Don’t sweat it too hard, the fact that the dinner party was and is such a big deal shows you that in modern society cannibalism is sort of a big deal. But… at various times and places in human history it has happened fairly regularly or even not been considered a big deal at all
In times of war and famine it’s pretty common. World War 2 into the later 20th century for example. Plenty of people have much more recent and close relatives who probably are another human, and waaaay more have ancestors who did. In fact…. The further we go back in history, the more likely it is that you and your entire family only exist because you descended from people willing to do anything and everything to survive and get ahead in life.
Most family trees are full of people who by modern standards we would call murderers, human rights abusers, sex offenders, liars, cheaters, philanderers, back stabbers, selfish, ruthless, amoral sorts. As human society has grown, our rules and standards of conduct have become more complex. There are cycles of where resources and security were scarce and not, when social rules were strict or not, when morals have been defined in treatment of others and human rights and not.
Or at least less so.
The ability to survive or thrive by doing nothing or being congenial was developed as we socially developed. We grant others human rights as a luxury in general. If those treatments would interfere with our survival we generally suspend them or die unless we are lucky or particularly gifted to be able to find a way to do both. More often we take a pragmatic approach and then justify it to suit our morals.
One might argue that in the time and culture the Donner Party incident occurred cannibalism was near unbearably considered wrong- but there are two take aways there.
The first is that those willing to do the universally wrong thing tended to survive. A pattern in history. Adherence to social conventions is a strategy that tends to have the best success the less dire the circumstances, though such social manipulations can work even in dire straights because we are often less logical than emotional. With that said- those who did what was required survived to reproduce in greater numbers despite going against social values and customs.
The second take away is perspective. Much the same as an action which may have made one very successful at one point and time would likely lead to their ruin if tried outside their time on people with other values- it is a perspective issue.
Owning slaves in the southern USA was at one point not only a key path to success and socially accepted, it was even embraced and celebrated. Now, if we were to transport such a slave owner to the modern day and they attempted to revive their operation in plain view of the world, it would most likely (sad that recent political events and social trends make it so I must say most likely) be seen as disgusting and unacceptable to the majority and lead to their likely ruination and possibly even death. This is perspective. Different time and place. Well, there is also more localized perspective.
On the same exact day what is acceptable in China may not be in a nation a few hundred miles or less from their border. What is accepted in Texas may not be in California and what goes on in Alabama may not fly in New York.
What is ok culturally in a small town in Georgia may not be ok in Atlanta. In a city, you can travel a few blocks and the “rules” and culture can change. It can even be a moment in time. A popular and not entirely untrue argument for example is that when judging something like how some acted in a crisis situation when you have no personal experience and can’t relate to theirs, weren’t there, and are judging from a safe place without danger and adrenaline and distractions and such- sometimes the “truth” of that specific moment is only going to make sense to someone who lived it.
In those moments, the dynamics between people caught in that moment together can differ drastically from what is the general cultural norm for their age and place.
But- here is a thought experiment.
How many people do you think would have said “I’d eat my Buddy/sister/a stranger if I got stuck” had you asked before they left on the Donner Party?
This is a concept that surprisingly few people accept or even have a grasp for that don’t have relevant experience. “I know who I am..” “be true to yourself” “I would never…” No. likely not. Your “self” is a concept, a fabrication of perception. Ignoring the larger philosophical or quantum physics debates and such on the nature of reality and human consciousness and taking things at face value- no matter how certain you are, saying you would never do something is a bit like saying you can mail a nothing but net shot from full court when you e never picked up a basketball or thrown a ball in your life.
You don’t know. You may be certain, and you may actually get the results you predicted, but that doesn’t actually prove anything beyond that something you said came true. If I say that you’ll see a rabbit tomorrow and you do, does that mean I knew the future? It’s at worst a guess and at best an educated guess. We won’t know if you’ll see a rabbit tomorrow until tomorrow is over. That’s how this works from the human perspective.
The people that survive tend to be the people who do what is necessary to survive, in a world that now and through history has often been brutal and savage, those are the people who help make the world brutal and savage and who survive a brutal and savage world most often.
So your entire ancestry is most likely full of some combination and percentage of those willing to do anything to survive and reproduce and those able to play on the psychology of other humans.
I read a book on the donner party. Quite the story. It really is amazing how people will volunteer to go into danger trying to save a life when they can .. and do die too
In times of war and famine it’s pretty common. World War 2 into the later 20th century for example. Plenty of people have much more recent and close relatives who probably are another human, and waaaay more have ancestors who did. In fact…. The further we go back in history, the more likely it is that you and your entire family only exist because you descended from people willing to do anything and everything to survive and get ahead in life.
Or at least less so.
The ability to survive or thrive by doing nothing or being congenial was developed as we socially developed. We grant others human rights as a luxury in general. If those treatments would interfere with our survival we generally suspend them or die unless we are lucky or particularly gifted to be able to find a way to do both. More often we take a pragmatic approach and then justify it to suit our morals.
The first is that those willing to do the universally wrong thing tended to survive. A pattern in history. Adherence to social conventions is a strategy that tends to have the best success the less dire the circumstances, though such social manipulations can work even in dire straights because we are often less logical than emotional. With that said- those who did what was required survived to reproduce in greater numbers despite going against social values and customs.
Owning slaves in the southern USA was at one point not only a key path to success and socially accepted, it was even embraced and celebrated. Now, if we were to transport such a slave owner to the modern day and they attempted to revive their operation in plain view of the world, it would most likely (sad that recent political events and social trends make it so I must say most likely) be seen as disgusting and unacceptable to the majority and lead to their likely ruination and possibly even death. This is perspective. Different time and place. Well, there is also more localized perspective.
What is ok culturally in a small town in Georgia may not be ok in Atlanta. In a city, you can travel a few blocks and the “rules” and culture can change. It can even be a moment in time. A popular and not entirely untrue argument for example is that when judging something like how some acted in a crisis situation when you have no personal experience and can’t relate to theirs, weren’t there, and are judging from a safe place without danger and adrenaline and distractions and such- sometimes the “truth” of that specific moment is only going to make sense to someone who lived it.
But- here is a thought experiment.
How many people do you think would have said “I’d eat my Buddy/sister/a stranger if I got stuck” had you asked before they left on the Donner Party?
This is a concept that surprisingly few people accept or even have a grasp for that don’t have relevant experience. “I know who I am..” “be true to yourself” “I would never…” No. likely not. Your “self” is a concept, a fabrication of perception. Ignoring the larger philosophical or quantum physics debates and such on the nature of reality and human consciousness and taking things at face value- no matter how certain you are, saying you would never do something is a bit like saying you can mail a nothing but net shot from full court when you e never picked up a basketball or thrown a ball in your life.
The people that survive tend to be the people who do what is necessary to survive, in a world that now and through history has often been brutal and savage, those are the people who help make the world brutal and savage and who survive a brutal and savage world most often.