#19. Small Bites
Here’s the situation: You are in a plane crash in the Andes Mountains, not unlike those people from the movie Alive (or, I suppose, like the 1972 Uruguayan rugby team who experienced this situation in reality). As such, you will be forced to consume the human flesh of the people who died on impact; this will be a terrible experience, but it is the only way for you to survive. Fortunately, you did not know any of the victims personally.
Would you rather eat a dead baby, or would you rather eat a dead elderly person? Would gender play a role in the selection process? And how much would it bother you if this meat turned out to be delicious?
* * *
My gut reaction to this question is to go with the dead baby. Somehow I think the meat would be fresher, more tender, and above all, easier to consume. That’s all I’m really basing my decision on–which one of these two would be the least disgusting to sink my teeth in to. That’s all it comes down to. Less YUCK factor. I just have a harder time picturing a half-masticated chunk of old people flesh rolling around in my mouth. I imagine that the skin is rough, and kinda stale, and just. . .not delightful at all. Also, I’m not sure I could survive feeding off of the elderly. How much does the average geriatric weigh? There wouldn’t seem to be enough meat on those bones to live on. Gender would only play a role insofar as one provided more meat than the other. If there’s more to eat on the legs of an old woman than her skinny-ass husband, I’m eating her first. All in all, infants just seem like the best way to go. Then again, babies are small. They would only last for so long before I had to move on to making meals from old skin. Small bites then. Small bites.
What say you? Is there a baby on board your plate or shall you be feasting off of senior citizens? Can’t wait to hear what you have to say.