Why don't we eat each other, really?
December 9, 2011 12:57 PM Subscribe
Is there any evolutionary basis for the near-universal aversion to cannibalism?
Aside from a few historical, desperate and/or insane exceptions, cannibalism seems to be a universal cultural no-no. Is there any evolutionary logic behind that, or is it purely a social construct?
Other universal taboos seem to have some selection pressures behind them - the genetic effects of incest, for example. The only similar thing I can find for cannibalism is the prion disease kuru occasionally caused by eating braaains. Is there anything else?
Aside from a few historical, desperate and/or insane exceptions, cannibalism seems to be a universal cultural no-no. Is there any evolutionary logic behind that, or is it purely a social construct?
Other universal taboos seem to have some selection pressures behind them - the genetic effects of incest, for example. The only similar thing I can find for cannibalism is the prion disease kuru occasionally caused by eating braaains. Is there anything else?
Per the laws of thermodynamics, cannibalism necessarily causes a net energy loss for the species, so in the general case it's not a winning strategy (i.e. a species that feeds exclusively on itself will necessarily eventually die off). This is particularly true for humans because so much time and energy has to be invested in both reproduction and child-rearing: the cannibal would only be getting a fraction of the calories that went into growing the consumed person.
There are some special cases where cannibalism 'makes sense,' however. Some animals (e.g. mink, rabbits) will consume their young if they believe they are threatened. The evolutionary logic seems to be that the young are goners anyway, so the mother might as well recoup some of the energy invested in their creation.
posted by jedicus at 1:05 PM on December 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
There are some special cases where cannibalism 'makes sense,' however. Some animals (e.g. mink, rabbits) will consume their young if they believe they are threatened. The evolutionary logic seems to be that the young are goners anyway, so the mother might as well recoup some of the energy invested in their creation.
posted by jedicus at 1:05 PM on December 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
IIRC cannibalism wasn't that uncommon in prehistoric times.
posted by TungstenChef at 1:06 PM on December 9, 2011
posted by TungstenChef at 1:06 PM on December 9, 2011
Here is an article on cannibalism and human evolution though it is extremely dense
It mentions that prior to Kuru there is evidence that their have been widespread prion diseases in the past. The fact is that eating human brains as a human is bad for you. It may be that traditions of cannibalism died out after a disease wiped out the culture.
posted by boobjob at 1:08 PM on December 9, 2011
It mentions that prior to Kuru there is evidence that their have been widespread prion diseases in the past. The fact is that eating human brains as a human is bad for you. It may be that traditions of cannibalism died out after a disease wiped out the culture.
posted by boobjob at 1:08 PM on December 9, 2011
I was going to mention the thing about net energy loss.
But also, cannablism was much more widespread in the past than you might think. It's only recently that it's fallen out of favor so universally, so my dollar is on not evolutionary forces but simple changing cultural values/ethics/mores/squickness.
posted by Lutoslawski at 1:08 PM on December 9, 2011
But also, cannablism was much more widespread in the past than you might think. It's only recently that it's fallen out of favor so universally, so my dollar is on not evolutionary forces but simple changing cultural values/ethics/mores/squickness.
posted by Lutoslawski at 1:08 PM on December 9, 2011
the changing of which one could argue is a form of cultural or social evolution, but I mean it in the strict biological sense.
posted by Lutoslawski at 1:09 PM on December 9, 2011
posted by Lutoslawski at 1:09 PM on December 9, 2011
Is it really that rare in the case where murder or defiling corpses is acceptable? This researcher (Divine Hunger: Cannibalism As A Cultural System by Peggy Reeves Sanday) says that out a group of 156 cultures she looked at distributed evenly geographically and across time some form of cannibalism was present in about a third of them.
Just looking around Google Books there appear to be quite a few books about cannibalism BTW.
posted by XMLicious at 1:10 PM on December 9, 2011 [2 favorites]
Just looking around Google Books there appear to be quite a few books about cannibalism BTW.
posted by XMLicious at 1:10 PM on December 9, 2011 [2 favorites]
Prions are not the only contagious disease that could be transmitted by eating human flesh. Trichinosis comes to mind as a potential risk, as well as most blood-borne pathogens. Situational cannibalism has been a survival strategy used by humans up to the 20th century.
Of course, there's an issue of lively debate as to whether we can isolate human behaviors to such a degree that we can speculate on the selective pressures that led to them. My personal take is that I don't think we can develop evolutionary models of human behavior lacking either specific gene sequences or related hominid species. And any experiment to test the genetic variance of a cannibalism taboo is likely to be highly unethical.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 1:15 PM on December 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
Of course, there's an issue of lively debate as to whether we can isolate human behaviors to such a degree that we can speculate on the selective pressures that led to them. My personal take is that I don't think we can develop evolutionary models of human behavior lacking either specific gene sequences or related hominid species. And any experiment to test the genetic variance of a cannibalism taboo is likely to be highly unethical.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 1:15 PM on December 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
Richard Preston wrote a really interesting essay on self-cannibalism and the fine line between pathology (Lesch-Nyhan syndrome) and normal human behavior. It's in his (excellent) collection Panic in Level 4.
Panic in Level 4 is a grand tour through the eerie universe of Richard Preston, filled with unforgettable characters and mysteries that refuse to leave one’s mind.
The phenomenon of “self-cannibals.” They suffer from a genetic condition, a change in one single letter of the human DNA, that forces them to compulsively chew their own flesh and bite off their extremities—and why the self-cannibalism disease may lurk in all of us.
posted by charmcityblues at 1:52 PM on December 9, 2011 [3 favorites]
Panic in Level 4 is a grand tour through the eerie universe of Richard Preston, filled with unforgettable characters and mysteries that refuse to leave one’s mind.
The phenomenon of “self-cannibals.” They suffer from a genetic condition, a change in one single letter of the human DNA, that forces them to compulsively chew their own flesh and bite off their extremities—and why the self-cannibalism disease may lurk in all of us.
posted by charmcityblues at 1:52 PM on December 9, 2011 [3 favorites]
Per the laws of thermodynamics, cannibalism necessarily causes a net energy loss for the species, so in the general case it's not a winning strategy (i.e. a species that feeds exclusively on itself will necessarily eventually die off).
This argument is weird, first of all because it assumes exclusive cannibalism. Cannibalism in most species appears to be opportunistic and/or situational, and there's a fair bit of evidence that applies to human cannibalism as well.
The second problem is the reliance on species-level selection. I don't know that there's a mechanism at that level that's viable. Theoretically speaking, any form of intra-species violence that increases the reproductive success of an individual will result in an increase in the frequency of related genes. Eating a competitor isn't that much different from killing them in this regard.
This, of course, is dependent on a bunch of handwavium as to exactly what behaviors are selected for, and how much hereditibility there might be associated with it within a given social context. Which is why I'm generally skeptical of evolutionary psychology beyond the principle that primates can be utter assholes when they find it convenient.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 1:52 PM on December 9, 2011
This argument is weird, first of all because it assumes exclusive cannibalism. Cannibalism in most species appears to be opportunistic and/or situational, and there's a fair bit of evidence that applies to human cannibalism as well.
The second problem is the reliance on species-level selection. I don't know that there's a mechanism at that level that's viable. Theoretically speaking, any form of intra-species violence that increases the reproductive success of an individual will result in an increase in the frequency of related genes. Eating a competitor isn't that much different from killing them in this regard.
This, of course, is dependent on a bunch of handwavium as to exactly what behaviors are selected for, and how much hereditibility there might be associated with it within a given social context. Which is why I'm generally skeptical of evolutionary psychology beyond the principle that primates can be utter assholes when they find it convenient.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 1:52 PM on December 9, 2011
There was actually a fair amount of debate within anthropology as to how common cannibalism actually was and is in history (as opposed to being used as cultural libel), but even the most extreme post-colonial revisionists, such as William Arens, wouldn't go nearly so far as to say that it is "a universal cultural no-no," just that it's not as common as portrayed and accounts of it need to be read with skepticism.
The more mainstream view is that there were many societies around the world that practiced cannibalism quite regularly, though more in a ritual context and as a tactic of warfare rather than a major source of calories in their diets. Certainly the Māori regularly used cannibalism in warfare well into the 19th century, and various cultures in Papua New Guinea until the mid-20th.
posted by strangely stunted trees at 1:54 PM on December 9, 2011 [5 favorites]
The more mainstream view is that there were many societies around the world that practiced cannibalism quite regularly, though more in a ritual context and as a tactic of warfare rather than a major source of calories in their diets. Certainly the Māori regularly used cannibalism in warfare well into the 19th century, and various cultures in Papua New Guinea until the mid-20th.
posted by strangely stunted trees at 1:54 PM on December 9, 2011 [5 favorites]
I was just thinking about vampires in popular culture today and the subculture of blood drinkers (link via the Wikipedia article "vampire lifestyle".) As others have said, the assumption behind your question that cannibalism is a universal taboo seems pretty flawed.
posted by XMLicious at 2:09 PM on December 9, 2011
posted by XMLicious at 2:09 PM on December 9, 2011
The bottom line is ... people are pretty damn useful to have around. More useful than dead people.
A culture that eats people isn't going to get very far, evolutionarily speaking.
Think about the "use cases" for and against cannibalism.
In the "pro eating people" side, you see "only when starving." OK, got it.
In the con side...
* You don't eat the young, healthy people, because they can stick around and help you find other food that could be a net benefit to both of you. Even if they're just slaves, they can be made to earn their keep.
* For the same reason, you don't eat your enemies, because your enemies will either stay enemies forever (i.e. you're not going to marry into the tribe that eats people), or they can be turned into slaves.
* You don't eat the aged, because then your society falls apart through internal competition. Why have kids if they're just going to grow up to kill me?
* You don't eat the sick, because they're sick with things that will make you sick.
In the end, you don't eat people because people are good for more than just eating.
Teach a man to eat people and he'll have food for a week.
Teach a man to not eat people and he'll eventually have a whole society of people to help him do stuff, like grow crops and raise animals that can be turned into tasty hamburgers.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 2:46 PM on December 9, 2011 [4 favorites]
A culture that eats people isn't going to get very far, evolutionarily speaking.
Think about the "use cases" for and against cannibalism.
In the "pro eating people" side, you see "only when starving." OK, got it.
In the con side...
* You don't eat the young, healthy people, because they can stick around and help you find other food that could be a net benefit to both of you. Even if they're just slaves, they can be made to earn their keep.
* For the same reason, you don't eat your enemies, because your enemies will either stay enemies forever (i.e. you're not going to marry into the tribe that eats people), or they can be turned into slaves.
* You don't eat the aged, because then your society falls apart through internal competition. Why have kids if they're just going to grow up to kill me?
* You don't eat the sick, because they're sick with things that will make you sick.
In the end, you don't eat people because people are good for more than just eating.
Teach a man to eat people and he'll have food for a week.
Teach a man to not eat people and he'll eventually have a whole society of people to help him do stuff, like grow crops and raise animals that can be turned into tasty hamburgers.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 2:46 PM on December 9, 2011 [4 favorites]
1) Eating people who just keeled over is a good way to pick up whatever caused them to die.
2) Eating your healthy neighbors makes about as much sense as stealing from them. That sort of thing gets you kicked out of the tribe.
3) Eating enemy tribes is an option, but tends to involve warfare against enemy tribes. It's a bit dicey.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 3:17 PM on December 9, 2011
2) Eating your healthy neighbors makes about as much sense as stealing from them. That sort of thing gets you kicked out of the tribe.
3) Eating enemy tribes is an option, but tends to involve warfare against enemy tribes. It's a bit dicey.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 3:17 PM on December 9, 2011
I think there's actually an important meta-question here: when asking "is there an (or what is the) evolutionary basis for X", how would we go about testing a hypothesis?
In other words, if someone says "Yes, Y is the evolutionary basis for X", is there any way to check that it's not a Just So Story?
posted by phliar at 3:30 PM on December 9, 2011
In other words, if someone says "Yes, Y is the evolutionary basis for X", is there any way to check that it's not a Just So Story?
posted by phliar at 3:30 PM on December 9, 2011
This researcher (Divine Hunger: Cannibalism As A Cultural System by Peggy Reeves Sanday) says that out a group of 156 cultures she looked at distributed evenly geographically and across time some form of cannibalism was present in about a third of them.
Let's not forget that according to the Catholic Church, that stuff is literally the flesh and blood of Christ.
posted by cmoj at 4:00 PM on December 9, 2011 [2 favorites]
Let's not forget that according to the Catholic Church, that stuff is literally the flesh and blood of Christ.
posted by cmoj at 4:00 PM on December 9, 2011 [2 favorites]
"IIRC cannibalism wasn't that uncommon in prehistoric times."
Come on now, TungstenChef, you aren't that old.
I think a fundamental reason is that we are a social, gregarious species. If we were like squid or lobsters, it would be much more likely we'd be cannibals.
Evolution-wise, I am not so sure that an aversion to cannibalism was bred into us, so much as the need for it was not bred into us. The social taboos and potential for disease transmission are likely enough to offset the potential caloric windfall. There just isn't enough benefit to it.
If you compare say, the desire for meat in general, sex, and sugar, the benefits there are so powerful that we evolved significant pleasure reactions. Those pleasure reactions are there to reward us for taking the risk to kill an animal, subdue or seduce a mate, and to gather honey or sugary plants. Cannibalism, though it is meat, provokes a revulsion mechanism. That's is probably a learned behavior that overrides the meat-pleasure response, and is likely to be related to the social nature of our species.
More simply, to paraphrase Tell Me No Lies, the reward does not offset the risk. It's a bit dicey.
posted by Xoebe at 5:01 PM on December 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
Come on now, TungstenChef, you aren't that old.
I think a fundamental reason is that we are a social, gregarious species. If we were like squid or lobsters, it would be much more likely we'd be cannibals.
Evolution-wise, I am not so sure that an aversion to cannibalism was bred into us, so much as the need for it was not bred into us. The social taboos and potential for disease transmission are likely enough to offset the potential caloric windfall. There just isn't enough benefit to it.
If you compare say, the desire for meat in general, sex, and sugar, the benefits there are so powerful that we evolved significant pleasure reactions. Those pleasure reactions are there to reward us for taking the risk to kill an animal, subdue or seduce a mate, and to gather honey or sugary plants. Cannibalism, though it is meat, provokes a revulsion mechanism. That's is probably a learned behavior that overrides the meat-pleasure response, and is likely to be related to the social nature of our species.
More simply, to paraphrase Tell Me No Lies, the reward does not offset the risk. It's a bit dicey.
posted by Xoebe at 5:01 PM on December 9, 2011 [1 favorite]
Seems to me that cannibalism can be broken into a few broad catagories, but none are genetically programmed, either pro or con:
1. Ritual cannabalism, such as eating war captives to honor them or gain their courage; or religious cannablism to honor the gods.
2. Situational cannabalism, to stave off death by starvation --- see numerous shipwreck situations, or that crashed plane in the Andes back about 40 years ago.
3. Cultural outcasts, like Jeffrey Dahmer.
posted by easily confused at 5:32 PM on December 9, 2011
1. Ritual cannabalism, such as eating war captives to honor them or gain their courage; or religious cannablism to honor the gods.
2. Situational cannabalism, to stave off death by starvation --- see numerous shipwreck situations, or that crashed plane in the Andes back about 40 years ago.
3. Cultural outcasts, like Jeffrey Dahmer.
posted by easily confused at 5:32 PM on December 9, 2011
The beauty of this kind of barstool evolutionary physchology is that given a phenomenon that doesn't actually exist, viz., a universal taboo against cannibalism, it can still produce half a dozen equally plausible explanations about why the behavior was selected for.
posted by strangely stunted trees at 6:32 PM on December 9, 2011 [5 favorites]
posted by strangely stunted trees at 6:32 PM on December 9, 2011 [5 favorites]
Well, and people fight back, you know? The thing about deer and mammoth is that they're not as smart as you are and they don't make weapons. Unlike other people. Fail to catch a deer and the deer runs away. Fail to kill your cannibal victim and he or she might kill you and eat you instead.
posted by emjaybee at 7:04 PM on December 9, 2011
posted by emjaybee at 7:04 PM on December 9, 2011
I'm seconding strangely stunted trees and others: the historical and anthropological record shows pretty clearly that your assumption is flawed. There is no universal human taboo against cannibalism.
I've only had time to skim it, but I feel confident recommending this 2004 review article by Shirley Lindenbaum. Lindenbaum has studied kuru (the prion disease linked to mortuary cannibalism among the Fore in PNG) since the 1960s, so she must know something about this business.
It's a rich article, in which she lays out the history of studies of cannibalism and links them to changing ideas about primitivism and civilisation. She discusses the discomfort many anthropologists and others feel with cannibalism and efforts in the past couple of decades to show that pretty much all accounts of systematic/culturally accepted cannibalism are racist calumnny, a "colonial trope and strategem". Her take is that the impulse behind those studies should be taken seriously and that there is definitely a strong link between our images of "savage" cannibalism are closely linked to Western efforts to mark themselves as different from the primitives they encountered, but that the data just doesn't back up any wholesale denial of cannibalism.
For instance:
"Anthropologists working in the Americas, Africa, and Melanesia now acknowledge that institutionalized cannibalism occurred in some places at some times. Archaeologists and evolutionary biologists are taking cannibalism seriously. We have evidence of the incorporation of human body parts in Western medicinal and technological procedures [Lindenbaum points, for instance, to widespread placenta-eating in the American home birthing movement of the 1970s], as well as in some birth and mortuary rituals. The possibility that cannibalism was a widespread practice among early humans was suggested recently by a British team of investigators studying a common polymorphism in the human prion protein gene (PRNP) known to confer resistance to prion diseases." (491)
The evidence suggests that cannibalism has been around for quite a while in quite a few places. I just don't think you can assume any sort of taboo, let alone take any of these "just-so" evo psych stories seriously as explanations for some sort of universal cultural bias against eating humans.
Of course much of this is about smaller-scale, more limited instances of cannibalism, often in specific ritual circumstances. I haven't seen much that suggests that humans have frequently used other humans as a source of food on a regular basis--and this may be for some of the reasons people are positing in this thread.
Following one of the citations in Lindenbaum's article led me to Elgar and Bernard's 1992 book Cannibalism: ecology and evolution among diverse taxa. Here's a Google Scholar search of works citing that book; maybe some of this cross-species work will provide evidence to back up the sort of evolutionary reasoning we're seeing here.
Finally, this chapter by Henrich et al some evolutionary anthropologists (or human behavioral ecologists, or something) in the "coevolutionary" frame discusses some reasons for why humans may practice cannibalism in certain contexts despite its being "clearly maladaptive" in many respects. Tracing these sorts of ideas in the literature might give you some interesting answers.
posted by col_pogo at 1:52 AM on December 10, 2011 [3 favorites]
I've only had time to skim it, but I feel confident recommending this 2004 review article by Shirley Lindenbaum. Lindenbaum has studied kuru (the prion disease linked to mortuary cannibalism among the Fore in PNG) since the 1960s, so she must know something about this business.
It's a rich article, in which she lays out the history of studies of cannibalism and links them to changing ideas about primitivism and civilisation. She discusses the discomfort many anthropologists and others feel with cannibalism and efforts in the past couple of decades to show that pretty much all accounts of systematic/culturally accepted cannibalism are racist calumnny, a "colonial trope and strategem". Her take is that the impulse behind those studies should be taken seriously and that there is definitely a strong link between our images of "savage" cannibalism are closely linked to Western efforts to mark themselves as different from the primitives they encountered, but that the data just doesn't back up any wholesale denial of cannibalism.
For instance:
"Anthropologists working in the Americas, Africa, and Melanesia now acknowledge that institutionalized cannibalism occurred in some places at some times. Archaeologists and evolutionary biologists are taking cannibalism seriously. We have evidence of the incorporation of human body parts in Western medicinal and technological procedures [Lindenbaum points, for instance, to widespread placenta-eating in the American home birthing movement of the 1970s], as well as in some birth and mortuary rituals. The possibility that cannibalism was a widespread practice among early humans was suggested recently by a British team of investigators studying a common polymorphism in the human prion protein gene (PRNP) known to confer resistance to prion diseases." (491)
The evidence suggests that cannibalism has been around for quite a while in quite a few places. I just don't think you can assume any sort of taboo, let alone take any of these "just-so" evo psych stories seriously as explanations for some sort of universal cultural bias against eating humans.
Of course much of this is about smaller-scale, more limited instances of cannibalism, often in specific ritual circumstances. I haven't seen much that suggests that humans have frequently used other humans as a source of food on a regular basis--and this may be for some of the reasons people are positing in this thread.
Following one of the citations in Lindenbaum's article led me to Elgar and Bernard's 1992 book Cannibalism: ecology and evolution among diverse taxa. Here's a Google Scholar search of works citing that book; maybe some of this cross-species work will provide evidence to back up the sort of evolutionary reasoning we're seeing here.
Finally, this chapter by Henrich et al some evolutionary anthropologists (or human behavioral ecologists, or something) in the "coevolutionary" frame discusses some reasons for why humans may practice cannibalism in certain contexts despite its being "clearly maladaptive" in many respects. Tracing these sorts of ideas in the literature might give you some interesting answers.
posted by col_pogo at 1:52 AM on December 10, 2011 [3 favorites]
I should have mentioned, in my hasty invocation of Henrich et al (sorry about the typos!) that they build explicitly on William Durham's work on the "coevolution" of genes and culture from the early 1980s, in which kuru features as a prominent case study of cultural and genetic evolution being intertwined. My understanding is that Durham has been superseded by newer, shinier models of cultural evolution, but you might still find his work and related studies interesting.
posted by col_pogo at 1:59 AM on December 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by col_pogo at 1:59 AM on December 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
Is there any evolutionary basis for the near-universal aversion to cannibalism?
You might want to start out by re-examining your premise there. Canniblism was practised across the South Pacific into the 18th and 19th centuries. I'm not sure that it's as "near-universal" as you think.
posted by rodgerd at 2:21 AM on December 10, 2011 [2 favorites]
You might want to start out by re-examining your premise there. Canniblism was practised across the South Pacific into the 18th and 19th centuries. I'm not sure that it's as "near-universal" as you think.
posted by rodgerd at 2:21 AM on December 10, 2011 [2 favorites]
3) Eating enemy tribes is an option, but tends to involve warfare against enemy tribes. It's a bit dicey.
Basically, anywhere you had small enough tribes that your out-group neighbours were nearby, frequent intertribal warfare, and a stable enough culture that warfare is the major cause of death, and optionally, low supplies of other meat, you *did* frequently have cannibalism.
It's interesting to note, that once tribes start getting bigger, and evolving into states, outsiders are too rare over most of the state for it to be feasible.
I found out a couple of years ago, that one of my ex-boyfriend's ancestors had eaten one (or more) of my ancestors, in around the early 1800's. Actually, it probably occurred both ways, but I don't want to waste yet another thing to blame him for... ;)
In situations outside the above, it's just not reliable enough to be a regular food source, so really, why bother?
You need a really good reason to adopt a new food source, let alone one as creepy as other humans (there's usually reason that we don't eat that yellow spotted snake, etc). And so, you'd only do it when you have a really good reason, like a famine. And bingo, that's the other main time it comes out.
So I'd go with, it's only really reasonable or feasible under a specific circumstance, and in the current world climate, that circumstance is no longer common.
posted by Elysum at 3:01 PM on December 11, 2011
Basically, anywhere you had small enough tribes that your out-group neighbours were nearby, frequent intertribal warfare, and a stable enough culture that warfare is the major cause of death, and optionally, low supplies of other meat, you *did* frequently have cannibalism.
It's interesting to note, that once tribes start getting bigger, and evolving into states, outsiders are too rare over most of the state for it to be feasible.
I found out a couple of years ago, that one of my ex-boyfriend's ancestors had eaten one (or more) of my ancestors, in around the early 1800's. Actually, it probably occurred both ways, but I don't want to waste yet another thing to blame him for... ;)
In situations outside the above, it's just not reliable enough to be a regular food source, so really, why bother?
You need a really good reason to adopt a new food source, let alone one as creepy as other humans (there's usually reason that we don't eat that yellow spotted snake, etc). And so, you'd only do it when you have a really good reason, like a famine. And bingo, that's the other main time it comes out.
So I'd go with, it's only really reasonable or feasible under a specific circumstance, and in the current world climate, that circumstance is no longer common.
posted by Elysum at 3:01 PM on December 11, 2011
Of course much of this is about smaller-scale, more limited instances of cannibalism, often in specific ritual circumstances.
Is there evidence of anything large scale?
After all, taboo activities are often included in rituals. They're an integral part of everything from religious sacrifices to fraternity hazings.
If anything I would consider cannibalism's widespread presence in rituals to be indicative that it was a normally forbidden act.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 5:52 PM on December 11, 2011
Is there evidence of anything large scale?
After all, taboo activities are often included in rituals. They're an integral part of everything from religious sacrifices to fraternity hazings.
If anything I would consider cannibalism's widespread presence in rituals to be indicative that it was a normally forbidden act.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 5:52 PM on December 11, 2011
You are always served evolutionarily, by eating an organism that shares fewer genes with you than one that shares more.
posted by Ironmouth at 6:28 PM on December 11, 2011
posted by Ironmouth at 6:28 PM on December 11, 2011
This thread is full of bad science. First of all, evolution generally doesn't work towards what is good for the species. Infanticide is quite common in primates (even humans) despite the fact that it is damaging on a species level. We observe infanticide throughout human evolutionary history, even to this present day in America despite strong cultural norms against it. It doesn't matter if cannibalism is bad for the species as a whole if the individuals involved in cannibalism are more genetically fit than their counterparts. Just like with infanticide, as long as cannibalism is kept to a relatively low level, it can easily persist.
Secondly, although it is debated, evidence suggests that cannibalism was quite common in our prehistory. Cite. Human remains have been found processed in ways similar to non-human animal remains. Cite. Some believe that these de-fleshings were done for ritual reasons, but when the bones are broken in ways that suggest marrow extraction, it is hard to imagine another purpose for these skinnings and evisceration, especially when the bones are disposed of in a similar manner to the animal remains found along side of them. Cite. What's fascinating about some of these sites (especially the early Homo ones) is that the individuals eaten were usually adolescents or children, including young females. Cite. So it wasn't necessarily done as a way to dispose of enemy combatants.
Finally, human flesh and bone has been found in human cropolites at various sites around the world. Cite. And, as others have noted, cannibalism isn't exactly uncommon and has been found in cultures in quite diverse geographies.
I'd be very surprised if there were evolutionary forces preventing us from cannibalism. The social forces of a group can be incredibly powerful.
posted by PrimateFan at 7:46 PM on December 11, 2011 [1 favorite]
Secondly, although it is debated, evidence suggests that cannibalism was quite common in our prehistory. Cite. Human remains have been found processed in ways similar to non-human animal remains. Cite. Some believe that these de-fleshings were done for ritual reasons, but when the bones are broken in ways that suggest marrow extraction, it is hard to imagine another purpose for these skinnings and evisceration, especially when the bones are disposed of in a similar manner to the animal remains found along side of them. Cite. What's fascinating about some of these sites (especially the early Homo ones) is that the individuals eaten were usually adolescents or children, including young females. Cite. So it wasn't necessarily done as a way to dispose of enemy combatants.
Finally, human flesh and bone has been found in human cropolites at various sites around the world. Cite. And, as others have noted, cannibalism isn't exactly uncommon and has been found in cultures in quite diverse geographies.
I'd be very surprised if there were evolutionary forces preventing us from cannibalism. The social forces of a group can be incredibly powerful.
posted by PrimateFan at 7:46 PM on December 11, 2011 [1 favorite]
Richard Preston wrote a really interesting essay on self-cannibalism and the fine line between pathology (Lesch-Nyhan syndrome) and normal human behavior. ...
The phenomenon of “self-cannibals.” They suffer from a genetic condition, a change in one single letter of the human DNA, that forces them to compulsively chew their own flesh and bite off their extremities—and why the self-cannibalism disease may lurk in all of us.
posted by charmcityblues
Strange as it certainly is, I think Lesch-Nyhan syndrome shows that there is a built-in process in development designed to prohibit eating oneself-- a process which goes wrong in Lesch-Nyhan, causing that prohibition to become a compulsion.
Empathic identification, then, causes us to extend that prohibition to all we consider human, and the modern recognition that everyone everywhere is as human as we are has reduced cannibalism to historically low levels.
posted by jamjam at 7:51 PM on December 11, 2011
The phenomenon of “self-cannibals.” They suffer from a genetic condition, a change in one single letter of the human DNA, that forces them to compulsively chew their own flesh and bite off their extremities—and why the self-cannibalism disease may lurk in all of us.
posted by charmcityblues
Strange as it certainly is, I think Lesch-Nyhan syndrome shows that there is a built-in process in development designed to prohibit eating oneself-- a process which goes wrong in Lesch-Nyhan, causing that prohibition to become a compulsion.
Empathic identification, then, causes us to extend that prohibition to all we consider human, and the modern recognition that everyone everywhere is as human as we are has reduced cannibalism to historically low levels.
posted by jamjam at 7:51 PM on December 11, 2011
It's due to religion - not exclusively, but primarily.
Hinduism, Buddhism, Native American culture all shun cannibalism.
The crowning effect came from Judaism, Christianity and Islam. These 3 religions specifically prohibit cannibalism and consider it as a sin.
The vast majority of the world's population has been affected by all of these religions.
(Same reason why incest is a source of revulsion and prohibited - religious, moral conditioning).
posted by Kruger5 at 12:15 PM on December 14, 2011
Hinduism, Buddhism, Native American culture all shun cannibalism.
The crowning effect came from Judaism, Christianity and Islam. These 3 religions specifically prohibit cannibalism and consider it as a sin.
The vast majority of the world's population has been affected by all of these religions.
(Same reason why incest is a source of revulsion and prohibited - religious, moral conditioning).
posted by Kruger5 at 12:15 PM on December 14, 2011
See,
I wonder not only partly the specific religions, but also partly the type of religions they are.
Which is, religions that make a point of emphasising that everyone within those religions is part of your group, no matter how geographically diverse, and regardless of whether they are a stranger.
And in many of them, that out-group people are potential in-group converts.
But basically, unless you have a sustained reason for cannibalism, it's easier for there to be a cultural tide against it, and the gradual formation of taboos, than it is to go the other way, and get people to accept it.
(And there are exceptions within all those umbrella groups besides, eg Aghoris.
posted by Elysum at 12:51 PM on December 14, 2011
I wonder not only partly the specific religions, but also partly the type of religions they are.
Which is, religions that make a point of emphasising that everyone within those religions is part of your group, no matter how geographically diverse, and regardless of whether they are a stranger.
And in many of them, that out-group people are potential in-group converts.
But basically, unless you have a sustained reason for cannibalism, it's easier for there to be a cultural tide against it, and the gradual formation of taboos, than it is to go the other way, and get people to accept it.
(And there are exceptions within all those umbrella groups besides, eg Aghoris.
posted by Elysum at 12:51 PM on December 14, 2011
The crowning effect came from Judaism, Christianity and Islam. These 3 religions specifically prohibit cannibalism and consider it as a sin.
As cmoj points out above one of the central rituals of Christianity is an act of cannibalism, actual cannibalism in some sects and symbolic in others.
posted by XMLicious at 1:41 PM on December 14, 2011
I'm pointing out a potentially powerful theory as to why not just cannabilisim, but similar "why do we see this as taboo" have become a part of our lives today.
I think religion is a great force in shaping our thoughts and "ick" views.
Doesn't matter if a sect of Christianity allows for a form of cannibalism - the vast majority of Christianity has shaped our beliefs...even our views on murder & suicide.
And on the other hand, it took Western nations to outlaw rape & slavery - because religion didn't specifically say not to do that.
posted by Kruger5 at 5:30 PM on December 14, 2011
I think religion is a great force in shaping our thoughts and "ick" views.
Doesn't matter if a sect of Christianity allows for a form of cannibalism - the vast majority of Christianity has shaped our beliefs...even our views on murder & suicide.
And on the other hand, it took Western nations to outlaw rape & slavery - because religion didn't specifically say not to do that.
posted by Kruger5 at 5:30 PM on December 14, 2011
I'm sure that religion has some influence but I don't think that it would be the primary influence; it doesn't require supernatural beliefs to conclude that cannibalism or murder might not be such a great idea.
(Also, do you know what is being referenced by cmoj about Christianity there? It's a rare sect of that doesn't practice the Eucharist.)
posted by XMLicious at 5:46 PM on December 14, 2011
(Also, do you know what is being referenced by cmoj about Christianity there? It's a rare sect of that doesn't practice the Eucharist.)
posted by XMLicious at 5:46 PM on December 14, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by nathancaswell at 1:04 PM on December 9, 2011 [3 favorites]