It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by The All Seeing I
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
Maybe you couldn't pick up on my satire.
Originally posted by wantsome
So if canibalism were immoral and we all have a since of morals then why do some practice it and some don't?
I think all animals including humans that develope in social groups have a set of rules that is excepable within the group (right and Wrong) or morals to some.
It's probobly something thats hard wired into us since surviving in groups ment a better chance of survival.
A well known case of mortuary cannibalism is that of the Fore tribe in New Guinea which resulted in the spread of the prion disease Kuru. It is often believed to be well-documented, although no eyewitnesses have ever been at hand. Some scholars argue that although postmortem dismemberment was the practice during funeral rites, cannibalism was not. Marvin Harris theorizes that it happened during a famine period coincident with the arrival of Europeans and was rationalized as a religious rite.
According to a decree by Queen Isabella I of Castile and also later under British colonial rule, slavery was considered to be illegal unless the people involved were so depraved that their conditions as slaves would be better than as free men. This legal requirement may have led to conquerors exaggerating the extent of cannibalistic practices, or inventing them altogether, as demonstrations of cannibalistic tendencies were considered evidence of such depravity.
Originally posted by outsider13
It would appear then, that certain principles of fairness, or right or wrong, are innate in humans, and apparently in monkeys as well.
think the author of this article is coming dangerously closed to arguing that their are sets of genes that will determine if a person is moral or immoral. I think this is a gross oversimplification.
Kant believed morality comes from what he called "pure reason". Without going too much into what he meant, I would say that it is our advanced ability to think and reason that gives birth to our moral systems, as it does to lesser degree in chimps and other animals.
Researchers from the University of St Andrews found orangutans could learn the value of tokens and trade them, helping each other win bananas.
The discovery is the first evidence of "calculated reciprocity" in non-human primates, according to an article in Biology Letters. The research found two orangutans - Bim and Dok - who live in Leipzig Zoo, Germany, were especially good at helping each other.
Initially, they were given several sets of tokens. One type of token could be exchanged by an orangutan for bananas for itself, another type could be used to gain bananas for a partner, and a third had no value.
In three separate instances, the primates were observed successfully hunting and eating other primates' infants, after they've had enough fruits to eat...
...But scientists supervising some populations in the LuiKotale region of the Salonga National Park, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, witnessed with amazement as packs of bonobos hunted down, killed, and then ate mangabey offspring three times, before daring to report this discovery to the international community.
previously thought gentle females are equally aggressive, but it's a common practice to kill and eat the babies of other females...
...Jane Goodall was the first to observe this infamous female behavior in 1976 in a cannibalistic mother-daughter duo, the chimpanzees being named Passion and Pom...
...A team led by comparative psychologist Simon Townsend at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland witnessed a cruel infanticide: a bleeding mother with a one-week-old baby was chased by six females, five of which with clinging offspring themselves.
In 10 minutes, after a noisy struggle, the infant was taken and killed with a bite.
In 1998, researchers in Uganda saw a group of male chimpanzees beating on and swaggering around another male chimp’s freshly killed body. Its windpipe, fingernails and testicles were torn out.
The finding added to a growing number of documented incidents of chimpanzees ganging up on, hunting down and killing each other—activities in which some researchers find eerie parallels to human war.
Several chimps broke free and went on the rampage causing serious injuries to St. James Davis and his wife who were visiting the center to celebrate the birthday of one of the chimps they had donated.
Officials told reporters that Davis suffered serious injuries as the monkeys chewed most of his face off and that he would have to undergo surgery to have his nose attached. His wife suffered a bite to the hand.
The chimps chewed off St. James Davis' nose and severely mauled his genitals and limbs Thursday before the son-in-law of the sanctuary's owner shot the animals to death, authorities said.
Today, we know that chimpanzees everywhere eat mainly fruit, but are also predators in their forest ecosystems. In some sites the quantity of meat eaten by a chimpanzee community may approach one ton annually...
...After three decades of research on the hunting behavior of chimpanzees at Gombe, we already know a great deal about their predatory patterns. We know that although chimpanzees have been recorded to eat more than 35 types of vertebrate animals (Uehara 1997), the most important vertebrate prey species in their diet is the red colobus monkey...
...Jane Goodall has noted that the Gombe chimpanzees tend to go on "hunting crazes," during which they would hunt almost daily and kill large numbers of monkeys and other prey (Goodall 1986). The explanation for such binges has always been unclear...
Originally posted by melatonin
Weeeell, why not? I think psychopaths are the best example. It's fairly likely that it has a degree of genetic basis, with potential environmental inputs (i.e., genes & environ). The funny thing with psychopaths is that they know morality, they just don't put it into action. In fact, it doesn't appear to be a reasoning problem.
In this paper we demonstrate the existence of kin selection in the Avida digital evolution ystem and investigate an aspect of the theory that is often unexamined; whether kin that cheat on their relatives are favored by natural selection. We accomplish this by comparing organisms that are altruistic towards close relatives (kin-altruists) and those that are only altruistic towards identical copies of themselves (clone-altruists). We refer to these clone-altruists as ‘kincheaters’ to emphasize that they are not altruistic towards non-identical kin even though such non-identical kin are altruistic towards them. Most theorists have overlooked the potential success of this type of cheater. We investigate whether the assumption generally made by theorists that kin-cheaters should not be selected for is a valid one.
Originally posted by Blaine91555
We are talking an animal up to 7 or 8 times as strong, pound for pound and we should pray they never declare war on us.
Originally posted by Ahabstar
reply to post by SLAYER69
I would like to disagree with the comment in the video.
Since chimps can display ethics and other human traits and the attack showed planning and tactics, then the cannibalizing of the dead enemies may have nothing to do with extra protein but have everything to do with gaining the spirit of the enemy. Which is no different than human tribes of cannibals today. The open sharing at the end when the other chimp requests a piece might back that idea up.