This article doesn't specifically mention cannibalism, but in my twenties I read a book that posited that "the lamb" of Christianity being a symbol of peace, as well as the Hindu reverence for the cow, were based on their ability to provide food security because they are grazers who are able to turn grass into protein. Grass is not a human food source. So this means they don't compete for the same food sources we do.
Aztecs had cook books full of recipes for things like "human ribs with hot peppers." Some old temples had bread fruit trees lining the avenue up to the temple. Bread fruit is another source of protein.
IIRC, the book posited that the Aztecs were cannibals because South America had no native animals like cows or sheep that fed predominantly on grass. Thus they were chronically short on protein and this helped make them a very war like people. If you are all going to die anyway because there is not enough food, dying in battle is both psychologically better for the culture and offers the chance that we win, we take we what we need and we feed our people.
Most wars are ultimately rooted in resource shortages. Real peace is ultimately rooted in problem solving to make sure there are enough resources to go around and that those resources get more or less equitably or "fairly" distributed, in some sense and to some degree. Society can survive economic inequality, but there comes a point past which economic inequality is too much of a hardship on some groups and this routinely goes bad places.
Edit: I confess to being an Ugly American who has a bad habit of lumping South America and Central America together and not making clear distinctions in that regards. Substitute "the lands of the Aztecs" for South America.
Aztecs had cook books full of recipes for things like "human ribs with hot peppers." Some old temples had bread fruit trees lining the avenue up to the temple. Bread fruit is another source of protein.
IIRC, the book posited that the Aztecs were cannibals because South America had no native animals like cows or sheep that fed predominantly on grass. Thus they were chronically short on protein and this helped make them a very war like people. If you are all going to die anyway because there is not enough food, dying in battle is both psychologically better for the culture and offers the chance that we win, we take we what we need and we feed our people.
Most wars are ultimately rooted in resource shortages. Real peace is ultimately rooted in problem solving to make sure there are enough resources to go around and that those resources get more or less equitably or "fairly" distributed, in some sense and to some degree. Society can survive economic inequality, but there comes a point past which economic inequality is too much of a hardship on some groups and this routinely goes bad places.
Edit: I confess to being an Ugly American who has a bad habit of lumping South America and Central America together and not making clear distinctions in that regards. Substitute "the lands of the Aztecs" for South America.