I'd love Hitchens, or someone of that caliber, to pull that off in talkshow: just show that picture and say it's not a human. And after the nutters have lost their shits and raged for minutes, reveal that it really is not a human, because, it is an elephant.
A little bit late for Hitchens to do that. I'm not super excited about Dawkins doing that either (or anything he does in general), then the current visible faces of atheism advocacy seem docile to the point of being innocuous, and most of the past ones have turned out to be dogshit.
Is a visible face of atheism advocacy who is assertive, unapologetic and militant, without seeking hate-induced controversies for the sake of doing profitable grifting too much to ask for?
In a podcast with Helen Joyce, author of the book Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality, Dawkins said that "sex really is binary" and argued that children are becoming transgender under pressure from their teachers and peers.[55]
Wow. What an incredible let down. He really has abandoned science. Any biologist worth their salt understands that biology is never binary. He fucking knows better and chooses to present it as black and white while wilfully ignoring the massive spectrum in between.
Which is why I only eat rocks, being careful to only select the ones with no moss or lichen.
It's no kind of tasty and it's murder (pun intended) on the teeth and jaws but totally worth it for being able to be holier-than-thou at the most insufferable vegans.
Most of what we eat is just processed CO2 from the air and water. In theory you can capture CO2 from the air, add water, add in some trace elements, run it through a very extensive process and have Soylent coming out at the other end. Not cost effective, but should be possible.
You could also start using artificially created cells to do the processing, so it's not really alive as in evolved in nature and more like bio-robots.
Fun fact: to feed an adult, you need about one human body per year in terms of calories. In case of soylent green, every year one half of the population would have to eat the other half.
The movie Soylent Green is based on the Harry Harrison novel, Make Room, Make Room! which is described on Wikipedia:
Set in a future August 1999, the novel explores trends in the proportion of world resources used by the United States and other countries compared to population growth, depicting a world where the global population is seven billion people
This wasn't exciting enough, so turning Soylent Green into people meat was added to the movie for extra drama. Normally it's soy and lentils, ergo Soylent
In Bladerunner 2049 bugs are farmed for protein, but we already eat bugs in additives which only offends religious people. And ever since the spice Melange turned out to be fermented worm shit, intentional food processing nightmares have been more subdued.
However, in The Jungle documenting pre-PFDA meat production, rats, rat-poison and the occasional accidental fallen millworker all find their way into the sausage. It's why you don't want to know how the sausage is made.
pro-lifers are basically just the socially acceptable version of PETA / militant vegan types imo. both have a belief system where a thing is considered murder, so they don't do the thing. which in itself is fine, but then they call other people who do the thing evil, even if they don't share that belief system. And then they try to force everyone to not do the thing...
there is the small unimportant distinction that one of the things being protected is proven to have emotions, social vibes, feel pain and fear. The other is a lump of cells
Also, it's kind of laughable comparing women's reproductive rights with the right to eat cheese.
