[ColinHowell]

Originally Posted by smbx33

Are you seriously twisted? The flesh of meat eating animals, including us, contains enzymes that make the meat inedible,it may taste fine, but it is very harmful. This is why carnivores don't eat other meat eaters generally. It's not moral, it's genetic and evolutionary.

While IamKira's thinking makes no sense to me, your answer is wrong. As he posted in his response, lots of predators will eat other predators, given the opportunity. That's why biologists refer to a "top predator": one that nothing else preys upon.

As for the flesh of meat-eaters being toxic to other meat-eaters, there's no basis for that in general, though it's true that some environmental toxins can get concentrated as you move up the food chain. And it is dangerous for humans to eat carnivore livers, since the high concentration of vitamin A can be lethal.

As for IamKira, the only time that cannibalism for food purposes would make any evolutionary sense is when conditions are so horrible that there is no other way to keep everyone alive. Otherwise it's a loser's game. (I'm not counting cannibalism for the purpose of destroying a competitor's offspring, which does happen fairly often in nature.) You certainly can't maintain a population on cannibalism; it would be the biological equivalent of a perpetual motion machine.

And of course, given how lethal humans can be toward each other, consider that widespread human cannibalism would quickly lead to a nightmare killing field as people try to kill others to avoid being killed first. By the way, in a situation where human cannibalism was rampant, the starving people would be the first to be killed and eaten, because they would be least able to defend themselves.