Hi Jean-Louis:

> Alan:
>
> I am not willing to discuss at length the problem of whether to eat
> meat or not, but you say
>
> > view it is too expensive to feed myself on fruit only from 100%
> > reliable sources (such as Orkos etc.).
>
> and then
>
> > - I see no reason for consuming anything from growth hormones to
> > antibiotics to pesticides etc.
>
> Well, "reliable" sources of meat don't contain more growth hormones
> than "reliable" sources of fruit contain pesticides.
>
Whereas this may even be true, there is certainly nowhere near
the amount of "organic" beef around to feed even one population
(never mind the world as a whole). And we could never provide
enough organic food and land to feed all that beef anyway.

> Other remarks and questions:
>
>  -Why do lions waste so much "precious energy breaking down the
> protein chains into simple aminos"?
>
They have to concentrate most of their energy on digesting. This
is why they sleep for around 20 hours each day (as is the case
with most other carnivores).

>  -Saturated fat is not harmful when not in excess and balanced by
> unsaturates. Sugar is harmful when in excess too.
>
What is the point of feeding the body with something that it
doesn't need and which it has to spend more energy on processing
and excreting (if it ever gets that far)?

>  -What would constitute for you a "proof" that pre-fire man ate such
> or such food? You are ignoring some evidence of meat-eating, but do
> you have a better evidence of fruit-eating?
>
I have never said than man was a fruit-only eater, although I do
tend to favour the fruit and veg theory. It is also obvious that
man is capable of dealing with small amounts of raw meat (otherwise
he would have killed himself eating any insects on wild foods).
But I still believe that my arguments above (based more on common
sense...like how many hours a day should a human raw meat eater
sleep?) point to meat either not..or only rarely and in an
emergency..or in otherwise barren regions..indicate that the
consumption of and often reliance on meat by later man was a
step in the wrong direction.

>  -Converting the world to vegetarianism would NOT resolve famine
> problems. Even in countries where enough food is produced, some people
> are still starving.
>
Whilst this may be true is desert regions (which often became
deserts simply because people used the wood from the trees as
firewood to cook foods), many people are starving because of
a lack of commercial foods (whilst ignoring the valuable wild
plants under their feet).

>  -If you are an atheist, then what do you mean when you say "I see no
> proof that man was supposed to eat meat"? What meaning do you give to
> the word "supposed"?
>
"Supposed" meaning that it complied with the laws of Nature.

>  -Moral reasons (not willing to kill) are IMO the *only* good reason for
> not eating meat.
>
They are additional good reasons IMHO Jean-Louis.

>  -How do you know whether such or such reaction (e.g. drooling,
> disgust) can be attributed to instinct or culture?
>
Culture does and will play a part of course (one can "train"
people to do almost anything) but if raw meat was always a part
of the human diet we would all have a natural craving for it and
it would still be eaten raw today rather than cooked in most
cases. It may sound drastic when I say: "Do you feel a natural
urge to bite into a live or dead cow?" but it is equally
true that neither my parents nor the parents of most other
people actually specific forbade their children from doing
just that (they didn't need to because the children didn't
want to and thus never even asked for permission to do so).

Best regards,

Alan