constructive cannibalism?

Strange how a National Geographic TV program can start you thinking. The one I saw involved an apparent amateur anthropologist documenting a quest in New Guinea for information about the survival of cannibalism. It would appear that it is no longer practiced but that many still living had done it. What he learned was that the people there are animist, believing in spirits, most of which seem to be malevolent. The "songster" of the tribe was the one who had the power to determine who was a "witch doctor," and hence, who was the one who "used evil spirits" to undermine people of the tribe. Thus, the "songster" determined who in the area the tribe was to hunt down and kill. It was then considered normal to eat the body rather than waste it. It was not eaten in order to obtain "spiritual benefit."



So, I began to piece together what was happening. The staple of the tribe was a mildly nutritious pulp from a tree. Game was scarce and their pigs were too few and valuable to eat other than after important ceremonies. In other words, there was a general shortage of protein in their diet. The customs and belief rationale all fitted together to keep the population down and hence from outgrowing the resources while supplying additional protein to the diet. In other words, it kept a balance. :shrug:



Can anyone deny that their beliefs totalled into something we can call "religion" and no matter how unscientific theirs was, it served their society? Also, that this is in general the function of all religion?



Thus, it would seem that when a religion no longer serves society, it is eventually replaced. And since the religions in modern time are failing us, they must and eventually will be replaced.



But with what?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hello Charles.

Several hours since you made your opening post and not even a nibble? Perhaps the topic is not for those with a weak stomach. The following is taken from Wikipedia.

It has been suggested that cannibalism was a rather widespread practice at one time throughout the world and it rather does make sense for a number of simply practical considerations.

1) Food, especially protein and fat, would be a constant need.
2) Bodies of those who died naturally would need disposing otherwise they would attract predators.
3) Killing and eating those who would combat you for your traditional territory could be a powerful deterrent to such action.

That this practice might also be utilized within one's own society as a means of maintaining balance between resources and the users of those resources is a very interesting concept to me.

In a conversation with an interesting individual yesterday, the topic came up of just how 'civilized' people will remain if a serious shortage of food and water ever became the issue here in the 'developed world.'

We rather agreed that the veneer would likely peel away rather more quickly than some would like to think. :bugeye:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is an interesting thought...

I think that in Papua New Guinea, fighting also kind of served that purpose-tribes would fight each other over land.
Lots of cultures there...not sure how universal cannibalism was.

It is possible that modern humans and neanderthals were slaughtering each other...cross-species rather than intra-species slaughtering.

There is a problem with cannibalism, and that's disease. Have you heard of kuru?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm rather contemplating that in a primitive society faced with starvation and limited resources, that any disease that contributed to a higher death rate would ease pressure on those resources, through attrition also contributing to nutrition. By reason of practical necessity, I rather doubt that chronic illness was allowed to run it's course in the early history of mankind. :bugeye:

 

Entirely possible in this case-understanding that PNG is really mountainous and crop space is at a premium.

 

Wikipedia seems to have a considerable amount to say in regard to cannibalism in comparatively recent history, despite the reluctance of our 'civilized' and religious culture in discussing the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism

 

Sure. I think that a primary function of religion is to justify the us vs. them divide. In practice, this means 1. how to separate between one's own group and other groups, and 2. how to excommunicate people who are considered as not being fit for the group.

Another, new religion; or an existing religion to take over the whole world.

 

I do think the cannibalist mentality lives on, in somewhat subtler forms.

The way and the prevalence of how people nowadays lose their jobs and means of subsistence, they way we are faced with rejection from all sides, the tendency toward manipulative communication - all these are examples of people trying to get rid of other people.

Isolation (social and economical) is something that people fear most - and modern society capitalizes on that fear as much as any other society may have had.

 

...in subtler forms, such as in the symbolic cannibalism of eating a god's flesh and drinking his blood? I understand that is common practice among certain religious groups.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

In New Genuea, it was common for the tribes to engage in ritual war with each other. Often, someone would get captured or killed and be eaten. That justified retaliation and the practice was thus a common act. Of course, this was a man's role since the hunting team was the same as the war party. The women were more the gatherers even though their hunting/gathering nature of both sexes had to be adjusted to being settled more or less permanently in territories adjacent to each other.

Signal, I don't see the old religions being replaced by any old one, do you?

I think it would have to be a new world-view and way of thinking based on science, mostly social science. The problem as I see it is that the social sciences are rationalized around our secular ideals and even set up to avoid conflict with the old religions. They had to accommodate to them in order to bring about our secular age and and enough unity to enable the global economy.

But when conditions get worse down the line, people will have lost a lot of faith both in our secular ideals and the old religions. Already, the Constitution, the very bulwark of our secular ideals, is being indirectly despised due to the political system break down over such things as the recession and the debt. People are fed up but are afraid to consider that the Constitution no longer works as well for us. We now need a parlamentry system or an authoritarian one. "The pursuit of happiness" has been twisted into "consumerism" and "freedom" is something we are finding it is ever more difficult to spread---also, that it easily justifies hedonism.

If we need a new world-view that is not a "religion'" perhaps it is because we use the term "religion" only for old world-view systems or ideologies. In either case, however, the big question is what is a "religion"? Or, what must a world-view system be like to succeed?

 

There is a point at which a society to far too complex to be regulated by any one religion or ideology.

 

Societies give the impression of being complex, yet complexity is merely the simultaneous interaction of a multitude of simplicities when analyzed.

There is one ideology that unites all societies, I would suggest, that can be extended to the majority of individuals in any given society.....the will to survive until certain goals/objectives important to the individual have been accomplished.

The goals are diverse, and therein lies some of the complexity, yet the unifying theme is survival.

The second, and more concerning common theme may well be 'at any cost'. :bugeye:

 

Is dere no thank you button on this forum ?

mutawintji

 

I have not observed one. :bugeye:

Posters do occasionally express appreciation or affirmation for some posts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The simple willingness to survive will not necessarily create a functioning commons.

 

I would suggest that the 'functioning commons' have ever functioned in their own interests......

It just depends on who wants to undertake the position(s).

Everyone likes to be a critic, but no one wants to step up to the plate.....I certainly don't want to make the decisions that I can foresee will need making in the near future. :bugeye:

Matters may well get very interesting this time around because of the involvement of an increasing percentage of the global population affected by economic downturn.

The weather has been and will likely remain a significant contributing factor to the challenges we face going forward.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Citizens of a "commons" or society want it to survive because they feel it to be "their group." Since we evolved as small social group primates (hunter/gatherers), we see the group as vital to us. We in the West view our supreme group or society with pride and show a sense of responsibility (in the form of our economic empire).

But that universal wish to survive does not form that "commons" or society. It is formed by a common ideology or "religion," in our case, the old Christian faith. Since its goals and means became obsolete during The Enlightenment, we have adapted a secular ideology which supplements and accommodatest to it and even to the other religions of the world---including East Asian Marxism.

That Western christian-secular accommodative ideology is beginning to fail in the world. Terrorism outside and even inside it has been growing, its global economy's future is dimming and its governments are wracked by debt.

Only a new ideology can reverse all this, one that establishes birth control and space colonizing goals among others. It is no longer constructive to set "The Kingdom of God (or Allah)," "heaven" or "the pursuit of happiness" as our goal and reason for living!

 

I don't know about that . With out the pursuit of happiness why live. If your going to be miserable what is the use. Might as well set up death camps so the miserable people have a place to hang out. I think about my own plight and the things that make me happy ? Are they worthy of pursuing?

 

Happiness perspective is what I think needs evolution . A big meal may give you instant gratification , but in the long run does it ? Duration is something to consider and if we really care about our off spring then how far out can you imagine pursuing happiness . Does it make Me happy to see my children succeed at the things they pursue . I would say yes for Me . So to help and aid my child as much as possible , does this bring happiness for Me . To the point of being Giddy . Even putting tears in my eyes when I see the euphoric state of a child's success . Yes you did it , comes to my mind as I see the joy on people from there own accomplishment. If it is a contribution to humanity as a whole then that very pursuit of happiness is a benefit we all can enjoy

 

Where are you getting the notion that cannibalism was practiced only in self-defense?