Hi, Lance and All . . .

It seems Lance and I have led the group into what probably amounts to
as a moot point.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------
----- Original Message -----  (from Lance)

> [snip]
>Let me clarify. [snip]
> I quoted her [Cordain] at length to prove that there was no
consensus amongst
> scientists as to the actual percentage of animal food in Homo's
diet. [snip]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------

I agree that there most assuredly exists some dissonance within the
professions regarding actual ratios of meat/veggy/roots/fruits, etc.

The point that I was addressing early on was that vegetarianism has,
IMHO, no base upon which to decide whether it's the ideal diet.  Lance
and I are both in agreement about meat having played a significant
role in our evolutionary past.

As I had mentioned at one point, our genetic origins stem from
omnivorous creatures.  If we are to debate exactly what the numbers
are, ultimately I think we're out of luck and, again, as I present
below, it's really moot.

I'm of the school of listening to logic.  And logic, while not
infallible, certainly points us in an empirical direction.  I'll get
to that in my conclusion.

Logically, our genetic progenitors are a good place to begin.  You
can't have a complex of trillions of cells developing communication
with each other over billions of years without a phenomenal amount of
fine tuning.  The opposite, grossness, in terms of mathematics, leads
us to one conclusion: Simply that a given system will function at very
superficial levels (like a rock) without rules and their attendant
subsets, sub-subsets, ad infinitum.  The development of evolutionary
rules unfolded INHERENTLY as genes adapted to ambient conditions.  We
can't gloss them over using conceptual rules like morality plays,
karma, "vegetarianism", etc.  Nature abhors an "-ism".

At the level of complexity we're dealing with in the mammalian body
(or any creature for that matter) it stands to reason that those rules
have ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED.  The rules were layed down long before
living things developed even a rudimentary kind of self awareness.  At
the moment of Creation, via whatever theory we subscribe to, there was
a set of rules established to provide guideposts to ensuing
development.

These rules expressed themselves in the dietary choices Early Man
made.  EM did not philosophise ad nauseum about protein levels,
omega-3's, etc.  What EM did do was eat, drink, find shelter, develop
social patterns and make like a mink - none of which required
Nutrition 101.

My point is that there is no point.  If we at least accept logically
that millions of years of dietary choices led to a physiology
appropriate for an array of primitive diets, then, we can accept that
everything up until the discovery of food manipulation is appropriate
for even contemporary Man.  Raw food.

Our genetics show an amazing degree of consistency in replicating our
race with the usual amount of body parts, functions, etc., (we all
poop, make love, respond to faces, have a fear of falling, and so
forth).  However, without the ability to change at a fundamental
level, i.e.: genetic, we wouldn't have lasted this long.  Mono diet,
followed by serial eating, followed by mixing, then seasoning,
followed by recipes layed down in memory, then animal husbandry, then
fire, then agriculture, then grains, then artificial foods (the above
order is open to debate) then Pop Tarts.

The argument that vegetarianism is the most appropriate diet is
logically unsupportable.  The data are conflicting and, from my
experience with 8 years of it and pot luck dinners with John Robbins'
group (oh, hell, I forget the name - Earthsave?), the moral high road
espoused at these meetings is about as tenuous as the argument against
our genetic heritage.

And certainly, the rights of animals and how karmically advanced
vegetarians are has nothing whatsoever to do with the appropriateness
of meat in our diet.  If my experience of the Universe is any
indication, it simply "doesn't give a damn".

I promised above that I'd get to logic leading to empiricism in my
conclusion.  If the argument I put forth is any indication, then, in
my mind, the "only" direction (yes, I'm going out on a limb here)
appropriate for IDEAL health is one based on what our ancestors, prior
to food manipulation, have given us.

Namely, that mono foods from the entire food group (meat, roots,
berries, vegetation, flowers, insects, fruits, ocean life), eaten raw,
will at the very least bring our illness rate down to about point
zero-something-something.  Furthermore, healing rates due to injury
and illness should skyrocket.  Life spans may in fact be extended
(that would be a nice thought).

What label do we have to describe this way of eating?  Instinctive
Nutrition (Severen Schaefer).

Anyone who has experimented, by the way, with the Instincto way of
eating, knows full well that the experience of knowing which foods to
select and when to stop eating is inherent in us.  There are no rules.
For the uninitiated, we have built-in food stops:  Perceived taste
changes.  Instinctos don't stop when they're full.  It doesn't make
sense that if your body is telling you that this food no longer tastes
good (as it did five minutes ago) that you should eat until your belly
is stuffed.

Primitive Man did not have our contemporary obsession with logical
overlays for each step of his behaviour.  Mind you, who knows . . .
philosophers abound when food and sex are everywhere.

An awareness of Rules About Food is a higher order function.  I
somehow doubt that Early Man measured his protein, sugar, fat, and
miscellaneous other carbos to derive The Most Excellent Diet.

It probably came down to . . . "Patience my ass - I'm gonna kill
something".

As per previous posting(s), refer to Desmond Morris' "The Naked Ape".
It's worth its weight in gold and says it all.  The inferences are
obvious.

Warm regards,
Rick in Vancouver, Canada