On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, Amadeus Schmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 09:59:40 -0400, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >I think the other part of Ray's answer is that there are few, if
> >any, places in the world where the vegetation could keep a
> >vegetarian alive *year-round*.
> Oh, yes.
> But it is a rather small the place on the earth
> where our genes have formed.
> (and spread therefrom as the successfull Cro Magnon human).
> And there - in Africa - was a tropical rainforest for many millions
> of years, our anchestors were fruitarians (with little insects),
> and vegetarian nutrition *is* possible there year-round,
> as gorillas show.
You are not allowing for the possibility that in adapting to a
new environment, hominids became maladapted to their previous
environment. In addition, I think it is wise to consider the
adaptation of the *species* as more relevant than the adaptations
of the class. Therefore, we should pay more attention to humans
and hominids, and less attention to gorillas and other primate
species. That is, I believe the nutritional adaptations of
alleged pre-hominid primates are only marginally relevant to the
discussion of *our* nutritional needs. For one thing, we don't
really know what those creatures were like, other than that they
were primates of some sort.
Hominids evolved and flourished in an environment quite different
from the rain forest. Their survival in this environment
required *radical* adaptation to its demands. It is those
demands, and the adaptations that they forced, that we need to
understand.
> I think we should look a little better at some expert data,
> maybe at some present non-agricultural groups which live at that place,
> before we decide or assume what our anchestors might have done.
I agree. I would be surprised to learn, however, that year-round
vegetarianism is an option outside of the rain forests.
> Since vegetarianism involves only *leaving away* some certain foods,
> i can't see a problem with it.
> Or someone has to show why exactely this or that components
> of meat *have* to be included.
One problem could be inadequate protein for optimal muscular
development. You are persuaded that human protein needs are
quite low. While I agree that we are able to get by on little
protein, I believe that there is evidence that we do better on
more protein than is available on a typical vegetarian diet
(without protein isolates).
> Jus
> t annother leaving out of food items.
> Who can say that the worms and bugs weren't the most important animals?
That's reasonable, but if it's correct it only shows that
Neanderthin may be as bad as your diet, not that vegetarianism is
a good diet.
I agree with the premise that we probably have only a rather
faulty idea of what the important components of actual
paleolithic diets were. I think it is very likely that they were
not vegetarian diets. Whether meat in the human diet is
nutritionally optional is a gamble. Some people seem to do quite
well without it. Some don't do so well. I have no wish to talk
you out of vegetarianism. It may be that your approach to
vegetarianism is as nutritionally sound, despite what it leaves
out from a paleo perspective, as the beef/pork-based omnivore
diet that the rest of us are fiddling with. I just don't know
the answer to that.
Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]
|
