Has anyone ever thought of the idea that a solution to solving two of the world's biggest problems is cannibalism? That's right, it has the power to save the world. Now, considering that most of the responses and comments would be mostly negative and discordant before an explanation, there must be things to think about before immediately rejecting the hypothesis: the effect that will occur due to overpopulation. The more people on earth, the more limited resources are used. Soon, the world will reach its limit and the consequences will drastically affect the population. The second argument is related to overpopulation, which states that the more people you have, the more food you will need. World hunger already affects a high percentage of the population. If you ever thought about the circumstances under which you would go to eat, you wouldn't believe it would be more extreme if experienced when you're starving. The film, Soylent Green, was produced in 1973 and revolves around the use of cannibalism, but no one knows it. It takes place in the year 2022, where the world is affected by overpopulation and pollution which drastically changes the climate and causes shortages of food to eat. A company produces "Soylent Green" which they say is made of ocean plankton, but is actually made of human flesh. The main character finds out and immediately shouts: "Soylent Green is People!" (Fleischer) When it comes to the hidden and painful truth, humanity ruins the world. Too many negative results outweigh the positive ones. They are parasites that plague the earth and its animals. The morals of the world are not as high and powerful as people blinded by higher powers are told, so why not embrace it. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The problems of overpopulation and world hunger overcome the taboo of cannibalism. Overpopulation can lead to many problems for the world, which could lead to many disastrous results. The environment, climate and plants are the main targets, but only three of the many things that will be devastated. Adam C. Davis writes on the topic of overpopulation. He makes three different arguments as to why overpopulation is bad and not taken care of enough. It states: “Human overpopulation continues to be an urgent problem for the health and vitality of the environment, affecting the survival and well-being of human populations. Limiting the number of children you produce or deciding to remain childless can be seen as a pro-environmental behavior (PEB) that can significantly reduce your carbon footprint. (Davis) Human populations around the world will get nothing better from this outcome. He suggests limiting the number of children in a family, but that could take years and years to find an effective way to stop people from reproducing. It also says: “Given global food surpluses, unsustainable and unjust patterns of consumption and distribution in many wealthy nations, such as the United States, Canada and Australia, must change.” (qtd. by Davis) The countries he names have a higher percentage of the food they eat, and the convenience of having food leads to producing more offspring which creates another mouth to feed. He mentions this because of how careless these countries are with their food. They are born and raised with the lifestyle of getting any amount of food they want. It is an overlooked fact that needs to be brought to light. He also talks about the attitude of successful people saying: “Some argue that overpopulation is not a problem used by the elites of the “Global North” to maintain current patterns ofunsustainable consumption, blaming the poor, women, people of color. , immigrants and those residing in the “Global South” who produce a negligible impact on the environment”. (qt. by Davis et al.) Use this quote to interpret the fact that people think it is a scam to “point the finger” at countries south of the equator for their impact on the environment. Only humans can lose touch with the right thing to do and deny any truth if it is too negative for them to face. Kate Whiting writes an article about David Attenborough talking about overpopulation. He says: “More people means more carbon emissions: more cars, waste and emissions, more homes and infrastructure to build using the world's limited resources, more mouths to feed using more water and energy in food production. So, how many people is too many?" (Whiting) She makes it clear that there will be a limit to the world's population before a catastrophe. No words can express the importance of this statement because anything a person says or feels can easily be put aside part. Only the heart and soul can understand, yet people lost this ability years ago. He also talks about the effect on the planet by saying: “But while fertility levels (and birth rates) are declining globally, the overall trend is continued population growth, with increasing pressure on the planet's limited resources – and an impact on the environment.” (Whiting) Even though birth rates around the world are declining, the overall population continues to increase. He adds in what Attenborough said: "Attenborough notes: 'One of the reasons why the population has increased so quickly is that people like me live longer than us, so there are more and more people.' people just because life expectancy has increased.'” (qtd. by Whiting) Because life expectancy has increased, the population will increase at a faster rate because people are dying more slowly. More people means more food. World hunger is nothing to underestimate. Given the level of development of humans in the modern world, it should be evident that a high percentage could be adequately nourished. This is not the case, given that a quarter of the world's population has no food. “A further sketch of how famine and starvation influenced the discussion of development ethics in the 1970s and 1980s is beyond the scope of the present article.” This statement from Thompson states that what he is looking at does not focus on how serious the problem of hunger and famine is. It's much bigger than they say. The “World Health Organization” has conducted research and provided statistics in the modern era. People living in food security go through extreme types of pain that can only be experienced to understand. Many deformities are created when a child does not receive enough nutrients. According to statistics, more than a third of children under 5 years old suffer from stunting, wasting and overweight. It is difficult and almost impossible to adequately proportion food around the world, as supported by the statement of the “World Health Organization” which states: “Too many people do not have access to the quantity and quality of food they need. And too many people are not healthy enough to benefit nutritionally from food.” (Grebmer et al. 21) Doing research, Paul Thompson examines and shows flaws in a journal written about development ethics in the 1970s and 2000s. It is nothing new to hear this news, but it is surprising that most ships rich people in the world have the power but do not use it to help the needy. He states: “Hardin linked Ehrlich's ecological analysis to a critiqueof altruism, arguing that it is unethical to provide food to poor nations in the absence of a 'birth rate solution', because doing so would only delay the onset of famine, leading to even more suffering in the future ”. This statement states that a bigger problem will arise when people try to provide food to defenseless people. Aid has been provided to support countries affected by extreme famines, but not all countries can be helped. The idea of ​​helping those most in need is still flawed when it comes to world hunger. The “World Health Organization” states: “In the same world where approximately 800 million people suffer from hunger and 2 billion suffer from some form of malnutrition, more than a third of the adult population is obese and a third of all food product is lost or wasted." Many people don't think about the concept of a balance between "too less" and "too much." World hunger is not just about the effects on people dying of hunger, but about any topic that has to do with do with unbalanced food in the world. This adds to obesity and overeating, which increases food waste and people dying of hunger. Paul Garwood states: “An estimated 820 million people did not have enough food in 2018, compared to 811 million the previous year, which is the third consecutive year of increase.” The number of people who do not have enough food is increasing every year. At this rate, people can only slow it down it's as taboo as people say. Jared Piazza and Neil McLatchie wrote an article to explain why humans think cannibalism is "taboo." They state: “How we interact with animals shapes how we classify them. Research shows that the more we think of animals as having human properties – that is, as “like us” – the more we tend to think they are disgusting to eat. The more humans establish a connection with an animal, the more repulsive they feel at the thought of eating it. That's why many people wouldn't eat their dogs. It's a strange thing to think about, but it's the same concept. Which is stated directly by: “This deep connection between personality and flesh may mean that careful reasoning in certain situations about the merits of cannibalism is overridden by our feelings of revulsion and disgust.” The people in the previous story didn't deal with these feelings on a larger scale. Joyce Shin explains this in an article she wrote about human interaction and cannibalism. He says: “In the past, diseases were rampant, which meant lifespans were short. You haven't really had time to form bonds and relationships with other people, whether it's your family or your friends. Since the connection with other humans was not as strong as in the modern world, they had no hesitation in eating human flesh. She makes another argument when she states: “I think a good starting point would be from an evolutionary point of view, after all humans are simply organisms – a highly adapted and specialized species – however, simple animals. In the animal kingdom, ingestion of other members of the species is not uncommon and is in fact a survival strategy. In many species, eating another member is natural, even logical, as you improve your own fitness by eliminating competition. “After all, humanity simply advanced compared to the rest of the animal kingdom. Cannibalism is also more common in history than many expect. Thomas states, “Indeed, sacred cannibalism persisted (or reappeared) in the West well into Roman times.” It still happens in Amazonian tribes in the world today. They don't hide it either, with Thomas saying: “In areas.