Killing is OK?

[karadan]

Cannibalism only makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint if the species will be in danger of dying out without cannibalism. That situation does not exist and likely will not exist in any of our lifetimes. In fact, I'd say it's detrimental to the species to remove genes from the pool by ingesting them, ensuring they're unable to mate. What if you ate someone that would give birth to a child that had a mutation that would, over millions of years, make humans immune to gamma radiation? Or the vacuum of space? You could have just damned our species.

I just wanted to point out that cannibalism, doesn't necessarily entail murder.
Those that died naturally won't procreate anyway, so eating them doesn't carry the problem you point out.

Indeed. There is a tribe of Nuns in the Phillipines (i may be wrong here - the memory ain't what it used to be) who believe that they take on the spirit of their elders if they eat them. So, when one dies, they all commune and have a right good nun-feast. This, obvously, is based upon their religious ideas so in the eyes of their god, cannibalism is perfectly ok. That doesn't make it right, though. It is just another indication of how religiosity can pervert the course of normal thought processes.

[DennisK]

Cannibalism only makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint if the species will be in danger of dying out without cannibalism. That situation does not exist and likely will not exist in any of our lifetimes. In fact, I'd say it's detrimental to the species to remove genes from the pool by ingesting them, ensuring they're unable to mate. What if you ate someone that would give birth to a child that had a mutation that would, over millions of years, make humans immune to gamma radiation? Or the vacuum of space? You could have just damned our species.

It makes sense from a micro evolutionary perspective.  Killing a rival ensures their genes will not be passed an yours or your group's genes have a better chance of survival.  Eating them afterwards, kills two birds with one stone.  Why would you waste perfectly good meat?  Besides, it's supposedly low in saturated fat.

If the gene pool is very small and this occurs, then it could be detrimental to the survival of the species.  On the other hand, it could be beneficial if you eliminate a 'bad' gene.  What if that subject's genes were susceptible to a plague or whose offspring were prone to still birth?  If the gene pool were vast, the loss of a small percentage has little effect.

Society is based on order and it's difficult to have order if killing and cannibalism are morally acceptable.  In short term intervals, maybe.

[curiosityandthecat]

Regarding cannibalism throughout evolutionary history, I suggest Carl Sagan's Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors. It addresses just this topic in the chapters about our brethren: lower primates.

[Whitney]

Since chickens and humans are not the same species, none the poll answers make sense.

[Messenger]

Since chickens and humans are not the same species, none the poll answers make sense.

If you believe in Evolution there is no such thing as species

[Messenger]

Indeed. There is a tribe of Nuns in the Phillipines (i may be wrong here - the memory ain't what it used to be) who believe that they take on the spirit of their elders if they eat them. So, when one dies, they all commune and have a right good nun-feast. This, obvously, is based upon their religious ideas so in the eyes of their god, cannibalism is perfectly ok. That doesn't make it right, though. It is just another indication of how religiosity can pervert the course of normal thought processes.

For sure wrong believes lead to wrong actions
Atheism is also wrong and it has a contradicting position here, why atheists kill their cousins (chicken, fish, etc.) but don't kill their brothers?

[curiosityandthecat]

Indeed. There is a tribe of Nuns in the Phillipines (i may be wrong here - the memory ain't what it used to be) who believe that they take on the spirit of their elders if they eat them. So, when one dies, they all commune and have a right good nun-feast. This, obvously, is based upon their religious ideas so in the eyes of their god, cannibalism is perfectly ok. That doesn't make it right, though. It is just another indication of how religiosity can pervert the course of normal thought processes.

Moral relativism... yum! Tastes like chicken!

[karadan]

Since chickens and humans are not the same species, none the poll answers make sense.

If you believe in Evolution there is no such thing as species

Yes there is. You need to read more about evolution.

For sure wrong believes lead to wrong actions
Atheism is also wrong and it has a contradicting position here, why atheists kill their cousins (chicken, fish, etc.) but don't kill their brothers?

Well, actually some atheists, i'm sure, don't eat chicken or fish. This is a moral thing, not because we are possibly distantly related to these organisms but because of the inethical treatment of animals on a wholesale scale. This, however, isn't strictly something atheists do, but whole swathes of the planet regardless of denomination.

Not eating them because they are distant 'cousins' is both irrational and completely incorrect due to the assumption that they are currently related to us as a brother is to his father... Last time i checked, my mother wasn't a chicken - even though she may taste like one.  

[Wechtlein Uns]

This strikes me as a silly debate. I don't think any of us are cannibals. I will say, however, that If I found out I was going to die by the end of the week, one of the things I would do is cut off my arm, have it cooked, and eat it.  

[Tom62]

According to the cannibals in Papua New Guinea white people smell too strong and taste too salty. If you'd like to eat real good human meat you should eat Japanese.

http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-engli ... salty.html

[curiosityandthecat]

According to the cannibals in Papua New Guinea white people smell too strong and taste too salty. If you'd like to eat real good human meat you should eat Japanese.

http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-engli ... salty.html

There's always Hufu, the human-flavored tofu, if you're against eating meat but still want to savor the taste of human flesh.

 

[dodgecity]

If you believe in Evolution there is no such thing as species.

Evolution is not something one believes in or doesn't believe in. It is a scientific theory.

Also, that is not true; this grave misunderstanding of evolution is most likely the root of the moral problem you have. Evolution is not a moral guide or social plan. It is an observable reality that we have to deal with.

[Will]

It makes sense from a micro evolutionary perspective.  Killing a rival ensures their genes will not be passed an yours or your group's genes have a better chance of survival.  Eating them afterward, kills two birds with one stone.  Why would you waste perfectly good meat?

Killing a rival in a social species could have consequences for the rest of the tribe. It could be better to have two healthy, capable, virile males than just one. Killing rivals for things like land or mating rights makes more sense in less social species. Wolves often fight over dominance, but they don't kill one another very often.

Besides, it's supposedly low in saturated fat.

That depends on the human. I would only eat someone like John Goodman for a holiday or special occasion. Otherwise it's better to have lean meat, like Lance Armstrong. You'd have to braise it to keep it from getting tough, but it'd have a very, very high concentration of healthy protein with a very low saturated fat content. My point? Armstrong is the other, other white meat.

If the gene pool is very small and this occurs, then it could be detrimental to the survival of the species.  On the other hand, it could be beneficial if you eliminate a 'bad' gene.  What if that subject's genes were susceptible to a plague or whose offspring were prone to still birth?  If the gene pool were vast, the loss of a small percentage has little effect.

If a subject's genes were weak, then nature would select them to die off. That's the natural in natural selection. Killing someone due to bad genes is artificial selection. What if someone had weak genes insofar as they were more susceptible to the plague, but eventually a mutation in their line would lead to a better resistance to radiation or the ability to see ultraviolet? We can't see that far into the future, so it's up to nature to select who or what is fit.

Society is based on order and it's difficult to have order if killing and cannibalism are morally acceptable.  In short term intervals, maybe.

In times of extreme need, yes.

[chuff]

As far as I know, only a scientific law can be rightly described as an "observable reality."

Part of the theory of evolution depends on the origin of life, which was not observable. It is subject to criticism for the same reasons Creationist theory is. We just didn't see it, and it hasn't been re-created. And no, the Miller experiment wasn't a recreation of what would have happened if we left it wide open, because he intervened with his "trap-door," etc.

I'm sure this has been talked about before and is better fit for other sub-forums, but I just wanted to make sure we don't close our minds when really what we have in evolution is still a theory that is up for disproving.

A theory, if it is mistaken for an impenetrable law, is something one believes in or doesn't. Again, as far as I know, there is as of yet no rationally sound proof of how time began and of what there was before time began (and of where it was, if it was...).

I greatly admire the posts I've read thus far on these boards. I'm so happy to know there are many others out there who recognize biblers' words as indoctrination. So for the sake of knowledge and its furtherance, don't allow yourselves to be marred by indoctrination of another kind.

[oldschooldoc]

I don't believe cannibalism is okay, except in the rare of survival necessity. And in that case, the one being eaten better have died from natural causes (freezing to death, lack of nutrition). People shouldn't eat other people because it is detrimental to our species.

Question: Why are we talking about this?