cannibalism in a disaster situation

i just browsed through the thread talking about the sun fizzing out or something like that and someone said that if all the crops died there would be little to no food so i started thinking about this.

now of course i can not be sure of what i would do in a disaster situation but....

i think id be eating and feeding my family people....

ive read discussions before where people have said they would rather die than eat a person.
well, not me

what about you?

im talking some end of the world type situation. nuclear winter. 3/4 of the population gone. things like that.

i really dont think id have any sort of problem chowing down on someone....
i mean we are talking survival

oh.
not saying that on day one i would munch one someone.
i meant if there was no other food source or if my family and i were going days without food only to share a squirrel or something.

a reply to: Mugly

We are probably one of the most toxic animals one could consume.
I'd resort to eating grass and tree bark before eating another human being.

I couldn't raw.... it would have to be char grilled first.

I don´t think i would be able but who knows how far we can go when in hunger, I rather would eat leaves etc.
Cannibalism causes kuru prion disease with neurological disorders.. not my cup of coffee.

a reply to: Darkblade71

prob wont last long living off grass.
hunger and thirst can do strange things to people

like people that are lost at sea. they know they can not drink the sea water but after so many days with no liquid, they drink it. then they die

i would imagine starvation does the same thing.

might sound fine and dandy to want to eat grass and bark but it might not get the job done.

a reply to: EnigmaAgent

definitely not raw if at all possible.

dollukka...i think everyones moral compass would change when faced with starvation.
as far as the diseases and disorders....the name of the game is always to survive a little longer.

If there was absolutely NO other choice?

Yes.

Of course.

There's a HUGE gulf of difference between what we'd rather do to survive and what we might have to do to survive, but the key word is survive.

a reply to: MysterX

thats my point.

so many people say they never would and would rather die.
i dont think it would be that way though
in a true survival situation, i think even those that say they wouldnt, would

hard to say, i say i couldn't , or wouldn't, but if push comes to shove i just don't know. i can say this i would be looking hard for another alternative while i argued with myself and who ever the others are with me.

you know some parts of a pine tree are eatable.

here is a thread i made about.
Ever eat a pine tree? Many parts are edible.

Well, if you have that kind of morbid interest this day, have a read at these…

search results

a reply to: Mugly

Yeah, I hear you there, but there are many options instead of eating another human, in most cases anyways.
But then, I don't know, I have never been to the point of starvation where someone looks good enough to fry up.

I would look for other solutions before eating someone else.

Bugs have protein, and there are plenty of those around everywhere.
I could see using human parts as bug bait.

But honestly, I'll eat almost anything so I don't think that in a situation where that was ALL there was, I would not do it.
I certainly would look for other solutions first though.

Kind of like the book "Alive"(true story), where that was all they had to survive,
if there was no other choice,
Survival comes before any sort of thoughts on anything, you got to do what yo0u got to do to stay alive.

I'll go a step further. Is there the possibility that you could eat yourself to save your life? Could you garner more energy and live longer by amputating your leg and eating it?

You would have to do a good job on the amputation, but could it save your life or your family's life while still letting you live? I can't say for sure, but it seems better than eating someone else.

Just in a general sense, not in this particular deep-freeze situation.

a reply to: Mugly

Why not eat the bullet?
All food including human meat is going to be toxic in a worst case scenario within a few months and instead of suffering just eat a bullet.

a reply to: Halfswede

How are you going to survive without your limbs in a situation like a nuclear winter?

a reply to: thesaneone

maybe i would but i doubt it
that is not survival

a reply to: Mugly

I would have no problem eating grilled human steak if I had to, my wish to stay alive is greater than any philosophical or moral debate.
I would be quicker to eat someone I had no emotional connection with though.
Meat is meat, but humans would be my last choice, after primates.

i hope you you got some aromatic woods for roasting your long pig.
i think eating it unseasoned or smoked would suck.

a reply to: Mugly

Give me 48-72 hours without food and I'll eat you.

Three days is all it takes for things to start getting ugly in society. Deprive the masses of food for three days. I'd say this is very true in the US. We have great faith in our government to bail us out, but we have very poor community structure. In the event of a massive government failure there is very little sense of community in many US neighborhoods that might hold us together.

Ultimately I don't think people would end up being the best food source. The human population will dwindle rapidly in an apocalypse scenario. Most people are not prepared to sustain themselves for any length of time. The more energy efficient thing will be to eat smaller and far less deadly game. If you pay attention to the top predators they normally go for fairly safe kills. If you want to survive the end-o'-days you better be thinking like they do or you're gone. It's all about minimizing risk.

a reply to: Mugly

In your scenario life would most likely not exist after a year.