User Avatar Image

Cannibalism. Another way to survive.

posted by Lars80 on - last edited - Viewed by 1.1K users

Perhaps the 2 brothers were smart and better at surviving than others. How long are you going to starve, before you start eating other people?

55 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • @Aexra said:
    Also in real life survival situations it doesn't happen, unless volunteered.
    We are not like that.

    That's actually not true. In most cases, they aren't willing at all. Like the case with the Escaped Convicts in Australia, so many lost at sea. (Typically at sea it was the first idiot to drink sea water.).. It's typically Murder, no matter how you slice it.

  • @trd84 said: Zombies in sub-zero temps freeze and can't move in the Walking dead universe, I think.

    Then why are they sitting in Georgia?
    Head for Canada should be priority number 1.
    Better hunting as well.

  • @trd84 said: The only way I could eat a person would probably be a similar situation to the movie Alive, based on the rugby team who's plane crashed. Could never kill another person just to eat them.

    Yep. It's hard to imagine killing someone to eat them.
    Eating someone who has died. Disturbing. But i wont say i wouldnt have done it in a situation like the one in alive. At the end you have to choose. Die or eat a person. I just hope i never have to make that choice.

  • @Death689God said: That's actually not true. In most cases, they aren't willing at all. Like the case with the Escaped Convicts in Australia, so many lost at sea. (Typically at sea it was the first idiot to drink sea water.).. It's typically Murder, no matter how you slice it.

    Convicts who commit crimes, yeah I'm not surprised, don't think they have high moral standards either.
    Bottom line it is not done, there will always be exceptions.

  • @Aexra said: Convicts who commit crimes, yeah I'm not surprised, don't think they have high moral standards either.
    Bottom line it is not done, there will always be exceptions.

    You can't really say it's "not done", while in the same breath saying there's exceptions. :p It's either done, or it isn't.

    As pointed out, it commonly occurred at sea, particularly during the 1800's and earlier (prior to instant communication and quick, fairly reliable rescue); e.g. Richard Parker was killed and eaten by the surviving crew when they made the assessment he wasn't going to make it anyway (he was one of those idiots who decided to drink seawater). By the time they decided to do the deed, the guy was supposedly unconscious, meaning he not only didn't give consent, but couldn't.

    Granted, they were found guilty of murder afterward, but public opinion was actually on their side in this instance - if I recall correctly, their death sentence was ultimately commuted to six months imprisonment.

    Regardless, the idea is that it simply isn't done... and it quite clearly is.

  • @Rommel49 said: You can't really say it's "not done", while in the same breath saying there's exceptions. :p It's either done, or it isn't.

    As pointed out, it commonly occurred at sea, particularly during the 1800's and earlier (prior to instant communication and quick, fairly reliable rescue); e.g. Richard Parker was killed and eaten by the surviving crew when they made the assessment he wasn't going to make it anyway (he was one of those idiots who decided to drink seawater). By the time they decided to do the deed, the guy was supposedly unconscious, meaning he not only didn't give consent, but couldn't.

    Granted, they were found guilty of murder afterward, but public opinion was actually on their side in this instance - if I recall correctly, their death sentence was ultimately commuted to six months imprisonment.

    Regardless, the idea is that it simply isn't done... and it quite clearly is.

    This ^^^ Plus, people were so horrified at what the convicts did they said they lied. They didn't get punished for it from what I recall, because no one believed them. Essentially they thought even convicts weren't capable of it.

    As someone who's faced the idea of starvation personally, and the things I've done. (Begged neighbors for scraps, eaten out of places I would normally never go to or touch), plus my understanding of the human Psyche, leaves me with no doubt that it's nothing abnormal under those stresses.

  • @Rommel49 said: You can't really say it's "not done", while in the same breath saying there's exceptions. :p It's either done, or it isn't.

    As pointed out, it commonly occurred at sea, particularly during the 1800's and earlier (prior to instant communication and quick, fairly reliable rescue); e.g. Richard Parker was killed and eaten by the surviving crew when they made the assessment he wasn't going to make it anyway (he was one of those idiots who decided to drink seawater). By the time they decided to do the deed, the guy was supposedly unconscious, meaning he not only didn't give consent, but couldn't.

    Granted, they were found guilty of murder afterward, but public opinion was actually on their side in this instance - if I recall correctly, their death sentence was ultimately commuted to six months imprisonment.

    Regardless, the idea is that it simply isn't done... and it quite clearly is.

    you and I got different morals then.
    With exceptions I ment that referring to RL survival situations.
    That it does happen is an exception and so not common.

  • @Death689God said: That's actually not true. In most cases, they aren't willing at all. Like the case with the Escaped Convicts in Australia, so many lost at sea. (Typically at sea it was the first idiot to drink sea water.).. It's typically Murder, no matter how you slice it.

    I think I remember seeing a history program about the cannibalistic convicts.
    Did two of them make a deal to kill the others one by one and eventually when they were the only ones left, one of them killed the other and ate him?

    I also remember reading about a captain and some of his crew in the 19th or 18th century being shipwrecked, and while they made their way to land in a small boat decided to kill and eat the poor cabin boy to survive :eek:!

  • @FarmerJoe said: I think I remember seeing a history program about the cannibalistic convicts.
    Did two of them make a deal to kill the others one by one and eventually when they were the only ones left, one of them killed the other and ate him?

    I also remember reading about a captain and some of his crew in the 19th or 18th century being shipwrecked, and while they made their way to land in a small boat decided to kill and eat the poor cabin boy to survive :eek:!

    I saw that program as well once.

  • @Aexra said: you and I got different morals then.
    With exceptions I ment that referring to RL survival situations.
    That it does happen is an exception and so not common.

    I didn't say it was morally justified, just that it took place. Regardless, considering the conditions in the Parker incidence (by the time they killed the guy, they'd already resorted to drinking their own urine), I wouldn't pretend to understand their mindset. From what I remember in my reading about that case, the court didn't even necessarily find that the act was unnecessary, just that necessity wasn't a defense (the public didn't exactly agree).

    It's hard to say it's not common as a survival method considering you can just as well say things like starvation isn't common either, so determining its rate of "use" as a survival strategy would be hard to discern. Considering the "Custom of the Sea" (which did cover things like like drawing lots to determine a member of the crew to be killed and eaten by the rest), it does imply that the willingness to potentially kill and eat one another wasn't so rare, even if the act itself was.

Add Comment