Scavenging & Cannibalism

[Doppleganger]

Let's say World War III happened and humanity is rotting. Processed food isn't common anymore but there's a lot of dead bodies all over the place. In this situation,

1. Do you eat the dead animals, provided they've been freshly dead (i.e., you see a horse collapse from exhaustion). Is it ethical to still kill a living horse to eat even though this dead one is right there, for you to chop up?

2. Do you eat the dead animals, provided you're starving but the meat isn't fresh and might even be rotting in some parts?

3. Do you eat the dead humans, provided they've been freshly dead (i.e., you saw guys kill each other over a fight) or do you bury them? What if you're starving?

4. Do you kill other humans to kill and consume them, considering you're starving and the potential prey might be feeble. Do you risk getting killed yourself for the benefits of companionship/teamwork by sticking with other humans, or consume them just to preserve yourself?

(assuming all posters on UPN are humans, not aliens/gods/demons)

Finally, are ethics only relevant to a specific society, and once the rules that govern that society break down, what is ethical starts to change? Killing a human to survive in modern day society is totally unacceptable, but in a post-apocalyptic world, isn't it rational?

[Loki]

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

1. Do you eat the dead animals, provided they've been freshly dead (i.e., you see a horse collapse from exhaustion). Is it ethical to still kill a living horse to eat even though this dead one is right there, for you to chop up?

The problem is, if something dies on it's own, you don't necessarily know what killed it. It could have died from exhaustion or old age or something that makes it dangerous to eat like poisoning or disease. If you yourself are suffering from starvation, eating a diseased or poisoned animal could leave you even weaker than prior to eating. So it's a risk you will have to take.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

2. Do you eat the dead animals, provided you're starving but the meat isn't fresh and might even be rotting in some parts?

That is an even bigger risk. Rotten food could potentially make you worse than if you ate nothing at all, as most of the calories you gain from eating will end up being used to fight the disease instead of helping you find your next meal.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

3. Do you eat the dead humans, provided they've been freshly dead (i.e., you saw guys kill each other over a fight) or do you bury them? What if you're starving?

This ultimately depends on how bad your hunger is. I remember reading about cannibalism and how it sometimes happens. When your hunger grows to an extreme point, the body begins to shut down less important organs. Eventually, you will have parts of your brain shut down and the first portion is the frontal lobe, which controls morals and judgment. With your frontal lobe down, you will pretty much be eating that dead guy and wondering why it took you so long to think of eating dead guys.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

4. Do you kill other humans to kill and consume them, considering you're starving and the potential prey might be feeble. Do you risk getting killed yourself for the benefits of companionship/teamwork by sticking with other humans, or consume them just to preserve yourself?

Again, we need to see the situation. Does it look like you could feasibly gather food in the area or does the place look totally desolate. If it's bad, I would think someone else may have had started thinking of killing people for food already. I would probably avoid people in general depending on the situation and how far along I'd have to manage to go to hopefully get more food, etc.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Finally, are ethics only relevant to a specific society, and once the rules that govern that society break down, what is ethical starts to change? Killing a human to survive in modern day society is totally unacceptable, but in a post-apocalyptic world, isn't it rational?

Yes. I totally think ethics and morals are based on status of society. Survival is of the utmost importance to each human, so whatever it takes to survive is what people will do.

And it doesn't take an apocalypse to change human morals or ethics. It is purely based on the state of society and people's personal beliefs. What we find normal is unethical in other countries. What we might find immoral is okay elsewhere.

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by Raptor Jesus

The problem is, if something dies on it's own, you don't necessarily know what killed it. It could have died from exhaustion or old age or something that makes it dangerous to eat like poisoning or disease. If you yourself are suffering from starvation, eating a diseased or poisoned animal could leave you even weaker than prior to eating. So it's a risk you will have to take.

That's actually a good answer to a question I've been wondering since childhood. When I was younger, I'd always wonder why when pigs die of bloat, people would just cast off the carcass and not eat the animal. I'd have thought it would be more moral to eat an animal that died on its own than to kill it (and I'd challenge vegetarians on this regard as well, if they only oppose eating meat on the grounds of inhumane slaughter of animals). You're completely right about not knowing what killed the animal.

FDA or USDA inspection prevents a lot of nasties in slaughterhouses from getting into our food supply, so there's a perception that most meats, once cooked, are going to be safe for consumption.

So let me amend the earlier post and say that "knowledge of food poisonings" is commonplace amongst apocalypse survivors. Given the propensity of those poisonings, people would have to learn to recognize animals they can't eat and treat flesh to make it edible. And while processed food might be scarce, fire isn't, so cooking food is very easy.

[Loki]

I'm fairly certain that there's no real way to make an "on the spot" inspection for safety. You would pretty much have to perform an autopsy on the dead carcass and hope you found the real reason it died. And if you're starving, you probably won't be making a proper inspection.

In addition, the time needed for food to go bad is relatively short. By the time you finish your inspection in the wilderness, the entire point would be moot. An entire rabbit will go from freshly dead to bloat to skin is like four days.

Even in today's society, with all fridges, the science labs, and proper time for inspection, carcasses are not allowed to be eaten. There are just far too many things that could possibly kill an animal to make it worth taking the risk.

To be honest, I would rather try and eat the maggots on a carcass than the carcass itself. But I would definitely try to cook them. Maybe if I had a skillet. Works as a weapon too. Another plus for a post apocalyptic world. :x

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by Raptor Jesus

To be honest, I would rather try and eat the maggots on a carcass than the carcass itself. But I would definitely try to cook them. Maybe if I had a skillet. Works as a weapon too. Another plus for a post apocalyptic world. :x

You're amazing.

Why did you go extinct again? o_o

[Rangeet]

As Loki said...eating the shitload of insects would be a much better thing to do in that situation. Without them, it depends on the risk, but I wouldn't treat animals any different from humans in that situation. If it comes to that, to hell with everyone else.

[Loki]

Fresh Maggots vs. Rotten Meat. If the maggots are cooked, you will generally be safer than if you cooked a slab of possibly rotten meat. You run more risk to your fingers touching the maggots then eating the maggots after cooking. And that's about the same risk as touching the rotten meat, except the meat is still risky after cooking.

Actually, the smaller something is, the better off you likely are. Larger animals like deer or moose are considerably more difficult to hunt due to their higher endurance and the risk of the animal fighting back. It's why wolves only give chase to prey that runs as opposed to prey that stands its ground. A flight response means you have less chance of getting hurt on the hunt. So rabbits and prairie dogs are better things to hunt in post apocalypse.

At the same time, cooking the larger animal is more difficult. When it runs the possibility of being rotten, it is even more difficult. If you under cook the 'steak', you risk food poisoning. If you overcook the meat, you will lose a lot of nutrition. At the same time, the longer cooking time could mean more exposure to possible human predation. Fire is an easy sign of another person and if a cannibal pack is around, the longer my fire burns, the higher my chances of being found become.

Meanwhile, bugs are extremely common (most species of insects outnumber humans billions to one), have short to no cooking time, and are typically good sources of protein. Just know what is poisonous and what isn't.

Earthworms are the military survivalist's most common source of clean food. They don't carry many diseases a human can contract, offer no resistance, are rather numerous, and somewhat simple to obtain (worm grunting), have decent nutrition, and can be eaten completely raw.

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Let's say World War III happened and humanity is rotting. Processed food isn't common anymore but there's a lot of dead bodies all over the place. In this situation,

1. Do you eat the dead animals, provided they've been freshly dead (i.e., you see a horse collapse from exhaustion). Is it ethical to still kill a living horse to eat even though this dead one is right there, for you to chop up?

Already dead animals are unclean, and risky. I would not eat them as long as I had a choice. I would hunt and forage instead. Plants and insects are more edible then dead meat.

2. Do you eat the dead animals, provided you're starving but the meat isn't fresh and might even be rotting in some parts?

I wouldn't let myself get to the point where I'm starving enough to eat that kind of meat. I'd be industrious early on before I start getting hungry.

3. Do you eat the dead humans, provided they've been freshly dead (i.e., you saw guys kill each other over a fight) or do you bury them? What if you're starving?

Depends on the manner of death, the height of my hunger, and the amount of reserve food I have left.
As a general Rule, I'd leave them alone. Burying them would cost effort better used for hunting, and the thought of eating them makes my skin crawl. If I personally witnessed the fight, And was very low on food, I might, might, make an exception and eat them. I'd much rather eat grass though.

4. Do you kill other humans to kill and consume them, considering you're starving and the potential prey might be feeble. Do you risk getting killed yourself for the benefits of companionship/teamwork by sticking with other humans, or consume them just to preserve yourself?

I would never hunt another human, rather, if they were fit, I'd attempt to join forces with them. More hands makes gathering and hunting easier, and there is strength in numbers. If they were feeble, but I felt capable of nursing them back to health, I would help them. More hands and a life debt in your favor are very useful things.
Besides, it takes at least two to repopulate.

Finally, are ethics only relevant to a specific society, and once the rules that govern that society break down, what is ethical starts to change? Killing a human to survive in modern day society is totally unacceptable, but in a post-apocalyptic world, isn't it rational?

Ethics themselves, are universal. Customs however, are local, and can be used to turn one away from their inherent ethics. It is entirely possible that a group can determine that cannibalism was good thing, but it would be added as a custom, not as a survival tool.

Granted, survival takes utmost importance, but if society had truely degraded enough that cannibalism was their only option for survival, I wouldn't expect that society to last long enough to save itself, and expect a different group which had not resorted to cannibalism to reinstate civilization.

Originally Posted by Raptor Jesus

Fresh Maggots vs. Rotten Meat. If the maggots are cooked, you will generally be safer than if you cooked a slab of possibly rotten meat. You run more risk to your fingers touching the maggots then eating the maggots after cooking. And that's about the same risk as touching the rotten meat, except the meat is still risky after cooking.

Actually, the smaller something is, the better off you likely are. Larger animals like deer or moose are considerably more difficult to hunt due to their higher endurance and the risk of the animal fighting back. It's why wolves only give chase to prey that runs as opposed to prey that stands its ground. A flight response means you have less chance of getting hurt on the hunt. So rabbits and prairie dogs are better things to hunt in post apocalypse.

I'd have to agree with that.

At the same time, cooking the larger animal is more difficult. When it runs the possibility of being rotten, it is even more difficult. If you under cook the 'steak', you risk food poisoning. If you overcook the meat, you will lose a lot of nutrition. At the same time, the longer cooking time could mean more exposure to possible human predation. Fire is an easy sign of another person and if a cannibal pack is around, the longer my fire burns, the higher my chances of being found become.

Smoking the meat would be a good way to preserve it, but agreed, if you're being hunted by a cannibal group, you'd want to leave as few signs to your presence as possible.

Meanwhile, bugs are extremely common (most species of insects outnumber humans billions to one), have short to no cooking time, and are typically good sources of protein. Just know what is poisonous and what isn't.

Earthworms are the military survivalist's most common source of clean food. They don't carry many diseases a human can contract, offer no resistance, are rather numerous, and somewhat simple to obtain (worm grunting), have decent nutrition, and can be eaten completely raw.

Seriously? That's incredible info, I'll be sure to remember it in case society falls.



One thing about cannibals though, they most likely, over time at least, would have surrendered to their animalistic instincts, so while they would be vicious, they probably are using primitive tools, and not using their intelligence. Meaning they can be outsmarted, and outgunned, if you can evade them long enough for your intelligence to play a part.

[Rangeet]

I disagree with some parts of your post(cbf quoting them because I'm lazy). Mainly the part where you said that cannibalism wouldn't allow reproduction. You eat them if you're extremely hungry. And anyway you could survive on termites, earthworms...loads of stuff. So basically, you eat a human and get your hunger satisfied, you'll immediately feel extremely guilty. Our brains won't allow us to eat humans unless we're staaaaarving, is what I'm saying.