Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Sun, 05 Jan 1997 10:06:09 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
>Peter:
>>>I understand that the decrease in sex drive happens mostly
> on the raw vegan diets, but not if some raw animal foods are included.
> Putting this into an evolutionary perspective we would probably had
> died off long ago had our ancestors been raw vegans. :/
>Martha:
>>And now may I say something really controversial? I don't
> think a decrease in sex drive would be a bad thing. At least for a
> few generations until we get our numbers down a bit (or a lot!).
> This idea that we are not "real" men/women unless we are
> extremely randy is an idea whose time has GONE, IMNSHO.
Martha is closer to the truth in my opinion. Think of this whole
thing in terms of population dynamics. It can be argued that (as is
the case with fruit trees which only go to seed -reproduce- when
stressed) that human mating/reproduction are negative signs that the
species is stressed in some way & is striving to increase the
(presumably dropping) population. To rephrase Peter's last
sentence, more of us would have died at younger ages if we were not
raw vegans, in order to perpetuate the species. Think about the sex
addicts we all know. Think about the active breeders. Are these
people healthy by any yardstick we might use? In many respects
mating can be taken as a sign of disease/shortened lives, although
of course unsuccessful mating also can be associated with disease
states too. Population dynamics have EXTREME implications for the
viability of the species as a whole, & these things are right at the
top of the evolutionary checklist, being very carefully controlled.
Obviously a short-lived, high-RAF-diet people such as the Eskimos
would require a faster reproduction rate than jungle-living
vegsters.
--Doug Schwartz
[log in to unmask]>
|
|
|