Peter writes,
>That is probably never going to happen. The planet is just too
>overcrowded.

Who says we have to stay on this planet?

>But since we are live in such a polluted & alienated world,  I do not
>believe that our natural instincts can protect us fully from the all
>the adverse effects of it.  It is not in our genetic make-up to deal
>with these complex issues.

Yes, I agree.

>most diseases that kill SAD eaters occur after they have already
>reproduced will not prevent natural selection from taken place.
>Pottenger's cat studies made this clear,

In the Pottenger study, all the cooked food cats became sterile by the
third(?) generation.  No adaptation took place.

>Obviously it was advantageous for Homo Sapiens to
>eat meat, yet you are proposing that even though our survival as a

This is not obvious to me.  Could you explain?

>What I find so healthy and refreshing about instinctos is that they
>unlike vegans seem so devoid of any feelings of guilt, which  is not a

I disagree; they seem to repress their guilt.

>Bob, the only way you can really get
>to the truth of the matter would be to confront your own feelings of
>guilt and give RAF a real chance by eating liberal amounts of it by
>for a while.

I don't think so, Peter.  Been there, done that.  I ate liberal amounts
of CAF for 40+ years, and I don't think it did me any good.  I'd rather
continue on my current low-RAF lifestyle (if it's OK with you).  If you
want good scientific data, you need controls.  I'll be a control animal
here.

>But since there has never been a time in hominid development where
amimal >foods did not play if just a small role in the diet, it would
seem that they were also >needed for their nutritional value.

Really?  You could make a similar statement by substituting the words
"alcoholic beverages" for "animal foods."  Would you still agree?

Bob Avery ([log in to unmask])