Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Mon, 16 Dec 1996 01:00:23 EST |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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])
|
|
|