I have commented previously that civilization can fairly well be tracked from the human aversion to eating of young. Combined with an article, [Link] this has led to some cogitation.
One of our givens is that humans are animals. Yes, I am aware that the religionists are in denial over this, at least some, but leave that for now. Anyway, there are numerous animals that eat their young during times of starvation so that they will not starve. If an animal starves, it’s young die also from lack of care and protection. The logic is eminently, simple, direct, and accurate. And humans avoid the logic.
The article is one in Lifehacker about new (?) findings concerning homo antecessor, a sapiens precursor, that practiced cannibalism preferentially among the young of the species. This latter makes sense as numerous English authors have noted since young humans are better foodstuff than older humans. Of course the archaeological data will not likely indicate whether these are young from other groups or the same.
One obvious question is whether the sapiens aversion is a result of this practice? Did stochastic, dispassionate Nature decide that not eating young is a better survival trait?
Regardless, the thought that arises is that if sapiens will not eat its young, then it will kill (and eat others?) for the sake of its young. This is the negative side, the if-I-kill-you-then-my-child-has-food theory that puts more value in future possibility than present actuality.
It also leads to wondering if religion is related to this. Almost all religions have some implicit communication means, often unilateral, with deity. Rules of conduct and behavior derive from this source, or are at least claimed to derive therefrom. The communication is varied, being direct, through chosen receptors, or via some form of resonance.
It strikes that this is akin to not eating young, another form of unsanity. Of irrationality.
But what is most intriguing is that given an enormous legal instrumentality and a discipline of psychology who defuse the unsane, why have they studiously and overtly ignored the patent unsanity of the religious? The answer almost has to be that religious unsanity is a component of civilization.