is it really so bad,modern thought

[deleted]

The answer to your question, corturia2, can found in a quote from the movie:

"The next thing you know, they'll be breeding us like cattle"

Adopt 1 child policy.
Wait a few generations.
Problem solved.

Going on the internet, you always find the most amazing arguments for the most ridiculous or horrifying things. I like to keep a collection of them to use in short stories and the like, to get a better idea of how people can rationalize horrific behavior. I hadn't found an argument in favor of cannibalism yet, but thanks to you, I can now add it to my list.

"ok just watched this movie again for first time in a few years,so i watch it and yeah we are getting closer to a reality that could resemble this some day,my point is if you are living in a world with no resources,animals,limited plant life and bascially your starveing everyday,and over population, is it really so bad that humans are recycled and eaten to keep the rest of the population going? i understand that in 1973 this notion would be seen as extreme and maybe today as well,but with riseing population growth to stagering levels do out views change on this in 2010.remeber were not talking about people being bumped off to make soylent,just the natural dying people,or people victims of crimes and processed. i dont want to go down the road of yeah but eventually they would start death squads or whatever,in line with the keeping of the movie just natural death,would processing them to feed a starveing world really be a bad thing?"

I think getting to the point where such is even considered, let alone becomes "necessary", would be a horribly bad thing. We see throughout the movie how human beings, and lives, are severely devalued--crowds getting scooped and shoveled "out of the way" by heavy machinery as if they were trash on the street, suicide more widely preferred by many than the desperate life they have, etc. The world beginning to end with a very long whimper.... I realize the phrase "that bad" is relative, but we can surmise that, relative to present times even (except in some fairly desperate parts of the Third World), it was getting "pretty bad" well before the cannibalism started.

If you're talking about moral/ethical judgment of producing the Soylent Green product itself, I don't think the movie was meant to have us morally judge the hidden cannibalism under the circumstances (although it was designed to shock the viewer, certainly), but rather the entire situation and whatever actions (or inactions) we may have taken to get to that point in the first place.

[deleted]

It would be a ridiculous resource if it has to be moral. People dying of natural causes usually don't qualify as "good eatin'". And though there would probably be a great deal of crime-victims, it still creates a lot of problems. Like when resources become so low that the poorest start to kill just to increase the supply.

The day people starts eating people in an organized manner, is the the day that I stop speaking to the rest of you with the use of anything else than a twin-bladed war axe. On that day, I won't give two *beep* about society or the species.

People die and fertilize the ground. Basically, we have been eating dead people since the dawn of times. This movie dramatizes the concept but, in the end, shows nothing strange.

'What has been affirmed without proof can also be denied without proof.' (Euclid)