Cannibalism

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
In pretty much all cannibal cultures, there weren't enough larger animals around for the protein.

I believe Jared Diamond made the point in GGS in passing that societies that did go for cannibalism were ones who really couldn't get protein from anywhere else - hardly any animals or nuts.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Yeah, other than prion diseases and a much larger array of human-infectious diseases than any other meat source...

don't eat brains or nerves and you won't have to worry about prions.

[Bkeela]

One of the best human evolutionary theories I've read (Genesis Revisited by Glenn G. Strickland) suggests that at some point humans were trapped on small mediterranean islands.

In the senario, the mediterranean dried up due to the narrow mouth becoming blocked by geologocial activity. Our ape-like ancestors descended into the basin following game and other resources, but when the Atlantic poured back in some time later, a certain portion retreated onto islands such as Cyprus.

Our trapped ancestors found island life tough. To survive, cannibalism not only became the chief means of obtaining protein - it would have become a way of life.

Another interesting consideration is the small area of the islands would have increased the speed of our evolution. The smaller area meant only a small population could be sustained. The small population meant that any beneficial mutation would be rapidly transmitted. The islands in effect acted as engines of evolution - a fair explanation for our rapid evolution in comparison to similar species.

It seems the mutations that led to a greater chance of survival were ones that increased the intelligence. When your primary threat and prey is your own species, boosted intelligence provides a critical advantage.

Most people would of course scoff at the idea of our species relying on cannibalism for potentially millions of years in the distant past. It would clash with their typical idea of caveman life. Yet why do we feel (if we are honest) indifference and even animosity towards the offspring of strangers? Is it because the children of strangers were once the equivalent of the Sunday roast, and it wouldn't pay to feel empathy towards a potential meal? Why do all human socieities revert to cannibalism when hunger becomes convincing enough? Are serial killers who indulge in such acts truely monsters, or are they obeying instincts that have been socialised out of (but are still lurking within) most people?

The suggestion by early explorers that the aboriginals of Australia not only engaged in cannibalistic activity, but ate new born infants as a means of birth control, is an idea so scandalous and revolting to modern politically correct sensibilities, it is not given an ounce of credence. Yet to this day remote Papua New Guinean groups remain cannibals. Cannibalism was rife amongst Pacific Islanders - and why not? What better way to dispose of your enemy than to roast him for dinner?

[Dinner]

Since humans evolved in Africa that theory seems doubtful.

[Cyclotron]

You seem to be confusing social behaviors, mores, and conventions with some manner of pseudo-evolutionary development. What our caveman ancestors conceived of as Sunday roast has no bearing on the thoughts of our present society on cannibalism - and the reason humans revert to cannibalism when hunger truly threatens should be obvious; it's the only food source left.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oerdin


don't eat brains or nerves and you won't have to worry about prions.

Not quite true. Prions are present in other cuts of meat, though in lower numbers.

Also, though a lower threat for properly cooked meat, human meat is necessarily going to be a riskier source than other animal meat even for non-prion diseases (parasites, bacteria, virii)

[Bkeela]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
You seem to be confusing social behaviors, mores, and conventions with some manner of pseudo-evolutionary development. What our caveman ancestors conceived of as Sunday roast has no bearing on the thoughts of our present society on cannibalism - and the reason humans revert to cannibalism when hunger truly threatens should be obvious; it's the only food source left.

Oh, I seem to be confusing these things hey? You condescending ****!

The instincts and behaviours of our ancestors in regard cannibalism is perfectly relevant. Cannibalism is not mental malfunction but a mechanism of survival. The fact that people revert to cannibalism is not because there is nothing else to eat (you idiot) but also because it is a highly attractive instinct that has helped our species to survive.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Bkeela
The instincts and behaviours of our ancestors in regard cannibalism is perfectly relevant. Cannibalism is not mental malfunction but a mechanism of survival. The fact that people revert to cannibalism is not because there is nothing else to eat (you idiot) but also because it is a highly attractive instinct that has helped our species to survive.

Social conventions are not passed down through genes, but cultures. Thus, to believe that modern behavior stems from a localized (Cypriotic?) phenomenon of neccessary canibalism would require both that such a cultural trail be passed on for many thousands of years, but that also it would be popular enough to spread to the numerous other human populations that clearly were not living on islands at the time. Even if all humans came from islands, which I think it is clear they did not, I would doubt that there is a continuity of culture from our ape-like ancestors to us. Just because our "ape ancestors" did something doesn't mean we've inherited it, as in this case it would appear to be cultural, not physical or geneological.

As for the "reverting to cannibalism" bit, you said yourself:

Why do all human socieities revert to cannibalism when hunger becomes convincing enough?

You've answered your own question. If hunger is present it means there is a lack of food sources; in most human societies past and present, those sources have included non-human meat. If cannibalism was not practiced and then reverted to because of hunger, it would mean that no more preferential food source is available. For every culture I can think of that was non-cannibalistic, human meat would have been fairly low on the list of things that people would want to eat. Thus, "reverting to cannibalism" actually appears to be just a simple selection of the least preferred food source when nothing else is available.

Still, it has not been demonstrated that cannibalism is any kind of "baseline" of human culture, which would be required for us to say that anyone "reverted" to cannibalism in the first place. Your argument is thus cyclical, because you are proposing that cannibalism is something early humans relied on, on the basis that cultures "revert to cannibalism," which only makes sense if you assume first that early humans relied on cannibalism... so forth and so on.

So yes, you do seem to be confusing several things - I'm not insulting your intelligence, so there is no reason to insult me about it.

[Gatekeeper]

Yet why do we feel (if we are honest) indifference and even animosity towards the offspring of strangers? Is it because the children of strangers were once the equivalent of the Sunday roast, and it wouldn't pay to feel empathy towards a potential meal?

I don't know about you, Bkeela, but I (and I'm being honest here) am rather quite fond of newborns and children, so long as they're well-behaved (especially the children). I especially like cooing and playing with newborns and look forward to possibly being a father someday.

Gatekeeper

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
I don't know about you, Bkeela, but I (and I'm being honest here) am rather quite fond of newborns and children...

Similar to the way you are fond of a choice slab of steak?

[DaShi]

Actually, it's quite common for people to be fond of other people's children. Of course, it varies from person to person. But it's not seen as unusual unless to fondness is too strong.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by DaShi
Actually, it's quite common for people to be fond of other people's children. Of course, it varies from person to person. But it's not seen as unusual unless to fondness is too strong.

Actually, in our family we have a saying: "Hell is other people's children."

(I'm sure that's what Sartre meant to say...)

[DaShi]

That's because you're a child eating cannibal.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by DaShi
That's because you're a child eating cannibal.

No, that would be: "Hell is other people's children -- and no Tabasco sauce!"

[KrazyHorse]

Tabasco sauce is far too harsh for the delicate flavour of baby flesh.

I recommend serving it in cutlets on a bed of rice pilaf with a nice, light, tomato and olive-oil sauce.