> The scientist acknowledged the "conservative" taboos that exist from ancient times against consuming human flesh and sees that as the main impediment to the spread of this idea. On the other hand, Söderlund argued our future food sources would likely be getting more and more scarce. So people would have to think outside the box to get their sustenance, considering pets, insects like grasshoppers and worms. That's also where humans come in. The scientist thinks that if people were introduced to human flesh little by little, there'd be enough takers.
I put stuff like this up there with the "debate" over plastic straw bans: just fodder for industries to use in muddying the waters until the last minute.
With climate change, it's clear we're past the point of no return, but we would still do well to ignore stuff like this which is self-indulgently provocative to no end. Just because disaster is baked in doesn't mean stuff like this needs to be pumped up - allowing for further procrastination and denial, when we could be trying to prepare for the fallout.
Total stupidity.