One of the most prominent undercurrents in my neurosis is fear of cruelty. Within myself. Within our species. Within the whole natural world.
The most recent manifestation: a morbid fascination with cannibalism. Turns out, remarkably common in pre-modern times. Especially in tropical zones, and particularly within island cultures.
I was aware of “emergency cannibalism”, in times of extreme famine. Horrific, but understandable, given severe enough hunger pains and desperation to survive. You’ll find it throughout history and across the world, from medieval England to 19th century China and Ukraine during the Holodomor. When people are pushed into terrible enough circumstances, the moral inhibitions of a proportion of the population reliably disintegrate.
What I was less aware of was the cultures where such inhibitions never existed to begin with. I used to attribute tales of these to imperialists trying to justify their conquests. But now I’m convinced. The accounts have the feel of authenticity to me. They fit with everything else I know about our species.
I’m not talking about the rituals where people consume parts of a dead relative, in attempts to “preserve their essence.” That certainly grosses me out, but it’s comparatively benign (aside from the potential transmission of brain-shredding diseases.)
What stuck in my head was the practice of raiding neighbouring tribes partially to capture victims to eat. The common accounts, repeated again and again, that “human meat” was prized above all others. It wasn’t about starvation, or desperation, or survival. It was about preference. And the preference expressed over and over was for women, and children in particular as targets.
I suppose what bothers me is the callousness, to be able to view your fellow man as food. Something to be devoured. And if I was some 19th century Christian missionary discovering these cultures for the first time, I’m sure I would’ve put it down to the worship of false Gods and devils. Some existential evil that had corrupted such people from their original goodness.
But the troubling part is that I don’t think that’s the case. I don’t think such cultures were unnatural, or poorly-adapted, or corrupted. I think they were entirely fitting within the range of behaviours prevalent among our species within its natural state. They were far too common to be some aberration.
I think the reality is that there’s no intrinsic natural reason to treat unrelated humans from different tribes as worthy of concern or empathy. In cultures based around small, tribal settlements (rather than large cities), there’s no inherent advantage to doing so. There’s no reason not to treat other humans like any other animal, to be hunted, exploited, and consumed.
All that lies between us and the condition of every other animal in nature is this thin veneer of society we’ve created for ourselves. The collective stories we tell ourselves, that make certain things unthinkable, abhorrent, disgusting.
In terms of distancing ourselves from that natural slaughterhouse, this is probably the best time to be alive in history. The only people who even consider cannibalism in our societies are exceptionally mentally disturbed, and they’re very rare. The chances of running into such individuals are slim to none.
But this state of things could easily collapse. As global food supplies become less stable, the famines could return. The desperate hunger. And once social order breaks down, cities depopulate, and people get a taste for forbidden meat, the practice could return.
Aside from this morbid fixation, I suppose the broader fear is: 1) Humans (including myself) are potentially very dangerous. Society constrains most of us most of the time, protecting us in our safe little bubbles, but if you’re unlucky enough to run into someone operating under their own rules, or pushed by extreme circumstances, things can get pretty horrific.
And: 2) What in existence could make the possibility of such a fate worth risking? You probably won’t run into a serial killer with a taste for human flesh. But you might. Or you might just get dismembered in a particularly unlucky car accident. Or slowly roasted in a house fire. Or trapped in agony dying of a chronic disease.
Probably not. You’ll probably die of a stroke, or heart attack, or some other common ailment. But all of those horrible fates are going to happen to someone. It could be you, or me. And as beautiful and wonderful as life can be at times, which experience would be worth risking that kind of horror and agony for?
6 comments
Yeah, when I consider it honestly, you have a point in the sense that our more “animal like” tendencies are certainly still present to this day, although I wouldn’t say that they were necessarily based off any sort of logic, not even the kind you’d see species “less developed” than humans have I would assume. I mean, I think about it and it’s primarily in fact due to the fact that we have minds of this sort that we are capable of such cruel things and ways of thought beyond what our mere biology would reward us in doing, since quite obviously I think that in a cost benefit sort of analysis back in those times it wouldn’t necessarily seem “worth it” to take down opposing tribes for the purpose of eating them if they could very well do the same to you, should they be provoked, and hell, they very well would. Or at least that’s the case nowadays in terms of the mutually assured destruction we sometimes have.
This kind of cruelty, in my eyes, is based solely off the irrationality that would somehow make us “human”, which is strange because obviously at the same time it makes us less than that, it’s a contradictory state of being in and of itself depending on how society defines it. The spooky stuff is of course, when you suggest that this is far too common to simply be some sort of aberration, and hey, based off our capabilities that’s right. We, for all intents and purposes have the means to choose to do “wrong” much more than any other kind of species would, at least in terms of those we are aware of, but of course that’s what I assume based off how our brains work.
Either way, I’d assume that, should thing collapse we are all kind of screwed and it’s in everyone’s best interests to kind of work towards the same things nowadays, even though of course we have different visions for the same things which means that they aren’t the same things at all, and yet they somehow still are?? I’m not sure, at the very least nearly the entire world has sort of agreed to the process of globalization and tools such as the internet, there seems to be at least some kind of fundamental understanding for where things ought to go and be at. At the same time, as with many things throughout history, they also just kind of wing it as the things come? It’s hard to say how the choices would look like in comparison if countries had more time to think about the implications of such things.
At the very least, what I think would be the case is, if such a practice DID come back, it would be in combination with a few dozen other catastrophic factors that would make it last for a short period of time in comparison to what it originally lasted for. Humans don’t seem like the best of food sources, growing livestock isn’t the most renewable and all that as we know nowadays and the climate would probably still be a concern at that rate. Still, really morbid to think that our predecessors came from times such as those. I wonder what our descendants would think of us considering that… oh no…
In terms of what experiences are worth the risk, yeah, it’s a heavily opinionated sort of thing there. Some of us choose to be less reliant on the general human population side of things, because, well, behavior such as that isn’t the most reliable, and there’s certainly other topics to focus on in comparison to those directly relating to the workings of society (thankfully). Besides stuff like that though, no one would necessarily have the same line of thinking for it, and that individual variance is yet another thing that makes us “human” (for better or worse).
From what I’ve read, it was often cases of a stronger tribe within an area preying on the surrounding weaker ones. So they could raid with impunity without fear of reprisals. I also think another factor in many island cases was a lack of other large mammals in the area – so there’s a sense in which other humans were the richest source of meat. So in terms of “cost/benefit”, there’s probably scenarios in which it’s at least not detrimental to survival, and the custom gets passed on from generation to generation.
I believe cannibalism is also remarkably common among other animals, particularly chimpanzees (our closest relatives.) Sadly, I don’t think it’s an issue of human choice. It’s a part of nature, of the endless struggle for survival.
Hmm, interesting. Yeah, tying that in with the preference part you mentioned earlier, perhaps the preference in that case could be based upon amongst other things what gives the most value, but it of course still comes with those of the same species being seen as resources to be exploited, one way or the other. Surprisingly, if you think about it that’s not too far from the kind of behavior society would exhibit today, but of course to a less obviously brutal extent.
I still think that for the most part, when it comes to survival, a lot of harm caused against others is unnecessary, especially when we look at the world nowadays. In the past, perhaps less so, but at the same time it could also be argued that moral standards were less defined back then alongside what would be “necessary” due to education for example not being solidified the way it is now. People back then certainly learned through experience, but in terms of that it’s not the best teacher when there are many concepts and constructs outside of that formed through other people rather than the self. Then again, that is an assumption based on only one factor out of many, haha.
I’m still a bit surprised that chimpanzees do that sort of stuff but it does seem to happen…
Yes, it’s very much the extreme end of a continuum of human exploitation. Less extreme would be societies who practised ritual-sacrifice cannibalism for religious reasons rather than preference, like the Aztecs. Then there are all the societies who practised human sacrifice without the cannibalism, from the Celts to the Carthaginians. And then all those who practised slavery (pretty much everyone at one time or another.) All those who relied on less harsh forms of servitude. And then those who rely on the labour of desperate people being paid poverty wages, like most of us do today. Cannibalism would be the most stark example of using the life of another person to meet your own wants.
I agree that a lot of the harm caused is not necessary for survival. But I think the way the natural world seems to work is that it doesn’t generally matter how cruel a behaviour is. If an animal plays with its food for hours, extending the suffering of its victim, it’s not necessarily maladaptive. It’s not always about whether or not it’s strictly necessary for survival – it’s about whether it can persist long enough to get passed on to the next generation.
I think tribal societies had their own moral standards. I suppose they were less defined, in terms of being passed on by custom rather than strictly laid out in written laws. Generally, I think the frame of moral concern only extended to others within the tribe. To extend it beyond that, to outsiders, I think you need universalist religions or philosophies. I’m glad to live in a time when concepts of humanism have spread so far, but I fear they’re incredibly fragile.
I find cannibalism in cold climates more interesting, anything in a colder climates is more interesting to me. You have so many occasions of either direct stories of cannibalism in the cold such as voyages to the arctic or the Donner Party, or indirect legends such as of the Wendigo and Wechuge.
It’s quite compelling, the image of these once remarkably couragous pioneers trying to push the edges of exploration, and then they get stuck and have to eat each other. This happened a lot in sea travel in the 19th century and prior.
We have the Victorians to thank for putting the taboo on all that. Americans at the time were busy killing people in factories and killing people on the plains. Americans took to the opposite, often killing much more meat than they ever intended to eat.
The near wiping out of the bison is ample proof of how humans share their hunger for blood. I have eaten bison, and it was not worth wiping them out just because the US government really wanted to cripple the plains native tribes.
I think difficulty of body disposal has to factor into many instances of cannibalism. In the case of the Donner party, as an example, some of them died of natural causes, and there was no way to bury them with the ground frozen. They didn’t have the energy to do that. So they’re just sitting there with these preserved bodies. I can’t fault them what they did, if framed in that way.
I have to wonder, how DO they dispose of bodies in the tropics? I know that in many low lying regions you can’t bury people, the ground is too wet. So you end up with all kinds of grisly stories caused by people living in a place they can’t bury their dead.
and then the place I ended up at is what it says on the Whataburger fries; “When I am empty, please dispose of me properly.”
It really just sums up how I feel about people eating me, if they so wished it….. so long as they properly bury what they don’t eat or otherwise dispose of it….. whatever, I’m dead at that point.
My plan when I’m dead is to turn into slightly less toxic dirt than most people do, because I’m against embalming. I don’t want a non biodegradable container either, everything involved needs to be digestable by the soil.
So meal to the hungry, or soil? Not a choice I’d care about. I want to be digested, this old shell that carried me needs to break down and become something else.
The human body is mostly water, so absent a very cold environment you’ll be taken apart pretty quickly.
Cases of survival cannibalism are certainly grimly fascinating. But I think they tell us less about what we’re capable of as a species. To eat the body of one already dead when you’re starving to death is one thing. To plan a raid on a neighbouring tribe when you’re fit and healthy, in order to capture people (especially women and children) to fatten up, so you can later kill and consume them, is quite another.
As far as I can tell, these cases have little or nothing to do with difficulty disposing of bodies. Even where the ground is unsuitable for burial, you can burn bodies. You can weight them and drop them at sea. You can just leave them on a hilltop for the birds to pick apart. All of these methods have been used by tribal peoples throughout time to dispose of their dead. I don’t think it was an issue.
These were societies with no taboo or stigma around cannibalism, where it was not seen as disgusting or reprehensible – where it was part of their way of life. They show us that there’s no instinctive call to empathy or moral concern for your fellow humans, unless they’re part of your tribe.
How would you feel about them killing you primarily for your meat? Maybe keeping you for a few weeks to fatten up first, while you watched them consume your friends and family first? This is the stuff horror films are made of – and yet it’s actually part of the normal range of human behaviour.