The dialogue between macrobiotics and natural hygienists
has long foundered on several issues.  However, these
real and distinguishable points of controversy have made
constructive dialogue possible.

Natural hygienists have argued that the original human diet
was closer to natural hygiene as in either the Garden of Eden of the
Genesis fame,or in some evolutionary perspective where we evolved
from frugivorous primates.

Comparative anatomists have some problems with that
perspective.  I refer you to the recent and not so recent
articles by comparative anatomist, John McArdle, PhD,
himself a lacto-vegetarian for ethical reasons.
Dr. McArdle has been the Scientific Director of the
Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
and of the New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS).

When I was responsible for programming for the
Boston Vegetarian Society, I invited Dr. McArdle
to speak and to address our society on
"the anatomical argument for vegetarianism."

Dr  McArdle did a creditable job of analyzing WHAT
the argument is, and how the argument AS PRESENTED
seems riddled with exceptions, as do most theories when
they are simplified.

The fact is, however, that humans really DO live better
in terms of their risk of degenerative disease when they
nourish themselves with a plant-based diet than they would
with a nonvegetarian diet.

Macrobiotics teach us that CIVILIZATION -
meaning homo sapiens - note the "sapiens" -
evolved when the brain was sufficiently nourished
to develop tools, and tools were a concurrent part
of that effort.  What nutritionally made this possible
was the development of agriculture - NOT hunting -
and that grains (and legumes) provided the B-complex
necessary for the nervous system (CNS) to develop
sufficiently and to develop the higher stages of
thinking that characterize human civilization.

Macrobiotics further argue that diets of fruit alone
are insufficient.  I doubt that any rawfooders doubts
their claim on that point.  After all, who ignores
sprouts and vegetables?

The reasons that we each give for our respective diets
can be studied, appreciated, analyzed and presented
at the (yegads!) same table for discussion, dialogue,
reflection, and consideration.

The historical perspective is crucial for any
nutritional theorist.  Without it, we have nothing to say.
Institutionalized anthropology is like any other institution -
there are projections that appear from the study of their
subject areas, and finitude characterizes the human
condition, so all perspectives are inherently finite.
Nonetheless, we all seek closure or cloture in our
theories, and institutional anthropologists must also
resist the tendency to proclaim their current understanding
as final.

What we do have need of identifying are the
objective data documenting that plant-based diets
are the fundamental basis for the development of
homo sapiens, and the artifactual evidence, if any,
that a diet based on raw foods is superior to
cooked food diets, even cooked vegan diets.

Those are the areas of distinction -
of difference and of dialogue.

Serious academicians should do no less
than work out the gestalt based on the
questions and the evidence.

Honest human beings need to keep those
questions openly in front of us.

The moral questions about the nature of the
human, whether or not there is anything
identifiable about human nature, and all the
rest - including theological questions -
need to beconstructively entered in hope
of discovering greater clarity on this issue.

However, in the last analysis, I would propose,
the majority of OUR contemporaries will judge
US by how closely OUR gestalt realistically
relates with theirs, and how they feel about
the subject matter.

Are these earlier human beings running around
nude really the foundation of human morality?
How do we understand human existence in
the broadest sense, and how does "hygienic"
or fruitarian anthropological theory correlate
with what these educated contemporaries
think as a matter of course, and with what
they are REQUIRED to believe based on
what they have seen and experienced?

        -        Maynard

Vegetarianism is a wonderful thing in many, many ways,
      but we need to constantly reconceptualize it.
 Therefore, we need high-quality ongoing dialogue.

=A91996 Maynard S. Clark
Vegetarian Pages - WWW site: http://www.veg.org/veg/