(Not satire) Cannibalism is bad for your health, scientists find
(www.ctvnews.ca)
Comments (19)
sorted by:
Turns out most taboos were to prevent things that had observable negative impacts on social and physical health. One of the key ones being keeping the women in line by forbidding them from having the same rights and responsibilities as men. Not out of hatred for women, but because it must have been evident that matriarchal societies were more likely to collapse from mismanagement.
Monogamous patriarchal societies simply outcompete any other setup which is why they were universal until about 100 years ago. I'm sure there are numerous feminist societies from millennia past that are lost to history simply because they got curb stomped by civilizations that give most of their men a reason to invest in society and care about its future.
As to your larger point about taboos, faggotry is the example that comes to mind for me. Faggots are a petri dish of disease and allowing them to go unchecked is a good way to repeatedly create plagues in an era before modern medicine and sanitation. Their dysgenic impact on the culture is just one more reason not to put up with them.
I dated a girl in high school whose father was chief of medicine at a busy hospital. He fucking hated the hell out of queers, told us every chance he could how filthy and gross they were and how basically every one that came through his hospital was always a smorgasbord of STD’s. Pissed his shithead daughter off to no end, but i always got a kick out of it, lol
Not quite. Avuncular societies dominated in illiterate sparsely populated regions like Polynesia and the less populated parts of the Asian steppe where inbreeding was a severe concern. (Avuncular means the maternal uncle raises the kids) Also evidence the preliterate Celts and Latins were that way until the Etruscans influenced them and taught them record keeping. Vestiges existed in ancient Rome even after they adopted paterfamilias, which is why avuncle was still word.(Note that Roman Emperors were more likely to inherit the title from their maternal uncle than their father)
Chesterton's Fence.
Shellfish allergies are common amongst Jewish ethnic populations. One tries an oyster, instantly dies, the rest go "ahh... Maybe add that to the holy book, just in case." Another says "naah, coincidence!" and ALSO immediately dies, and they add it to the book.
We've known forever that this is the case. If it's in a holy book, it's probably because it's so obvious a process that even hicks in hide tents could figure it out. God made these things pretty obvious. I won't blame the scientists on "wasting science", because they could be trying to make some kind of point about varied populations and intelligence development, but this is some spurious use of research funding.
Science can explain the mechanism behind it. Hicks in tents might be able understand that something is bad, but why it's bad and what is actually does to cause harm are something science can figure out and hopefully provide solutions. Of course that requires the scientists to be be intellectually honest and not politically compromised which obviously isn't a given these days.
“We looked at the human body as a potential source of food, analyzing both energy gains and hidden costs,” Misiak said in a statement released on Wednesday by Wroclaw University.
I don't think they were using the research money for what the headline indicates. I think they were looking a step beyond eating the bugs.
What we might consider to be spurious science is still important because it proves a lot of the traditions of the Bible to be true for a reason. Like, for instance, we now have data about pair bonding that helps reinforce the reasons why the Bible repeatedly mentions "one man for one woman". Or the litany of medical reasons explaining why faggotry is bad for humanity.
Tl:DR: The Bible basically outlines what's not good for society/mankind, and science helps explain the reasons why.
Prions. Give me a billion dollar research grant.
So, basically they found that because you're eating the same species, there's a higher probability of dangerous pathogens cross-contaminating and causing diseases.
I'm not convinced on the study because proper handling of the human meat could eliminate this risk. For all we know eating humans is beneficial if this disease issue is controlled for.
This study is pretty much a joke.
It is an anthropological study, I doubt they care about the effects of cannibalism on modern populations who can lab test jerky Epstein style.
Somewhat similar to how homosexuality tends to spread more disease than even promiscuous heterosexuality. If a pathogen has a high chance of being spread by A performing an act on B and B can perform that same act on C, then a pathogen spreads much quicker than if B is physically unable to perform that act.
Same goes for taboos against eating terrestrial predators. If a wolf can catch an illness from eating a human, people develop a taboo against eating wolves because humans can probably catch it back by eating wolves.
population collapse due to prions
It also presumes everyone is eating each other. If a little canabalism is introduced, it can have different impacts than just population collapse.
I am sick and tired of these antisemitic fake studies.
and how did they do the research?
Can't stop, won't stop