View Single Post
  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

"ant and dec" > wrote in message ...
> Martin Willett wrote:

<..>
> If mankind
> > was herbivorous we'd never have become intelligent and socially
> > cooperative, we'd just be living like gorillas. Like it or not meat was
> > a vital part of what has made us human. But of course a was doesn't make
> > an ought.

>
> I agree meat was an important part of out human evolution.


'It has long been held that big game hunting is THE key development
in human evolutionary history, facilitating the appearance of patterns
in reproduction, social organization, and life history fundamental to
the modern human condition. Though this view has been challenged
strongly in recent years, it persists as the conventional wisdom, largely
for lack of a plausible alternative. Recent research on women's time
allocation and food sharing among tropical hunter-gatherers now
provides the basis for such an alternative.

The problem with big game hunting

The appeal of big game hunting as an important evolutionary force
lies in the common assumption that hunting and related paternal
provisioning are essential to child rearing among human foragers:
mother is seen as unable to bear, feed and raise children on her
own; hence relies on husband/father for critical nutritional support,
especially in the form of meat. This makes dating the first appearance
of this pattern the fundamental problem in human origins research.
The common association between stone tools and the bones of
large animals at sites of Pleistocene age suggests to many that it
may be quite old, possibly originating with Homo erectus nearly
two million years ago (e.g. Gowlett 1993).

Despite its widespread acceptance, there are good reasons to be
skeptical about the underlying assumption. Most important is the
observation that big game hunting is actually a poor way to support
a family. Among the Tanzanian Hadza, for example, men armed
with bows and poisoned arrows operating in a game-rich habitat
acquire large animal prey only about once every thirty hunter-days,
not nearly often enough to feed their children effectively. They
could do better as provisioners by taking small game or plant foods,
yet choose not to, which suggests that big game hunting serves some
other purpose unrelated to offspring survivorship (Hawkes et al. 1991).
Whatever it is, reliable support for children must come from elsewhere.

The importance of women's foraging and food sharing

Recent research on Hadza time allocation and foraging returns
shows that at least among these low latitude foragers, women's
gathering is the source (Hawkes et al. 1997). The most difficult time
of the year for the Hadza is the dry season, when foods younger
children can procure for themselves are unavailable. Mothers respond
by provisioning youngsters with foods they themselves can procure
daily and at relatively high rates, but that their children cannot, largely
because of handling requirements. Tubers, which require substantial
upper body strength and endurance to collect and the ability to
control fire in processing, are a good example.

Provisioning of this sort has at least two important implications:
1) it allows the Hadza to operate in times and places where they
otherwise could not if, as among other primates, weaned offspring
were responsible for feeding themselves; 2) it lets another adult
assist in the process allowing mother to turn her attention to the
next pregnancy that much sooner. Quantitative data on time
allocation, foraging returns, and changes in children's nutritional
status indicate that, among the Hadza, that other adult is typically
grandmother. Senior Hadza women forage long hours every day,
enjoy high returns for effort, and provision their grandchildren
effectively, especially when their daughters are nursing new infants
(Hawkes et al. 1989, 1997). Their support is crucial to both
daughters' fecundity and grandchildren's survivorship, with
important implications for grandmothers' own fitness.
....
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt.../oconnell.html

'Ethnographic parallels with modern hunter-gatherer communities have
been taken to show that the colder the climate, the greater the reliance
on meat. There are sound biological and economic reasons for this, not
least in the ready availability of large amounts of fat in arctic mammals.
From this, it has been deduced that the humans of the glacial periods
were primarily hunters, while plant foods were more important during
the interglacials. '
http://www.phancocks.pwp.blueyonder..../devensian.htm

'Anthropologically speaking, humans were high consumers of calcium
until the onset of the Agricultural Age, 10,000 years ago. Current
calcium intake is one-quarter to one-third that of our evolutionary diet
and, if we are genetically identical to the Late Paleolithic Homo sapiens,
we may be consuming a calcium-deficient diet our bodies cannot adjust
to by physiologic mechanisms.

The anthropological approach says, with the exception of a few small
changes related to genetic blood diseases, that humans are basically
identical biologically and medically to the hunter-gatherers of the late
Paleolithic Era.17 During this period, calcium content of the diet was
much higher than it is currently. Depending on the ratio of animal to
plant foods, calcium intake could have exceeded 2000 mg per day.17
Calcium was largely derived from wild plants, which had a very high
calcium content; animal protein played a small role, and the use of dairy
products did not come into play until the Agricultural Age 10,000 years
ago. Compared to the current intake of approximately 500 mg per day
for women age 20 and over in the United States,18 hunter-gatherers had
a significantly higher calcium intake and apparently much stronger bones.
As late as 12,000 years ago, Stone Age hunters had an average of
17-percent more bone density (as measured by humeral cortical
thickness). Bone density also appeared to be stable over time with
an apparent absence of osteoporosis.17

High levels of calcium excretion via renal losses are seen with both
high salt and high protein diets, in each case at levels common in the
United States.10,11
..
The only hunter-gatherers that seemed to fall prey to bone loss
were the aboriginal Inuit (Eskimos). Although their physical
activity level was high, their osteoporosis incidence exceeded
even present-day levels in the United States. The Inuit diet was
high in phosphorus and protein and low in calcium.20
...'
http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/full...alcium4-2.html

"..... Man appears to be formed to nourish himself chiefly on roots,
fruits and the succulent parts of vegetables. His hands make it easy
for him to gather them; the shortness and moderate strength of his
jaws, the equal length of his canine teeth with the others, and the
tubular character of his molars, permit him neither to graze, nor to
devour flesh, unless such food is first prepared by cooking."
-- Cuvier, Regne Animal, Vol 1, p73

After a careful and exhaustive study into comparative anatomy,
European scientist, Dr. Richard Lehne came to the conclusion,

"Quite apart from the physiological findings of nutritional science,
which perpetually alter and are always in an unsettled form,
comparative anatomy proves - and is supported by the millions-
of-years-old documents of palaeozoology - that human teeth in
their ideal form have a purely frugivorous character."
...'
http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201...air/asthma.htm