3 ms·

I don't think taboos are in anyway useful in determining health implications. For example, are dogs or horses in any way materially worse than cows or sheep for

I don't think taboos are in anyway useful in determining health implications. For example, are dogs or horses in any way materially worse than cows or sheep for people to eat? Why are the French happy to eat frogs and snails? I'm reasonably certain the idea of certain food being taboo is almost completely due to cultural norms.

justthinkhn 4y ago
- _flux 4y ago
  So what happened to those countries that eat bugs nevertheless? They're going against their instinct? Or maybe it just is cultural, but in your culture it doesn't seem that way.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    With the right conditioning, people can be made to accept all manner of madness.
    - hnbad 4y ago
      The rejection of things can be "madness" too. We know that plenty of "natural" phobias are actually cultural, i.e. learned behavior. Toddlers and even infants pick up on social cues and develop fear and disgust responses by mimicking the behavior of adults and older children. "Conditioning" is an unnecessarily spooky framing for what is quintessentially "culture". My toddler's first reaction to ground pepper was to cry out in pain, exclaim "hot!" and never want to go near it again. Would you call it "conditioning" if my child later in life develops a taste for peppery dishes?
      - MichaelCollins 4y ago
        Some aversions are cultural, others aren't. Which are which? The fact that bug eating remains niche around the world, generally only seen in regions with a recent history of food insecurity, suggests that the conditioned madness is eating bugs, not aversion to bugs.
- VBprogrammer 4y ago
  I don't believe we have any such instinct, we only have cultural norms. I can't imagine any ethical experiment which would adequately separate the two factors. It's difficult to raise a child without influence of their surrounding culture. Predators in the wild tend to eat the vital organs of their prey first, yet for a great many people eating organ meats is gross.
sidkshatriya 4y ago
Human societies have developed over the years with trial and error. Taboos against a food can have a positive correlation with negative health outcomes when consuming that food. So just because there is a taboo against a food group does not mean that it will definitely be bad for you. There is just a positive probability that it could be. Taboos can also arise out of fashion and economics, irrational beliefs and moral considerations of a particular culture. So when we see a Taboo, it is often good to analyze: could this taboo have arisen due to health issues (here pork is a good example because of the danger of tapeworm infection) ? Or could the Taboo have arisen out of cultural reasons e.g dogs/horses are beloved in many cultures so a taboo may have evolved that we shouldn't kill them. > I'm reasonably certain the idea of certain food being taboo is almost completely due to cultural norms. TL;DR: Sometimes it due to cultural norms and sometimes its due to negative health outcomes that get noticed due to trial and error over generations.
Gigachad 4y ago
That’s more ethics than disgust. If you synthesised a dog/horse steak. I’d, try it. If you synthesised a bug, I still wouldn’t want it.
prometheus76 4y ago
Dogs and horses are not ruminants, therefore they are more likely to carry parasites that are harmful to humans. Cows and sheep are both ruminants. So yes, there is a difference beyond cultural preferences. Or I should say, cultural preferences are not just arbitrary.
- VBprogrammer 4y ago
  Pigs and chickens are also not ruminants and are eaten almost as widely as cows and sheep.
  - prometheus76 4y ago
    Not by me (I grew up on a farm), but you do you.

justthinkhn 4y ago

_flux 4y ago
So what happened to those countries that eat bugs nevertheless? They're going against their instinct? Or maybe it just is cultural, but in your culture it doesn't seem that way.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  With the right conditioning, people can be made to accept all manner of madness.
  - hnbad 4y ago
    The rejection of things can be "madness" too. We know that plenty of "natural" phobias are actually cultural, i.e. learned behavior. Toddlers and even infants pick up on social cues and develop fear and disgust responses by mimicking the behavior of adults and older children. "Conditioning" is an unnecessarily spooky framing for what is quintessentially "culture". My toddler's first reaction to ground pepper was to cry out in pain, exclaim "hot!" and never want to go near it again. Would you call it "conditioning" if my child later in life develops a taste for peppery dishes?
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      Some aversions are cultural, others aren't. Which are which? The fact that bug eating remains niche around the world, generally only seen in regions with a recent history of food insecurity, suggests that the conditioned madness is eating bugs, not aversion to bugs.
VBprogrammer 4y ago
I don't believe we have any such instinct, we only have cultural norms. I can't imagine any ethical experiment which would adequately separate the two factors. It's difficult to raise a child without influence of their surrounding culture. Predators in the wild tend to eat the vital organs of their prey first, yet for a great many people eating organ meats is gross.

sidkshatriya 4y ago

Human societies have developed over the years with trial and error. Taboos against a food can have a positive correlation with negative health outcomes when consuming that food. So just because there is a taboo against a food group does not mean that it will definitely be bad for you. There is just a positive probability that it could be. Taboos can also arise out of fashion and economics, irrational beliefs and moral considerations of a particular culture. So when we see a Taboo, it is often good to analyze: could this taboo have arisen due to health issues (here pork is a good example because of the danger of tapeworm infection) ? Or could the Taboo have arisen out of cultural reasons e.g dogs/horses are beloved in many cultures so a taboo may have evolved that we shouldn't kill them. > I'm reasonably certain the idea of certain food being taboo is almost completely due to cultural norms. TL;DR: Sometimes it due to cultural norms and sometimes its due to negative health outcomes that get noticed due to trial and error over generations.

Gigachad 4y ago

That’s more ethics than disgust. If you synthesised a dog/horse steak. I’d, try it. If you synthesised a bug, I still wouldn’t want it.

prometheus76 4y ago

Dogs and horses are not ruminants, therefore they are more likely to carry parasites that are harmful to humans. Cows and sheep are both ruminants. So yes, there is a difference beyond cultural preferences. Or I should say, cultural preferences are not just arbitrary.

VBprogrammer 4y ago
Pigs and chickens are also not ruminants and are eaten almost as widely as cows and sheep.
- prometheus76 4y ago
  Not by me (I grew up on a farm), but you do you.