On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 11:25:42 -0700, Ken Stuart <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I wrote:
>>At last meat "industry" is it who IMO changed animal eating to the worse
in
>>two aspects
>>1. from: the challenge of hunting and the conscious decision "you or me"
>>   with some holy respect for the prey
>>   to: just go to the supermarket, buy meat with the only limitation of
>>   money, and have others do what now are cruelties

Ken:
>While this sounds romantic, it is not very rational.

You question my point 1. My point 2 (meat quality) could well be headed for
in a modern humanity as long as not too much has to be "produced"
(after all we are going to call ourself hunan-ity).

My "romantic" point - i agree - it is in some way.
How paleo-hunters got their food - could be a more appropiate way to deal
with other creatures' lifes.
But also meat quality is involved. Animals in a slaughterhouse
have a very long stress -with its effect on meat ingredients-
probably longer as the "normal" stress (or shock) an animal captured
by a lion (or arrow) has.

It has implications for nutrition too, if the only effort is
to go to a supermarket and queue up to get unlimited amounts of food (not
only meat)? In a nature community there has to be luck as well
(more for prey as for plants which don't run). This would imply days of
fasting from time to time, i presume.

>If you apply this same reasoning, we should be:
>
>- Growing, felling, and stripping our own trees to build our own houses.
>- Digging our own well for water (severely limits possible housing
>locations -
>my well is 150 feet deep!)

I think you can totally exclude houses and wells from a paleolithic
lifestyle. Hunting and gathering people *have to* move around a lot, because
the area one person depends on is so big. This leaves only very limited
kinds of shelters.
Having a fixed house is a neolithic acquirement, one of the best
advantages of Linearband people meeting mesolithic h/g populations (in
temperate climates).
I must say I really see improvements from paleolithicum to Linearband.

What have houses to do with nutrition?
Honestly , at first i thought nothing.
But well, houses make storing food possible, first-time out of the arctis.
Houses make pottery possible. Make cooking (in water) possible.
Make keeping a permanent fire possible.
Axes for felling trees? Probably neolithic too - for fire and for houses
(I'll consult my books).

>etc. etc.
>Clearly, electronics is impossible if you apply this concept, so we would
>not be
>discussing this ! ...

>For civilization to occur, you must have specialization, ie computer makers
>supply your computer, book publishers supply your books, and food makers
>supply your food.

Why not?
What we are heading for here - thinking about a nutrition which is in best
accordance with our genes. This needn't be *beeing* naked with a stick and a
stone. Just within the food limits this would imply.

>Within that framework, the specific matter of animal cruelty in the meat
>industry can be addressed (and it is) ..
I hope so.

Ken, I think it would be the wrong way just no negate all achievements from
neolithicum to now. There *is* progress (too).
Much is so beneficial and essential.

Just for sake of mass production and short term thinking so much has been
deteriorated, first of all the food.

I should be possible to live in a modern world, humanly, progressing
and conscious about the things involved with it.
Including the several "industries".

cheers

Amadeus.
(I'm a computer man, still with fun - after 20 years)