Anyone get to taste Elephant Meat?

[goodsamaritan]

Derogatory article says the people were starving so they ate elephant meat, even raw.

http://www.eutimes.net/2010/03/in-mugabes-zimbabwe-people-eat-elephant-meat-even-raw/

What I observe is that these people see elephant meat as a delicacy, they eat it raw.



Anyone can report here what elephant meat tastes like?

[eveheart]

How and about what was the article derogatory? Besides President Mugabe's regime, that is.

[TylerDurden]

Enthusing about meat from seriously endangered wild animals is rather sick, imo. I admit it would not have been an issue if we had elephant herds the size they were 500 years ago and if only a very few humans ate them, but otherwise it is only sane to leave them well alone, for environmental reasons. Besides, we have already got evidence as to how the environment became devastated after early humans wiped out all the megafauna in the Late Palaeolithic era, so why increase the misery of it all? I strongly urge all RPDers to avoid ruining the environment by buying useless crap like raw coconut oil, raw palm oil etc., not just avoiding eating endangered species.


A far better, more practical,  more ethical, and yet  still rather exotic approach would be to allow cannibalism to return en-masse. This would save the environment and solve the world overpopulation problem at the same time, while allowing a previously forbidden meat to be eaten as a delicacy. I wonder, does it really taste like pork?(it is after all called "long pig", I believe).

[JeuneKoq]

That website, and the people who visit and comment on this website are seriously messed-up in their mentals.*

 "Katy Clevenger"** rightly highlighted the extremely racist statements the author of the article made, such as: “as some people already know, black people are far from being superior to anyone.” , or “blacks are usually lazy.”. And she got largely down-voted!

On the other hand, the other very ignorant people -to put it lightly- who made very ignorant and racist comment were praised!

GS, I really hope you just happen to stumble upon this website, and do not share the same views as this very sad bunch...

Tyler***, when you're starving, you don't give a flying f*ck about the state of endangerment of the food you eat. It's either him, or you. Plus the animal was already dead anyways...

Doesn't eating the flesh of the same specie turn people mad? I thought this was the cause for the mad cow disease?...


Correction:

*Ok, it looks like (as everywhere) their are some more enlightened minds among the rest of them.

**Oops, I think she might've been a member of the Tea-party saying "look, other people are racist-er than us!!". My bad on quoting her...

***...Or were you commenting on GS's ill-suited curiosity? In that case, sorry for the overly agressive response. Actually, sorry anyways... I can get quite emotional sometimes when confronted to what I might consider as disrespect, ignorance...

[TylerDurden]

Tyler, when you're starving, you don't give a flying f*ck about the state of endangerment of the food you eat. It's either him, or you. Plus the animal was already dead anyways...

Doesn't eating the flesh of the same specie turn people mad? I thought this was the cause for the mad cow disease?..

There was some claim that eating raw human brains caused the problem(re Kuru disease), so  not eating the brains would be a solution. Besides, some of the population then developed prion-resistant proteins etc. so as to be immune to the Kuru disease, so natural selection would wipe out the issue, anyway. At any rate, cannibalism is indeed a solution to overpopulation and famine without  any harm to the environment.

Starvation does not excuse killing a member of an  endangered species.Human life is not sacred and loses its value proportionately as  human populations steadily rise. But since the animal was dead(presumably from old age not human predation) it is not so much of an issue.

I do wonder about the dubious link made between  European whites and black Zimbabweans. I mean, European whites have already wiped out vast numbers of  animal species in their own countries so it is a bit hypocritical to claim that whites are on a higher moral ground, as regards environmentalism, compared to black Africans. At least the blacks have only started  wiping out animal species in a big way in the last 65 years or so. Not that this delay was made  out of any moral grounds, of course, but still......

[JeuneKoq]

Starvation does not excuse killing a member of an  endangered species.Human life is not sacred and loses its value proportionately as  human populations steadily rise. But since the animal was dead(presumably from old age not human predation) it is not so much of an issue.

You remind me of the people on other websites who claim "overpopulation is getting bad. We should kill more people.". Well, lets start with you then!

(...You -> "the people", not you...Tyler...ok..)

Tyler, believe me, if you where high up in the polar circle (naked, as you like to be  )* on the edge of dying from starvation, you wouldn't think twice before bitting into those polar bear's balls. Neither would I. Your mind wouldn't even consider the thought of"letting him live because he's endangered blablabla"... It just wouldn't.

note: I'm not saying human's life is more sacred than that of another being, but when it comes to surviving, you do what you have to do.

Incidentally, GS means well. Citing a controversial article helps generate online discussion which helps the forum.....

I only wish it were an intelligent controversial article.





*http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/humans-naturaloptimal-habitat/

[TylerDurden]

Survival does not allow the destruction of a nearly-wiped-out species. Full stop. Anyway, if we are talking about environmentalism, should we not be talking about the annihilation of peoples who are decidedly overproducing children, as opposed to those who are not? Whatever the case, if one species has way too many offspring, then it simply does not have the right to wipe out a member of a species which has been almost wiped out,  and starvation is simply no excuse at all.

[JeuneKoq]

Survival does not allow the destruction of a nearly-wiped-out species. Full stop. Whatever the case, if one species has way too many offspring, then it simply does not have the right to wipe out a member of a species which has been almost wiped out,  and starvation is simply no excuse at all.

Says who? That's you socio-culturally biased point of view.

I spent six months in anthropology classes last year. The teacher talked about a case where researchers were trying to ban whale-hunting by Eskimos, because the whale population was dangerously decreasing. The Eskimos believed hunting whales would on the contrary  make their number rise, as it would allegedly force them to reproduce more. So the researchers let them hunt this year. The year after, the whale population had surprisingly increased. Coincidence? Or did the Eskimo way really work? We'll never know...

This is only to illustrate the fact that humans only perceive a fragment of reality. The rest is shaped by external factors such as the culture you were raised in, your social environment, your beliefs...

So your statement might seem rational, logical to you: "It is wrong to kill an endangered specie; The plenty cannot prey on the scarce; One diamond is worth a million times more than a grain of sand". This might be your truth.  But it might not be mine.

[JeuneKoq]

Anyway, if we are talking about environmentalism, should we not be talking about the annihilation of peoples who are decidedly overproducing children, as opposed to those who are not?

Annihilate them? Why not educate them, ask them nicely? Raise them on fair terms so they can actually survive with only two kids? That's also an option, hypothetically speaking...

[Iguana]

A far better, more practical,  more ethical, and yet  still rather exotic approach would be to allow cannibalism to return en-masse.

But the humans should be grass fed in order to be edible — no, sorry: raw-paleo fed. LOL.

… should we not be talking about the annihilation of peoples who are decidedly overproducing children, as opposed to those who are not?

But the nuclear war you long for won’t selectively target the overproducing ones… what a shame! It’s a problem, isn’t it?   

[TylerDurden]

Says who? That's you socio-culturally biased point of view.

I spent six months in anthropology classes last year. The teacher talked about a case where researchers were trying to ban whale-hunting by Eskimos, because the whale population was dangerously decreasing. The Eskimos believed hunting whales would on the contrary  make their number rise, as it would allegedly force them to reproduce more. So the researchers let them hunt this year. The year after, the whale population had surprisingly increased. Coincidence? Or did the Eskimo way really work? We'll never know...

This is only to illustrate the fact that humans only perceive a fragment of reality. The rest is shaped by external factors such as the culture you were raised in, your social environment, your beliefs...

So your statement might seem rational, logical to you: "It is wrong to kill an endangered specie; The plenty cannot prey on the scarce; One diamond is worth a million times more than a grain of sand". This might be your truth.  But it might not be mine.

Not really. Take the example of elephants. They need  to spend many years in order to get an elephant  from being conceived to being old enough to mate and produce more elephants. The current mass slaughter of elephants cannot be easily replaced by elephants simply going in for more breeding like with the whales suggestion. Plus, while you may have no problem with most species being wiped out other than domesticated ones, I find a world like that deeply repugnant.

[TylerDurden]

Annihilate them? Why not educate them, ask them nicely? Raise them on fair terms so they can actually survive with only two kids? That's also an option, hypothetically speaking...

The only "nice" method that can  encourage people to have fewer children is the education of women. However, the Islamist Fundamentalists are  effectively blocking this potential move. Well, perhaps a nuclear war in the Middle-East may help things in this regard.

[TylerDurden]

But the humans should be grass fed in order to be edible — no, sorry: raw-paleo fed. LOL.

I am sure most non-RPD humans will not mind eating human flesh that has been raised on a diet of McDonald's , doner kebabs and the like.

But the nuclear war you long for won’t selectively target the overproducing ones… what a shame! It’s a problem, isn’t it?   

I reckon the effects will end up affecting the entire world, re nuclear winter effects etc.

[/quote]

[JeuneKoq]

Not really.

Uhmmm yes really.

Objectively: Can you kill an elephant? Yes, give me a rifle and you'll be eating elephant meat in a minute.

Subjectively: Is it RIGHT or WRONG to kill an endangered specie such as the elephant? You might believe that IN NO CASE can you kill an elephant because "..." , I might believe that killing an elephant is legitimate in certain situations because "...", and other people might have no problem with it because "..."

See, it's all subjective, and largely influenced by your socio-cultural environment.

Did you know that some African tribal kings used to exchange gold, which they had plenty of, against simple pieces of glass with the colonials? How foolish of them, right? I mean, everybody knows gold is worth more than glass....

subjective or objective statement?

Take the example of elephants. They need  to spend many years in order to get an elephant  from being conceived to being old enough to mate and produce more elephants. The current mass slaughter of elephants cannot be easily replaced by elephants simply going in for more breeding like with the whales suggestion. 

I didn't suggest anything with the whales, other than illustrating the fact that different people have their own altered perception of reality.

Plus, while you may have no problem with most species being wiped out other than domesticated ones, I find a world like that deeply repugnant.

Wow, I'm surprised how well you know me, Tyler. Can you read minds? I find your prejudice of people repugnant.

[JeuneKoq]

I am sure most non-RPD humans will not mind eating human flesh that has been raised on a diet of McDonald's , doner kebabs and the like.

I think most humans will simply mind eating human flesh, raw-paleo or not   

...But they don't have to know  Another patty, Frank?

[TylerDurden]

Yes, the theme of the  film Soylent Green sounds like a great way to solve overpopulation.

It is difficult to argue with an obvious nihilist like yourself as nihilists are inevitably somewhat slippery types who change their  own definitions constantly on a whim. Yes, there are a myriad individual "perceptions" and, no doubt, you are happy to accept even poachers' justifications for wiping out wildlife, but those are irrelevant as there is always a basic "Truth" which cannot be countered, at least not logically.

Take tigers, for example. I believe there are 5,000 tigers domesticated in the US, 3,200 in the wild, and (?) perhaps another 12,000 or so in the world's zoos or domesticated outside the US. OK, so that is 20,000 tigers approximately worldwide. Now, the current human population on Earth is c.7.3 billion. So that means that the value of a tiger's life is the same as the value of 365,000 human lives combined. Similiarly, the value of a human life is therefore the same as 0.00000273972    of a tiger's life. Therefore a human's life is worth squat  these days and the value of wildlife is immeasurably greater, by comparison.

[TylerDurden]

I think most humans will simply mind eating human flesh, raw-paleo or not   

If faced with starvation, humans all too happily go in for eating human flesh.

[JeuneKoq]

It is difficult to argue with an obvious nihilist like yourself as nihilists are inevitably somewhat slippery types who change their  own definitions constantly on a whim.

Which personal definition did I change? Please quote.

Yes, there are a myriad individual "perceptions" and, no doubt, you are happy to accept even poachers' justifications for wiping out wildlife

There again, reading my mind. I never said killing endangered wildlife was generally "ok". I never meant killing was justified for any other reason than pure survival. Stop twisting other people's statements.

but those are irrelevant as there is always a basic "Truth" which cannot be countered, at least not logically.

Take tigers, for example. I believe there are 5,000 tigers domesticated in the US, 3,200 in the wild, and (?) perhaps another 12,000 or so in the world's zoos or domesticated outside the US. OK, so that is 20,000 tigers approximately worldwide. Now, the current human population on Earth is c.7.3 billion. So that means that the value of a tiger's life is the same as the value of 365,000 human lives combined. Similiarly, the value of a human life is therefore the same as 0.00000273972    of a tiger's life. Therefore a human's life is worth squat  these days and the value of wildlife is immeasurably greater, by comparison.

Let's reason the way you just did (and calling it "reasoning" is a great overstatement):

There are (the numbers are invented) 3,5 billion Asians in the world. Their are also 500 million Americans. So the life of an American citizen is worth that of 7 Asians?

There is 1 rich man. There are 100 poor people. Therefore the life of a poor man is worth 0,01 of a rich man's?...

[JeuneKoq]

If faced with starvation, humans all too happily go in for eating human flesh.

Uhm that's irrelevant to the context of the -blatantly unrealistic- suggestion you proposed.
As I've understood over-population is the problem you're trying to find a solution to, not famine.

[TylerDurden]

There again, reading my mind. I never said killing endangered wildlife was generally "ok". I never meant killing was justified for any other reason than pure survival. Stop twisting other people's statements.

Killing for survival is still a meaningless option when humans vastly outnumber the relevant threatened species. Killing for the survival of a few irrelevant individuals who have no intrinsic value, is morally wrong.

Let's reason the way you just did (and calling it "reasoning" is a great overstatement):

There are (the numbers are invented) 3,5 billion Asians in the world. Their are also 500 million Americans. So the life of an American citizen is worth that of 7 Asians?

There is 1 rich man. There are 100 poor people. Therefore the life of a poor man is worth 0,01 of a rich man's?...

*gasp*. You have managed to accurately get the point. Yes, indeed, your above points are dead-on-target. Now you appear to understand the laws of scarcity.....

[JeuneKoq]

Wow, we are definitely not on the same wavelength:

Which personal definition did I change? Please quote.

So you weren't able to find any? That's what I thought.

Killing for survival is still a meaningless option when humans vastly outnumber the relevant threatened species. Killing for the survival of a few irrelevant individuals who have no intrinsic value, is morally wrong.

You're still validating the fact that what may seem immoral to you, might not be to someone else, and vice versa. Do I really have to give additional examples?
Taking part in a purely subjective debate is absolutely useless, so I won't discuss this further.

*gasp*. You have managed to accurately get the point. Yes, indeed, your above points are dead-on-target. Now you appear to understand the laws of scarcity.....

Wait a minute, you don't actually believe that Bill Clinton's life is worth 7 times more than GoodSamaritan's?
Or that your life is worth a hundred times less than the life of that rich guy next door?
How the hell do you even interpret the value of this?

Anyways, the "point" that you made, again, was drawn out from a purely personal, subjective mind conception, that has absolutely no objective value. It's worth as much as the Islamists' belief that "women should not drive cars because they are weaker than men".

[TylerDurden]

Like I said before, you are a nihilist so that means you do not really have a valid viewpoint, just one that arbitrarily changes like shadows, depending on the individual in question.

There is an overall morality , an individual's perception thereof  is irrelevant. In this case, the laws of scarcity mean that the few have more value per individual than the many.


Citing individuals  by character was not what I meant. Obviously, if one were to specifically examine Bill Clinton's and GS's characters, one would have to conclude that  Bill Clinton is so worthless that 1 Bill Clinton could not equal even one  billionth of a  GS.

[JeuneKoq]

Like I said before, you are a nihilist so that means you do not really have a valid viewpoint, just one that arbitrarily changes like shadows, depending on the individual in question.

Is that what nihilist really mean? Wikipedia says: "Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived."

I'll tell you what is true, and what isn't:

-I don't change my point of view based on the person I'm speaking to. But you seem to believe I do, so please indicate at what point did it happen.

-I believe that moral values are not entirely abstractly made up, but derive from what I would describe as "natural truths/laws", or survival strategies.


I'll give you an example:

A cultural idea: having reproductive sex with your brother/sister/parents is WRONG.

The Natural truth: reproducing with a close family member goes against the survival logic of seeking diversified genes, and may produce a defective child.

One may hypothesize that the majority of cultural practices and moral values derive from "natural truths", but I can think of too many illogical, unhealthy acts that may deny this idea: such as genital mutilation, to take an extreme example.
But human brain and psychology being as complex as it is, one may actually find some explanation (not justification) to such acts, if one took the time to dig deeper.
There's a whole theory on this, regarding some human psychological issues, devious behaviors and diseases being linked to the clash between the conscious, abstract, fantasizing mind and the unconscious, objective, survival mind.

I've read that some people develop stomach cancer following a stressful situation (divorce, death of a family member) because they figuratively "could not gut" the thing that has happened to them. However, the unconscious mind, that controls almost every aspects of the body, can only view things objectively, and will literally take the message sent by the conscious mind "I can't gut this", and produce an otherwise beneficial stomach cancer* to help digest this abstract piece of "something that is hard to gut". The person can get rid of this truly unnecessary stomach cancer if he works either at properly mourning the situation, or bringing forth to the conscious mind the survival strategy at work.

This is -very- basically how one side of the theory goes. I don't know if it works, but their are a lot of positive accounts. It's called "décodage biologique" in French: Biological Decoding in English, I'm guessing.

Don't worry, the stuff gives me a headache too  But I still find it quite interesting, and at least some aspects of it makes sense to me.

*It has been observed that developing a stomach cancer actually helps foxes digest difficult pieces of meat, such as a bunnies' leg with its fur and claw eaten in a rush, that would otherwise obstruct the stomach. When the piece of food is properly digested or gotten rid of, the stomach cancer suddenly disappears.

[sabertooth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=segrVSCYbhc
If I was starving I would eat the elephant
if there was no elephant, Id eat frogs,
if there was no frogs, Id eat crawl dads,
if there was no crawl dads Id eat sand.

Starvation and hunger is not a moral issue, all living animals will suck sustenance from neighboring organisms if given the chance, it natures way, there is no consideration of endangered or overpopulated in an organism that is truly starving. All life forms are endangered and no creature gets out of life alive.

As a sentient being capable of compassionate thought, Its a tragedy that intelligent animals such as elephants and whales have been hunted to extinction, and perhaps one can make a case that for the most part survival was not the primary motive, and that human beings have gone on a murderous rampage, killing off half of creation, and leaving huge portions of mother natures earthly body, baron and bleeding.... Yet nature abhors a vacuume and new forms will eventually evolve to take the place of the exterminated, and life will go on...perhaps after the human race devours all the worlds edible plants and animals, there will be a huge die off, and out of the Armageddon little critters will emerge from the wreckage to, inherit the wind, and carry forever onward in the struggle for survival.

This total extinction has happened early in earths history on the primordial level, when microbial overgrowths were responsible for terraforming this rock into the world that is inhabited by us. There may be nothing that we may be able to do to stop the human organisms from doing the same thing that our bacterial ancestors had done by overgrowing the biological medium and going out in an orgy of all devouring mass consumption.....it may be wise to not resist the inevitable transience of life and cling to the illusion that certain spices are more worthy of existence than others. Let us embrace the singularity by which the spirit of life transforms itself in order to persevere from epoch to epoch, no matter how many life forms are left by the wayside, the spirit of life itself will devour the remains of yesterdays giants and transform itself into new beings that rise like the phoenix and ascend into higher forms of existence.


There is no stopping the annihilation of life forms, the kind of policies to cull of the destructive tenancies of man will only aggravate the situation. What you resist persist.

[TylerDurden]

Is that what nihilist really mean? Wikipedia says: "Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived."

I'll tell you what is true, and what isn't:

-I don't change my point of view based on the person I'm speaking to. But you seem to believe I do, so please indicate at what point did it happen.

The point is that you believe that everybody's individual moral view  is potentially valid, so that a particular subject can have a googleplex number of interpretations depending on which individual  or culture you are talking about. This means you have a wholly arbitrary stance on matters, and this is rather nihilistic per se.

Take male circumcision/male genital mutilation for example. Even without access to science, one can conclude that there must be a reason for the foreskin to exist otherwise Nature would not have enabled male children to be born with them in the first place, so that removing the foreskin is most definitely unnatural. With scientific knowledge that the foreskin contains many nerve receptors which enable sexual gratification to more easily occur, male genital mutilation can only be reasonably viewed as being unethical and unnatural. Any other stance is not logical.

Take the original example:- the fact that these Africans(Zimbabweans?) were starving is not the fault of the elephant, but the fault of the Africans. There is a saying:- "every country has the government it deserves". In other words, if they wanted to improve their situation, they would overthrow Mugabe at any cost, allow  the white farmers to return and restore a democratic government, or they could have far fewer children so as to  simply cope better with famine etc. Since they do not choose to do so, they are at fault by implication. Wiping out elephants is not a permanent solution to their problems.I know, I know, the elephant was technically  already dead so the Africans had every right to eat it, I am just arguing on a philosophical point.

SB is a true nihilist in every way. The message is just wipe out all species other than what are directly useful to Mankind, that it does not matter and that Nature will fill the vacuum.  First of all, there is no guarantee whatsoever that humankind will ever reach the Technological Singularity, maybe sentient AIs might, but not us humans. What I fear is that what will eventually happen is that we humans reach a point where technological and scientific progress stops, with us being unable to reach other habitable planets or make our own Solar System's planets habitable. By that stage we will have wiped out all wildlife other than microbes and domesticated animals(if that,  our descendants may even replace domesticated animals with  artificial meat raised in hydroponic farms by that stage). Let us suppose, that Mother Earth is fortunate and so along comes a series of asteroid strikes in the next 100 million years or so and wipes out all Mankind, allowing life to proliferate. Well, according to current  scientific thought, we currently only have  c.300 million years to go before it becomes too hot for life on Earth to exist(maybe 1 billion years if the greenhouse effect does not happen) - since it took several billions of years for very complex life like the dinosaurs to appear on Earth,  1 billion years(or maybe much less) is nowhere near enough for complex lifeforms to appear  again via evolution.