---
Don and Rachel Matesz <[log in to unmask]>
Next Generation Nutrition. (419) 476-2967
----------
Hans Kylberg wrote:
>
>When swimming (in the Baltic) today I managed to catch a small
>(length around 40 mm) living fish. I ate it live, chewing the
>still rattling fish. I worked and tasted quite good except the
>bones and fins that had to be chewed some extra time. Maybee
>I should have swallowed it without chewing, to make it real
>live food eating :-)
>
Good work Hans!
I agree with Wade Reeser's comments on the "near vegetarians" of Asia and
have something to add. First, the idea that all those monks are near
vegetarians is a load of grits. An American Zen teacher who trained for
many years in Japan wrote extensively detailing the copious consumption of
meat by Japanese and South East Asian Buddhist monks--but you don't have to
believe me, read it in Roshi Philip Kapleau's book To Cherish All Life.
Basically those monks are told to eat whatever is offered to them by
devotees, and generally the devotees offer meat...and lots of it. I have
formerly vegetarian friends who have lived in Japan and they found it was
very difficult to find vegetarian food there, almost everything is prepared
with fish, or fish stock. The Japanese think vegetarianism is strage or
deviant...Koreans think the same.
I studied Chinese medicine at a school in the U.S. Many of the faculty were
from mainland China. From one of them I learned that the monks there who do
eat "near vegetarian" are very sickly--he knew because when he was in China,
he was called upon by them for medical help! Further, most traditional
Chinese medical texts look with great disfavor upon vegetarianism, stating
that it damages the digestive, reproductive and immune systems.
Last but not least on this topic, I simply do not agree that those Asian
"masters" are spiritually more advanced than anyone else, least of all
Chief Seattle, who I have quoted elsewhere on this record today. Those guys
are infamous for their unwholesome sexual escapades and some have even been
responsible for spreading AIDS to their students (Trugpa). How spiritual is
that? You just have to get over the hierarchical view of people and the
universe that is part of the agricultural mindset, which sets the gurus
above the people, and people above animals etc. This is an egalitarian
universe, Mac, get with it. We all bite the dust the same as the rest.
We're all just specks of sand in an immense beach. The problem with
agricultrual man is that he thinks he owns the fricken universe and can bend
it to his will because he thinks he is "spiritually" more advanced than the
crickets. BS!
>>There is a history of long lived people in Japan
>>and their nation was built on rice. Mostly
>>whole rice and other whole grains.
Wrong again. Go to Asia and try to get your hands on some brown rice. It
is very diffcult. They prefer white rice and they think you're weird if you
want brown rice.
Wade wrote: The longest lived people [in Japan] are from Okinawa who eat
the MOST meat.
Again I agree with Wade's remark and will add that there is no evidence that
the Asians have flourished on a grain based diet. The Japanese eat a
seafood based diet. The Koreans eat a lot of meat. Most of the Chinese are
sick as dogs--their teeth are bad and they have high rates of diseases of
poverty that all can be traced to inadequate diets.
Also, the beginning of agriculture was the beginning of totalitarian
political arrangements, communism, slavery, etc.
It is true that, as Wade wrote, warfare was more sport for the hunter
gatherer as they didn't
seem to think of land in terms of ownership. In fact, it was the
developemnt
of agriculture that led to the concept of land ownership and fighting to
protector take others. Plus, warring between tribes gave each tribe
incentive to control its population growth.
>
>I believe that the average lifespan at the turn of the century in America
>was about
>45 years. This is about the same age for paleolithic man. The primary
>increases
>for modern man rely on a reduction of death during childbirth, infant
>mortality,
>infectious disease and violent death ('unnatural'). At the very least, it
>seems that
>they (hunter gatherers) had it no worse.
Wade, very good point!
>
Now let me add these things: Someone took issue with my statement that
carrots are virtually indigestible for humans, stating that it was not so
for him (her? sorry I don't have the original). Please show me a single
piece of evidence indicating that some humans can digest cellulose, a.k.a.
fiber. The fact that the stuff passes through you without you noticing
discomfort does not mean that you actually digested it or got anything
significant out of it.
Funny how no one would think that some lions do fine on vegetarian diets,
some not. It is easily accepted by all that all lions are one kind
(species) and therefore all have the same natural diet. But when we get to
discussing humans, also all one kind, suddenly the laws of nature are
suspended, and within this one species we are told there are variations that
are on the order of species differences, i.e. some humans are 'suited' to
vegetarianism, like cows, but some are suited to carnivory, like lions.
All of this is a bunch of hogwash. All humans have the same basic
gastrointestinal constitution and none can digest cellulose.
Last: All this argument about the ecology of diet has so far failed to note
the most important point. Prior to the adoption of agriculture, the world
total human population was only 5 to 10 million--fewer than today inhabit
Tokyo or NYC. How can anyone in his right mind believe that 5 to 10 million
hunter gatherers are more stress on the environment than 5 to 10 billion
agriculturalists? And what has enabled man to so monopolize and by sheer
numbers practically destroy the planet? AGRICULTURE AND NEAR VEGETARIAN
DIETS.
Check it out. The first population explosion occured with the adoption of
agriculture and grain based diets. Rates of population growth are now and
for a long time have been highest in the most vegetarian nations eating
grain based diets. Today, population stability and decline are facts in
Germany and Japan, two highly carnivorous nations, where the government RDAs
for protein are significantly higher than the USRDAs for protein; meanwhile
the vegetarian Indians eating low protein grain based diets are still
multiplying like rabbits, and the US may not be far behind if people are
finally convinced to buy totally into the USDA Pyramid scheme.
The reason? People who eat like a rabbits, multiply like rabbits
(profusely), people who eat like lions, multiply like lions (sparingly). The
!kung women average only four live births per reproductive lifetime;
agricultural Hutterites in America average 11 children per reproductive
lifetime. This is due to the fact that a high carbohydrate diet increases
body fat levels and hence fertility, even if calories are meager. Keckwick
and Pawan showed that people can put on fat on 1000 calories per day if 90%
of those calories are carbohydrate--and grains on average supply 90% of
their calories as carbohydrate. All agricultural societies encourage "be
fruitful and multiply", value human lives above all non-human lives, and
have always called it "right" to exterminate non-humans to make room for
humans, and "wrong" to control human reproduction.
Today I even read ass-inine comments by vegetarians to the effect that if we
all abandon eating meat, the Earth could support "several times its current
human population." That's totally false but if it were true, who'd want
to live in a world populated only by humans and rice?
The population problem is the real environmental issue and high carbohydrate
vegetarian diets clearly are the nutritional cause for that problem. To
solve this problem we have to reduce human fertility, and to do that we have
to lose body fat, and to do that, we have to get off our agricultural duffs,
work out hard, and eat a lot less carbs and a lot more meat.
If you think huge numbers of people living low tech lives on nearly
vegetarian diets are ecologically benign, take a trip to China or India.
You are in for a rude awakening.
That's all for now, gotta go.
Don Matesz
|
