Good Eatin’

In response to yesterday’s post, one of my readers said it was no more possible for people to voluntarily change religions than for me to change from being a vegetarian. My first reaction to that argument is “Dude, I could eat YOU if I were hungry enough.” And yes, this is one of those times when “Dude” is proper usage.

This got me to thinking about being in one of those crashed airplane situations where you have to eat one of the other survivors or else starve. Let’s say you are the only one with a gun, so you get to pick who gets eaten. Who do you pick?

1. Someone you like the least.
2. Someone who has already lived the longest.
3. Someone who looks like he/she will taste good.
4. Someone randomly chosen.

For the sake of this question, let’s say quantity isn’t an issue, so you don’t have to pick the largest person.

This is a tough question because I tend to like people based on how good I think they would taste. It’s probably a subconscious thing, but there’s a strong correlation.

I would rule out old people because I think they would taste like medicine and have too much gristle. Cannibalism would be hard enough without that extra challenge.

I wouldn’t want to choose someone randomly because that opens the possibility of eating someone I least want to eat. If I have to eat a person, I want to squeeze the melons myself, so to speak. It’s only fair.

I think I’d pick out the most delicious looking person, relatively speaking, and have a conversation until I heard a reason to hate. That wouldn’t take more than a few minutes. For example, if someone washes dishes before putting them in the dishwasher, that would be enough to get on my short list. I could tell myself I wasn’t eating a person so much as saving water.

Who would you pick?

Comments

[Jeff]

If anyone refused to eat human flesh when the idea was brought up I'd eat them first. No point in keeping someone around who was going to starve anyway. Then I'd go with anyone who was unlikely to survive, if they were elderly, injured, or handicapped in a way that would make survival more difficult. Then I'd start from whoever appears to be of least use in surviving, anyone with survival experience, like boy scouts or the military, would go last.

[The Cowboy]

The vegitarian. My personal theory goes like this: the animals humans eat are overwhelmingly herbivores, therefore, herbivores (as a general rule) taste good. Most carnivores (like bears, or so I've heard) taste awful. Therefore meat eaters taste bad. This leads to two conclusions: 1. As a non-vegitarian, I taste like crap and therefore will be the last to be eaten. 2. Vegitarians taste good. So I would eat as many burgers as I could between now and said bad event, then shoot the tasty vegan for lunch. Mmmm... Vegan burgers.

[@Rob]

Myself

But I wouldn't make it easy for the rest. I would stage competitions like - if we were in snow I would make people eat as much snow as they can and the person that eats the least amount gets it. Punch the plane - whoever hit the airplane and leaves the smallest dent gets it. Then after the competition change the rules to the largest dent. I can change the rules because I have the gun. Woman that can pull out the most hair contest. The man that can pee there own name in the snow contest. Then when I've had all the fun I can I'd have an ugliest butt contest and then when they are all turned around BLAM!

If we are not in a snowy environment it's not going to be as fun so...

[Andy Watt]

Human flesh is going to taste fantastic: reasoning says that it contains all the nutrients you require in just the right proportions. There are some good cuts in fairly easy to identify places, there's little messy hair that has to be removed (even pigs have to be shaved)...

Logically, if there's a better chance of some surviving longer then these people would go later: first to go are the sicker members of the troop (especially those with life-threatening injuries or who are on death's door).

There's no other standpoint to consider within the realms of the original question. Any suggestion of "moral" behaviour in a collectively moral sense (and not the imperatives of the individual to survive at any cost) negates the question as nobody would shoot anyone else.

Me? I'd shoot the intellectual who asked the question "who do we eat first?" - but only well away from the group - as he's planting the ideas while trying to be a moral relativist. Then we'd fricassee his arse on a spit.

Yum.

[Diana Spotz]

"He's licking me!"

[Elit Alice]

i seriously cant imagine eating another person. that would mean killing them first, right? i would rather die of hunger.

and if you say i WOULD do it even if i cant imagine it, then it means i would lose my mind because of the hunger. then it doesnt matter who id pick, as probably in that state theres no reasoning.

i know i sound rubbish but then again.. im a vegetarian.

:P

[Ed]

Depends on where we crashed. If it's a snowy mountaintop, I'd shoot all of them. That way they're nice and fresh when I need to thaw them out to eat, they haven't had time to lose weight due to hunger, and there are more clothes for me to use for warmth.

Otherwise I'd have to shoot the one who wouldn't be able to work as hard at making me happy and relaxed. After all, I'm the guy with the gun. They should be convincing me who to shoot. ^^

[Andy]

Hmmm, I'd consider eating the vegetarians first. Cows and chickens are vegetarians and they're quite tasty.

[Neil Sampson]

I'd eat Rita Mae,
Now what was the question?

[MattSmith]

I think that if I'm prepared to eat someone to stay alive (and I'm not sure I could) then the only option is to kill anyone that looks likely to kill me for food.
I'm a slender fella so no one's likely to go for me first. So I'll wait to see who resorts to canabalism. They're the highest threat and therefore top of my menu.

[Minister of Silly People in Green]

The first one to sleep

[Scott]

Brilliant! Eat one of the crash victims! Perfect!

Unless, of course there weren't any. In that case, I'd put the gun on the ground. I'm not going to be responsible for killing someone. However, if one of my fellow passengers offs someone else, I'd partake. --just don't want the blood on my hands. :^)

[RodOgrO]

Well well well... didn't you say in an earlier post that your WIFE washes the dishes before loading the dishwasher? I think she should be extra careful whenever flying over the Andes with you...

[Yuriy]

I'd eat whoever dies first (without being helped to it). Anything else is murder.

[minister of silly walks]

I'd eat Asok. He's lowest on the "food chain" in the Dilbert strip, he might as well be lowest on the food chain in your scenario.

[Mike Levak]

Whoever looked like the man who would become the alpha male of the group. That's someone who would eventually be able to persuade others about who should be eaten, and I prefer to have my destiny in my own hands. The old people should be kept alive the longest, because they have less chance of taking you out themselves. So I'd start with the strongest and work my way back to the weakest. That seems to guarantee me the best chance at survival.

[ID]

Rita Mae

[broacher]

'Life of Pi' by Yan Martel. Not only does he cover cannabilism in this book, he handles what happens when one person tries to adopt many religions (as discussed in the previous day's posting).

Oh, and also how to survive at see in a small lifeboat with a full grown tiger.

Which person would I pick? I guess a lot would depend on what dipping sauces were available.

[Alex]

E - I'm told that human flesh tastes like a stringy and slightly bitter version of antelope.

Strictly, that may only be the taste of Korean flesh. Americans might come in different flavours.

[KD]

From where I'm sitting (a comfortable office chair with snack machines close at hand), I'd like to believe I would only eat someone who volunteered. Otherwise it's murder, isn't it? Of course, who knows what I would do if the actual situation came up...

[DF]

Hmmmm, let's see, I only have one bullet, should I kill and eat the young attractive nymphomanic blonde with the huge melons and the long legs? Or should I shoot the 30 something guy who looks to be in good shape, lean so there won't be much fat, and could possible overtake me when there are no bullets left? Tough one...

[Dan]

Simple, eat the most attractive female who would not sleep with me on the spot. Recall orgasms being the root of all happiness?

[E]

Scott,

Not sure who I would pick to eat. But imagine this...

You finally break down and get to the actual eating part - and discover that human flesh is actually Amazing.

Tender and delicious.

That would be terrible. If you get rescued, for the rest of your life... you would see people differently whenever your blood sugar was low.

[smellycat1968]

I'd eat the vegetarian. It's common sense. Most animals that eat meat don't taste too good, while the vegetarian animals are the best eatin'.
oh, by the way, I'm a veg too. Not that it matters, just love the irony here.

[indo]

"This is a tough question because I tend to like people based on how good I think they would taste."

Ummm... u know this HOW??? :-)