On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 11:25:42 -0700, Ken Stuart <[log in to unmask]> wrote: I wrote: >>At last meat "industry" is it who IMO changed animal eating to the worse in >>two aspects >>1. from: the challenge of hunting and the conscious decision "you or me" >> with some holy respect for the prey >> to: just go to the supermarket, buy meat with the only limitation of >> money, and have others do what now are cruelties Ken: >While this sounds romantic, it is not very rational. You question my point 1. My point 2 (meat quality) could well be headed for in a modern humanity as long as not too much has to be "produced" (after all we are going to call ourself hunan-ity). My "romantic" point - i agree - it is in some way. How paleo-hunters got their food - could be a more appropiate way to deal with other creatures' lifes. But also meat quality is involved. Animals in a slaughterhouse have a very long stress -with its effect on meat ingredients- probably longer as the "normal" stress (or shock) an animal captured by a lion (or arrow) has. It has implications for nutrition too, if the only effort is to go to a supermarket and queue up to get unlimited amounts of food (not only meat)? In a nature community there has to be luck as well (more for prey as for plants which don't run). This would imply days of fasting from time to time, i presume. >If you apply this same reasoning, we should be: > >- Growing, felling, and stripping our own trees to build our own houses. >- Digging our own well for water (severely limits possible housing >locations - >my well is 150 feet deep!) I think you can totally exclude houses and wells from a paleolithic lifestyle. Hunting and gathering people *have to* move around a lot, because the area one person depends on is so big. This leaves only very limited kinds of shelters. Having a fixed house is a neolithic acquirement, one of the best advantages of Linearband people meeting mesolithic h/g populations (in temperate climates). I must say I really see improvements from paleolithicum to Linearband. What have houses to do with nutrition? Honestly , at first i thought nothing. But well, houses make storing food possible, first-time out of the arctis. Houses make pottery possible. Make cooking (in water) possible. Make keeping a permanent fire possible. Axes for felling trees? Probably neolithic too - for fire and for houses (I'll consult my books). >etc. etc. >Clearly, electronics is impossible if you apply this concept, so we would >not be >discussing this ! ... >For civilization to occur, you must have specialization, ie computer makers >supply your computer, book publishers supply your books, and food makers >supply your food. Why not? What we are heading for here - thinking about a nutrition which is in best accordance with our genes. This needn't be *beeing* naked with a stick and a stone. Just within the food limits this would imply. >Within that framework, the specific matter of animal cruelty in the meat >industry can be addressed (and it is) .. I hope so. Ken, I think it would be the wrong way just no negate all achievements from neolithicum to now. There *is* progress (too). Much is so beneficial and essential. Just for sake of mass production and short term thinking so much has been deteriorated, first of all the food. I should be possible to live in a modern world, humanly, progressing and conscious about the things involved with it. Including the several "industries". cheers Amadeus. (I'm a computer man, still with fun - after 20 years)