Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2005, 12:44 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

Martin Willett wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 10:09:59 +0000, Martin Willett
wrote:

[...]

We detect the sin of hypocrisy, which for our species seems to be the
ultimate sin.




· Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive
if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever
we think about the fact that the animals are going to be
killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part of their
life by being raised for food, but instead they are experiencing
whatever life they get as a result of it. ·


This is ****wit's own unique and turgid restatement of
the (Il)Logic of the Larder, a nonsense to which he
subscribes.



Eating animals and yet asking not to be eaten ourselves on the
grounds that we are sentient animals strikes us as in some way a form
of hypocrisy. It probably is. So what? Is hypocrisy the ultimate sin
recognized by all sentient lifeforms everywhere? If if it then surely
acting like hypocrites would make us less attractive dinner table
fare, wouldn't it? We would be less likely to eat a “sinful” species
that ate dung and its own young than one that just ate grass, hung
around in fields and went moo. Acting like hypocrites would make us
appear less tasty and nutritious.




Maybe they'd kill us as vermin.


Acting like hypocrites is probably a good survival strategy. Do we
eat “wicked” weasels, hyaenas, snakes and tapeworms in preference to
“noble” animals like deer and salmon?
Which species do we refuse to eat on moral grounds?




Human.


Unless we really need to.


In western civilization, there is a strong repulsion to
eating human corpses, even when necessary to survive.
However, no western society condones *killing* humans
for food even for survival.




Do we avoid eating all peaceful herbivores? Hardly! In fact if we can
see any patterns at all here it is that the more animals an animal
eats the less likely it is we will want to eat it ourselves. The only
carnivorous species that we eat on a regular basis are fish, animals
that some people who call themselves vegetarians even try to redefine
as some sort of vegetable. I've news for you veggies, haddock are
animals that eat other animals, being cold bloodied, small-eyed and
ugly doesn't change anything, fish are not vegetables. If you eat
fish you cannot be a vegetarian.

We prefer to eat peaceful herbivores, we actively give preference to
those animals that eat a 100% pure vegetarian diet of grass. Why do
we assume that aliens will prefer to eat old, evil, bitter, twisted
and hypocritical animals like us rather than the nice innocent tender
baa lambs that we like to eat? It doesn't make the slightest bit of
sense.

Why don't we eat carnivorous animals?

There is no reason why we don't eat carnivorous animals apart from
the fact that they are too expensive to farm economically. When dogs
are raised to be eaten they are not fed on meat, they are given the
cheapest food that will do the job, usually grain, vegetables and
kitchen scraps, just like pigs.




Pigs are omnivores. I'm not even sure if they can digest celulose,
but I doubt it. Chickens are omnivores. And it's the omnivores like
chicken, turkey and pork that can really screw you up if you eat it
undercooked. I'm guessing because of similarity in digestive systems
or something like that, but never have heard anyone say anything
about it.



Cows can't digest cellulose either. That seems to be rather good proof
that if there is a god he's probably not the smartest god he could
possibly be.


  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2005, 12:47 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Martin Willett
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

S. Maizlich wrote:


It is UNDISPUTED by evolutionary biologists that meat played an
indispensable role in human evolution. Meat's role was both direct and
indirect. The direct role was in providing the massive amount of
protein needed for brain development. The indirect role is as an
organizing principle of human activity.


The organizational role is absolutely critical. There is no reason for a
vegetarian species to develop sophisticated communication because they
don't have anything sophisticated to communicate. Fruits and tubers
don't require teamwork or sophisticated tools to subdue, but our
ancestors brought down mammoths, give them some respect.

Belittling the role of meat and hunting in evolution is as much
pseudo-science as creationism is. The collection of snippets of research
here and there that seem to offer some suggestion of support for a pre
decided stance is the antithesis of the scientific method.

Human evolution required meat eating and hunting. That is not to say
that man was ever exclusively carnivorous, the only largely carnivorous
hominid was /Homo neanderthalensis/, who was almost as carnivorous as a
polar bear. But as far as anybody can tell all our direct ancestors were
omnivorous but more carnivorous than modern chimpanzees and that change
in diet was significant for the development of larger brains both in
allowing expansion and requiring it.


--
Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org
  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2005, 10:34 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
ant and dec
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

ant and dec wrote:
Martin Willett wrote:

snip


I like the cut of your jib.

(In case you're not familiar with that phrase I'm sure the origin is
nautical and has nothing to do with butchery.)

I think I have just worked out a new moral principle that is better
than the not eating anything smarter than a pig principle but also has
the same virtue of not making me change my ways and not painting me as
a hypocrite in the front of ravenous aliens: I'll not kill or
contribute to the death of any animal for food purposes /if that
animal is clearly capable of making a moral choice/, unless they have
given me explicit permission.


What prompted this rethink?

Your lack of response in other threads in interesting. - Perhaps you're
more suited to 'debating' with a sycophant.


You do have a right to remain silent, but that does leave people to
draw their own conclusions.



What difference does the ability to make a moral choice have on your
want to kill and eat a species?

Do you *know* that a pig can not differentiate between right and wrong?

  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2005, 01:23 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

"Leif Erikson" wrote in message k.net...
ant and dec wrote:

S. Maizlich wrote:

ant and dec wrote:

pearl wrote:

..
Proc Biol Sci. 1998 Oct 22;265(1409):1933-7.
Visual specialization and brain evolution in primates.
Barton RA.
Department of Anthropology, University of Durham, UK.

Several theories have been proposed to explain the evolution of
species differences in brain size, but no consensus has emerged.
One unresolved question is whether brain size differences are a
result of neural specializations or of biological constraints
affecting the whole brain. Here I show that, among primates,
brain size variation is associated with visual specialization.
Primates with large brains for their body size have relatively
expanded visual brain areas, including the primary visual cortex
and lateral geniculate nucleus. Within the visual system, it is, in
particular, one functionally specialized pathway upon which
selection has acted: evolutionary changes in the number of
neurons in parvocellular, but not magnocellular, layers of the
lateral geniculate nucleus are correlated with changes in both
brain size and ecological variables (diet and social group size).
Given the known functions of the parvocellular pathway, these
results suggest that the relatively large brains of frugivorous
species are products of selection on the ability to perceive
and select fruits using specific visual cues such as colour.
The separate correlation between group size and visual brain
evolution, on the other hand, may indicate the visual basis of
social information processing in the primate brain.

PMID: 9821360 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

Thanks again.


My pleasure. Thanks for bringing it up. The "Christmas
Lecture" on Ch5 is frankly driving me up the wall. grrr.

I have moved my position on whether meat had a major part to play in
human evolution. I will read more, but on balance there seems little
evidence to support that it did.


Apart from helping humans survive times of scarcity, ..no.

'The historical role of meat in human diets has probably varied
significantly, as Jared Diamond, who is an authority on human
evolution, points out:

..... while early humans ate some meat, we do not know how
much meat they ate, nor whether they got the meat by hunting
or scavenging. It is not until much later, around 100,000 years
ago, that we have good evidence about human hunting skills,
and it is clear that humans then were still very ineffective
big-game hunters. Human hunters of 500,000 years ago and
earlier must have been more ineffective.
.....
Western male writers and anthropologists are not the only men
with an exaggerated view of hunting. In New Guinea I have lived
with real hunters, men who recently emerged from the stone age.
..... To listen to my New Guinea friends, you would think that
they eat fresh kangaroo for dinner every night and do little each
day except hunt. In fact, when pressed for details, most New
Guinea hunters admit that they have bagged only a few
kangaroos in their whole life.
The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpazee, Jared Diamond, 1991,
pp.33-34

In The Origin of Humankind, Richard Leakey mentions Lewis
Binford, who suggested that systematic hunting of any kind
began to appear only when modern humans evolved, giving
dates of 45,000 to 38,000 years ago.

(We now know that modern humans were roaming
Africa at least around 195,000 years ago. / 'pearl')

What is obvious is that a mother and her infant cannot engage
in hunting, or any other arduous food gathering activity. Of all
the primate foods, fruits are the most easily gathered. They may
be obtained without the use of digging or cracking tools, climbing,
and digested with no need for hind-gut fermentation, such as is
the case with foliage. Most significantly, it is the feeding limitations
of the nursing mother which determine what foods she, and her
offspring will have continually available.
...
Given a plentiful supply of fruits the mother does not have to
risk expending much of her effort obtaining difficult to get foods
like raw animal flesh, insects, nuts and roots. Furthermore, fruits
contain abundant supplies of sugars which the brain solely uses
for energy. The mother who's genes better dispose her for an
easy life on fruits would have an advantage of those who do not,
and similarly, the fruit species which is the best food for mother
and child nutrition, would tend to be selected for. There is now
little doubt amongst distinguished biologists that fruit has been
the most significant dietary constituent in the evolution of humans.
....'
http://tinyurl.com/dahps

It is UNDISPUTED by evolutionary biologists that meat played an
indispensable role in human evolution. Meat's role was both direct and
indirect. The direct role was in providing the massive amount of
protein needed for brain development. The indirect role is as an
organizing principle of human activity.


'What are the essential biochemical properties of human metabolism
which distinguish us from our non-human primate relatives? One, at
least, is our uniquely low protein requirement as described by Olav
T. Oftedal who says:

"Human milk has the lowest protein concentration (about 7% of energy)
of any primate milk that has been studied. In general, it appears that
primates produce small daily amounts of a relatively dilute milk (Oftedal
1984). Thus the protein and energy demands of lactation are probably
low for primates by comparison to the demands experienced by many
other mammals."
The nutritional consequences of foraging in primates:
the relationship of nutrient intakes to nutrient requirements, p.161
Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences vol 334, 159-295,
No. 1270

One might imagine that given our comparatively 'low protein' milk,
we would not be able to grow very fast. In fact, as the image on the
right shows, human infants show very rapid growth, especially of
the brain, during the first year of life. Human infants are born a full
year earlier than they would be projected to, based on comparisons
with other animals. This is because of the large size their brains reach.
A human infant grows at the rate of 9 kg/year at birth, falling to
3.5 kg/year a year later. Thereafter its growth rate is about half that
of a chimpanzees at 2 kg/year vs. about 4.5 kg/year. Humans are
relatively half as bulky as the other great apes, thus allowing nutrients
to be directed at brain development and the diet to be less demanding.
The advantages of such an undemanding metabolism are clear.
Humans delay their growth because they 'catch up' later, during
puberty as seen on the graph. Even so, the growth rate never reaches
that of a newborn infant who grows best by only eating breast milk.
....
According to Exequiel M. Patiño and Juan T. Borda 'Primate milks
contain on the average 13% solids, of which 6.5% is lactose, 3.8%
lipids, 2.4% proteins, and 0.2% ash. Lactose is the largest component
of the solids, and protein is a lesser one'. They also say that 'milks of
humans and Old World monkeys have the highest percentages of
sugar (an average of 6.9%)' and when comparing human and non
human primate milks, they have similar proportions of solids, but
human milks has more sugar and fat whereas the non human primate
milks have much more protein. They continue 'In fact, human milk
has the lowest concentration of proteins (1.0%) of all the species
of primates.' Patiño and Borda present their research in order to
allow other primatologists to construct artificial milks as a substitute
for the real thing for captive primates. It is to be expected that these
will have similar disasterous consequences as the feeding of artificial
bovine, and other false milks, has had on human infants.

Patiño and Borda also present a table which compares primate milks.
This table is shown below and identifies the distinctive lower protein
requirements of humans. [see link]

Undoubtedly these gross metabolic differences between humans
and other mammals must have system wide implications for our
metabolism. They allow us to feed heavily on fruits, and may
restrict other species from choosing them. Never the less, many
nutritional authorities suggest that adult humans need nearly double
(12% of calorific value) their breast milk levels of protein, although
it is accepted that infant protein requirements for growth are triple
those of adults. The use of calorific values might also confuse the
issue since human milk is highly dilute (1% protein), and clearly
eating foods that might be 25 times this concentration, such as
meat, are massive excesses if constantly ingested. Certainly the
body might manage to deal with this excess without suffering
immediate problems, but this is not proof of any beneficial
adaptation. It also needs to be pointed out that berries, such as
raspberries, may yield up to 21% of their calorific value from
protein, but are not regarded as 'good sources' of protein by
nutritional authorites. There are millions of fruits available to
wild animals, and blanked generalisations about the qualities
of certain food groups, need to be examined carefully, due to
some misconceptions arising from the limited commercial fruits
which we experience in the domestic state.

The weaning of a fruigivorous primate would clearly demand
the supply of a food with nutritional characteristics similar to
those of the mothers milk. We must realise that supportive
breast feeding may continue for up to 9 or 10 years in some
'primitive' peoples, and this is more likely to be representative
of our evolutionary history than the 6 month limit often found
in modern cultures. This premature weaning should strike any
aware naturalist as being a disasterous activity, inflicting untold
damage. However, what we do know of the consequences is
that it reduces the IQ and disease resistance of the child, and
that the substitute of unnatural substances, like wheat and
dairy products, is pathogenic.

Finally we need to compare some food group compositions
with human milk in order to establish if any statistical similarity
exists. This would demonstrate that modern humans have
inherited their ancient fruigivourous metabolism. This data is
examined below in the final sections of the article.
.....'
http://tinyurl.com/dahps

I need to investigate more. The reference above seems to give a strong
case for a "visual specialization" evolution and it states that "no
consensus has emerged", but I'm happy learn and admit my ignorance on
brain evolution theories.


'There is a popular notion that anthropology can offer useful
insights for forming the basis of a dietary philosophy.
Anthropology is a science which is only just starting to mature,
previously having been little more that a systematic, but lose,
body of "say-so" information which attempted to explain our
species history and origins. With advances in dating methods,
including DNA analysis and more fossil finds, the science is
now embarking on its integration with biology. Previously,
anthropology was a pseudo-scientific marriage of traditional
views attempting to link the findings of robust sciences, such
as geology, palaeontology and archaeology. However, even
though anthropologists like Richard Leakey are aware that
their 'science' is often "based on unspoken assumptions"
(The Making of Mankind, p. 82, R. Leakey), they show that
they will persist in making them.

Anthropologies 'Man The Hunter' concept is still used as a
reason for justifying the consumption of animal flesh as food.
This has even extended as far as suggesting that animal foods
have enabled or caused human brain enlargement. Allegedly
this is because of the greater availability of certain kinds of fats
and the sharing behaviour associated with eating raw animal
food. The reality is that through natural selection, the
environmental factors our species have been exposed to
selected for greater brain development, long before raw animal
flesh became a significant part of our ancient ancestors diet.
The elephant has also developed a larger brain than the human
brain, on a diet primarily consisting of fermented foliage and
fruits. It is my hypothesis that it is eating fruits and perhaps
blossoms, that has, if anything, contributed the most in allowing
humans to develop relatively larger brains than other species.
The ability of humans to develop normal brains with a dietary
absence of animal products is also noted.
....'
http://tinyurl.com/dahps

What is not in dispute is that the earliest hominids
and their pre-hominid ancestors *all* naturally ate
meat. To say then that meat played no role in their
evolution is just factually wrong.


You cannot support your *claims* with evidence, ball.


  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2005, 01:30 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

"Martin Willett" wrote in message ...
S. Maizlich wrote:


It is UNDISPUTED by evolutionary biologists that meat played an
indispensable role in human evolution. Meat's role was both direct and
indirect. The direct role was in providing the massive amount of
protein needed for brain development. The indirect role is as an
organizing principle of human activity.


The organizational role is absolutely critical. There is no reason for a
vegetarian species to develop sophisticated communication because they
don't have anything sophisticated to communicate. Fruits and tubers
don't require teamwork or sophisticated tools to subdue, but our
ancestors brought down mammoths, give them some respect.

Belittling the role of meat and hunting in evolution is as much
pseudo-science as creationism is. The collection of snippets of research
here and there that seem to offer some suggestion of support for a pre
decided stance is the antithesis of the scientific method.

Human evolution required meat eating and hunting. That is not to say
that man was ever exclusively carnivorous, the only largely carnivorous
hominid was /Homo neanderthalensis/, who was almost as carnivorous as a
polar bear. But as far as anybody can tell all our direct ancestors were
omnivorous but more carnivorous than modern chimpanzees and that change
in diet was significant for the development of larger brains both in
allowing expansion and requiring it.


"It is highly probable that plant foods were indeed the major part
of the early hominid economy, and unequivocal evidence for hunting
as against scavenging carrion does not appear until relatively late in
the fossil record, probably not earlier than half-a-million years ago."
Leakey, The Making of Mankind

Frugivory is an intellectually demanding feeding behaviour demanding
the development of strategic planning, whereas the folivores feeding
behavior engages relatively simple tactics. According to Caroline E. G.
Tutin et al. 'Allometric analyses suggest a relation between brain size
(relative to body mass) and diet, with frugivores having relatively larger
brains . . . Maintaining a frugivorous diet presents huge intellectual
challenges of memory and spatial mapping compared with the relative
ease of harvesting abundant foliage foods.' Tutin et al. also say that:

"Studies of frugivorous communities elsewhere suggest that dietary
divergence is highest when preferred food (succulent fruit) is scarce,
and that niche separation is clear only at such times (Gautier-Hion &
Gautier 1979: Terborgh 1983). "
Foraging profiles of sympatric lowland gorillas and chimpanzees in
the Lopé Reserve, Gabon, p.179, Philosophical Transactions:
Biological Sciences vol 334, 159-295, No. 1270
....'
http://tinyurl.com/dahps




  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2005, 04:03 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

pearl wrote:

"Leif Erikson" wrote in message k.net...

ant and dec wrote:


S. Maizlich wrote:


ant and dec wrote:


pearl wrote:


..

Proc Biol Sci. 1998 Oct 22;265(1409):1933-7.
Visual specialization and brain evolution in primates.
Barton RA.
Department of Anthropology, University of Durham, UK.

Several theories have been proposed to explain the evolution of
species differences in brain size, but no consensus has emerged.
One unresolved question is whether brain size differences are a
result of neural specializations or of biological constraints
affecting the whole brain. Here I show that, among primates,
brain size variation is associated with visual specialization.
Primates with large brains for their body size have relatively
expanded visual brain areas, including the primary visual cortex
and lateral geniculate nucleus. Within the visual system, it is, in
particular, one functionally specialized pathway upon which
selection has acted: evolutionary changes in the number of
neurons in parvocellular, but not magnocellular, layers of the
lateral geniculate nucleus are correlated with changes in both
brain size and ecological variables (diet and social group size).
Given the known functions of the parvocellular pathway, these
results suggest that the relatively large brains of frugivorous
species are products of selection on the ability to perceive
and select fruits using specific visual cues such as colour.
The separate correlation between group size and visual brain
evolution, on the other hand, may indicate the visual basis of
social information processing in the primate brain.

PMID: 9821360 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

Thanks again.



My pleasure. Thanks for bringing it up. The "Christmas
Lecture" on Ch5 is frankly driving me up the wall. grrr.


No one cares, whore.


I have moved my position on whether meat had a major part to play in
human evolution. I will read more, but on balance there seems little
evidence to support that it did.



Apart from helping humans survive times of scarcity, ..no.


False. Humans evolved as a meat-eating species from
the outset.


It is UNDISPUTED by evolutionary biologists that meat played an
indispensable role in human evolution. Meat's role was both direct and
indirect. The direct role was in providing the massive amount of
protein needed for brain development. The indirect role is as an
organizing principle of human activity.


[...crap...]

I need to investigate more. The reference above seems to give a strong
case for a "visual specialization" evolution and it states that "no
consensus has emerged", but I'm happy learn and admit my ignorance on
brain evolution theories.



'There is a popular notion that anthropology can offer useful
insights for forming the basis of a dietary philosophy.


It's what *you* do with your ****witted "frugivory"
bullshit.


What is not in dispute is that the earliest hominids
and their pre-hominid ancestors *all* naturally ate
meat. To say then that meat played no role in their
evolution is just factually wrong.



You cannot support your *claims* with evidence


Been there, done it.
  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2005, 04:07 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

pearl wrote:

"Martin Willett" wrote in message ...

S. Maizlich wrote:


It is UNDISPUTED by evolutionary biologists that meat played an
indispensable role in human evolution. Meat's role was both direct and
indirect. The direct role was in providing the massive amount of
protein needed for brain development. The indirect role is as an
organizing principle of human activity.


The organizational role is absolutely critical. There is no reason for a
vegetarian species to develop sophisticated communication because they
don't have anything sophisticated to communicate. Fruits and tubers
don't require teamwork or sophisticated tools to subdue, but our
ancestors brought down mammoths, give them some respect.

Belittling the role of meat and hunting in evolution is as much
pseudo-science as creationism is. The collection of snippets of research
here and there that seem to offer some suggestion of support for a pre
decided stance is the antithesis of the scientific method.

Human evolution required meat eating and hunting. That is not to say
that man was ever exclusively carnivorous, the only largely carnivorous
hominid was /Homo neanderthalensis/, who was almost as carnivorous as a
polar bear. But as far as anybody can tell all our direct ancestors were
omnivorous but more carnivorous than modern chimpanzees and that change
in diet was significant for the development of larger brains both in
allowing expansion and requiring it.



"It is highly probable that plant foods were indeed the major part
of the early hominid economy, and unequivocal evidence for hunting
as against scavenging carrion does not appear until relatively late in
the fossil record, probably not earlier than half-a-million years ago."


Humans hunted from the beginning. Chimpanzees have
*always* hunted as well.


Frugivory is an intellectually demanding feeding behaviour


Bullshit.
  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2005, 04:20 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

"Leif Erikson" wrote in message k.net...

pearl wrote
..
"It is highly probable that plant foods were indeed the major part
of the early hominid economy, and unequivocal evidence for hunting
as against scavenging carrion does not appear until relatively late in
the fossil record, probably not earlier than half-a-million years ago."


Humans hunted from the beginning.


'... while early humans ate some meat, we do not know how
much meat they ate, nor whether they got the meat by hunting
or scavenging. It is not until much later, around 100,000 years
ago, that we have good evidence about human hunting skills,
and it is clear that humans then were still very ineffective
big-game hunters. Human hunters of 500,000 years ago and
earlier must have been more ineffective.
...
http://tinyurl.com/dahps

Chimpanzees have *always* hunted as well.


'According to Tuttle, the first substantive information on chimp diets
was provided by Nissen in 1931 (p.75). In 1930 Nissen spent 75
days of a 3-month period tracking and observing chimps. He made
direct unquantified observations and examined fecal deposits and
leftovers at feeding sites. He also found "no evidence that they ate
honey, eggs or animal prey" - this observation may have been too
limited due to seasonal variations in the chimp diet.

In Reynolds and Reynolds (1965), Tuttle says that a 300 hour
study of Budongo Forest chimps over an 8-month period revealed
"no evidence for avian eggs, termites or vertebrates", although
they thought that insects formed 1% of their diet (p.81).

In another study of Budongo Forest chimps from 1966 to 1967,
Sugiyama did not observe "meat-eating or deliberate captures
of arthropods", although he reported that "the chimpanzees
did ingest small insects that infested figs" (p.82).

Tuttle says that later observations at Budongo by Suzuki revealed
meat eating. Where the earlier observations wrong, or incomplete,
or maybe an accurate reflection of their diet at the time? Did the
chimps change their diet later? We do not know. Chimps sometimes
change their diets on a monthly basis. A study of chimps at the
Kabogo Point region from 1961 to 1962 by Azuma and Toyoshima,
revealed that they witnessed "only one instance of chimpanzees
ingesting animal food, vis. termites or beetles from rotten wood."
(p.87).

From 1963 to 1964, similar observations were found in Kasakati
Basin by a Kyoto University team, and when Izawa and Itani published
in 1966 they reported "no chimpanzees eating insects, vertebrates,
avian eggs, soil or tree leaves and found no trace in the 14 stools
that they inspected " (p.86). In contrast Kawabe and Suzuki found
the Kasakati chimps hunting in the same year (p.88), although only
14 of 174 fecal samples contained traces of insects and other animal
foods. So perhaps these differing observations are due to seasonal
variation, or even local differences (cultural variation) in feeding
preferences - Tuttle does not reveal which. Maybe some of the chimps
groups are 'vegetarian', while other are not. But see the Kortlandt
observations below before believing that all chimps are meat-eaters.

Far less is known about bonobo feeding habits than about the
common chimpanzee. Like chimps, the bonobo is also known
to eat insects and carrion, although unlike chimps it has not been
observed to hunt. Kano and Mulavwa provided the most detailed
account of the feeding behaviour of Wamba bonobos based on
a 4-month study. Tuttle reports that their diet was 80% fruit pulp,
15% fibrous foods and 5% seeds, and that "Animal foods
constituted a minute part of their fare" (p.95).

The best evidence, if there is any, of a "vegetarian" ape is the
gorilla. As with the other apes, there is great variation in what
gorillas eat based on their locality, and season. A 15-month
study of gorillas at Campo by Calvert, is reported by Tuttle
(p.100), in which he says that out of 280 stools, 1 example of
stomach contents and 1400 feeding sites, plus direct
observations, there was "no evidence" that "Campo gorillas
ingested animal matter." Similarly, Casimir and Butenandt
followed a group about 20 gorillas at Kahuzi during 15 months
in 1971 to 1972 (Tuttle, ibid., p.102). They collected 43 fecal
samples at fairly regular intervals but none "contained remains
of vertebrates or invertebrates". In addition, the gorillas did
not disturb active birds and honeybee nests that were clearly
visible near their own nests. Nor did they unearth bee nests.
Goodall also noted that Kahuzi gorillas ignored eggs and
fledglings and did not invade bees nests (Tuttle, ibid., p.105),
and that none of the many fecal samples he found contained
animal remnants. Tuttle also reports that the "most detailed"
study of 10 groups of Zairean Virunga mountain gorillas by
Schaller in 13 months from 1956 to 1960, including fecal
samples and 466 direct hours of observation, found "no
evidence that they raided apian nests, which were common
at Kabara, ingested animal foods, or drank water." (p.107)
In 1959, a 64-day study by Kawai and Mizuhara of gorillas
at Mts. Muhavura and Gahinga also found "no evidence for
animal foods in the gorillas' fare." (p.108)

The story for gorillas is by no means a clear one, as findings
seem to vary from one study to another. You can pick them
to suit your agenda. For example, Adriaan Kortlandt says in
'Food Acquisition And Processing In Primates', page 133-135,
that "Gorillas have never been observed to eat honey, eggs,
insects or meat, not even when they were sitting or nesting
almost on top of honeycomb or a bird's nest, except for
one single case of honey-eating reported by Sabater-Pi (1960)"
He adds however, that Fossey (1974) reports that slugs, larvae
and worms were found to constitute 1% of the food item
observations recorded. Kortlandt adds that "No animal remains
have been found in gorilla dung, except for one case presumably
indicating cannibalism (Fossey, 1981)."
...
Kortlandt states that predation by chimpanzees on vertebrates is
undoubtedly a rather rare phenomenon among rainforest-dwelling
populations of chimpanzees. Kortlandt lists the reasons given below
in his evidence.

# the absence (or virtual absence) of animal matter in the digestive
systems of hundreds of hunted, dissected or otherwise investigated cases
# the rarity of parasites indicating carnivorous habits
# rarity of pertinent field observations
# the responses when he placed live as well as dead potential prey
animals along the chimpanzee paths at Beni (in the poorer environments
of the savanna landscape however, predation on vertebrates appears to
be much more common)

Kortlandt concludes this section on primate diets by saying that
the wealth of flora and insect fauna in the rain-forest provides
both chimpanzees and orang-utans with a dietary spectrum that seems
wide enough to meet their nutritional requirements, without hunting
and killing of vertebrates being necessary. It is in the poorer
nutritional environments, where plant sources may be scarce or of
low quality where carnivorous behaviour arises. Even then he says
that the meat obtained are minimal and perhaps insufficient to meet
basic needs. Finally he adds "The same conclusion applies, of course,
to hominids . . . it is strange that most palaeoanthropologists have
never been willing to accept the elementary facts on this matter
that have emerged from both nutritional science and primate research."
...'
http://tinyurl.com/d8aqw



  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2005, 04:22 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

"Leif Erikson"

Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment.
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

The Socialised Psychopath or Sociopath
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully....htm#Sociopath


  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2005, 04:39 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

pearl wrote:

"Leif Erikson" wrote in message k.net...

pearl wrote
..

"It is highly probable that plant foods were indeed the major part
of the early hominid economy, and unequivocal evidence for hunting
as against scavenging carrion does not appear until relatively late in
the fossil record, probably not earlier than half-a-million years ago."


Humans hunted from the beginning.



'... while early humans ate some meat


They ate meat. Period.


e.
..
http://tinyurl.com/dahps


John Coleman's site is ideological crap. "The Obligate
Fruigivore" is a ridiculous proposition, a nonsense.
There is no essential nutritent found *only* in fruit.
Cats are obligate carnivores; there is no such thing
as an "obligate frugivore". Coleman is not a
scientist, he's a polemicist, and so are you.




Chimpanzees have *always* hunted as well.



'According to Tuttle,


Chimpanzees have *always* hunted.


  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2005, 04:40 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

lesley the foot-rubbing whore in Cork, Ireland shat:

"Leif Erikson"

Faking quotes


Faking nothing, you ****ing whore. You're a whore - a
lying, diseased whore.
  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2005, 06:35 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?



--
"All truth passes through 3 stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
-- Arthur Schopenhauer
"Leif Erikson" wrote in message ink.net...
pearl wrote:

"Leif Erikson" wrote in message k.net...

pearl wrote
..

"It is highly probable that plant foods were indeed the major part
of the early hominid economy, and unequivocal evidence for hunting
as against scavenging carrion does not appear until relatively late in
the fossil record, probably not earlier than half-a-million years ago."

Humans hunted from the beginning.



'... while early humans ate some meat we do not know how

much meat they ate, nor whether they got the meat by hunting
or scavenging. It is not until much later, around 100,000 years
ago, that we have good evidence about human hunting skills,
and it is clear that humans then were still very ineffective
big-game hunters. Human hunters of 500,000 years ago and
earlier must have been more ineffective.
...
http://tinyurl.com/dahps

They ate meat. Period.


Some did, at times.

'In The Origin of Humankind, Richard Leakey mentions Lewis
Binford, who suggested that systematic hunting of any kind
began to appear only when modern humans evolved, giving
dates of 45,000 to 38,000 years ago.
...'
http://tinyurl.com/dahps

... We now know that modern humans were roaming
Africa at least around 195,000 years ago.

..
http://tinyurl.com/dahps


Jo


Ad hominem.





  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2005, 06:36 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

"Leif Erikson"

Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment.
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

The Socialised Psychopath or Sociopath
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully....htm#Sociopath


  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2005, 06:44 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
S. Maizlich
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

lesley the foot-rubbing whore of Cork, Ireland lied:

"Leif Erikson"

Faking quotes,


Faking nothing, you ****ing whore. You're a whore - a
lying, diseased whore.
  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2005, 06:44 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

pearl wrote:

"All truth passes through 3 stages...


You wouldn't know. Nothing you've written is truthful.

****ing whore.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Have you ever eaten....... Denise in NH General Cooking 9 22-04-2009 05:59 PM
Anyone eaten Fox ? Steve Y General Cooking 13 26-01-2007 10:56 PM
The most food ever eaten... Andy General Cooking 40 13-12-2006 04:01 PM
How many of these has Kibo eaten? Adam Funk General Cooking 1 19-06-2006 08:32 PM
How many of these has Kibo eaten? Adam Funk General Cooking 0 19-06-2006 07:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:56 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017