Pete, hon,
Not everybody thinks killing is wrong. I certainly don't. If you don't believe in absolute morals, you don't believe killing is wrong.
By my PERSONAL morals it is wrong, however I have heard of many a real society that didn't believe it was wrong. IE human sacrifices, cannibalism, all of which people thought was a-ok. Many Christians even thought (some still do think but not nearly as many) that it's alright to kill in the name of religion, as long as you're killing people who don't believe (killing Pagans is better than killing Atheists, killing Atheists is better than killing Monotheists with different beliefs)
It is not human nature to believe that killing is wrong. Given the two following scenarios:
------------------------------
100 babies packed into a ship are shipwrecked on an island. There is barely enough food to keep half of them alive, only half. There are 2 apes there that will raise them, a male and a female adult that are hardly ever present. After 5 years, 5~20 of the youngsters may be dead not from hunger but from HOMICIDE by others who realized that if these people aren't alive, they don't need food, and therefore there is more food for those that are alive. At 10 years, 40% of the original human population has been MURDERED. Everybody, however, is still skin-and-bones and barely surviving. At 15 years, 60~75% of the original population has been MURDERED. At this point, the food supply decreases so that it is enough to supply only 10% of the original population, as a minimum. Before age 20, 95% of the original population has been murdered, leaving 2 MALES and the females they have kept alive for MATES. (3 women to 2 men is better than the other way, as it will produce more children) These people eat a normal amount of food so that they can maintain a normal weight and maintain it forever. Before the women give birth, the food decreases more, but instead of killing each other, the men and women kill half of the babies (INFANTOCIDE) out of nessecity. This repeats for generations upon generations and is a way of keeping population in control.
Oh, did I mention that all those killed were eaten by everybody else? A large feast to put some meat on those bones...
Blood can be used to quench thirst, it is a good source of water. Of course after a few deaths from sickness it is realized that blood should be boiled over a fire before being drunken. It is drinken with flesh at feasts.
Bones are ground into powder in the day by the women on stones, collected in stone nearly-flat bowls, and mixed with some of the blood so that nothing goes to waste. Eyes, hearts, brain, lungs, etc are eaten with the rest of the body.
XEV: my hotmail account has alerted me that you have just replied, I'd appreciate it if you could touch on this post too
PS
it was believed by some medieval Carribean societies that if one ate the flesh of another, he acquired the knowledge and capabilities of the person he ate.
Not everybody thinks killing is wrong. I certainly don't. If you don't believe in absolute morals, you don't believe killing is wrong.
By my PERSONAL morals it is wrong, however I have heard of many a real society that didn't believe it was wrong. IE human sacrifices, cannibalism, all of which people thought was a-ok. Many Christians even thought (some still do think but not nearly as many) that it's alright to kill in the name of religion, as long as you're killing people who don't believe (killing Pagans is better than killing Atheists, killing Atheists is better than killing Monotheists with different beliefs)
It is not human nature to believe that killing is wrong. Given the two following scenarios:
------------------------------
100 babies packed into a ship are shipwrecked on an island. There is barely enough food to keep half of them alive, only half. There are 2 apes there that will raise them, a male and a female adult that are hardly ever present. After 5 years, 5~20 of the youngsters may be dead not from hunger but from HOMICIDE by others who realized that if these people aren't alive, they don't need food, and therefore there is more food for those that are alive. At 10 years, 40% of the original human population has been MURDERED. Everybody, however, is still skin-and-bones and barely surviving. At 15 years, 60~75% of the original population has been MURDERED. At this point, the food supply decreases so that it is enough to supply only 10% of the original population, as a minimum. Before age 20, 95% of the original population has been murdered, leaving 2 MALES and the females they have kept alive for MATES. (3 women to 2 men is better than the other way, as it will produce more children) These people eat a normal amount of food so that they can maintain a normal weight and maintain it forever. Before the women give birth, the food decreases more, but instead of killing each other, the men and women kill half of the babies (INFANTOCIDE) out of nessecity. This repeats for generations upon generations and is a way of keeping population in control.
Oh, did I mention that all those killed were eaten by everybody else? A large feast to put some meat on those bones...
Blood can be used to quench thirst, it is a good source of water. Of course after a few deaths from sickness it is realized that blood should be boiled over a fire before being drunken. It is drinken with flesh at feasts.
Bones are ground into powder in the day by the women on stones, collected in stone nearly-flat bowls, and mixed with some of the blood so that nothing goes to waste. Eyes, hearts, brain, lungs, etc are eaten with the rest of the body.
XEV: my hotmail account has alerted me that you have just replied, I'd appreciate it if you could touch on this post too
PS
it was believed by some medieval Carribean societies that if one ate the flesh of another, he acquired the knowledge and capabilities of the person he ate.