In an extended SHTF situation would you be willing to hunt/eat

>>35112210
No. In this scenario there would factually be no other options, but I would refuse to believe it. I would starve to death and then be eaten by my friends & neighbors. I'm perfectly okay with that choice.

>>35112210
I would probably kill myself about 15 minutes after the internet went down

>>35112210
OP asking the important questions

>>35112291
> *opens browser*
> You are offline
> Fuck!
> three seconds later *opens browser*
> You are offline
> Fuck!
> six seconds later *opens browser*
> You are...
> fuck this
> *gun noises*
> *loud bang*

Yep, that's how I'm going out.

>>35112288
>>35112291
>>35112341
Anyone who dies because they're too beta to employ all options for survival at their disposal is literally a genetic dead end. I refuse to be the member of my continuous genetic line that loses the game of Darwinism. I can't believe some of you pussies wouldn't even make it past the initial collapse, get some backbone.

Does cooking meat kill any diseases they have like HIV and stuff

>>35112288
Your judgement clouds when your hungry, you literally couldn't starve yourself even if you tried.

>>35112210
If necessary I'd raid places for food.
But I'd never eat another human being.
Once we reach that level there really isn't probably any reason to be on earth anymore, so fuck that shit.
I'd kill myself.

Anyone who says otherwise is a liar or a fucking nutjob.

>>35112400
Good question, I presume if you cook it all the way through like chicken or a pork chop you're safe.

>>35112210
If things get to that stage, your best long term plan is to just eat a bullet.

>>35112561
What about killing other groups for their resources, even if they're not necessarily openly aggressive to outsiders?

>>35112739
Where are the others getting these resources? We've established there aren't any.

>>35112758
OP said they were scarce enough to make cannibalism a valid option, not that they didn't exist.

File: 1440234887789.jpg (226KB, 1202x442px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1202x442px

>>35112210
It would have to be premeditated because if youre really hungry you dont have the strength to hunt kill skin cook your victim! And you cant risk failure at that point. So the person contemplating this would be a killer...and prolly survive!

File: epjZYV0(2).jpg (732KB, 997x1961px) Image search: [Google]

732KB, 997x1961px

>>35112400

Better to be selective with your diet.

>>35112210
Everybody would. However I would have already selected people as my emergency food sources and groom them as such before hand (select those with naturally more muscle density on their bodies where meat would be most tender, prevent them from eating stuff that would spoil the meat, etc..)

>>35112825
>temporary cavity
>clearly not to scale
stop

>>35112210
I'd probably eat somebody if I was trapped in an elevator with them for too long and got really hungry. It's not really a moral question just simple survival

>>35112536
You're 95% right anon.

Some fuckers can and have. Most can't. More importantly, most WON'T. Same as running yourself to death. Can be done. Has been done. Not a problem for most humans.

>>35112210
You would have to be a very morally corrupt individual to considering doing this for your own selfish survival. That being said yes, absolutely I would. I have no illusion that I would do it in the most cowardly fashion as well.

If it were to keep your family alive, I can see redeemability in convincing them they are not eating human meat - where you're basically accepting the "sin" yourself, but allowing them to survive without the weight of committing the worst and most selfish crime against humanity possible.

People that say "no I would not" have my respect and sympathy.

>>35112210
Scarcity? no.
Extinction? Yes.

>>35112758
That would definitely get consideration.

>>35112210
Cannabalism is the lowest form of humanity. Shoot on sight. Leave bodies for the crows.

>>35112210
>>35112365

Depends, cannibalism is far from a long term solution. So maybe, if we are talking about doing it yearly/seasonally during winters or between harvests.

But

If you can't grow anything then you might as well just kill yourself and feed the retards who want to be the last living thing without any plats, animals, or people to eat.

>>35112400
That's sort of the point of cooking.

>>35112867
Avoid dark meat

>>35113852
>crime against humanity

How is ensuring the continuation of the best genes a crime against humanity? It may be morally wrong, but it's the best call for the species.

>>35113889
>crows

You retard, if there were crows we wouldnt have to eat people.

>>35112210

No.

And any evidence of cannibalism will result in immediate execution of the perpetrators, even if I'm low on ammunition.

I dunno, this really bring to mind The Road. Scary fucking book, presents a pretty realistic opportunity for cannibalism because pretty much all plant and animal life is dead so anything but cannibalism is extremely difficult as humans are about the only edible thing that still exist in any quantity.

Honestly though in a scenario like The Road I'd blow my brains out immediately, literal post apocalyptic wasteland where literally everyone wants to kill you and theres zero hope for rebuilding.

>>35112291
Lel

>>35113967
Just to clarify definitions before I explain my stance on this...the thing about "best genes" is that mother nature doesn't give a fuck about what we think to be good genetics. If you survive long enough to create a breedable replacement, you have better genetics than the person who did not.

Now that all out of the way, I agree that if you die in a survival scenario, you deserve to die - no matter the circumstances. We don't get to choose what genes are best. They are chosen for us ultimately, so the only thing we really have under our control in this scenario is our moral choice.

>>35113995
I vote we eat this nigger first

>>35114029
Old cripple Jerry was the last surviving male because no one had the heart to shoot him. He'll forever be known as the holder of the greatest genes in history

>>35114029
My god what an idiotic statement, you're saying 6 foot 4 turbo Chad whos 250 pounds of muscle has worse genes than Melvin whos allergic to everything and can't lift a gallon of water with one hand just because Melvin got lucky and found a bunker to hide in after the US had a apocalyptic event while Chad got unlucky and had a tree fall on him.

You are a retard

>>35114064
Basically yeah. If old cripple and blind Jerry had something in his genetic code that made him a horny rapist that went on to impregnate at least one person, he had better genetics than Chad Thundercock that had some kind of genetic propensity toward violence that got himself killed before he had the chance to breed.

>>35114083
No, you don't understand. In that scenario, there was no "best" unless there was some kind of genetic propensity that leads them to make a poor decision. Luck is luck, but even luck plays a role in who gets to breed.

Try thinking or asking questions if you're confused.

>>35112210
Sounds like a grievous failure to properly prepare. Cannibalism is like suicide bombing- it's not a winning strategy. Aside from the social, moral, emotional, and psychological issues, there's also the health issues to consider. Spongiform encephalitis is a shitty way to die.

It's not that difficult to accumulate 2 years worth of food. That gives you at least 2 growing seasons to get your homestead farming operation up and running. Start collecting the information resources now. Books are cheap.

>>35114101
Allow me to reiterate your earlier statement, retardo " If you survive long enough to create a breedable replacement, you have better genetics than the person who did not". You openly said whoever survives longer has better genetics and now you're doubling back because you realize what you said is retarded and you're blowing smoke out your ass trying to sound like you know what you're talking about.

>>35114133
I get that you're upset, and I'm glad that you're confused enough to continue this conversation since I'm sure there are idiots like yourself that believe as you do, but aren't quite dumb enough to comment.

So here we go. As I explained before, what we consider "good" is bullshit. Whatever survives is good. Whatever genetic predisposition leads a person to not breed is bad.

Chad Thundercock as you imagine him will absolutely out breed Melvin 99 times out of 100, but if circumstances change, there can be any number of reasons for Melvin to breed where Chad does not. If these kinds of circumstances favor Melvin and his ilk in the long term, then you will see a generation of Melvin DNA out perform Chad, in which case, his genetic profile was better suited for survival.

I know that you're hung up on the really simple process of what "good" genetics look like. Consider this scenario. Chad Thundercock is Alone (TM) on an island and is only able to consume 800 calories a day to feed his 6'10" frame of pure buffalo meat. Melvin on the otherhand is able to also obtain a similar amount of calories due to Chads muscle not being any more useful for fishing than Melvins dainty arms. Who lives long enough to potentially breed?

>>35112739
Why the fuck do you think I carry a gun? Anybody I see in true SHTF (not natural disaster tier but national collapse/long term shtf) is getting shot on site. Only traveling at night with IR/NV.

>>35114051

Come on then fuccboi

>>35112210

If it ever got to that point then I'd kill myself. I harbor no illusions OTHER people might stoop to that level especially to feed their children, but I personally would kill myself to avoid a "The Road" situation from befalling me.

At the point where you are literally eating other humans you are surviving just to survive. There is no hope of a better future or for things to ever "get back to normal". If agriculture is fucked due to some reason like disease or nuclear war then there is no hope for improvement. Why would I keep clinging to life simply to survive? If everyone is eating literally people, how could you ever trust them? Look them in the eye as equals, friends or lovers? We would be literally no better than rats or cockroaches at that point, disgusting skittering things doing ANYTHING to simply to survive to the next day because we are too cowardly to end it and save everyone a lot of suffering.

If it was a situation like the siege of Moscow or that plane crash in the mountains where people ate each other, yes, I would eat human flesh. There is hope for salvation, I need to survive to get back to civilization and continue my life. But if the situation was like The Road where all things were dying of some natural plague with no cure and the world was dead for at least my lifetime I would just end it.

>>35114180
Once again, you're completely ignoring luck and random chance. If two men of similar everything are sitting next to each other on a couch and a bullet fired by some retarded hick who missed his backstop a mile away flies in and kills one by your logic the survivor has superior genetics when this simply isn't true, he was just lucky enough not to be picked off by random chance.

Also anyone who feels the need to belittle someone's intelligence without provocation generally isn't intelligent and is simply trying to put others down to pretend that they're better.

>>35114238
I've literally already addressed this.

Luck is luck and has nothing to do with genetics - unless there was some kind of genetic propensity that put the individual in a situation where they would be killed that "looked" like luck.

You might say someone that walks outside and is struck by lightning to have "bad luck" but risk taking is a verifiable genetic trait, and while there are instances where higher risk taking traits can be desirable, the person that stays in cover, and is not struck by lightning, will breed.

>>35114275
Let's go over what you already said one more time

" If you survive long enough to create a breedable replacement, you have better genetics than the person who did not"

Two guys sitting on a couch and one dying because a bullet flies in the window aren't being effected by their genetics in any way, it's luck. By your statement the one who dies has worse genetics. I'm going to bed, someone else take over trying to wrangle this tard for me

>>35114318
The fact that you can't see the potential for nuance here leads me to believe you're just a pedantic autist that unknowingly thinks his inability to understand is the failing of someone else. I already described what "better" means, and that luck is just mother nature. Sometimes you just die because you were unlucky. True. That doesn't make anything I said untrue.

You guys do know that consuming human flesh gives you prion disease which is a irreversible condition that legit makes your brain literally eat itself apart because you consumed a human flesh right?

>>35114083
thats natural selection! maybe Chad should have been smart enough to find a bunker and dexterous enough to avoid a tree.

>>35114347
You said that the person who survives always has superior genetics. If you're now saying that that statement is untrue due to random chance sometimes being a factor then you were wrong about nothing you've said being untrue.

>>35114369
Yeah, after 20 years or so. It's also not 100% that you contract it either.

Also, it's not like you're doing it for fun.

>>35114399
Do you literally not know how Darwinism works or are you being a pedant? He is merely making the point that being the strongest, fastest, or the smartest does not mean you are "the fittest"
Breeding and making a shitload of babies makes you "the fittest.

God damn you faggots in this thread have an absolutely shit tier understanding of the evolutionary process.

>Mutation
>Positive selection pressures
>Negative selection pressures

All of which are only applicable on large sample groups over multi-generational timelines.

If you want to include fancy new science, toss in

>Methylation / Epigenetics

Educate yourselves niggers

>>35114399
Then let me correct your understanding about what I said. The person who survives is the person that breeds, yes. Random chance is not a consideration in the proliferation of your genes short term since actual random chance fucks everything. In the long term random chance plays less of a role and no amount of lightning strikes, stray bullets or land slides stands a chance in the face of superior genetics. Deformities themselves, which may scare away mates in the short term, may become useful traits in the long term that go on to ensure the survival of the species.

>>35114318
you're failing to make your point, namely that natural selection is a population-wide thing, not an individual thing, just as evolution

>>35114396
But Melvin cheated! He used a D20 for DEX. Chad didn't even know D20s existed!

cannibals will be burned beyond edibility at the stake if captured.