And I quote . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lance H" <[log in to unmask]>
>"There seems little doubt that many hunter-gatherer societies had a
high
>intake of animal protein (and animal foods) by present-day standards.
>However, this does not imply that such a dietary pattern is the most
>appropri
>ate for human metabolism or that it should be emulated today."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
We have a contradiction: What you've just said is that by present day
standards hunter-gatherers had a HIGH intake of animal products?
The implication is that WE (Western Man) are predominantly vegetarian
in outlook if not in deed. I was under the impression, indicative by
the very existence of this list, that we were struggling against the
vagaries of a predominantly meat eating western culture.
If primitive man consumed a HIGH animal protein intake relative to us,
then humans presumably would have died out long ago. There's an
inherent contradiction in what's been said here (according to this
argument).
To wit: "this does not imply that such a dietary pattern is the most
appropriate for human metabolism or that it should be emulated today".
This remark flies in the face of evidentiary science. First of all,
if such a diet was not appropriate for human metabolism, why are we
still here?
If our very own biological antecedents - as in, hundreds of millions
of years of our evolution from homo fill-in-the-blank through to homo
sapiens sapiens - can't be used as a dietary guidepost, then exactly
WHOSE standard should we use?
Think about it. We have a handful of scientists, most of whom are
reductionists and, by definition, are exclusive of larger contexts,
whose work is being misappropriated in the name of The Physiological
Reformation Movement? Talk about revisionist history.
I quote again:
>"Past hunter-gatherers did not have unlimited dietary options but had
to make the
>best of whatever was available in a particular habitat..."
This is an a priori assumption being put forth: That the choice of
unlimited dietary options is inherently superior to the "best of
whatever was available."
The foods, AND DIETARY PROCESSES (hunting, foraging, fishing, digging,
premasticating for infant feeds, pounding, grinding, etc.), our
progenitors had available to them are precisely the building blocks
that preceded, and, by extrapolation, continue to be required for, our
existence today. We are here because our genetics evolved to a degree
where adaptability to environmental challenge became THE linchpin for
our survival.
An interesting experiment: A batch of amoeba were kept in a
nutritionally rich soup and another batch were kept in a fluctuating
environment with constantly shifting variables like temperature, food
supply, etc. Guess which ones died first.
I repeat: Early Man, and, by extrapolation, contemporary hunter
gatherers, lived, and continue to live, off of animal products, roots,
berries, "wild" plants, fruits, insects and each other (where law
permits). This ratio, whilst I may have previously mislead the flock,
is ROUGHLY 70 %. Give me a few points leeway here (this is an
aggregate figure for heaven's sake so don't get picky with
percentages).
Where in Man's history do we see strict vegetarianism? Well, let's
throw in Obfuscation thru Intellectualization, and hop onto the Magic
Schoolbus to south India. Life spans of these strictly vegetarian
souls are among the shortest in the world. I put most of the blame
here on the cooking. Raw veggies alone just have to be healthier than
the SAD diet. No debate there. But, Indians cook their food to
death. Like most of us, they do it to themselves.
North American Native Indians have, among other things, a very
interesting prayer that I feel speaks volumes to the rest of us.
(Spoken to the spirit of the recently departed animal spirit)
"Please forgive us, for, as we consume thee, we, too, one day, shall
be consumed."
You gonna tell me that these so-called primitive & contemporary tribal
peoples didn't/don't have a handle on the life & death dance we've all
been partaking in for the past few millions of years? And that
somehow, Primitive Man had it wrong - that self-righteous,
city-slicker, pious-beyond-belief, vegetarian armchair food providers
. . . armed to the teeth with reductionist, over extended and
intellectually bereft hypotheses . . . have cornered the moral high
ground? Well, I don't think so.
Listen Folks, let's all take a look at some recent history. The
Church, and that sub-culture we know as Scientism, are just about
wholly responsible for propagating the arrogance and homocentric
ideation absolutely required to gloss over one fact: The difference
between Us and Them is that we created toasters and they didn't. The
adoption of a deity, the Scientific Method and the development of High
Technology, a superior race does not make. We just happen to be able
to use our opposable thumbs a little better than most. Think "Desmond
Morris".
The genesis of epochal arrogance dates back thousands of years - that,
somehow, OUR generation got it right. Nothing could be further from
the truth. And that theme, by the way, has manifested itself so
consistently over the ages that it has been a subject of debate for a
VERY long time.
Warm regards,
Rick in Vancouver, Canada
|
