“A professor at the Stockholm Higher School of Economics, Magnus Soderlund, speaking on Swedish television as a guest expert on the future food, said eating human meat would help combat the effects of global climate change. Because cows and pigs produce too much methane, and feed requires too much land and water. Well, then - you yourself know. No, the professor does not call for eating living people, God forbid! But now the dead - why not? Moreover, for their burial, again, too much land is required. "
I specifically named the column in such a way that, firstly, to anticipate possible comments, and secondly, so as not to return to the question. Overton's window, along with Occam's razor, is Rockefeller and Rothschild of contemporary sofa discourse. The concepts are captured, greasy and blurred to such an extent that as soon as you see their use - you want to immediately stop any discussion. For nothing.
Because in the story with the Swedish professor, who suggested there are people in order to feed humanity, the most interesting is not at all in the breadth of the discussion. There can be no framework in scientific and natural discussions. And if such a framework existed, then mankind would not have nuclear weapons. True, perhaps it seems to some that this would be good. Well, OK.
Ok, let's add context. So, a professor at the Stockholm Higher School of Economics Magnus Soderlund, speaking on Swedish television as a visiting expert on the future food, said eating human meat would help fight the effects of global climate change. Because cows and pigs produce too much methane, and feed requires too much land and water. Well, then - you yourself know. No, the professor does not call for eating living people, God forbid! But now the dead - why not? Moreover, for their burial, again, too much land is required.
To the question: “And you yourself, professor, will you eat people?” - the professor replied that he was open to suggestions.
And while compatriot Greta Thunberg hasn’t spoken on the issue (and after all, one of the journalists must ask her what she thinks about this), let's try to ignore the scope of the discussions, from the discussions themselves, from the Swedish cultural model as such to our plebeian sources. For example, to Wikipedia.
So, in Wikipedia it is said that our planet is four and a half billion years old. Life on this planet exists a little less, but also more than four billion years. According to various estimates, the conditions for the existence of living creatures (not necessarily humans) will remain on Earth from another half billion to more than two billion years. Remember this order - we are talking about time intervals with nine zeros at the end.
Now man. Homo sapiens as a species exists only 200 thousand years. Modern man is less than 50 thousand years old. The documented history of mankind (the one that we can judge by sources) is about 8 thousand years. Well, actually anthropogenic impact on nature has been around for 200 years. Of the four and a half billion. Of course, I would divide a number with nine zeros by a number with two zeros, and even a number with four zeros. But you understand that as a result of zeros, there will still be so many that talking about the impact of humanity on the planet is simply ridiculous.
This planet has existed billions of years before us and will exist billions of years after us. And he won’t even remember us literally 100 years after we disappear.
Now about global warming. Here is a fragment of the preface to the book of K.S. Badigina "Three wintering in the ice of the Arctic", published - attention! - in 1950.
“Since 1920, an interesting phenomenon has been observed in the Arctic - its warming. This warming does not proceed gradually. Years colder are replaced by warmer, more icy navigation - less icy. But in general, the Arctic is getting warmer and warmer.
First of all, a decrease in the size of glaciers was noticed. This decrease in recent years in the Arctic is widespread. On Franz Josef Land, some islands melted, while others seemed to split in two, new straits opened between them, whereas earlier these islands were connected by ice isthmuses. In the Laptev Sea, some islands, almost entirely composed of fossil ice, are now sharply decreasing in size ...
It is remarkable that an increase in air temperature has been observed in recent years not only in the Arctic, but also in areas quite distant from it. Muscovites are so accustomed to a protracted autumn and warm winters that they already consider this phenomenon as normal. Comparisons show that our rivers freeze later and open earlier ...
The warming influence exerted by the Atlantic waters on the climate of the Arctic and Europe is proved. Regular observations show that under every square centimeter of the surface of the Atlantic waters entering the Barents and Greenland Seas, it’s now “hidden” by 15 kilogram-calories of heat more than it was at the beginning of this century. This warmth still continues to accumulate, reducing the ice cover of our seas and softening winter air temperatures. ”
Once again: it was written in 1950. And data on warming began to accumulate during the first ice drifts, in the 1920s and 1930s, when the anthropogenic impact on nature was incomparably smaller than now.
That is, everything goes as it goes. The planet lives by its own laws and rules, and humanity has absolutely nothing to do with it. But humanity has invented a struggle for the planet (for which everything is good) and is ready for this fight literally for everything. No, I do not mind at all if the Swedes will eat the bodies of their own relatives. And absolutely not opposed to the fact that the Americans follow the call of their Church of euthanasia: Save the Planet, Kill Yourself. We, as they say, will get more.
Because we, of course, are not going to participate in all these discussions.
Because we are only better off from global warming.
The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.