it gets down to the hidden and painful truth, humanity ruins the world. Too many negative outcomes outweigh the good. They are parasites that plague the earth and its animals. The world’s morals aren’t as high and mighty as the people who are blinded by higher powers are told, so why not embrace it.

The problems of overpopulation and world hunger outweighs the taboo of cannibalism. Overpopulation can lead to many problems for the world, which could lead to many disastrous outcomes. The environment, weather, and plants are major targets, but only three of the things out of many that will be ravaged. Adam C. Davis writes about the subject of overpopulation. He makes three different arguments on why overpopulation is bad and not being taken care of enough. He states, “Human overpopulation continues to be a pressing problem for the health and viability of the environment, which impacts the survival and well-being of human populations. Limiting the number of offspring one produces or deciding to remain child-free may be viewed as a proenvironmental behavior (PEB) that can significantly reduce one's carbon footprint.” (Davis) Human populations around the world won’t experience anything better from this outcome. He suggests limiting the number of children a family has, but that could take years upon years to find an efficient way to stop people from reproducing. He also says, “Given the global surplus in food, the unsustainable and inequitable patterns of consumption and distribution in many wealthy nations, such as the United States, Canada, and Australia, must change.” (qtd. by Davis) The countries he named have a major percentage of food they eat, and with the comfortability of having food leads to producing more offspring which makes another mouth to feed. He quotes this because of how reckless these countries are with their food. They are born and raised on the lifestyle of getting any quantity of food they desire. It is an overlooked fact that needs to be unearthed. He also talks about the attitude of people that are successful by saying, “Some contend that overpopulation is a non-issue used by the elite in the “global North” to maintain current unsustainable consumption patterns while blaming the poor, women, people of color, immigrants, and those residing in the “global South” who produce a negligible impact on the environment.” (qtd. by Davis et al.) He uses this quote to interpret that people think it is a scam to “point fingers” at countries on the south of the equator for impacting the environment. Only humans can lose touch with the right thing to do that they deny any truth if it is too negative for them to deal with. Kate Whiting writes an article about David Attenborough talking about overpopulation. She says, “More people means more carbon footprints - more cars, waste and emissions, more houses and infrastructure to be constructed using the world’s limited resources, more mouths to be fed using more water and energy in food production. So, how many people is too many?” (Whiting) She makes it apparent that there is going to be a limit to the world’s population before a catastrophe. No words can express the importance of this statement because anything a person says or hears can be easily tossed aside. Only the heart and soul can understand, yet people lost that ability years ago. She also talks about the effect on the planet by saying, “But while fertility levels (and birth rates) are dropping globally, the overall trend is continued population growth, with increasing pressure on the planet’s limited resources - and impact on the environment.” (Whiting) Even with birth rates dropping in the world, the overall population is still increasing. She adds in what Attenborough has put his two cents in by saying, “Attenborough notes: ‘One of the reasons population has increased as fast as it has, is that people like me are living longer than we did, so there are more and more people just because the expectancy of life has increased.’” (qtd. by Whiting) Because that life expectancy has increased, population is going to increase at a faster rate because people are dying slower. More people, means more food.

World hunger is nothing to underestimate. With how advanced humans are in the modern world, it should be apparent that a high percentage could be fed adequately. That isn’t the case, as a fourth of the world’s population doesn’t have food. “A further sketch of how famine and hunger shaped the discussion of development ethics in the 1970s and 1980s is beyond the scope of the present article.” This statement by Thompson says that what he is reviewing doesn’t focus on how massive of a problem hunger and famine is. It is much larger than what they are saying. The “World Health Organization” has conducted research and have given statistics in the modern era.

People that are food secure go through extreme kinds of pain that can only be experienced to understand. Many deformities are created when a child doesn’t have enough nutrients. With the statistics stated, over a third of children under 5 are affected by stunting, wasting, and being overweight. It is difficult and nearly impossible to properly proportion food across the world, with that supported by the statement by the “World Health Organization” saying, “Too many people lack access to the quantity and quality of food they need. And too many people are not healthy enough to nutritionally benefit from food.” (Grebmer et al. 21) With doing research, Paul Thompson reviews and shows flaws in a journal written about developmental ethics in the 1970s to the 2000s. It is nothing new to learn this news, but it is astounding that most of the rich vessels in the world have the power but won’t use it to help the ones in need. He states, “Hardin tied the Ehrlich's ecological analysis to a critique of altruism, arguing that it is unethical to provide food to poor nations in the absence of a ‘birthrate solution', because doing so would only defer the onset of famine, leading to an even greater amount of suffering in the future.” With this statement, it is said that a bigger problem will arise when people attempt to provide food to people who are helpless. There has been help to support countries with extreme famine, but not all countries can be helped. The idea of helping the ones in need the most is still flawed when it comes to world hunger. the “World Health Organization” states, “In the same world where around 800 million people go hungry and 2 billion suffer from some form of malnutrition, more than a third of the adult population is obese and a third of all food produced is lost or wasted.” 

The concept of a proper balance between “too less” and “too much” isn’t thought of by many people. World hunger isn’t just about the effect on starving people, but of every topic that has to do with food that isn’t balanced in the world. This adds in obesity and overeating, which increases the food wasted and people starving. Paul Garwood states, “An estimated 820 million people did not have enough to eat in 2018, up from 811 million in the previous year, which is the third year of increase in a row.” The amount of people that don't have enough food rises each year. At this rate, people can only slow it.

Cannibalism is not as taboo as people say. Jared Piazza and Neil McLatchie wrote an article on explaining why humans think cannibalism is “taboo.” They state, “The way we interact with animals shapes the way we categorize them. Research shows that the more we think of animals as having human properties—that is, as being 'like us'—the more we tend to think they're gross to eat.” The more humans make a connection with an animal, they feel repulsive to think about eating it. That’s why many people wouldn’t eat their dogs. It is a weird thing to think about, but it is the same concept. Which is directly stated by, “This deep connection between personhood and flesh can mean that careful reasoning in certain situations over the merits of cannibalism is overridden by our feelings of repulsion and disgust.” People in earlier history didn’t deal with these feelings on a bigger scale. Joyce Shin explains this in an article she wrote about human interaction and cannibalism. She says, “In the past, disease was rampant, which meant lifespans were short. You didn’t really have time to form bonds and relations with other people, whether it be with your family or friends.” Because of a connection with other humans wasn’t as strong as it is in the modern world, they didn’t have a hesitation to eat human flesh. Another argument is made by her when she states,

“I think a good place to start would be from an evolutionary standpoint, after all human beings are simply organisms— a highly adapted and specialized species— nonetheless, mere animals. In the animal kingdom, the ingestion of other members of species is not uncommon, and is in fact, a strategy for survival. In many species, eating another member is natural, even logical, in that you’re increasing your own fitness, while eliminating competition.”

After all, humankind is just advanced compared to the rest of the animal kingdom. Cannibalism is also more common in history than many expect. Thomas states, “In fact, sacred cannibalism persisted (or reappeared) in the West all the way up to Roman times.” It still happens in Amazonian tribes in today’s world. They don't hide it either, with Thomas stating,

“In such war-torn areas, participants in ritual cannibalism are often happy to make their motivations clear. They draw spiritual and physical power from the consumption of human flesh. The practice serves an obvious propagandistic value as well, striking fear into the hearts of enemies. And in child armies, cannibalism is an initiation ritual, an ordeal that transforms a boy into a man and makes him feel sanctified, empowered, and safe under the hails of bullets.”

It gives them a sense of power when fighting. With this power comes pride of the consumption of human flesh. Chen makes a statement on why it is harder for mammals to think about eating their offspring with, “When you get to mammals, it's rarer because you're dealing with less offspring and [more] parental care. The cannibalism you do see sometimes takes place because of environmental stresses.” Mammals still eat their offspring, with it mostly happening under a huge stress from their surroundings, which can be starvation. It isn’t uncommon to resort to eating their offspring because of starvation either, even with humans. Chen states, “It's natural behavior. Scientists have looked at starvation. At a certain point, one of the predictable behaviors that you'll see is cannibalism. It could start with dead bodies and then get to the extreme where you kill somebody and eat them.” People overlook cannibalism, which doesn’t have to be used in the extreme to fix world hunger. It could open up a new future for people to live a better life.

Cannibalism isn’t far from an outrageous suggestion to help fix two major problems in the world. World hunger already affects a fourth of the population, and continues to increase by the day. Overpopulation is making us use more and more resources a day, which will inevitably reach a point of no turning back when the world hits its maximum usage and will lead to severely worse effects on the world. Cannibalism isn’t the worst idea to resort to. It is more common than people are informed about, and not as taboo depending on the location you ask people around the world. It doesn’t have to be used in extreme measures, but could open up many other possibilities to help better the world for everyone around it.