>Nothing mentioned was not arguments people have not used. Unnecessary double negative, and these aren't really arguments so much as rhetorical shortcuts. I'd

>Nothing mentioned was not arguments people have not used. Unnecessary double negative, and these aren't really arguments so much as rhetorical shortcuts. I'd say, "The buzz-words used are familiar". Cannibalism? If I imagine ahead to the 2040s - if the world has too many people and resource are scarce, eating people rapidly reduces the footprint while providing needed rations. Further, imagine there's a set of people who are notoriously paranoid, superstitious, sexist, racist white-or-adjacent supremacists, idiots etc. And they are refusing at every turn to reasonably live in the safe, advanced system with the logistics necessary for long term human survival and eventual interstellar flourishing. Instead they are insisting on an archaically wasteful, hard-to-document way of life prone to runaway growth, proliferation and oppression, and we constantly need to quell unrest caused by patently false theories that originate from wherever their communication is able to go on unabated by effective moderation tools. Why is it seriously so wrong to kill them and eat them? All of the moral and religious traditions they hold to are clearly outdated, what if cannibalism was just another outdated principle? Maybe we only need to eat enough of them to make sure they never take over and spread. Eating it can be a helpful sign of loyalty, and a demoralization tool. At some point of evolutionary and transhuman divergence, it might be reasonable to admit they're like monkeys to us - and there are some existing traditional recipes for monkey meat.