Cli­mate change and all its glory

The Saline Courier Weekend - - OPINION - JIM HAR­RIS

Time and time again, sci­ence fic­tion has ac­cu­rately pre­dicted the fu­ture. A good ex­am­ple is that the hand-held com­mu­ni­ca­tors of the orig­i­nal Star Trek se­ries were the fore­run­ners of the flip phones many of us used in the 1990s.

In 1870, Jules Verne’s novel “20,000 Leagues Un­der the Sea” pre­dicted the com­ing of the sub­ma­rine.

In 1964, Isaac Asi­mov wrote an es­say for the New York Times that pre­dicted the driver­less car.sev­eral com­pa­nies are on the verge of putting such ve­hi­cles on car deal­ers’ lots.

The novel “1984” has be­come the ba­sis of the 2020 Demo­cratic Party plat­form.

The 1973 movie “Soy­lent Green” had some dis­turb­ing pre­dic­tions that are com­ing true.

In the year 2022, there are 40 mil­lion peo­ple live in New York City. The city has a rul­ing elite who live in lux­ury and the rest are ba­si­cally peas­ants — sug­gest­ing NYC is un­der so­cial­ism.

There are short­ages of clean wa­ter, food, hous­ing and other basic hu­man ne­ces­si­ties. Only the city’s elite can af­ford clean wa­ter and good food. Yeah, it is Venezue­lan-style so­cial­ism.

Soy­lent In­dus­tries con­trols the city’s food sup­ply for the non-elites. It sells ar­ti­fi­cially pro­duced wafers un­der the names of “Soy­lent Red” and “Soy­lent Yel­low.” This com­pany puts out a new prod­uct called “Soy­lent Green.”

It is more pop­u­lar than the red and yel­low ver­sions.

It causes ri­ots when the weekly sup­ply of Soy­lent Green is made avail­able to the pub­lic. When the hungry masses riot, the po­lice use spe­cial ve­hi­cles to scoop up the ri­ot­ers and they are never seen again.

A po­lice de­tec­tive in­ves­ti­gates and dis­cov­ers that Soy­lent Green is not made from plank­ton as the com­pany and gov­ern­ment says it is, but is made from hu­man bod­ies.

The de­tec­tive says this fa­mous line at the end of the movie” Soy­lent Green is peo­ple.” Peo­ple are hor­ri­fied by can­ni­bal­ism.

At a con­fer­ence about the food of the fu­ture called the “Gas­tro Sum­mit” in Stock­holm Swe­den, a speaker named Mag­nus Söder­lund re­cently said the world must get over the neg­a­tive views in­volv­ing can­ni­bal­ism.

In­stead of eat­ing cows that pass gas and de­stroy the en­vi­ron­ment, peo­ple ev­ery­where are go­ing to have to get used to the idea of eat­ing hu­man flesh as a way of com­bat­ing the ef­fects of — wait for it — cli­mate change.

In a speech billed as: “Can you Imag­ine Eat­ing Hu­man Flesh,” be­hav­ioral Sci­en­tist and Mar­ket­ing Strate­gist Be­hav­ioral Sci­en­tist and Mar­ket­ing Strate­gist Söder­lund from “Han­delshögsko­lan” (Col­lege of Com­merce) makes an ar­gu­ment for getting rid of ev­ery civ­i­lized coun­tries’ taboos against des­e­crat­ing the hu­man body and can­ni­bal­ism.

Söder­lund said the taboos against can­ni­bal­ism are “con­ser­va­tive” ideas that need to be changed. His take was that con­ser­va­tives op­pose eat­ing hu­man flesh and they won’t change even to save the planet.

Our western idea that peo­ple should not eat each other comes from the Bi­ble.

In the Book of Genesis, God gave man all the plants, an­i­mals and fish to eat — ex­cept other peo­ple. “Who­ever sheds hu­man blood, by hu­mans shall their blood be shed; for in the im­age of God has God made mankind,” God said in Genesis 9:6.

Those who want us to wor­ship at the al­ter of cli­mate change must first get peo­ple away from Chris­tian be­liefs.

If Söder­lund had re­searched can­ni­bal­ism a lit­tle more, he would have found that that was a tribe called the Fore that lived iso­lated in Pa­pua New Guinea.

This tribe be­lieved in eat­ing their dead rather than al­low­ing them to be con­sumed by worms.

The tribe suf­fered from an epi­demic of some­thing called “the laugh­ing death.” Hu­man bod­ies have a “twisted pro­tein” that dam­ages the brains of those who eat their fel­low hu­mans.

Söder­lund’s de­sire for peo­ple to eat each other gives a look be­hind the cur­tain at where those push­ing cli­mate change want to take us.

The ultimate answer for their cli­mate change agenda will have to be that there are too many peo­ple for earth to sus­tain.

The final solution of cli­mate change will be that some peo­ple must die so the rest of them can live.

The question is who gets to de­cide who dies and dines on those sac­ri­ficed in the name of stop­ping cli­mate change?

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.