[flagged]
He observes that in older human societies a transgression could easily lead to an infinite loop of vendetta-like bloodshed. He also observes that sacrifices always targeted a victim that is nearly a member of society (if not an actual human outcast or child, then an animal which people like and are reasonably close to on a daily basis) but never quite.
Part of his theory appears to be that ritual sacrifice (a murder that follows a particular procedure) eventually emerged as a viable steam vent that made societies more resilient. It lets out the impulse that causes members of society to be violent to each other, but focuses this impulse on someone who is adjacent to yet outside of that society, carries no social function, and is unable to push back or seek revenge, thus defusing the impulse safely (for society).
(A functioning justice system in modern civilization performs a similar role, taking revenge out of the hands of the victim.)
He also notes that sacrifice of an outcast is a thing, I think I mentioned it already: once a person is stripped of his or her membership in society, that person becomes a perfectly valid sacrificial scapegoat—no matter whether that person used to be a warrior or a noble.
Note also that, while we are talking about ritual sacrifice here, plain simple murder was as much of a thing back then. The two are very different things.
For a modern and extensive compilation, Frazer famously wrote a huge multi-volume work that documents sacrificial myths from all over the world in The Golden Bough. He selects and uses them to make his own argument, but you’re not likely to find a more comprehensive compilation.
One day, abortion of an unborn child will be widely considered as shocking as child sacrifice is today.
A few thoughts:
- Sacrifice and civilization are closely related. To live in a society you have to sacrifice some autonomy, some of your (and your family's) goals and some resources. Further, to prepare for the future you have to make a sacrifice in the present. Many people even sacrifice their present selves for their future (not born yet) offspring. It is only logical (if a bit esoteric) then, to think that making a bigger sacrifice will transmute into bigger positives.
- Christianity (not that familiar with Judaism or Islam) was revolutionary because Jesus already made the ultimate sacrifice, essentially freeing everyone from the obligation.
- If one takes a sober view, the history of ritual sacrifices has not ended (and probably never will). Mao was willing to sacrifice millions to bring about Communism (read: Paradise / heaven on earth). Similarly for the Bolsheviks, Nazis, Red Khmer, Robespierre etc. They all explicitly stated in their own writing that the deaths were a worthwhile sacrifice. That is the psychopathic variant of ritual sacrifice, slaughtering a goat to Zeus looks a lot more tame and rational in comparison, no?
1. Don’t want to change our reliance on cars
2. Don’t want to address hunger and houselessness.
3. We are doing basically nothing about global warming.
A lot of countries COVID strategy was effectively human sacrifice too. This practice never ended.
We legitimately believed that sacrificing humans was helping prosperity, etc. We’re doing the same now with a few extra steps of indirection and abstraction.
Willing being a bit of a stretch considering the entire society was conditioned to believe it was necessary.
Anyway, I’ll leave you with that and maybe you’ll go do some research on this topic.
In fact I remember the Texas governor Dan Patrick saying a lot of grandparents would be willing to sacrifice themselves during Covid for the economy (oddly he did not seem to be willing to lead by example).