cannibalism

[1silent]

Contrary to popular belief, the main danger of cannibalism to the population lies not in the realm of morality, but in the realm of rigorous biological selection and molecular biology. Eating members of one's own species poses a huge evolutionary risk due to the transmission of specific
prion diseases and a "genetic curse." The most famous and thoroughly studied example of the genetic consequences of cannibalism is the kuru
epidemic among the Fore people of the highlands of Papua New Guinea.

• Infection mechanism: Until the mid-20th century, this tribe practiced ritual endocannibalism—eating deceased relatives out of respect and to preserve their vitality. Women and children primarily ate internal organs and brains, which contained the highest concentration of infectious proteins called prions .
• What are prions? They are not viruses or bacteria, but defective forms of a normal cellular protein ( PrP ) that have the ability to convert healthy brain proteins into similarly defective structures. This causes widespread destruction of nerve tissue, turning the brain into a sponge-like structure (spongiform encephalopathy).
• Nature's Genetic Response: The disease decimated entire villages, especially women. However, those who survived passed on a unique genetic mutation to their children. Extensive research led by geneticist John Collinge discovered a unique polymorphism in the PRNP gene (a substitution of the amino acid glycine for valine at codon 127, codenamed G127V ) in the surviving members of the For tribe. This mutation made them completely immune to kuru.

This is one of the most striking and rapid examples of natural selection in humans documented by science: a genetic mutation became entrenched in a population in just a few generations under the pressure of a deadly

... POPULATION CHANGE VERSUS MORAL EVOLUTION.

It was long believed that humans ceased practicing cannibalism as they "culturally advanced" and became more aware of humanity. However, modern paleogenetic analysis of Paleolithic and Neolithic bones in Europe paints a different picture.

• Gene pool replacement: In many cases, the abandonment of cannibalism did not occur because a particular tribe had "reconverted." Groups that regularly practiced cannibalism were often weakened by disease, inbreeding, and social isolation.
• The arrival of new cultures: Their territories and resources were simply seized by other Homo sapiens populations, who migrated from other regions and lacked similar cultural practices. Thus, the genes of "cannibalistic" groups were washed out of the general human population, replaced by those of culturally and biologically more successful communities.

---

PART 2: Debunking Scientific Prejudices and Myths
The term "prejudices" aptly describes a long history of misconceptions in 19th- and 20th-century anthropology, in which scientists attempted to explain cannibalism by biological degradation or "bad genes."

1. The Myth of the "Genetic Program" for Ancient Human Cruelty
During the era of early Darwinism and colonialism, the dominant theory was that prehistoric humans and our extinct relatives (such as Neanderthals) were "innate cannibals" due to their animalistic, semi-evolved state. They were believed to lack the "genes for humanity."

• Reality: Modern genetics and archaeology have proven that cannibalism was never a rigidly programmed biological norm (as it is, for example, in some species of spiders or fish). Human genes determine behavioral flexibility, not a specific diet.
• Environmental factors: Almost all proven cases of Neanderthal cannibalism (for example, in the caves of Mula-Guercy in France or El Sidrón in Spain) coincided with periods of severe climate crisis, dramatic declines in large animal populations, and famine. This was a necessary survival strategy, not a genetic necessity.

Prejudices about "born criminals."
In the late 19th century, the Italian psychiatrist Cesare Lombroso proposed the theory of the "born criminal." He argued that some people are born with atavisms—genetic remnants of their savage ancestors. In his theory, cannibalism was viewed as a manifestation of a "genetic defect," in which a person is born with the physical and mental characteristics of a primitive savage.

• Why it's a prejudice: Modern behavioral genetics has completely refuted Lombroso's ideas. There is no "cannibalism gene" or "murder gene." Psychopathological cases of cannibalism in modern history (for example, serial killers) are the result of severe psychiatric disorders, organic brain damage, and social trauma, and not the manifestation of some ancient genetic trait.

Another prejudice was that cannibalistic tribes (such as the Aztecs or Maori) were considered biologically "inferior" or genetically aggressive.

• Reality: Cannibalism in these societies had a highly complex religious, military, and social character. For the Aztecs, it was part of maintaining cosmic balance and communicating with the gods; for the Maori, it was a way to extract the mana (power) of a defeated enemy. Genetically, these people were no different from neighboring peoples who did not practice anthropophagy. As soon as the religious or political landscape changed, the tradition disappeared without any change in the population's DNA.