Originally posted by Boondock78
and for the record, i'm thinking it's not so easy to just follow the trees or whatever and hike out of the andes.
Of course it's not "easy", but I bet I could do it, and I'm not some Rambo type. You can hike for a good 2-3 days without food, so long as you
have water, and that's generally going to be enough time to get down below the timberline, where at worst case, you can suck on some tree sap, pine
nuts, etc. The timber line is typically around 6000 ft in the Andes, give or take 1500ft or so depending on what side of the Andes, and how far north
or south you are, and I think the average height is around 13,000 ft. So you're probably looking at most, about 6,000 to 7,000 feet. That's barely
over one mile.
I can't think of many places where you can't make one mile in one day, especially going downhill. Maybe like K2 or something.
The reason I argue this point is because one of the reasons mankind HAS survived, as a species, is because we don't
eat each other as a rule,
and as a result, have learned to work together to overcome just about any obstacle, including that of finding other sources of food. Additionally, our
bodies are some of the most efficient shapes on the planet. The instinct not to devour your fellow man is sometimes referred to as the "inner
chimp", a set of instincts back to our primate days, when we learned to live in gregarious tribes.
Now, granted, cannibalism has existed among both chimps and men, for one reason or another, but the core value of NOT eating one's fellow man, that
you express such disdain for, is MORE likely to ensure the survival of the species than the willingness to eat one another in time of need.
That and, frankly, you seem way too eager to eat some long pig. You're championing your survivability by expressing your desire to eat your fellow
man almost as a first resort. Perhaps that's the wrong impression, but it's definitely the impression you're giving a growing number of people
Most people aren't going to ever admit to themselves what they would do to survive, and if it were to save their spouse or children, they might go
against everything they ever believed in to the point of not being able to live with themselves afterward. However, you cannot, and should not, expect
ordinary right-thinking people to smile and nod and cheerfully express anything but disgust at the thought of cannibalism. It is both an instinctual
and learned reaction that has kept mankind seperate from the other animals and allowed us to progress as a civilization and overcome hard times.
Originally posted by Boondock78
you and 5 people on a dingy floating in the middle of th pacific. no grubs or any other food source anywhere.
There's been cases of people living for literally over 100 days at sea on a life raft, by themselves. Without anyone else to eat, and no food
supplies. What do you suppose they did? (hint: google it)
I get the point you're making from the thread title, though. Zero food, no where, and no where to get to it, and there's only other people. It's
never that simple though, not in the real world. The question of whether or not someone can go against thousands of years of conditioning to NOT eat
their fellow man is going to be entirely dependant on the context of the situation.
Who are the other people, are they friends, family? How close? Are they eyeing you hungrily? Did any of them attack you? Are they dead first or do you
have to kill them? Is it just you that you're trying to save, or your child? Is there any hope of escape or rescue whatsoever, and if so, why can't
you simply take charge of your own rescue and start heading back to civilization? Can that obstacle be overcome? If so, why not?
People who truly survive situations do not take one blanket approach to get through it. They look at their situation as a collection of smaller
problems to be solved, one at a time. Most of the time, after solving a few of the smaller problems, food and water become available. The set of
circumstances that it would require for one to eat another human being to survive in today's world are either so incredibly extreme as to be
unthinkable for most people, so of course, the majority of them are going to simply not consider the option.
I guess what I'm saying is, there's no bragging rights for someone who places their survival on their willingness to kill and eat other people, and
at best, it places you several levels below one whom, in the same set of circumstances, would expend a bit more effort and get themselves out of the
bad situation with no food, and into a better situation that has food.