NationStates Jolt Archive

I found this article. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A00E0DC173BF932A25757C0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1) It's about a study with evidence that most modern humans are descended from cannibals. If you believe this theory than the only reason cannibalism is so uncommon is because there is a taboo against it. Cannibalism is so rare it's not even considered a mental disorder, and during the time Armin Meiwes was on trial it wasn't a crime in Germany.

There are other people who think that cannibalism is very uncommon because it is unnatural. Which one do you think is true? Is it a suppressed part of human nature, or some strange and uncommon perversion?

There is apparently a small subculture of cannibal fetishists, but few of them are willing to act out their fantasies in real life. There are also people who like to call themselves voraphiles (http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Voraphile). They generally get offended if anyone compares them to a cannibal, but their fantasies involve swallowing sentient beings whole, so it seems like a tamer version of cannibalism. I looked at their message board, and many of them say they were born with this fetish. Many started having vore fantasies in early childhood, before they even knew what a sexual fantasy was. Some even say they aren't attracted to the idea of regular sex at all. I wonder if it's really possible to be born with a sexual orientation this bizzare. I don't think anyone has done any real research on it because it's so strange, and there probably aren't many normal people who want to even be associated with it by doing a study.

The book the china study argues that cannibalism is the most nutritious diet possible. It also argues that vegetarianism is the best way to go considering that cannibalism is impractical. I haven't actually read the book so I don't know what the reasoning behind this is.

The book the china study argues that cannibalism is the most nutritious diet possible.

One look at the American people probably disproves this.

There are other people who think that cannibalism is very uncommon because it is unnatural. Which one do you think is true? Is it a suppressed part of human nature, or some strange and uncommon perversion?

Cannibalism is a survival strategy that is not that good. One of the problems with human flesh is that is also contains human diseases. Much easier transferrable.

Cannibalism has either taken the form of being a highly ritualized activity, or a desperate survival tactic. Even in cases where it is not a survival tactic, such as the Caribs of the (obviously) pre-Colombian Caribbean, cannibalism was practiced with the goal of gaining the strength of the strongest warriors amongst conquered peoples.

Beyond that, the costs of eating human flesh, a "food source" that is rich in easily communicated human diseases, is dangerous. Not to forget the sheer amount of crap modern humans put into their body.

One look at the American people probably disproves this.Yeah, americans probably have a lot of junk in their bodies with the preservatives and prescription meds. Maybe it was different in china, who knows.

Cannibalism has either taken the form of being a highly ritualized activity, or a desperate survival tactic.You left out the fetishists I mentioned.

I didn't create this thread to ask if cannibalism is a good idea. I think it's a bad idea to give people another possible excuse to murder other people. I made this thread because I'm wondering if cannibalism is really an inborn instinct that has been suppressed, or an aberration. There isn't any proof either way, so I guess the answer just depends on your opinion of human nature. I think I lean more towards the suppressed instinct theory.

Most higher mammals refrain from cannibalism. I think it's because of the mammalian brain. One recognizes two kinds of things in the world: food, and not-food. Members of your own race would be potential rivals, potential mates, family members... i.e, not-food. They have another role to play and generally, just wind up eating your food along with you. Dead members of your own species would be the same.

For less developed organisms though, the ones where you see cannibalism (like ants), it's because they still divide things into two groups - food, not-food - but they're less selective about what qualifies as food, not having all that pattern recognition and cognition bit that humans do.

But like pretty much anything, we don't follow strictly biological rules of behavior anymore. Still, eating your own kind is gross and unhealthy, kinda like eating poop, and so there's a taboo against it and basically no one does it, unless motivated by some weird higher-order reasoning like religion or what-have-you.

In Soviet Russia Restaurants eat YOU!

Most higher mammals refrain from cannibalism. I think it's because of the mammalian brain. One recognizes two kinds of things in the world: food, and not-food. Members of your own race would be potential rivals, potential mates, family members... i.e, not-food. They have another role to play and generally, just wind up eating your food along with you. Dead members of your own species would be the same.

For less developed organisms though, the ones where you see cannibalism (like ants), it's because they still divide things into two groups - food, not-food - but they're less selective about what qualifies as food, not having all that pattern recognition and cognition bit that humans do.I saw a nature show where an "outcast" lion ate the baby lions from the pride it had been thrown out of. I've heard of bears doing the same thing. I think this has also been observed in primates.

From what I remember about ants, they will kill and eat ants from another colony, but not from their same colony. I've personally seen ants carrying a dead member of another species of ant, but I've never seen ants carrying their own species. Again, I'm not sure if any of this is true or not, except for the lion thing.

It is interesting, to say the least. But I don't think that a purely or mainly cannnibalistic diet would work in a social species like Humans. If you looked at your boss/wife/students/landlady/beloved forum moderators as food, and went through with getting said food, society would collapse into a [literally] self-consuming hell.

Here's what wikipedia says about cannibalism in animals. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism_%28zoology%29) Apparantly some of the most intelligent and human like animals, such as dolphins and chimps, have been found to eat their own young. That's the most disturbing form of cannibalism.

I'm surprised that dogs sometimes eat their own young. I thought dogs had such a selfless pack mentality. Oh well.

Another strange thing is that apparently some herbivores practice cannibalism, like elephants.

Hmmm.. Think 'little red riding hood', or other fairy tales. The wolf swallows grandma and LRRH (who are obviously intelligent) whole, and they are even rescued afterwards.

Freud states that those tales (and the archetypes in them) are old, perhaps as old as human language. He even mentions a connection in the subconscious mind with sexuality.

Could the Voraphile fantasy have something to do with them? Ideas anyone?

Here's what wikipedia says about cannibalism in animals. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism_%28zoology%29) Apparantly some of the most intelligent and human like animals, such as dolphins and chimps, have been found to eat their own young. That's the most disturbing form of cannibalism.

Why?

The young are the most tender and nutritious. That makes them an excellent choice.

Edit: Plus, they don't put up much of a fight either.

Why?

The young are the most tender and nutritious. That makes them an excellent choice.

Edit: Plus, they don't put up much of a fight either.It's disturbing because usually parents have an instinct to protect their young, not murder and devour them. It's nasty and it seems counter productive for any species that wants to perpetuate their genes. Eating a rival or something already dead would make more sense.

The way I see it, there are two forms of cannibalism.

One form is as a last resort. A group of people are isolated, with no source of food. They resort to eating their dead. One person may even sacrifice himself so the others may live.

The other is where people seek out human flesh despite having alternatives. You hunt other people for the purpose of eating them.

The idea that our ancestors (particularly Stone Age ancestors) practiced the former makes sense to me. The latter does not, at least not on a large scale. See, humans are super-predators. Did humans hunt wolves or bears for food on a regular basis? No, because there is easier prey available. If you screw up while hunting a mammoth, you have a good chance of getting away alive, provided you're quick on your feet. Screw up hunting a predator, and it will make a good effort to kill you. Screw up hunting humans, and they may very well hunt you down, to eliminate a threat.

I suppose if they ate the flesh of their dead, that would explain things. This would have been particularly common prior to the advent of religion. I wouldn't be surprised if this gene had origins in homo erectus.

The way I see it, there are two forms of cannibalism.

One form is as a last resort. A group of people are isolated, with no source of food. They resort to eating their dead. One person may even sacrifice himself so the others may live.

The other is where people seek out human flesh despite having alternatives. You hunt other people for the purpose of eating them.

The idea that our ancestors (particularly Stone Age ancestors) practiced the former makes sense to me. The latter does not, at least not on a large scale. See, humans are super-predators. Did humans hunt wolves or bears for food on a regular basis? No, because there is easier prey available. If you screw up while hunting a mammoth, you have a good chance of getting away alive, provided you're quick on your feet. Screw up hunting a predator, and it will make a good effort to kill you. Screw up hunting humans, and they may very well hunt you down, to eliminate a threat.

I suppose if they ate the flesh of their dead, that would explain things. This would have been particularly common prior to the advent of religion. I wouldn't be surprised if this gene had origins in homo erectus.

Funny thing, you kill and eat your enemies, you lack enemies anymore. There's evidence it was quite common in the past.

Wasn't this an NS issue?

Funny thing, you kill and eat your enemies, you lack enemies anymore. There's evidence it was quite common in the past.

Well, eating them is a side benefit. I said that killing people for the specific purpose of eating them was probably rare. The difference is that you have to do it on a regular basis.

The idea that our ancestors (particularly Stone Age ancestors) practiced the former makes sense to me. The latter does not, at least not on a large scale. See, humans are super-predators. Did humans hunt wolves or bears for food on a regular basis? No, because there is easier prey available. If you screw up while hunting a mammoth, you have a good chance of getting away alive, provided you're quick on your feet. Screw up hunting a predator, and it will make a good effort to kill you. Screw up hunting humans, and they may very well hunt you down, to eliminate a threat.I think this is too much of a generalization. Most animals will fight in self defense, and run away when they can. It's unusual for any predator to attack a human unless it's starving. Some of the most vicious animals are herbivores, like hippos. More people in Africa are killed by hippos than any other animal. I'm a vegetarian so I don't have personal experience with this, but I have heard that carnivores taste better than herbivores. People generally don't try to domesticate carnivores for food because it takes a lot more effort to feed a large carnivore than a large herbivore. Carnivores are also more uncommon when hunting. But in Japan, people have traditionally raised bears for food and killed them before they became dangerous.

Also, killing a scary carnivore has traditionally been seen in all cultures as a great accomplishment. People would make a point of wearing lion skins and stuff.

I suppose if they ate the flesh of their dead, that would explain things. This would have been particularly common prior to the advent of religion. I wouldn't be surprised if this gene had origins in homo erectus.You mean the advent of religion as you know it today. There are ritualistic religions that demand humans to be sacrificed and eaten.

It's disturbing because usually parents have an instinct to protect their young, not murder and devour them. It's nasty and it seems counter productive for any species that wants to perpetuate their genes. Eating a rival or something already dead would make more sense.

Culling the population through a tasty three-course meal?

At any rate, when the young are actually eaten, it is a sign something is wrong. With dogs it may be that the young is sick and would just drain resources and/or have some other negative impact on the 'pack'. With hamsters for example, the mother will eat the young if they are touched by humans because they no longer smell like their young. I don't know much about dolphins, but I assume the baby eating isn't a matter of course(pun intended) but rather a sign that something has gone wrong.

According to wikipedia infanticide is usually the result of sexual conflict. They kill the young so that somebody else's genes aren't perpetuated. I can imagine that deformed offspring might be eaten though. I've heard parents of autistic kids talk about driving their children off cliffs.

Dogs might just be stupid in some cases. I know a dog breeder who has a three legged dog, because the mother chewed off the puppies leg when she confused it for the umbilical cord.

Just about anything can set off a hamster's cannibalistic instincts a few days after giving birth. If the hamster hears a loud noise, it might eat all of it's children. Hamster adults will also eat each other for seemingly no reason.

Cannibalism is considered taboo in society?

That explains why people always run away when I come near....

In Soviet Russia Restaurants eat YOU!

Hehe, I love family guy.

That joke is from a simpsons episode about 10 years ago. Family guy likes to steal simpsons jokes though.

Really? I didn't know that. Ah well, either way, its funny.

In Soviet Russia Restaurants eat YOU!

Considering that two of the three major incidences of mass cannibalism in the last century were during the Holodomor and the Siege of Leningrad (the third being the Great Leap forward), that's a truism. (BTW, the Russian Reversal is sooo old, it's older than yo mama. ;))

Why?

The young are the most tender and nutritious. That makes them an excellent choice.

Edit: Plus, they don't put up much of a fight either.

Indeed so, my good Mister Swift. ;)

Cannibalism is considered taboo in society?

That explains why people always run away when I come near....

:::runs away from the mob of unified theiving avian cannibals:::

Hehe, I love family guy.
That joke is from a simpsons episode about 10 years ago. Family guy likes to steal simpsons jokes though.

Both incorrect. The Russian Reversal was first used by Arte Johnson on Laugh In, and made popular by Yakov Smirnoff.

I would just like to point out that I am not technically incorrect. Are you saying I don't enjoy Family Guy? If so, I declare you, my good man, a dirty dirty liar.

I would just like to point out that I am not technically incorrect. Are you saying I don't enjoy Family Guy? If so, I declare you, my good man, a dirty dirty liar.

:) Indeed a good technical point. (Can't venture an opinion on the show, having never seen it.)

Hehe. Thanks. In actuality though, yes, I am wrong, because I was implying that the joke was from Family Guy. It is in it though. You've never seen it? I pity you my friend...

It's disturbing because usually parents have an instinct to protect their young, not murder and devour them. It's nasty and it seems counter productive for any species that wants to perpetuate their genes. Eating a rival or something already dead would make more sense.

If a parent is killing there young, there is usually some reason behind it. Is the child deformed? They may eat the child to save resources in raising it. Or has a new partner came on to the scene, many creature (i think lions do this) will kill a
an older partner cubs if a new male comes along. The other is to stop an predator from gaining the neautrents in the child. If the parents can excaspe then eatting the young means the predator wasted energy and time for no gain.

I know Cannibalism occurs at sea very occasionally, and it's accepted by Seamen.

However, Vorophiles are seriously depraved. They should be locked up on an island far from other humans and left to rot.

If people resort to canniablism through desperation that's understandable. If people do it as a weekend activity then they should be put on an island, a seperate one to the Vorophiles.

Yeah, americans probably have a lot of junk in their bodies with the preservatives and prescription meds. Maybe it was different in china, who knows.

The problem with eating chinese is that you're hungry again an hour later. :p

The problem with eating chinese is that you're hungry again an hour later. :p

But then again, the amount of chinese available in stock is just huge. Hardly you will run out of them.

Cannibalism is now outdated due to widespread resources throughout the world and more efficient practices of gathering crops and meat. There's no reason for anyone to try it except for survival, or for their own pleasure. The second of which is just generally considered weird.

Then there's HuFu: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdfxNYKWcN4

I saw a nature show where an "outcast" lion ate the baby lions from the pride it had been thrown out of. I've heard of bears doing the same thing. I think this has also been observed in primates.


Sounds about right... psychologically I guess the outcast animal would no longer consider it's own kind to be it's own kind anymore... add to that desperation and a case of the munchies...

From what I remember about ants, they will kill and eat ants from another colony, but not from their same colony. I've personally seen ants carrying a dead member of another species of ant, but I've never seen ants carrying their own species. Again, I'm not sure if any of this is true or not, except for the lion thing.

Some ants will eat their own colony-mates (if dead), some probably don't for whatever reason. I don't think there's a hard and fast rule for it, but most of the time I'd expect they'll eat whatever serves as food, including little suzy's corpse. At least that's the only explanation I can think of for how they carry off their own dead (as when I kill them upon encroaching into my territory). Unless they have medic-ants or burial rituals. :p

BTW, the Russian Reversal is sooo old, it's older than yo mama.
But in Soviet Russia, yo mama is older than YOU!