Last year, the so-called "problem of food" was that raising cattle or chicken wasn't getting any cheaper, moreso given the iffy problem of handling viral and bacterial epidemics in such densely-packed populations -- this issue has spread to bipedal monkeys as well, but that's besides the point. The only alternative at that point was to have the bipedal monkeys eat cheaper food, of which worms and bugs are abundant, even though the nutritional trade-offs are obvious -- let's not even get there, mmkay?

At the end of the day, however, the problem isn't even that "Romanians will eventually eat worms". Who knows, perhaps they won't, although judging by their history, they'll probably be integrated in the trends of the times (what other purpose do you think this integration serves?). The problem at the end of the day is that at some point in the near future manufacturing wormfood will also become "too expensive", and... then what? Folks will start eating each other, and... then what?

The whole point being, the only way to reduce suffering is through death.

According to Ms. Summers, cannibalism is always symbolic. For her novel’s protagonist, eating human flesh can be seen as a way of holding on to a relationship that ended. For Ms. Summers herself, the plot of "A Certain Hunger" can’t be uncoupled "from my own personal experiences with disordered eating, with the tamping down of feminine appetites, the way the media chews up and spits out writers, bougie consumption — and bougie lady consumption," she said.

More generally, Ms. Summers thinks that the recent spate of cannibalistic plots could also be commentaries on capitalism. "Cannibalism is about consumption and it’s about burning up from the inside in order to exist," she said. "Burnout is essentially over-consuming yourself, your own energy, your own will to survive, your sleep schedule, your eating schedule, your body."

And so on and so forth, I can't be bothered to look at this in more detail.

Now, getting back to the moral problem, I s'ppose at this point your owners are giving you a choice, such as whether to be pro-tection or pro-sumption or something of the likes -- I'm not sure why you folks have such an aversion towards being anti-stuff, but... whatever. However, regardless which side you're on, you'll have to spell out quite plainly on what grounds; on what grounds, motherfucker, is this even a discussion? At least from the linked sophistry I sure as hell ain't gonna buy that it has anything to do with "reducing suffering".

No, I agree with you, you're either to have mores or to have no society whatsoever. But can't you see how these so-called "mores" sold to you on the "market of ideas" are in fact the anti-mores?