The freakish nature of the modern world seems to have infected even the way the young woman sees herself -- she calls herself 'dead' because the old woman refers to her as 'dead' even though she is clearly alive. She passively submits to the idea that she will be eaten, unflinchingly asking how she will be cooked, and what will be served with her 'feast.' In the context of the play, it is uncertain if the young woman is really dead or simply does not care if she is eaten or not, even though she has been preserved for many years. The old woman, who calls her dead, seemingly tries to convince herself of the young woman's demise, even though she is having a conversation with her future dinner. In the new, destroyed earth, the barrier between what is dead and alive has become uncertain and permeable.

What is clear is the freakish reversal of the new, ugly world: the old woman will consume the younger woman, and people are eaten alive for food. No one has any understanding of the past: Spam is foraged for like wild roots and berries, no one remembers what canning is like, and Donald Trump is revered as a god, simply because his image has survived. The contrast between pop culture and real tragedy provides the bitter humor of the piece. It also clearly marks the play as a commentary on the 21st century, and underlines the effects of how the actions of the present (ignoring global warming) have produced the conditions of the dystopian future.

The ultimate horror comes at the end of the play when it is clear that the old woman is...

However, even within the horrifying gesture, there is hope. The "hunger" the old woman feels for her mother is a natural hunger, the hunger of a child for its mother, no matter what her age. The young woman feels misery at the loss of the daughter she never knew. And like all mothers, she wants to nourish her young daughter, and offers the old woman her heart to be eaten, even before their relationship becomes clear.
The two individuals do enact an exchange of compassion -- the young woman appreciates the food she has been given; the old woman says she will chew tenderly. But the terrible want and privation of the new world have distorted these natural impulses, just as they have deprived the older woman of her eyes. The tenderness between the two women provides the viewer with some hope, but ultimately the play ends on an uncertain note. It is uncertain if the child eats her mother. It is uncertain if the young woman is really dead, or has been preserved, alive, in the earth. A final possibility exists -- because of the freakish nature of the new world, the old woman has grown old before her time, and merely appears much older than she actually is in years to the naked eye.

The play suggests that even in the worst of conditions, human feeling and memories exist, in the form of a half-remembered Thanksgiving, and the poetic diction that elevates the recollections to the characters to the status of myth. But the mythological nature of these memories is also heartbreaking, given that it is a portrayal of our world, and what it will become, if nothing is done to heal the planet. The play suggests that aspects of human beings remain the same, but also that human civilization is fragile. The play's language underlines how human society can easily revert back to ancient beliefs and myths if we are not careful, and do not use our scientific knowledge to preserve the planet rather than destroy it.