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?

Now, I'm not sure why you're promoting these ideas, but I'm confident that Bill isn't qualified to discuss the subject of suffering: my family lived through '80s Romania, through the horror of a small piece of rotten meat obtained after a whole day of queueing and "holding the place" (a feudalistic notion, yes?); through salami with soy, the times' own worm-food; or through the necessity of obtaining food, meds and clothing through feudalistic means, i.e. "knowing someone": I had a godfather who was somebody at the time and he'd provide for the whole family, I'm not sure how we would have carried on without his help. That's what kept us going, not any smart dude's "scientific nutrition programme", do you understand me? Let us first solve the issue of how these kinds of social experiments impoverished and hungered whole populations, only then we may be able to honestly tell ourselves that we've understood suffering.

We are coming from two very different places, PDog. While I don't particularly like or dislike Bill myself -- I do dislike his habit of doing politics without actually doing it, if you know what I mean --, and while I wholeheartedly agree that the big meat industry isn't long for this world, it's hard for me to swallow these kinds of moralizing discourses where everyone and their dog are reduced to "a citizen of the world". We are very different people and as I can't afford to presume what works for you, I expect you to do the same if we're to have any sort of conversation. I draw the line here, you may choose to draw it somewhere else and either way that's fine.