>Submitted to veg-raw by: Martha Seagoe <[log in to unmask]>
>You seem to be a very thoughtful and honest person, and this
>discussion is fascinating, but it begs some questions I've been pondering
>about instinctos eating meat.

>Not being well-read on the principles, I don't recall what qualified a food
>as "primary", but it had to do with closeness to nature.  I wonder why
>beef and lamb would qualify, since these are not animals that humans
>would be well adapted to catch.

An "original" food is one which provides a clear taste change in it's
native state. Beef and lamb provide taste changes so they are on the
instincto "menu". Humans are well-adapted to catch even larger animals than
cattle and lamb such as mastadons and elephants. Their adaption is the
ability to hunt enabled by the big brain and opposable thumb (and the
finest coordination of detailed finger work of any primate). I'm well aware
that these same human features allow us to denature food (and raise our
offspring according the mental constructions instead of more ancient
mammalian insticts). It also allows us to breed animals and plants. (How
many modern foodstuffs are genetically altered from their wild pregeneters?
Nearly all of them.)

I tend to think of it in more generic terms. There is the original
molecular set (and it's organisation, it's structures as organisms).
Conversely there is the human-made molecular set (plastics, pharmacuticals,
etc.). Life has evolved for the most part in interaction with the original
molecular set which still exists today, though its being crowded out and
"infiltrated" by human-made molecules (and organisations of same). To
over-generalise, the feeding behavior of mammals relies on smell as a
"locater" and taste as a "regulator" of amount. (Clearly these are not
exclusive: hunting mammals use sight heaavily as a locater, as do primates
searching for colorful fruit.) It isn't surprizing to me that _any_
original food will interact with a mammal's instinct, be it animal or
plant. For instance, a kuala bear is capable of smelling and eating a dead
frog, but is unlikely to do so since it's alimentary canal has evolved to
feed almost exclusively on eucalyptus leaves. But it _is_ capable of
evaluating and rejecting animal foods.

Now, are humans genetically adapted to animal foods? Let one's senses of
smell and taste decide. Chimps are very attracted to animal foods (young
chimps beg incessantly for a portion!) but rarely have access to them.
(Interstingly, they won't scavange but only eat animals they have killed.)
Human instincto toddler's (and even newborn infants if we are to believe a
story Guy-Claude Burger tells) will eat raw shellfish, pork, beef, etc.
with no qualms at all, delight even. Importantly, young enough children
haven't been socialized to be repulsed by raw animal foods and its
attractiveness to them provides pretty clear support (at least to my mind)
of the "native" status of animal foods.

Are humans adapted to domesticated animals and plants? Wild mangos, for
instance, have a much stronger flavor and taste change (delicious if needed
by the metabolism; foul if not) than the intensely-bred imported Mexican
Kent or Hayden mango we find in USA produce sections. (BTW, don't waste
your money on a Tommy Atkins mango!) The same is true of wild vs
domesticated meat. (Farmed seafood is best avoided.) Still, domesicated
animals and plants provide a clear taste change and have shown to be
healthful to instinctos. Organic produce is clearer/tastier than commercial
(whoops! chemically-farmed). Reportedly, there are exceptions. Wheat
sprouts won't change, perhaps because modern wheat has been artifically
selected by breeders so intensively and so long. Who knows for sure why it
doesn't change but instincto experimenters claim it doesn't (whereas more
ancient "wild" wheat sprouts will change). Milk, even raw, won't change, or
so they say. (Nuts are usually heated to facilitate drying in the shell and
those available commercially have weak changes. I was lucky enough to
sample some truly undenatured brazil nuts in the Amazon basin and can tell
you they were nothing like the ones going rancid in health food store
bins!) I wonder at times if the new supersweet corn varieties aren't
changing late as well, but boy are they tasty. New recombinant DNA
varieties of produce will have to be evaluated by experienced instinctos
for a "proper taste change" to decide if they have been bred right off the
human instinctive menu or not. Even so, there may be other problems with
such designer foods.

>And if you say using weapons doesn't
>disqualify a food, then why would blending or even cooking do so?

Because the taste change potential is ruined.

>What's the difference philosophically?

Probably none, depending on your philosophy. But instincto is about taste
change, not philosphy.

>Also, unless you have wild sheep and bovines running around NZ
>[maybe you do], how can you say you're not eating commercial meat?

My mistake. I should've made it clearer. The meat I am eating in NZ is
commercial. What makes it acceptable (at least in the northern-most parts
of NZ) is that it is from animals 100% pasture-fed (though often immunized
for various things). In the USA commerial meat is from animals eating dry
feeds including bone meal made from cows - hello mad cow disease - and
sometimes supplemented by pasture. They are unhealthy and will make an
instincto sick. Even (especially, say some instinctos) biodynamic beef is
bad, probably because of the amount of grain fed them. In the USA it is
very hard to find acceptable meat. I, and others, have eaten Coleman beef
and lamb with mostly rave reviews. Buffalo culled from national
parks/forests is available in Denver, but it is pricey, and I think these
animals are "topped off" with grains just before slaughter. Still, it's as
good as it gets in the USA, excepting wild venison during season, or
animals raised yourself. Beware of free-range organic chicken as well.
Almost without exception these animals are fed dry feeds as the basis of
their diet. I've eaten Shelton and other "brands" of chicken and eggs
without ill effect but wouldn't swear by them, and I'd be esp wary of
organs. (Not that you were going to rush out a give them a try!! :))

>But mostly I've wondered:  when you see a live animal, do you think
>FOOD?  [I'm picturing the cartoons where the wolf sees a pig and
>imagines a roasted pig on a platter with an apple in its mouth.]  Does
>something inside you compel you to chase it down and kill it?  This is
>how I imagine natural carnivores to feel.

No, I'm not drooling at the zoo. (I'm depressed as hell at a zoo!) I was
reporting in the earlier post that there have been times when I respond to
the beauty of an animal (from David Attenboro programs to naturally-raised
farm animals) with a deep-seated desire to eat it. My wife will admit to
these feelings as well, though she is more embarressed about it. While
scuba diving I have this reaction to specific species of fish (usually the
ones I am familiar with eating like the makeral family). It is interesting
to me that this will occur with only visual cues. Add smell, and maybe I
would chase after the animal! ;)

Carnivore and herbivore are largely inventions of language. Surely there
are animals designed/evolved to eat mostly plant food and others mostly
animal foods but animals have no idea that they are herbavores or
carnivores; they eat what they find which is attractive (including our
garbage which is attractive to them for the same reason it is attractive to
us: it's taste won't change and it has a novel flavor). Note that there is
a correlation between the length of a mammal's alimentary canal (stated in
relation to its body length) and its tendency towards animal or plant
eating. One often hears the natural hygiene argument that humans are plant
eaters because we have a three(?) times longer alimentary canal than a
lion, meat putrifies, etc. What doesn't get said is that humans have an
extremely short alim canal when compared to a cow! If a list of animals is
arranged according to alim canal length, the typical carnivores like
hunting cats are on the shortest end, the grazing animals like cattle or on
the longest end. Smack dab in the middle we find the "omnivores" including
humans. We can eat a huge variety of native animal and plant foods
according to instinct. We can even eat a huge variety of denatured foods
and thrive, but it ain't the same as most any raw fooder will tell you.
Many instinctos would say that eating instinctively aint the same as eating
raw.

>TIA,
>Martha

Thank _you_. I think you're all quite good sports about this whole meat
business. (No one has e-bombed me yet!) Again, let the questions rip! I
need some practice defending/explaining this stuff to intelligent folk. I
also need Eudora with a spell checker, but...

Sorry about the length of reply, but as of yet there seems to be plenty of
room here at veg-raw, hardly any posts. In any case, I won't have the time
to keep this up with moving to the States in a couple of weeks. ("Yippie!"
I imagine the majority of veg-raw subscribers cheering. "Maybe that will
shut him up!")

Cheers,
Kirt

Does carrot juice taste like chocolate milk to anyone else out there? I
worry about my taste buds sometimes. :)