Jerry,

<< . the
 less related an animal the less likely it is to transmit disease to us, as a
 generalization. >>

That is an interesting sentence.  If that is true, perhaps that explains why I
naturally gravitate to those foods which are least related to me, choosing
food in the moment by boundaries which I feel.  I am aware that it is
instinctive, but I always just thought of it as relatedness, as in Family.  It
never occured to me that there might be a physical reason for the instinct.
Like instinctively not wanting to mix blood with your sister to produce a
child, unless of course, you are the last two people alive.

I experience the boundary with regard to animal products drop.  I used to
adhere myself to it, which I realized was controlling and detrimental
mentally, as well as physically.  So now it rises and falls, and falls usually
with fish, and occasionally with meat.  It goes in phases.  I also just
experience it as wanting different foods.

I do not eat rice and beans, perhaps that explains why I did not fare so well
as a raw vegan, and realized an instinct to hunt.  Perhaps the protein from
rice and beans somehow satisfies the body so that the person is less aware of
their instinct to hunt, which might keep them in a state where they are behind
the boundary protecting themselves from risk of eating animal foods, and of
course, protectiveness towards animals, as a relation.  As you can see, if
someone is always in this state, they might go around telling everyone not to
eat meat, that it's wrong, etc.

It is my experience of relatedness that I attribute to 'moral eating', people
who believe it is wrong to eat animals, or fish, or even some plants.  They
'moralize' instinct, just as people used to create 'social taboos'.

Of course these things are best left to the moment, to instinct, but humans do
not normally seem to work this way.

Thank you for sharing that concept with me!

aaron