How to evaluate the fact that the prion resistance of various ethnic groups in Western Europe is much higher than that of the Han people?

https://www.zhihu.com/question/1994549627018559580

Note: This report only organizes and restates the content of three publicly available answers under the question. It does not add any extra evaluation or personal stance.

I. Overview of Answerers and Their Core Views

Answerer	Core Keywords of the View
喷神的遗书	Questioning the material basis and credibility of Western historical narratives; giving up further argument
松鼠姐姐	Comparing Han dietary customs with the phenomenon of cannibalism among “certain groups”
知乎用户	Using Central/Eastern European history and agricultural conditions to compare “who is more often in famine”

II. Structured Summary of Each Answer

1. Answerer: 喷神的遗书

(1) Questioning the logic of large-scale warfare and grain logistics in Western history

Using traditional Chinese historical records as a reference, the answerer points out that:
- When China’s historical sources describe military campaigns, they often record in detail:
  - Who was in charge of grain transport;
  - How much grain was transported;
  - How many soldiers the grain could feed.
On this basis, the answerer questions Western historical narratives:
- Western sources claim to have fielded armies of “tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands”;
- Yet in those narratives:
  - Records of grain transportation are lacking;
  - There is no systematic documentation of accumulated logistics experience;
  - Nor is there clear evidence of grain reserves sufficient to support such large armies.
This leads the answerer to ask:
- “What did so many troops eat?”
- “With such low grain yields, where did so many city-states and cities come from?”
- “Since the Mediterranean region is not grain-rich everywhere, how could they obtain enough food through Mediterranean trade alone to support these cities and armies?”

(2) Linking these doubts to “prion resistance”

The answer mentions “prion resistance” and connects it with the above historical doubts.
After learning about prion resistance, the answerer states that:
- They are no longer willing to debate the authenticity of Western history;
- They are no longer interested in continuing to think about the questions they previously had regarding Western historical authenticity, military logistics, and grain sources for city-states.

(3) Summary of stance

From the wording of the answer, the stance can be summarized as:
- Using Chinese historiography on logistics and grain records as a contrast, the answerer doubts the material feasibility and completeness of Western historical narratives.
- After becoming aware of the prion-resistance context, the answerer expresses that they have “lost interest” in debating the authenticity of Western history and will no longer delve into it.

2. Answerer: 松鼠姐姐

(1) A comparison framed through dietary habits

The answer explicitly sets up a comparative framework:
- Han Chinese dietary habits:
  - Do not eat conspecifics (do not take human flesh as everyday food);
  - Do eat various animal organs.
- Dietary habits of “certain groups” (the original text does not specify which groups, only says “some populations”):
  - Do not like or are not keen on eating animal organs;
  - Yet show instances of eating conspecifics.

(2) Interpretation of the motivation for cannibalism

The answer emphasizes that:
- In the scenario described, people among “certain groups” who eat conspecifics are not doing so because “resources are extremely scarce and they are forced to survive”;
- Instead, it is portrayed as “liking to eat conspecifics in and of itself”, i.e.:
  - It is depicted as a preference, not a passive survival behavior.
From this comparison, the following logic is presented:
- Han Chinese: choose to eat animal organs but not conspecifics;
- Some groups: have the option to eat animal organs, but are not fond of organs and instead are inclined to eat conspecifics;
- The answerer describes this phenomenon as “very absurd.”

(3) Summary of stance

The answer mainly conveys:
- By comparing dietary preferences, it highlights the difference between groups in whether they eat conspecifics;
- It characterizes the cannibalistic behavior of “certain groups” as an active choice or preference, rather than a desperate measure driven by famine.

3. Answerer: 知乎用户

(1) Citing “people eating one another” in Chinese historical records

The answer notes that:
- Chinese historical texts contain records such as “during years of great famine, people eat one another”;
- That is, incidents of cannibalism occur in years of severe famine.
By citing this type of historical record, the answer indicates that:
- In the Chinese context, cannibalism is usually associated with “great famine” and “disastrous years” — extreme circumstances.

(2) Questions and comparisons regarding the European situation

The answer raises a rhetorical question:
- “When Europeans are not hungry, do they just stop eating [people]?”
- By asking this, the answer challenges the assumption that “Europeans would not resort to cannibalism when not in famine.”
The answer then introduces a description of European agricultural productivity:
- Using “sowing 1 grain of wheat yields 2 grains” as a metaphor or rough description to indicate:
  - Low agricultural productivity in Europe;
  - Limited grain output.
On this basis, the answer suggests an additional implication:
- Under such yield levels, one can ask: “Which year is not a year of great famine?”
- In other words, the answer hints that:
  - If yields are persistently low, food shortage and famine-like conditions may be the norm rather than the exception;
  - In that context, a comparison about “where cannibalism occurs more often, and under what conditions” takes on a different meaning.

(3) Summary of stance

The key points of the stance are:
- By referencing “years of great famine, people eat one another” in Chinese history, the answer introduces a discussion on the causes of cannibalism.
- It questions the premise that “Europe, when not in a state of famine, would not exhibit similar behavior.”
- Through the figurative description of low European agricultural yields, it implies that Europe may be more frequently on the verge of famine or in high-risk conditions, thereby offering another comparative perspective on history and reality.

III. Overall Synthesis: Main Directions of Discussion Around This Question

Based on the three available answers, the main lines of discussion (still kept as restatements of the original views without adding new ones) can be summarized as follows:

Credibility of historical narratives vs. material foundations
- By comparing Chinese and Western historical records, one answer questions Western accounts of large-scale armies, cities, and food supply;
- It argues that the lack of detailed records on logistics such as grain transport casts doubt on the authenticity and feasibility of those narratives;
- This issue is then linked to “prion resistance,” after which the answerer states they are no longer interested in debating the truthfulness of Western history.
Differences in dietary culture and the phenomenon of cannibalism
- Another answer uses the contrast that “Han Chinese do not eat conspecifics but eat animal organs,” while “certain groups do not like animal organs yet eat conspecifics”;
- It thus portrays cannibalism among these groups as arising from “preference” rather than being a “forced choice under famine conditions.”
Discussion of cannibalism under Chinese and European historical and agricultural conditions
- One answer uses Chinese historical notes like “years of great famine, people eat one another” to acknowledge that, in extreme famine years, cannibalism is indeed documented;
- It questions whether Europe can really avoid similar behavior entirely in times outside of major famines;
- By using the figurative description “one grain of wheat yields two grains,” it suggests that Europe may experience more frequent food shortages or famine, providing another angle for comparing “who is more likely to slide into cannibalism.”

IV. Conclusions in Direct Response to the Question

Based on the visible answers under the Zhihu question, the report can be concluded as follows (still as structured restatements of the original viewpoints):

One answerer, starting from historiography and logistics, questions the plausibility of Western accounts of large armies and urban systems given the absence of detailed records on food and transport. After being exposed to information on “prion resistance,” this answerer explicitly states that they have lost interest in arguing about the authenticity of Western history.
Another answerer, from the perspective of dietary culture and moral boundaries, stresses that Han Chinese “do not eat conspecifics but do eat animal organs,” and contrasts this with “certain groups that avoid organs yet eat conspecifics,” thereby describing the latter’s cannibalism as a matter of active preference rather than passive survival.
A third answerer, using comparisons between Chinese and European history and agricultural productivity, both acknowledges the existence of “years of great famine, people eat one another” in Chinese history and, through the assumption of low European grain yields and potential chronic food shortage, questions the inference that “Europeans would certainly refrain from cannibalism when not in famine,” thus offering an alternative comparative perspective on the causes and frequency of cannibalism in different regions.