Cannibalism

starn

sdep wrote: »

And let us not forget perhaps the greatest feat achieved through cynophagy - the reaching of the South Pole. Scott disliked the idea of killing dogs to feed the rest of the pack and his men; Amundsen did not entertain such qualms.

Shackelton on his men resorted to eating the dogs when his expidition became trapped on the ice. If you read the accounts of his men on the days leading up to dogs. They all write about how despcable Shackelton has become that he is resorting to eating the dogs and how they cold has robbed him of there humanity. After they had eaten the dogs some of them wrote about how succulen the meat tasted and how they couldnt understand why it wasnt on the menu of the finest restraunts in London

Tar.Aldarion

Sangre wrote: »

It may be irrational at times but afair its an evolutionary trait. A baby/person will not be afraid of or disgusted by something until its parent is scared/disgusted by it. A baby will happily play in feaces or with rats or spiders. They learn their disgust/fear trait when the parents runs over either screaming or saying 'thats disgusting'. Of course this will be influenced by others as well, as well as other factors e.g. wasps sting so we learn ourselves to stay away.

The fear keeps us alive. As can disgust, it helps foster sanitary conditions where possible.

In that light its quite rational that people only want to eat what they traditionally associate with food, even if they know in theory its the same and has nutritious value. Thats why westerners hate eating dogs, cats or insects, while some cultures don't mind it.

I don't think you should be so quick to assume people learn to fear things after birth. I believe they do not always get it from parents. Anecdotal
In my family, and my girlfriends, the parents are not afraid of spiders, yet one child in each is terribly afraid of them, not the others. They would have similar experiences, there's even twins! I think that people are born with a fear of these things, via a mix of ancestors and their personality, although some may be through experience. Anyway that's beside the point.
I think this is a differenct issue to food, food is mostly a society thing. How you are brought up will decide what you think you should eat, somewhat. Yet it completely over runs most peoples minds, which I think is less understandable than a genetic trait.

PDN

starn wrote: »

Shackelton on his men resorted to eating the dogs when his expidition became trapped on the ice. If you read the accounts of his men on the days leading up to dogs. They all write about how despcable Shackelton has become that he is resorting to eating the dogs and how they cold has robbed him of there humanity. After they had eaten the dogs some of them wrote about how succulen the meat tasted and how they couldnt understand why it wasnt on the menu of the finest restraunts in London

I find that hard to believe. I've eaten dog meat a couple of times in China and it does not taste good all.

Now donkey meat is a different matter entirely. When marinated in soy sauce it is delicious!

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

I find that hard to believe. I've eaten dog meat a couple of times in China and it does not taste good all.

Hunger is the best soy sauce, I guess!

Goduznt Xzst

dlofnep wrote: »

A dog is associated as a pet. Pigs and cows are associated as lifestock. In the same respect, human is associated as a friend/companion/relative.

What you are failing to see though is that this "association" is purely your societal conditioning.

Humans like to segregate, classify and group things together. To try and see order in chaotic systems (see Apophenia)

Take animals for instance, we create arbitrary groups of them:

Food: Pig, Chicken, Cow, fish
Pet: Dog, Cat, Small fish
Clothes: Cow, Fox, Minks (oddly, it seems the furrier and cuter they are the more they seem to cross over into the "Pet" category, which is why so many people are repulsed by fur but not by leather)

and then we give different animals human traits like:
Honorable: Lions, Eagles, Horses
Devious: Fox, Ferret, Weasel, Snake

But does nature recognise these definitions? No, these are results of societal conditioning. We have in our minds some arbitrary reasons for these groupings, but rationally you can't possibly see any logical reason for them. The meat of a cow is no different, except in taste, to that of an eagle, a horse or dog, and for that matter a human.