Besides "vegan ethics" there has really been no opposition to all this RAF
instincto stuff.  Why not?

Kirt wrote:

>I suspect that I will experiment with cooked foods years down the line, but
>have other fine-tunings to try first on all-raw. Sometime soon I may try
>eliminating fruit entirely and eating instincto with RAF and veggies for
>several months. I just did 10 days with minimal fruit (three >lb fruit
>meals during the 10 days) and it was very interesting. Unfortunately, fruit
>is one heck of a lot easier to obtain than RAF. Who knows? I just mean to
>say that while raw foods are a good IDEA I don't see why a certain amount
>of "intellegently" cooked foods might not be useful (or at least not
>harmful). Again, I doubt it, but will never know until I try it.

To RAF-eating instinctos:

>From what we have seen on this list, instincto is nothing more than
recreational experimentation with substances that are unnatural for the
human organism -- just like all other unnatural vices, addictions, and
bodily-experiments.

A question for raw-meat-eating instinctos:

How many of your own natural kills have you made (cow, fish, rabbit, lamb,
etc.)?

Do you have it in your biological make-up to take down a wild animal in
Nature, nude, with no tools or weapons, kill it with your own hands and
teeth, rip out its enzymatic organs and eat them as all other
omnivores/carnivores do?  No, of course you don't.

What happens when humans try to take down wild animals?  We have a "Nature
vs. Humans" video tape that we have compiled of hunters/fishers being
absolutely mauled by bears, kangaroos, sharks, mountain-lions, insects,
etc.  It's hard-hitting and quite awesome.

The three of us make all of our own "kills" every day when we pluck an
orange, avocado, peach, or melon from our gardens.  Is this not "true"
instinctive eating?

Stephen, David, & R.C.
Nature's First Law
www.io-online.com/~nature