>Kirt wrote:
>>I understand completely, believe me. Notice you said the _thought_. It's a
>>learned revulsion not shared by little kids, but taught to them over time...
NFL
>Kirt, where do you get this stuff? Harvey Diamond said it best, "Give an
>infant an apple and a bunny-rabbit. I'll buy you a mansion if the infant
>eats the bunny and plays with the apple."
Funny you should mention that quote. I just mentioned it myself in my
contribution to the Dec. M2M. It may well be that the baby does play with
the apple (probably hasn't the teeth to much else with it). And if loving
parents offered the baby slices of the rabbit flesh (and/or kidneys, brain,
liver, etc.) I wouldn't be surprised if the baby was attracted to one or
more of them and ate them with relish (especially if the breast-feeding
mother was following your recommendation of a 90% fruit diet, since her
milk may be deficient in many minerals, lipids, and other important
nutrients).
Harvey Diamond's oft-quoted line is "common sense" at its worst, IMHO. Wild
chimp youngsters beg (BEG!) for animal foods. Does this tell you animal
foods are unimportant for chimps, that chimps are "perverted", or that you
are superior in some way to the chimp because you eat fruit bred for many
generations to be sweeter and juicier and less fiberous than the fruit that
wild chimps eat? Or does it tell you that there may indeed be something
useful to chimps in animal foods?
I am assuming you have never seen young human children eat raw animal foods
without the least trepidation; indeed, with relish. It happens, and no
tragedy befalls them. Indeed, they grow true and strong.
Kirt:
>>Egg yolks, in particular, seem to me an ideal baby food...
>What???!!!
I meant to say, "Egg yolks, in particular, seem to me an ideal baby
food..." Assuming you really meant to say "Why???!!!" the following reasons
come to mind:
1] Egg yolks are highly nutritious by analysis.
2] Egg yolks from relatively naturally-raised chickens and ducks are
available in many parts of the country commercially.
3] Egg yolks are available to those who raise their own food--ie scratch
chickens are among the domesticated animals which are the easiest to raise,
providing both eggs and later meat and organ foods.
4] Eggs keep over a long period of time, relative to most fresh fruits,
some fresh veggies, and many animal foods. Indeed, they often taste even
better after aging. Further, the yolks can be dried (crack the eggs, pour
off the white, and let the yolk rest in one half of the egg shell open to
the air in front of a fan) extremely easily for adult consumption or saved
for when the youngster has more teeth.
5] The texture of fresh egg yolks lends itself to spoon feeding.
6] The single egg is a nice size: if the baby has no taste for the yolk
offered only one egg is wasted (unless it is subsequently dried or eaten by
another member of the family) and may be kept for the next meal's testing.
7] Eggs have been on the mammalian menu for a very very long time, since a]
the avian and reptilian species were established, respectively, before and
concurrently to the mammals, and b] we find a huge variety of mammals
(incl. most primates) relishing eggs in the wild, and c] raw eggs will
interact with our sense of taste and smell synergistically in such a way
that if the infant (or adult) has need for them and their powerhouse of
nutrients, they will taste very pleasant (turning unpleasant when the need
is filled; similarly if there is no need at that moment for egg yolks, they
will not be attractive to smell and taste. We are perhaps even better
adapted to insects (since our ancestors were eating them well before they
were eating fruits, and chimps among other primates prize them highly) but
I don't really want to test the limits of your ability to use punctuation
marks.
>>And a baby's instinct will let the mother know if the yolks will be useful
>>or not, as it would with shellfish, lamb, bone marrow, etc.
>Just how does a human baby go about getting a shellfish in Nature?
The mother, father, sibling, or other member of the kinship tribe offers it
to them in the same way the baby is offered the breast, premasticated
vegetable or fruit, or soft foods like many fruits, most animal foods, or,
unfortunately many varieties of denatured foods which fill the shelves of
our supermarkets. Your question seems to imply that an infant left alone in
the wild would eat a natural diet. I suspect the infant would simply die
after a time.
Nature with a capital N, eh? I'm a big fan of nature too, and consider my
own human nature a part of the much grander scheme you probably refer to as
Nature. You may do well to seriously study or research the natural world,
and the anthropologists, biochemists, etc. who have many lessons for you
regarding Nature. You may discover that in swallowing the ideas of TC Fry
and others of his ilk, you have, along with a certain amount of nutriment,
consumed much cardboard filler.
Nature is a lot of things, but it is NOT your (or mine, for that matter)
ideas about it. I know that my ideas are not the Truth about Nature, and I
continually try to correct my mistaken ideas, a process which has led me
through the thoughts, words, and deeds of TC Fry, and the other brands of
Natural Hygiene. Finding NH seriously false-to-facts on some very important
matters, I have explored information regarding wild and captive primates,
the scant evidence which exists regarding human evolution and Paleolithic
life, the research concerning recent hunter-gatherer cultures, and the
experience of those who are now eating raw animal foods as well as raw
plant foods. I have been a de facto fruitarian, vegetarian, as well as a
sad example of the Standard American Diet earlier on. None of them compare
to my experience as an instincto eating a wide variety of animal and plant
foods. For the last several years I have been seriously questioning the
flaws, some of them very serious, with the ideas/dogma of instincto. I
haven't a guess where this will lead but know full well that I will die
without knowing the Truth about Nature. I have just found new questions
along the way.
You, on the other hand, have eaten a lot of fruit for several months and
are sure that you know the Truth about Nature. It may be that Nature's
First Law is not that "cooked food is poison", but that "nature is what
ideas are not, so be awfully careful about your proclamations". Your
attitude frustrates me in that you seem to have already found The Answer
and have apparently closed your mind to any information which doesn't
comply with your IDEAS about Nature. Further, you are rude. As I tried to
tell you when we met, there have been many people who have eaten an all-raw
high fruit diet, and like you, thought they had found the secret of life.
After the months and years roll by, they found their health slowly
deteriorating. Many of them convinced themselves that they simply needed to
never make any exceptions, eat even more fruit, fast more, work less, etc.
and everything would be alright. I suspect your idol TC Fry was one such
person, and in the final months of his life he goes and gets ozone
treatments, completely forsaking his life's work, and I'll bet a buck two
eighty that you think TC died because of the ozone treatments or his
exceptions, etc. etc. (It may be that his exceptions were the only thing
that kept him from falling apart earlier than he did!) Whatever you think,
I'll bet it does not include questioning the utility or effectiveness of
high-fruit, all-raw, diet.
There are other long time rawists, many of them on this list, who had the
integrity and intelligence to break out of the destructive mind-set of a
high-fruit diet and continue questioning. I wonder if you will be among
them someday. If so, you will look back in sadness and regret regarding
your present attitude and ignorance, displayed full force in your book, and
to a lessor degree in your contentless posts to veg-raw.
>And we used to think that Wacko-biotics advocates were really out there!
It has been pointed out to me that engaging in dialogue with you may only
help you sell your unreadable (to me at least) book. I think this is valid
to a degree, so unless your next attack has some sort of substance, and
unless you sign the post with a name, I'm going to give you the last word
by not responding. I said to you in a private email that you don't get what
veg-raw is all about, and you continue to prove it.
Reading over this post I realize that I have written barbs of the nature I
am criticizing you for and am tempted to edit them out, but I've already
wasted too much time on this post. This reinforces my decision not to
respond to you anymore unless you post with content and at least some
decorum, and perhaps even then I'll let someone else reply.
Cheers,
Kirt
|
