Author Topic: Are we meat eaters or vegetarians ?  (Read 25962 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

alphagruis

  • Guest
Re: Are we meat eaters or vegetarians ?
« Reply #75 on: November 02, 2009, 07:44:28 pm »
Yes indeed, living in settled communities certainly stimulated various kinds of creative work and promoted the invention of new survival strategies as compared to HGs.

I read this thread with great interest and it seems to me there are various forms of intelligence and intelligence is obviously not just a matter of diet but also for instance depends on the challenges we have to face.

As to the HGs lower birth-rate it was certainly a less "intelligent" choice in terms of immediate darwinian survival.

 But isn't it ironic that 10000 years or so later we in this forum must acknowledge that in many respect, in particular diet, HG's way of life was by far more "intelligent" that the agriculturist's one ?

Offline RawZi

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,052
  • Gender: Female
  • Need I say more?
    • View Profile
    • my twitter
Re: Are we meat eaters or vegetarians ?
« Reply #76 on: November 02, 2009, 08:12:25 pm »
I read this thread with great interest and it seems to me there are various forms of intelligence and intelligence is obviously not just a matter of diet but also for instance depends on the challenges we have to face.

 But isn't it ironic that 10000 years or so later we in this forum must acknowledge that in many respect, in particular diet, HG's way of life was by far more "intelligent" that the agriculturist's one ?

While vegetarian, part of the time most of what I ate was what I gathered and foraged.  I liked that, plus it made sense.  I still haven't hunted.  It would be great to have a hunting party, I guess.
"Genuine truth angers people in general because they don't know what to do with the energy generated by a glimpse of reality." Greg W. Goodwin

William

  • Guest
Re: Are we meat eaters or vegetarians ?
« Reply #77 on: November 02, 2009, 11:53:30 pm »
There seems to be an unwritten assumption that HGs for hundreds of thousands of years were too dull to choose to be anything else, and that their survival with low breeding rate was accidental.
Odd, because they did so choose, apparently when they deemed it necessary.

IMHO they could have invented the neolithic anytime, but saw no reason to do so until ~12,000 years ago.

William

  • Guest
Re: Are we meat eaters or vegetarians ?
« Reply #78 on: November 03, 2009, 08:11:24 am »
Not a valid comparison. The Inuit already have their own nation within Canada, unlike the Bushmen, and are far less primitive(for example, the Inuit hunters are described as using rifles nowadays). So, the fact that Inuit aren't far more prominent in Canadian universities by comparison to other groups is a solid sign that they don't have any such advantage.

They were very recently just as primitive as the Bushmen. An example of how far and how fast they have come is Leona Aglukkaq, federal Minister of Health, whose ancestors ate a higher proportion of fat meat than any Bushman
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/minist/index-eng.php

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Are we meat eaters or vegetarians ?
« Reply #79 on: November 03, 2009, 08:18:45 am »
Well, we shall have to agree to disagree on that. I certainly don't find that HGs have any kind of superior intelligence as, if that were the case, they would have dominated/devastated settled communities most of the time rather than the other way round. In short, higher intelligence gives one too great a competitive advantage, so either there is no difference in IQ or the more settled communities are brighter.
OK. If you're interested in how it is that Hunter Gatherers could possibly be more intelligent, on avg, than Neolithic people, I recommend Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond.

There seems to be an unwritten assumption that HGs for hundreds of thousands of years were too dull to choose to be anything else, and that their survival with low breeding rate was accidental.
Odd, because they did so choose, apparently when they deemed it necessary.

IMHO they could have invented the neolithic anytime, but saw no reason to do so until ~12,000 years ago.
Correct, William. Dr. Cordain and others have written about the Paleoanthropological and historical research that found that multiple societies tried Neolithic agriculture, didn't like it, and returned to hunting/gathering. The Lakota/Dakota/Nakota are a famous example in North America. When the Spanish brought horses to the continent, these First Nations peoples used them to hunt buffalo (bison) and thus return to the HG lifestyle that they had never forgotten and longed to return to.

Over the years as I've investigated the derogatory claims of Moderners (among whom I don't include Tyler, though he has cited research, opinions, etc. from this school of thought--which I am grateful for, actually, because he has provided a very useful counterpoint to posit my speculations and ramblings up against without having to deal with the really harsh critics like PETA-type folks) about the Stone Agers and HGs in general I've found that most of them are based on false assumptions, fictions, and falsehoods. Manthropology is just the latest compilation of revelations about the fallacies of the Moderners, revealing that the abilities of even recent HGs were superior in multiple ways to moderners. The usual knee-jerk response is to engage in ad hominem and claim that the scientist or layman who reports these phenomena is just promoting the "noble savage myth" or longs for a primitive utopia.

What never gets mentioned is that the critics (and their claims that others cite) are sometimes influenced by a utopianism of their own, often unbenownst to them, that infected academia decades ago, which is a sort of Utopian Progressivism. It's dogma is endless progress, man as machine, and the perfectability of man. That which is new is considered "improved," and that which is old is assumed inferior unless widely publicized mountains of evidence make it impossible to ignore the obvious. The dogma of endless progress is far, far, far more common than noble savage mythology (how else explain the endless advancement of "new and improved" technologies, foods and drugs, almost without restraint?). It claims to be scientific, but much of it's original source material comes from fictional or misguided sources like Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes and it seems built on scientific reductionism and consensus. Assumptions are rarely questioned; instead, the same old fallacies (such as "the diet-acne connection is an old wives' tale") and faulty studies (such as the bogus 1960s study that claimed to refute the diet-acne connection) get cited over and over again ad nauseum and then Modernism's defenders point to the piles of rehashed articles and say "See, there is a scientific consensus backed by the weight of the evidence," when in reality it all teeters precariously on one or two bogus studies or maybe some snippets of 17th century philosophy.

"But wait a minute," you say. "Hobbes was a Monarchist, not a Progressive." True, but some of his concepts made an impression on the masses and were misinterpreted and reshaped over time (such as the "nasty, brutish, and short" quip, which Hobbes used to describe agrarian Englishmen, but which was transformed into an archetype of the HG) eventually infecting academia and the Progressives, deep into their psyches like an invasive cancer, probably setting science back several centuries. Plus, some Progressives replaced the despotism of monarchy with a new form of despotism: an all-knowing Mother Culture led by a cultural elite that sought to "help" the "savages" and "underclasses" by "civilizing" them.

Luckily, there have been and are reformers amongst the Progressives and the academics who have recognized where things went wrong and have been shedding light on this, such as Margaret Meade, Richard Leakey, Daniel Quinn, Jared Diamond, Art De Vany, Boyd Eaton, Loren Cordain, Michael and Mary Eades, and Nicholas Taleb. These and other academics, intellectuals and Progressives put various pieces of the puzzle back together that make up the ancient storehouse of knowledge and experience: man is not perfectible, everything new is not necessarily improved, many of the assumptions on which current scientific consensus is based are faulty, and beginning around 10 thousands years ago there was a "Great Forgetting," as Quinn called it, about ancient knowledge that we have only begun to re-learn within the past century or so.

Assumptions are being questioned, studies re-examined, paradigms shifted, and we are witnessing the dawn of a scientific revolution. I call it The Great Remembering.

"But hold on!" you say. "You did what you criticized others for doing--engaged in ad hominem about Progressives." Not all Progressives. Many would call me one, actually (others might claim I'm a Positivist or Libertarian--I don't think I fit neatly into any philosophical or political slot at present). Notice also that I didn't single any one out and was careful to explain that I'm not including Tyler in my critique. It was more of a general critique of the basic school of thought that seems to underlie the source materials that critics of RPD and HGs have relied upon, based on an impression I've garnered from years of watching Paleo dieters and advocates get attacked. Notice that I instead singled out some Progressives and likeminded academics for praise. I hope that I've managed to critique the message and its underlying underpinnings more than the messengers.

One thing I also try to remember is that all variations of Paleo diets, raw diets, and low carb diets are regarded as heresy worthy of ridicule by the powers that be. Based on their criticisms, they apparently regard us all as idiots or devils to be straightened out or silenced. So I try to remember not to criticize too harshly folks from similar ways of eating, but like a dumb, dumb I sometimes forget. So I apologize to any such I have offended in the past, and proactively apologize to the folks in the future I will likely also offend when I let my words get ahead of my brain.

For ten thousand years we have been blinded by The Great Forgetting. The Great Remembering has only just begun. Imagine what amazing revelations await.

Good luck and good eating.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2009, 12:23:21 pm by PaleoPhil »
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

alphagruis

  • Guest
Re: Are we meat eaters or vegetarians ?
« Reply #80 on: November 03, 2009, 05:44:18 pm »
While vegetarian, part of the time most of what I ate was what I gathered and foraged.  I liked that, plus it made sense.  I still haven't hunted.  It would be great to have a hunting party, I guess.

Yes, gathering, hunting or fishing are fun in nice biotopes. Agriculture is (hard) work in dull landscapes :)
« Last Edit: November 03, 2009, 06:24:27 pm by alphagruis »

alphagruis

  • Guest
Re: Are we meat eaters or vegetarians ?
« Reply #81 on: November 03, 2009, 06:19:07 pm »

Assumptions are being questioned, studies re-examined, paradigms shifted, and we are witnessing the dawn of a scientific revolution. I call it The Great Remembering.


Very nice post, Phil

Progressivism is an ideology backed up by bad science that is by far more dangerous and misleading than noble savage utopianism and actually it is just utterly wrong . Good science is indeed witnessing a formidable revolution, even the most arrogant one, namely Physics, forced to abandon his traditionnal ambitious reductionist-constructionist program for a much more modest but very promising emergentist approach.   

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,004
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Are we meat eaters or vegetarians ?
« Reply #82 on: November 03, 2009, 07:30:39 pm »
OK. If you're interested in how it is that Hunter Gatherers could possibly be more intelligent, on avg, than Neolithic people, I recommend Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond.

I really don't see the point in reading Jared Diamond's book. I've already read numerous detailed reviews commenting on the various fatal flaws in his "geographical determinism" theory(which I gather is the main point of the book?). Simply put, I view the more dominant notion that events such as the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, among other aspects, helped fuel Eurasian dominance as being the correct one. There's just too much evidence in favour of the latter theory.

Quote
Luckily, there have been and are reformers amongst the Progressives and the academics who have recognized where things went wrong and have been shedding light on this, such as Margaret Meade, Richard Leakey, Daniel Quinn, Jared Diamond, Art De Vany, Boyd Eaton, Loren Cordain, Michael and Mary Eades, and Nicholas Taleb.
"

 I'm afraid Margaret Meade was exposed quite some time ago as a fraud by Derek Freeman in this seminal work:-

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fateful-Hoaxing-Margaret-Mead-Historical/dp/0813336937

Basically, she tried to portray Samoa as symptomatic of a libertarian society, when in fact Samoa was very puritannical in scope. The fraud was the biggest one in the field of anthropology, and it seems Meade had a nasty habit of just altering  the data to reflect her views.The word "Hoax"in the above book  is not the correct word to use , really, but Derek Freeman was probably more keen to just demolish Meade's dodgy claims rather than indulge in more serious, claims which might have taken years in the libel courts to be resolved.

Interesting mention of Daniel Quinn. Never heard of him before.


"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline RawZi

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,052
  • Gender: Female
  • Need I say more?
    • View Profile
    • my twitter
Re: Are we meat eaters or vegetarians ?
« Reply #83 on: November 04, 2009, 12:09:08 am »
Yes, gathering, hunting or fishing are fun in nice biotopes. Agriculture is (hard) work in dull landscapes :)

Yes :) also I think hunting would be better for good eyesight health than farming.
"Genuine truth angers people in general because they don't know what to do with the energy generated by a glimpse of reality." Greg W. Goodwin

William

  • Guest
Re: Are we meat eaters or vegetarians ?
« Reply #84 on: November 04, 2009, 12:41:01 am »
Yes :) also I think hunting would be better for good eyesight health than farming.

Carbs are poison for some growing eyes. Myopia for me, but there may be some improvement in eyesight while on raw zero carb.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,004
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Are we meat eaters or vegetarians ?
« Reply #85 on: November 04, 2009, 04:00:44 am »
Carbs are poison for some growing eyes. Myopia for me, but there may be some improvement in eyesight while on raw zero carb.

Well, not for me. Though there is scientific evidence linking myopia to consuming grains.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

alphagruis

  • Guest
Re: Are we meat eaters or vegetarians ?
« Reply #86 on: November 04, 2009, 04:37:21 am »
Yes :) also I think hunting would be better for good eyesight health than farming.

I agree, RawZi. And also the other way around: good eyesight health would be better for good hunting...

William, I eat some raw fruits and even sometimes honey and my eyesight is 20/20. Yet, you're right, carbs, in particular cooked ones, may damage the eyesight. Mercury poisoning from dental fillings is also an often overlooked culprit. 

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Are we meat eaters or vegetarians ?
« Reply #87 on: November 04, 2009, 08:51:43 am »
I really don't see the point in reading Jared Diamond's book. I've already read numerous detailed reviews commenting on the various fatal flaws in his "geographical determinism" theory....
I see, you've read his critics so you don't need to read his side of the story. OK.  ???

Quote
I'm afraid Margaret Meade was exposed quite some time ago as a fraud by Derek Freeman in this seminal work:-

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fateful-Hoaxing-Margaret-Mead-Historical/dp/0813336937
That's a good point and I'm glad I have you to bounce this off of. I hesitated to mention her, but did for historical reasons, as she was one of the early influential scientists to regard primitive culture as being able to make a contribution to modern Western society rather than just the reverse. It's been many years since I read some of her articles for school, but my understanding is that while her methods would not be practiced today and she made untrue claims about the Samoans, who I believe when they said she was wrong (historically, the word of so-called "primitive" peoples has tended to be more reliable than the scientists who studied them or the governments that interred them) and whose culture I find particularly fascinating, her influence is still regarded as important from a historical perspective and her work was not necessarily entirely misleading. However, if you feel that just the mention of her name is too distracting, similar to WAP, I may forego using it.

BTW, Freeman's views are also highly controversial and have been harshly criticized, but I don't want to get off track on a Mead vs. Freeman debate, since I have no dog in that hunt.

Quote
Basically, she tried to portray Samoa as symptomatic of a libertarian society,
Just an aside: I don't find portraying a society as libertarian to be an insult in today's world, perhaps because I am a former Libertarian and still libertarian-leaning. :D I assume you mean libertine.

Quote
when in fact Samoa was very puritannical in scope.
Hmm, now THAT I consider an insult of the Samoans, or of anyone else for that matter, unless they call themselves puritanical, and I suspect they have a variety of views on that, like any people. Frankly, I'd rather hear from the Samoan people themselves on this (and I don't mean one or two Evangelical Christian converts) and have little interest re: what Mead or Freeman said about whether Samoans were libertine or puritanical. Samoans have many English speakers now and modern communications, so we don't need to rely on anthropologists anymore in this matter.

Quote
Interesting mention of Daniel Quinn. Never heard of him before.
Read Ishmael.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2009, 09:23:46 am by PaleoPhil »
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,004
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Are we meat eaters or vegetarians ?
« Reply #88 on: November 04, 2009, 09:22:10 pm »
I see, you've read his critics so you don't need to read his side of the story. OK.  ???
I have read several attempts by Jared Diamond trying to counter the many valid criticisms made by his opponents. Since those attempts were extremely weak, I can only possibly conclude that reading his book would be a tragic waste of my time. If I read every book recommended to me, I would by now have wasted my life on such truly unreadable  authors as George Eliot, Jane Austen, or James Joyce etc., and we live in a time-poor environment these days so can't afford such luxuries.I'll try the Ishmael book, though.


Quote
That's a good point and I'm glad I have you to bounce this off of. I hesitated to mention her, but did for historical reasons, as she was one of the early influential scientists to regard primitive culture as being able to make a contribution to modern Western society rather than just the reverse. It's been many years since I read some of her articles for school, but my understanding is that while her methods would not be practiced today and she made untrue claims about the Samoans, who I believe when they said she was wrong (historically, the word of so-called "primitive" peoples has tended to be more reliable than the scientists who studied them or the governments that interred them) and whose culture I find particularly fascinating, her influence is still regarded as important from a historical perspective and her work was not necessarily entirely misleading. However, if you feel that just the mention of her name is too distracting, similar to WAP, I may forego using it.

BTW, Freeman's views are also highly controversial and have been harshly criticized, but I don't want to get off track on a Mead vs. Freeman debate, since I have no dog in that hunt.
Just an aside: I don't find portraying a society as libertarian to be an insult in today's world, perhaps because I am a former Libertarian and still libertarian-leaning. :D I assume you mean libertine

Given that Mead's ideas were considered part of Establishment doctrine, it took many years for Freeman's debunking to become accepted, but Freeman's debunking of Meade is  now almost universally accepted. As for Mead, it seems that the Samoan incident was not an isolated one. Basically, she tried to continuously  claim that HGs embodied all the things she wanted in modern society, and routinely altered evidence.

Quote
Just an aside: I don't find portraying a society as libertarian to be an insult in today's world, perhaps because I am a former Libertarian and still libertarian-leaning. :D I assume you mean libertine

I'm sorry, Liberals have hijacked the term "libertarian", I was merely inadvertently quoting from texts criticising Mead which used that term as well as the term "puritannical" to describe Samoan society. Perhaps I should have used the term "Marxist" instead of libertarian to describe Mead's views as that would have been more accurate.I have nothing against genuine libertarians.
Quote
Hmm, now THAT I consider an insult of the Samoans, or of anyone else for that matter, unless they call themselves puritanical, and I suspect they have a variety of views on that, like any people. Frankly, I'd rather hear from the Samoan people themselves on this (and I don't mean one or two Evangelical Christian converts) and have little interest re: what Mead or Freeman said about whether Samoans were libertine or puritanical. Samoans have many English speakers now and modern communications, so we don't need to rely on anthropologists anymore in this matter.

At the time, Samoan women lived in restricted circumstances, with women being tested to see if they were virgins before marriage, and the like.You're right, though, "puritannical" is too judgemental a word.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2009, 11:21:21 pm by TylerDurden »
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Are we meat eaters or vegetarians ?
« Reply #89 on: November 05, 2009, 07:40:49 am »
I'll try the Ishmael book, though.
Good choice. I see Ishmael as essential reading, but not so much Guns, Germs and Steel. My guess is you'll disagree with Quinn on a lot of stuff too, but he does a good job of summarizing some key points from the rarely heard perspective that much of what is new is not improved and he does it in a more readable way than Diamond and other academics. In my experience people have tended to either love Ishmael or hate it, with far more in the former camp. His other books are less impressive.

Quote
Given that Mead's ideas were considered part of Establishment doctrine, it took many years for Freeman's debunking to become accepted, but Freeman's debunking of Meade is  now almost universally accepted.
Well, I'll take your word for it, because I only read one or two articles on it years ago and am not up-to-date on the controversy. Thanks for the heads up.

Quote
I'm sorry, Liberals have hijacked the term "libertarian", I was merely inadvertently quoting from texts criticising Mead which used that term as well as the term "puritannical" to describe Samoan society.
No prob. I'm a bit skeptical of any source that views "libertarian" as an insult and "puritanical" as praise. I'd at least want to get opinions from other perspectives, if I were investigating it.
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

Offline RawpaleoHealthdiet

  • Scavenger
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Are we meat eaters or vegetarians ?
« Reply #90 on: November 05, 2009, 07:51:20 am »
 the body is made for meat. Our instistnes are short like a dogs, our teeth have enamel and cannot normally regrow after you become an adult. Cows and horses continually grow teeth ans all they eat is vegetable matter and herbs.
The stomach is also acidic, this is needed to digest meat. meat digests in an acid environment, vegetables require alkine(sp) environments.

We are carnivores with the ability to digest all foods.
Twitter.com/healthdiets

My blog
http://freedomforcreation.posterous.com/

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Are we meat eaters or vegetarians ?
« Reply #91 on: November 05, 2009, 08:28:15 am »
the body is made for meat. Our instistnes are short like a dogs, our teeth have enamel and cannot normally regrow after you become an adult. Cows and horses continually grow teeth ans all they eat is vegetable matter and herbs.
The stomach is also acidic, this is needed to digest meat. meat digests in an acid environment, vegetables require alkine(sp) environments.

We are carnivores with the ability to digest all foods.

I would clarify one thing: herbivore teeth have enamel too, but tend to have rough surfaces spiked with ridges of enamel (lophs), whereas carnivorous enamel is uniform.
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,004
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Are we meat eaters or vegetarians ?
« Reply #92 on: November 05, 2009, 05:49:18 pm »
I've heard every pro-vegan and pro-carnivore argument re our digestive system, and both camps are wrong. Humans are omnivores, there are so many anomalies(for example, there's the ability to digest starch in humans re the enzyme amylase etc.

Here's a pro-vegan stance:-

http://www.celestialhealing.net/physicalveg3.htm

Here's a standard pro-omnivore page:-

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may2000/959372412.Ot.r.html
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk