----- 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