On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 14:51:29 -0700, Wally Day <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>>There is something that prevents us of eating a dachshund, hamster,
>spider.
>
>I doubt very much it's because of anything innate. The dachsund is fairly
>safe because of the partnership of man/dogs in the west.

I can't say we speak about something innate or a cultural tradition.
Cultural traditions are strong that's sure and mostly they make sense
(e.g. to prevent some intoxication or save some animals declared "friend",
like the horse in germanic countries).
However innate - I think it certainly is innate to humans
to care for family members, to enjoy tenderness and touching.
For our senses such a puppy, a cat or a hamster -most mammals- are smooth,
most like the touching and tenderness too. I think that's a innate
property of humans and mammals.

There were also discussions if it was innate for humans to dislike
the experience of killing.
Hunting populations seem to have absolutely no problems to experience a
whole carcass and have enthusiasm to hunt.
But is it really biased or aquired for a human to feel horror or disgust
when experiencing the blood that flows, or an animal that suffers?
Everybody can have his own opinion on this, I can't help it -
I feel that it's innate for humans to feel compassion and care for
living beeings which look familiar to us.
So I think hunters' feelings are biased or derivated to suppress compassion
on what now is a prey.
How many average humans would eat "carcass" if it didn't come in an
unrecognizable  quadratic-shaped supermarket package?

The partnership of a dachshund - I live in a city where it's kind of a
national dog (Munich). Formerly it's size was necessary to hunt inside the
buildings of badgers (Dachs). You can be sure very very few dachshunds
are huting today. The relationship with humans is to enjoy the common
mammal feelings, the gang-feeling (common to dog and human) and the
headstrong character of this dog.

>The others,
>including rats, would not offer enough nutrition to sustain anyone for very
>long (except in emergency situations).

Per animal of course, comparing a rat to a cow.
But by the same resource you raise a cow you could easily raise very very
many small rats.
Probably - as they are growing very fast and are short-lived - more usable
meat than with the same fodder given to a cow.

Who sais, that less dog meat grows in the same time and fodder expense
as cow meat?

You *could* probably produce and eat dachshunds or bernhardiner or poodles
as much and comparable cheap, as you eat cow today.
But just to think this thought is strange or embarrassing.
There is something linked to a poodle that's not linked to a cow
(for most people - I'd eat a cow with the same feeling as a poodle).

>Have you ever reied eating a Cornish
>game hen? They are no doubt delicious, but I find myself hungrier after
>eating one because of all the work you have to do to get very little meat
>:)

Cornish? No never.
In Italy they even hunt very small (singing) birds to eat.
Maybe these birds have only 1/10 of a hen, I estimate.

I think you're right the big problem with small prey is the work to prepare
the small things to eat. In a very efficient society.
Such a cow is efficient in extracting sellable parts.

regards and have a nice day

Amadeus S.