Page 6 of 17 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 241

Thread: Vegetarian

  1. #76
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Asheville, NC
    Posts
    1,398
    Indeed, my thought is that primitive people (unarmed people in general, actually) probably wouldn't want to get close to the animal they were hunting.

    Why get close when it means being trampled by a buffalo, kicked by a buck, gored by a wild pig.... Much smarter and less hazardous to poke with a long stick, or chase off a cliff. Bone marrow in action.
    The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it's still on the list.

    www.curious3d.com

  2. #77
    i wonder if bear meat tastes any good...

    anyways i think u guys are missing the key factor that made humans a superior predator to most other creatures - our brains. humans ARE natural predators. our ability to outsmart other animals placed us above them in the food chain in that we could easily outsmart animals, even more so as we evolved, and kill them (by means of traps, long range weapons, ambush, stampede, and the million or so other ways one can kill an animal). it doesnt matter whether or not we actually RAN DOWN our prey or hunted them with spears, the fact is that even primitive humans were so much smarter than most animals. amazingly, we even developed the ability (fairly early on) to train OTHER animals (like dogs) to do our hunting for us.
    the methods of hunting do not matter. the human body certainly is not a killing machine - we have small nails. our teeth are not that sharp and our jaws are not structured for attacking and grabbing on to an animal to take it down. also we generally dont run that fast compared to many animals. the point is that we applied our intelligence to hunt and eat animals. the only organisms we have trouble conquering are parasitic viruses and germs and other disease causing microbes. i suppose those are the TOP of the food chain (lol i dont know that part came from, just go with the randomness).
    Last edited by morbicid; 02-26-2003 at 03:25 PM.

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    30
    Bear meat CAN be very very good, or it can be very very bad...

    Comes down to how it was cared for and how it was prepared.
    Fighting is not about who is right, it is about who is left.

    A year from now, no one will remember who used what style, or what technique, only who prevailed.

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    30

    Re: Hey!

    Originally posted by Ming Yue


    No fair hollering troll now, this is getting interesting.
    I never intended to troll, just wanted to make sure the debate raged on - albeit peacefully, but am glad this thread has not only stayed civil (hurrah!), it is also interesting (double hurrah!), AND it has been somewhat educational too (quadruple hurrah with all the trimmings!)
    Fighting is not about who is right, it is about who is left.

    A year from now, no one will remember who used what style, or what technique, only who prevailed.

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    272
    Originally posted by CD Lee

    ** Ok CD Lee, here we go!!!

    Obviously, he provided no details on his statement: that because of farming, we all became carb. eaters and cancer bearing creatures.

    *** hmmm I'm not sure about the legitimacy of that claim. I seem to remember seeing shows on TLC and A&E about finding remains of Neandrothals with Brain Tumours. If we look at many of the reasons cancer develops ... I can't see how farming has anything to do with it? Industrialization, yes ..

    Oh, my whole point on the apple bit was to say that we still puncture, split, and even tear at foods with our front teeth, before sending them to the molars for crushing. What does that mean? Nothing other than our teeth are designed to do such. Do we have to eat meat because of this. NO. I take the simple position that there is nothing evil or wrong with eating meat within reasonable limits. And hey, I picked an apple becuase I cannot break it and pick at it. I have to get a good chuck out of it with my front teeth first. Oranges are a piece of cake. hehe.

    *** My point was how I though it was kinda ridiculous how someone thought because he have incisors and binocular vision, then we are therefore predators. I gave the example of a shark, which does not have binocular vision, to thus show you do not need that to be a predator, as well, all meat eating animals ONLY have incisors and canine teeth, with no molars, and all animals with molars in the animal kingdom are herbivores. As well the animals that have both (incisors and molars) are also herbivores.

    Actually on your offer of history, I would like some more detail. This is of pure interest on my part. I am not looking to destroy your postion for the sake of argument. But I am a history buff myself having studied many years in Christian patristic studies. I know all too well how people take history and interpret what they need to. However, I am reasonably objective, so that information would be pretty nice I would think. Do you mind?

    *** Ok, but I will once again reiterate my point and why I came into this discussion. From what I read I got the impression that some/many people think that humankind throughout all of time has been meat eaters, that from day one we have hunted wild game, and that meat has been a staple of our diets (and rightly so) for all of eternity, as well that perhaps there is also an attached misconception that one cannot survive without meat. From what I know of the history of humankind, certainly yes we did hunt meat, but these were in certain circumstances. My point about, well, caveman? for lack of a better word is this - i think that people take for granted what it is to hunt game (I will provide a relevant point shortly) now i will propose this. If you lived in a small group and your suvival depended on this, what would make more sense to you - being able to simply grow and gather your food where there is a more than reasonalbly good chance of return, or having to go out and hunt an animal with crude weapons with absolutely no guarantee you'll come back with anything at the end of the day. Even with a spear ... heck, a gunshot can't bring down a Buffalo, so how would you expect a spear to? And what are you going to do, carry ten of them? My point here is simply, given two choices, and your survival at stake, if food was sitting in a tree or on a bush, or roaming a plane with the ability to outrun you, what are you seriously going to spend you time on?? WHich one sounds easier to you??? Civilizations such as the Aztecs, Egyptians, and Greeks, with the exception of the wealthy and elite depended primarily on a vegetarian diet. There was fish included in these diets (at least for certain with Greece and Egypt). But again my point is that these societies were not dependant on meat in their diets, and these are arguably some of the greatest civilizations in history. I might have gone off track so read this and maybe help me out if/where i can maybe be clearer on what i'm trying to say

    Hunting? Definately evolved later and not with clubs. Spears I would imagine would be first and only useful choice for quite some time. What Serpent said made a lot of sense. Of coure poeple did not chase down animals and rip them apart like hyenas. We are very slow...

    *** Like I said above ... I'm not conviced by the spear ... I'll give you an example. I recently read a book by Kevin McGoogan called "Fatal Passage" In summary it is a biography about an explorer and wilderness expert John Rae. Now this is in the 1850s. He hunted in N. Canada. This guy was said to be one of the best hunters in all of Canada. On his missions, he would go out for weeks at a time and be able to haul in enough game to last for five people for three months. Now the rest of these outdoorsmen paled in comparison ... now my point is ... they're using rifles!!! And can hunt their game at long range, and everyone else hardly could bring in enough food for themselves, let alone the rest of the crew. I won't argue that a spear was never used to take down animals, I'm just saying that we can't just be all, "well they had spears, so that's good enough to hunt and feed everyone",

    Farming and mass meat production has come along so close to our time, I agree that this caused meat production to be unusually higher than nature allows. That IS common sense.

    *** Maybe i'm using the wrong word and someone can help me out. When I say factory farming, i mean that it's one of those big ass wharehouses that's only purpose is to grow animals for the slaughter and consumption. So i'm saying farming ... a normal farm with chickens and pigs and all that, and then (in the 20th C) we saw the advent of factory farming and meat up to our eyeballs.

    I'm not sure if this response covered everythign but it sure was long!!

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Asheville, NC
    Posts
    1,398
    _______________
    If you lived in a small group and your suvival depended on this, what would make more sense to you - being able to simply grow and gather your food where there is a more than reasonalbly good chance of return, or having to go out and hunt an animal with crude weapons with absolutely no guarantee you'll come back with anything at the end of the day. Even with a spear ... heck, a gunshot can't bring down a Buffalo, so how would you expect a spear to?
    ______________________

    Very early hominids moved around. Not entirely nomadic in every case, but cultivation of plants for food wasn't feasible very early on from practical and evolutionary standpoints. Again, we were eaters of opportunity.

    For a small settled soceity, there is more investment and risk, time and labor wise, with crops than there is with hunting. With agriculture, especially on a small scale, you must always expect low yield. You get seeds that don't germinate, floods, poor soil, no rain, insects, plant disease. This after weeks of work. And generally, the available food "hanging" from trees in any given area is rather specific and doesn't make for a balanced diet. Look at Native American cultures. They went where the food was. They gathered available plant resources and hunted for meat. So you go a couple days before you bag a buffalo or a wild pig. (The native americans by the way, killed buffalo with arrows and spears, essentially letting the animal bleed and exhaust itself to collapse then moving in for the kill).

    Consider too that at these later points in our development, we had devised small traps and such that helped guarantee success in hunting.

    I personally would hunt or fish first, if lost in the wild, before I began gathering food from plants (unless of course, I was lost in a giant vegetable garden). This for me is due in part to the fact that my knowledge of edible plants is limited, and I wouldn't eat what I wasn't sure of. Seems I'd be much more likely to get sick from a strange plant than from fresh rabbits I spent a couple of days snaring.

    To ensure survival, we had to hedge our bets. Hunting and gathering, and later cultivation of both meat and plants for food.
    The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it's still on the list.

    www.curious3d.com

  7. #82
    "Also, you can't just take a Buffalo down with a spear. But you can poke it enough... "



    i'm not gonna touch that comment

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    272
    Originally posted by Ming Yue
    Very early hominids moved around. Not entirely nomadic in every case, but cultivation of plants for food wasn't feasible very early on from practical and evolutionary standpoints. Again, we were eaters of opportunity.

    *** That is correct, that is why they were known as hunters and "gatherers". Again my point I'm trying to make is that that term may be taken too literally. I do not believe that humankind at this point in history sat down to a steak dinner every night. I agree we were eaters of opportunity, and that we would hunt/eat meat should the opportunity arise, but did we depend on it? I do not believe so, I beleive we depended mostly on what the land gave us, for the reasons I stated before.

    For a small settled soceity, there is more investment and risk, time and labor wise, with crops than there is with hunting. With agriculture, especially on a small scale, you must always expect low yield. You get seeds that don't germinate, floods, poor soil, no rain, insects, plant disease. This after weeks of work. And generally, the available food "hanging" from trees in any given area is rather specific and doesn't make for a balanced diet. Look at Native American cultures. They went where the food was. They gathered available plant resources and hunted for meat. So you go a couple days before you bag a buffalo or a wild pig. (The native americans by the way, killed buffalo with arrows and spears, essentially letting the animal bleed and exhaust itself to collapse then moving in for the kill).

    *** Part of my point as well is that you will also expend far more energy hunting than you would gathering. In terms of a balanced diet, the Aztecs diet was primarily Beans and Tortillas (corn) which you may or may not know is a complete protein. This sounds fairly complete to me. In N. America, before Euros arrived, there were 26 varieties of wild squash that could be found, as well there are endless varieties of fruits that grow wild. The notion that not having a cut of meat in your diet makes it incomplete is absurd, and I demonstrated that some of the greatest civilizations in history did not depend on it in their diets. You can't really generalize Native American culture because there was such a vast array of societies, all existing at the same time, that to say "they did this, that, etc ..." is not accurate. In terms of bagging a buffalo, bear in mind that these weren't just a couple guys hunting buffalo, these were hunting "parties" of dozens of people that would go for days and weeks at a time, in order not to produce a nice cut of steak, but clothes, shelter, medicine etc ...

    Consider too that at these later points in our development, we had devised small traps and such that helped guarantee success in hunting.

    *** that statement is kinda vague ... what point in our development and what kind of traps are you talking about?

    I personally would hunt or fish first, if lost in the wild, before I began gathering food from plants (unless of course, I was lost in a giant vegetable garden).

    *** You know what? I probably would too. Hunt, no, but fish and forrage, probably, and again it would have to do with expending energy.

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    272
    Originally posted by ghthomason


    First of all, which choice provides the most calories for you and your NOMADIC people.

    *** well which exercise is giong to BURN the most calories for me and my nomadic peope
    So if i'm not going to waste all my energy hunting an animal, then I would gather I don't need 2000 calories a day.


  10. #85
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Asheville, NC
    Posts
    1,398
    Oh I didn't mean at all to imply that meat is a requirement for a balanced diet. It's not.

    And my comment about trapping was something of an afterthought, and I was referring to soceities of the past 1000 years or so.


    Cynthia
    The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it's still on the list.

    www.curious3d.com

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Texas, DFW
    Posts
    663
    Spark - On the historical information, I guess I was expecting some time periods, exampls of peoples, conditions, not just how you feel. Your a history man, 'cmon and give me some examples if you have them.

    From what I read I got the impression that some/many people
    think that humankind throughout all of time has been meat eaters, that
    from day one we have hunted wild game, and that meat has been a staple
    of our diets (and rightly so) for all of eternity, as well that perhaps there is
    also an attached misconception that one cannot survive without meat.
    We know two things. Humans have physical design attributes that are geared towards eating meat and that humans were hunter/gatherers. Eaters of opportunity. We all agree there I think. I am sorry you feel that poeple interpert these facts in the extreeme. Some do.

    My point about, well, caveman? for lack of
    a better word is this - i think that people take for granted
    what it is to hunt game
    I am sorry people do that. I think others points and historical accuracy points out that early mankind ate meat, and benefited from it. How much or how little is somewhat logistical. They did eat meat.

    heck, a gunshot can't bring down a Buffalo,
    so how would you expect a spear to? And what are you
    going to do, carry ten of them?
    Now you know that American Indians used spears and arrows to kill buffalo. And they processed everything. Need we argue this point? Yes it is possible. Life was hard back then. I am sorry they had to use spears, and carry heavy items. Hisory shows that indigenous peoples used spears to hunt game. Komoto dragons hunt with bacertia, and have to wait up to a week to realize they prey the hunt and track. History does not tell us that hunting back then was easy or fast. It tells us that men hunted game.

    Civilizations such as the Aztecs, Egyptians, and Greeks,
    with the exception of the wealthy and elite depended
    primarily on a vegetarian diet. There was fish included in
    these diets (at least for certain with Greece and Egypt).
    But again my point is that these societies were not
    dependant on meat in their diets, and these are arguably
    some of the greatest civilizations in history.
    Ok. Nice details although vague. But details, peoples, times, and places. We could delve into that stuff. We seem to be talking about both very primitive mankind, and evolved, socially advanced ordered societies. Be careful mixing these together in one argument or point. Social infrastructures allow men FAR more freedom, safety, and choice that is only attainable in such a society.

    I'll post another post to break up this huge post.

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Asheville, NC
    Posts
    1,398
    Civilizations such as the Aztecs, Egyptians, and Greeks,
    with the exception of the wealthy and elite depended
    primarily on a vegetarian diet.
    Just an interesting note - The Azteks didn't keep domestic animals, and while they did mostly eat beans & corn, other vegetables and algae and reptiles, it is conjectured that thier diet probably contained a certain amount of human flesh, although this may have been limited to holy men and higher-ups. They sacrificed a lot of people to thier war god, whose name starts with H and I can't remember it now, but there is evidence that suggests that they ate at least some of that flesh....

    You want fries with that?
    The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it's still on the list.

    www.curious3d.com

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Texas, DFW
    Posts
    663
    I recently read a book by Kevin
    McGoogan called "Fatal Passage" In summary it is a
    biography about an explorer and wilderness expert John
    Rae. Now this is in the 1850s. He hunted in N. Canada. This
    guy was said to be one of the best hunters in all of
    Canada. On his missions, he would go out for weeks at a
    time and be able to haul in enough game to last for five
    people for three months.
    Showing of course that it is possible to become a very good hunter and tracker. Especially if your life depended on it. Who needs guns? Early men did not use them kill animals. I'll bet Indian hunting parties could have done just as well.

    I won't
    argue that a spear was never used to take down animals,
    I'm just saying that we can't just be all, "well they had
    spears, so that's good enough to hunt and feed
    everyone",
    Hey, nobody said these guys were on the Adkin's diet, except maybe Dr. Adkins Yeah, yeah, they could not eat 100% meat. Of course not.

    Part of my point as well is that you will also expend far
    more energy hunting than you would gathering.
    Yes, but that still did not stop hunters and hunting parties from doing it. Even in the rain forests TODAY, tribes still hunt and successfully kill pigs with bamboo spears with no steel, and have a good portion. Saw that one on TLC, and they basically snuck up on him and skewered him with multiple spears. (Not bad considering they had a camera guy following them and still got the pig. )

    You can't really generalize Native American culture
    because there was such a vast array of societies, all
    existing at the same time, that to say "they did this, that,
    etc ..." is not accurate.
    Acutally, it is accurate, just not to all tribes, as you pointed out. But they did do certain things to exist. Eaters of opportunity. Using Native Americans is a GREAT example. They did not have guns or horses for a while, some were nomadic, some were not, and we know what they did in an undeveloped land to survive. You are just saying that we cannot attribute all aspects of one tribe to all other tribes.

    So in summary, I think a lot of your 'beef' is not the historical record of man eating meat, but rather, that some people draw general or extreeme conclusions from them. Such as, "well, if they had a spear and killed with it, they only ate meat from the spear or must have ate 90% meat". I can understand that people will do that from time to time. And the converse is also possible. "Well if they had access to vegetables, they would not spend valuable time and calories to hunt meat." People tend to do what they desire. Bears don't mind 50 bee stings on the nose, if they can get some yummy honey. Not the easy road, but it sure tastes good.

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    272
    Originally posted by ghthomason

    Let's see....
    4 men go out and kill a Buffalo that can feed 20 people for a month.
    or

    *** First off, one buffalo cannot sustain 20 people for a month, let alone one person. Again I would make reference to the book i alluded to, where John Rae would catch 75 Caribou, hundreds of fish, and vemicen(i dont' even know what that is) and that would feed 7 people for an entire winter!!!

    everyone works their as s off every day tending crops, hoping bugs and animals don't eat all the good stuff before it's ripe. Then, when it's time to move because a bear has moved into the woods, we start all over somewhere else plowing and planting and waiting 3 months for something to grow.

    *** Hmm that's why I added a point on gathering as well and the availability of wild food, not just farming. I guess we're both here imagining the worst case scenerios for each of our stances bc you have listed every possible contingency ... but a bear moving into the woods ... why would I plant my crops in the woods???

    By the time the Aztecs are doing this, people are fairly modern in their evolution. 5,000 years is not far enough to go back for a discussion of how people became meat eaters. In the long long ago, when people lived in small tribes of 20 or less, there was not enough manpower to tend large crops efficiently.

    *** I'm not arguing that we had crops that far back and I agree you wouldn't be able to with societies of 20 or less, that's where I would apply my point on gathering.


  15. #90
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    272
    Originally posted by CD Lee
    Spark - On the historical information, I guess I was expecting some time periods, exampls of peoples, conditions, not just how you feel. Your a history man, 'cmon and give me some examples if you have them.

    *** Oh brother!!! Well if you want references and citations I will oblige!!
    The funny thing is I'm writing this at work when I should be at home where all my books are HAHA
    So I apologize, I am going off the top of my head, and in the future will try to be much more specific.

    We know two things. Humans have physical design attributes that are geared towards eating meat and that humans were hunter/gatherers. Eaters of opportunity. We all agree there I think. I am sorry you feel that poeple interpert these facts in the extreeme. Some do.

    *** This is where it could get sticky, because I don't believe we have the attributes geared towards eating meat. Look back a few posts where I responded to you apple analogy and what I said about our teeth (a common argument about how we are geared towards eating meat). Our stomachs are completely different (in terms of breaking down consumption) than those of meat eaters as well. Are we eaters of opportunity? Yes I agree with that. Hell, people have eaten people when the opportunity arose, so it isn't a stretch we'd also eat animals. The key word though it opportunity.

    I am sorry people do that. I think others points and historical accuracy points out that early mankind ate meat, and benefited from it. How much or how little is somewhat logistical. They did eat meat.

    *** Agreed, but again, I have stated my point on this and what i'm arguing about and I don't think I need to repeat it.

    Now you know that American Indians used spears and arrows to kill buffalo. And they processed everything. Need we argue this point? Yes it is possible. Life was hard back then. I am sorry they had to use spears, and carry heavy items. Hisory shows that indigenous peoples used spears to hunt game. Komoto dragons hunt with bacertia, and have to wait up to a week to realize they prey the hunt and track. History does not tell us that hunting back then was easy or fast. It tells us that men hunted game.

    *** Ok, here is my problem with using Native Americans as an example (and maybe i have done this too, so i'm gonna quit it). We cannot generalize about Natives because until Euros arrived there is very little historical records with regards to their past and how they lived. This is because their history is mainly passed on orally and there is very little in terms of writing. The main evidence in terms of writing is almost exclusively found on wampums (the sorta peace belts or whatever), which is very limited. So to say, Natives did this and that, you are only saying what their habits were within the last 400 years, which doesn't really tell us any more in terms of human evolution and eating meat.

    Ok. Nice details although vague. But details, peoples, times, and places. We could delve into that stuff. We seem to be talking about both very primitive mankind, and evolved, socially advanced ordered societies. Be careful mixing these together in one argument or point. Social infrastructures allow men FAR more freedom, safety, and choice that is only attainable in such a society.

    *** Agreed, I am totally at fault at jumping back and forth and have not seperated the two points well. I'm trying!!!
    If you want, again, I will go through my books and such and find solid examples, but unfortunately i'm leaving town until sunday, so it'll have to wait!!

    I'll post another post to break up this huge post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •