----- Original Message ----- > So treating animals ethically is NOT a part of the paleolithic philosophy? > If true, many Indians and I beg to differ. I don't think we can know what "ethical" meant to a paleo person, but I'm going to try to keep this message at least semi on-topic by referring to a message Sean posted about 3 weeks ago in which he quoted a passage about Aborigines leaving lie the animals they killed but chose not to eat (for their lack of fat). It struck me at the time that maybe h/g's aren't necessarily quite the stewards of nature we tend to think. *IF* Aborigines of the last couple of hundred years or so are representative of their ancestral habits or of habits of paleo h/g's in general, then it's an over-romanticization to believe that they (or anyone else) never took more out of nature than what they could use. While many cultures/societies are noted for fervent worship of nature, it doesn't necessarily follow that they conserve it to the utmost. I'm not making an indictment here, for it's not really very logical to apply modern sensibilities to peoples of the past. As far as inflicting pain on animals, I imagine Masai cows don't willingly volunteer to have their jugular punctured time and time again. Late last night I was reading an authentic medieval recipe on how to roast a goose ALIVE so that it still had barely enough life to scream when the limbs were wrenched off at the table. Talk about rare meat. I was absolutely gut-wrenchingly horrified that such would ever be done to a poor bird (I love birds, have several as pets.), but when I think about it I suppose that culinary act is not too far removed from dunking a live lobster in boiling water. The most I can hope for when I eat is that the animal suffered as little as possible. Theola