[Newfie]

Yes. It doesn't mean that they disrespect these pioneers, but physics and biology have come an awfully long way in the last 100 plus years. Pretty much anyone citing these guys as anything other than historical interest would be seen as...dim-witted, at best.

Dohboi,

Sometimes you are just an idiot because y take things out of context and try to twist them to your weird version of the truth. Plain and simple.

Someone asked a question about what Inuit ate. In response I quoted a Wiki article related to that question. So I wasn't digging 85 years back to find some science to support a position.

But since you bring it up, Arctic natives lived on those diets for thousands and thousands of years. We can't reproduce that diet know because the great humanizing white men of science and humanitarian values killed most of the game and destroyed the native life style through whiskey, God and germs.

None of that disproves what occurred then, which was rediscovered in the Antartic expeditions by the way.

It only proves that you Dohboi, are willing to trash any information that does not prove your personal hobby horse point.

Good grief man, get a grip.

[careinke]

In pretty much any field of science, if you post something more than a decade or two old for anythign other than historical interest, you are pretty much laughed out of the room.

Sorry, buddy. That's just the way it is.

Try again later.

I would think a better response would be to find proof the claim is not valid. Ridicule really serves no good purpose other than to change the subject.

[dohboi]

Soooo, one human culture living in about the most extreme climate one can imagine on earth have evolved to survive on meat--but in fact a very varied selection including not just seals, walruses and whales, but also birds, eggs, a wide variety of fish, as well as seaweed, berries, fireweed, tubers, vetch, and others .

Again, the fact that you have to not only go back a hundred years to find a source that supposedly supports your view, and that you then have to look at the culture that evolved in the absolutely most extreme of extremes and present it as somehow representative, but then that you have to misrepresent even that out-dated data about a maximally extreme group to exclude important non-meat elements of their diet...

Again, none of this leads one to think you have a serious position or are even trying very hard to present one.

Others can take it from here. I'm done for now. (What's with the change of thread name, by the way?)

ETA: And just in case anyone still doesn't think your 'study' is totally outdated and bogus, note from your quote at the end of the last thread: "Stefansson was compensated for his efforts by the American Meat Institute"

What next? Are you going to present hard evidence that smoking is good for us from a study from 80 years ago funded by the Tobacco Industry???

[careinke]

Soooo, one human culture living in about the most extreme climate one can imagine on earth have evolved to survive on meat--but in fact a very varied selection including not just seals, walruses and whales, but also birds, eggs, a wide variety of fish, as well as seaweed, berries, fireweed, tubers, vetch, and others .

Again, the fact that you have to not only go back a hundred years to find a source that supposedly supports your view, and that you then have to look at the culture that evolved in the absolutely most extreme of extremes and present it as somehow representative, but then that you have to misrepresent even that out-dated data about a maximally extreme group to exclude important non-meat elements of their diet...

Again, none of this leads one to think you have a serious position or are even trying very hard to present one.

Others can take it from here. I'm done for now. (What's with the change of thread name, by the way?)

ETA: And just in case anyone still doesn't think your 'study' is totally outdated and bogus, note from your quote at the end of the last thread: "Stefansson was compensated for his efforts by the American Meat Institute"

What next? Are you going to present hard evidence that smoking is good for us from a study from 80 years ago funded by the Tobacco Industry???

Actually, I brought up the Inuit in response to a post you made, that stated humans were limited to 30-50% of their diet being protein.

In fact, we humans have a “protein ceiling” of between 35 and 50 percent of our diet; eating too much more can be dangerous.

Instead of ridiculing you for posting such an obviously easy to disprove claim, I chose to bring up the first thing that came to mind disproving this claim, namely the Inuit's.

So, are you standing by the claim you quoted? Are humans limited to less than 51% protein in their diet? Could you please show many ANY study that proves this claim? Thanks!

[Newfie]

This whole conversation should more properly have been melded into the existing meat eater thread. Or just erased.

What is interesting in discussing this is just how deeply embedded some passions are in certain folks. It's like arguing religion with a zealot, or climate change with Jim Inhofe. Clearly just using logic and science is of no use in these matters.

So I'm gonna be rude here for a bit and talk about Dohboi I front of him. My apologies in advance. I'm gonna do this because I think his positions are indicative of much of the population and responsible for our dilemma.

My observation is that Dohboi is passionate about wanting to do good. He hates to idea of people suffering, going without food, clothing, water. He sees the excesses of our culture and wants to lift his brethren out of poverty so that they can partake in a full human experience. These are all noble desires, passions.

These are the same passions that inform charitable organizations such as Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffet, MSF, etc. These passions run deep in all of us, but I some they are stronger. They form the basis of our morality, that which we admire, and we think sets us apart from the lesse animals.

As youngesters we need to learn delayed gratification, we need to learn to contro our passions. To make a somewhat silly comparison (at least for the male audience) who among us does not feel some repressed pang of passion when we see a well formed derrière in yoga pants bouncing down the street before us. It stirs primal urges within us, which we suppress for the good of all.

Dohboi is like some ass grabber who, incited by the above vision, can not constrain himself from acting out and grabbing. In his defense, his "grabbing" giving in to his passion for humanity, has been refinforced by society. We have been told it is a good thing to care about our human beings, we idolize the great humanitarians. So Dohboi has license to let his passions go.

This "morality" is a codification of behaviors, laws if you will, that are universial to humanity. They evolved while humanity was a struggling species, and for the vast majority of our existence they served us well. They may again in the future IF we survive as a species.

However, at this moment in time, they do NOT serve us well. We are a species run amuck. We are a species that needs to be trimmed back. And that runs directly counter to our preprogrammed morality and passions.

What is truly ironic is that while Dohboi give full vent to select passions, he denies other passions, i.e. Our desire for meat.

I think what many of us here have been able to do is to achieve some form of dispassionate remove from our current situation. When you stand back from humanity and look at it as if it were a different species, then you start to be able to develop a more balanced view of our real situation.

It strikes me that this trick, being able to view humanity from a distance, is not something we can all do with equal ease. Some of us just can not do it, it is seemingly impossible. It blinds them to our real situation. Discussions with these folks inevitably devolve.

I don't know how to resolve this situation. Generally I make a rule to just ignore folks with these blind spots. It's like wrestling with pigs, you get muddy and the pig enjoys it.

Why I persist with Dohboi I don't know. Perhaps a missguided hope that if I can eventually get through to him there is hope for others. Although this morning I'm feeling pretty defeated.

[Ibon]

Why I persist with Dohboi I don't know. Perhaps a missguided hope that if I can eventually get through to him there is hope for others. Although this morning I'm feeling pretty defeated.

This is maybe also a human trait, you see a fellow member of your species with a splinter stuck in their foot, they walk constantly with a limp. You feel compelled to remove their splinter.

I have experienced this same inclination toward Dohboi who should be damned grateful for our empathy!

[Ibon]

Further to Newbie's comment is a recommendation that of course first requires some draconian consequences to ever be considered.

I was blessed with some important mentors when I was a child that put me into relationship with nature at a level that competed with my relationship with fellow humans. So much time spent in the woods means that you develop the same visceral feeling toward the well being of eco systems and fellow flora and fauna that you do toward your fellow human. You are then in balance.

Unfortunately most folks these days know only human or cyber landscapes and are not exposed to direct organic relationships with nature and they are therefore anthro centric.

If all children were exposed to nature in a profound way from their early childhood this would take us a big step forward in developing the proper sense of sacredness toward our fellow members of life on this planet. This sense of sacred we do hold for other members of our species in our higher morals but we fail miserably in applying this to the rest of the community of life.

One day this may change.

[Newfie]

This conversation got me to wonder how humans diet has changed through our history.

My understanding, not well researched is that.....
Early humans were opportunistic feeders, omnivorous feeding on whatever was available...berries, nuts, carrion.
With the development of weapons and fire we shifted more towards meat...high quality proteins and fats.....concentrated.....augmented with other foods.
With agriculture we moved towards grains and carbs in order to support ever larger populations at risk to the general health
Today we have a mix. Most folks diets ar devolving further and further towards simple sugars and grains. Especially as the oceans are being depleted. A few of us are able to ride the crest and eat grain forced meat. But we have really lost the connection to anything like "natural" foods.

Stephenson was very aware of the differences between carribo meat at different seasons. He described this in detail in his book "The Friendly Arctic". He was aware of the changing nutritional value of the meat as the seasons evolved.

Comparing his diet or a historic Inuit diet to a meat heavy diet today is probably not wise. The meat we eat is likely much different from the meat they ate.

[KaiserJeep]

Which tastes better: a Vegan or an Omnivore?

[vtsnowedin]

This conversation got me to wonder how humans diet has changed through our history.

My understanding, not well researched is that.....
Early humans were opportunistic feeders, omnivorous feeding on whatever was available...berries, nuts, carrion.
With the development of weapons and fire we shifted more towards meat...high quality proteins and fats.....concentrated.....augmented with other foods.
With agriculture we moved towards grains and carbs in order to support ever larger populations at risk to the general health
Today we have a mix. Most folks diets ar devolving further and further towards simple sugars and grains. Especially as the oceans are being depleted. A few of us are able to ride the crest and eat grain forced meat. But we have really lost the connection to anything like "natural" foods.

Stephenson was very aware of the differences between carribo meat at different seasons. He described this in detail in his book "The Friendly Arctic". He was aware of the changing nutritional value of the meat as the seasons evolved.

Comparing his diet or a historic Inuit diet to a meat heavy diet today is probably not wise. The meat we eat is likely much different from the meat they ate.

That all sounds about right except that when we moved to agriculture we also were shepherds and herdsmen. Goats, sheep, camels cattle and horses were present and utilized for meat, milk, leather fiber,(wool) transportation and tractive power. See the Egyptian tomb paintings showing oxen pulling plows and horse drawn chariots and consider the Lords prayer of the Judeo-Christian tradition. "the Lord is my Shepard I shall not want". So a lot of meat was in the diet in the land of milk and honey,but probably stratified with the nobles having all they wanted and the lowest serfs and slaves having little or none. They also invented beer which used up quite a bit of the grain.
As to the reindeer meat I can tell you that a fall killed deer is a very different fat source then one killed in the spring when they have used up all fat surviving the winter. An old Vermont saying about white tailed deer is that "They ain't fit to eat until the strawberries are ripe" (July 1st.)

[vtsnowedin]

Which tastes better: a Vegan or an Omnivore?

Well a true vegan is apt to be a lean scrawny thing and tough and stringy to eat.
Don't want to contemplate the flavor though and would most likely boil it beyond all recognition before being forced to find out.

[dohboi]

I'm ignoring the ad homs, thank you.

KJ wrote: "Which tastes better: a Vegan or an Omnivore?"



It could well be that Omnivores/carnivores taste better, if you like that sort of thing. Taste is not really a scientific area.

What we can say scientifically is that the lower down the food chain you eat, the less toxins you are likely to be exposed to. Read up on 'bio-accumulation': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioaccumulation

And especially bio-amplification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomagnification

[Shaved Monkey]

Especially as the oceans are being depleted. A few of us are able to ride the crest and eat grain forced meat. But we have really lost the connection to anything like "natural" foods.

Comparing his diet or a historic Inuit diet to a meat heavy diet today is probably not wise. The meat we eat is likely much different from the meat they ate.

Omega 3 in free range grass fed animals is a lot higher our diets have shifted towards omega 6 and the side effects are less omega 3s in your brain being replaced with omega 6
This has all kinds of negative effects.
http://www.blackdoginstitute.org.au/doc ... orders.pdf
The western diet has become an omega 3 deficient diet as we see a shift in the balance of omega 6 and 3 in the brain towards a reduction in 3 and increase in 6
http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/NutritionF ... 0ratio.pdf

[Newfie]

I think that is getting to my point pretty well. Due to resources deletion it is pretty difficult for any of us to eat a diet remmeniscent of what humanity "grew up with."

Growing and Raia g your own food may work pretty well. But that has its own compromises and limitations. For example he vast majority of urban dwellers it is simply not viable due to circumstances or attitude.

[dohboi]

I agree that growing (or gathering/hunting) one's own is a good idea, whatever kind of diet you are talking about.

To my friends who choose to continue to choose to eat large quantities of meat, I would urge them, for their own health purposes, to at least avoid processed meats, which have been shown to be carcinogenic, with high levels of confidence, equal to the level of confidence we have that cigarettes cause cancer.

Just curious, by the way: Is anyone posting on this thread a vegan? If not, the title of the thread is a misnomer.

In general, this isn't a battle royal between two tribes. It is a discussion about the pro's and con' of an array of choices in behavior.

I will not post further here, and instead go back to the other thread on the subject.

[careinke]

I think that is getting to my point pretty well. Due to resources deletion it is pretty difficult for any of us to eat a diet remmeniscent of what humanity "grew up with."

I found this rather amusing, even though it is probably a lot more accurate than depletion. I actually hope it was deliberate. Can I use the phrase, pleeeaaassseee???

[dohboi]

I liked that, too.

[Subjectivist]

I agree that growing (or gathering/hunting) one's own is a good idea, whatever kind of diet you are talking about.

To my friends who choose to continue to choose to eat large quantities of meat, I would urge them, for their own health purposes, to at least avoid processed meats, which have been shown to be carcinogenic, with high levels of confidence, equal to the level of confidence we have that cigarettes cause cancer.

Just curious, by the way: Is anyone posting on this thread a vegan? If not, the title of the thread is a misnomer.

In general, this isn't a battle royal between two tribes. It is a discussion about the pro's and con' of an array of choices in behavior.

I will not post further here, and instead go back to the other thread on the subject.

So far as I can tell of the frequent posters lately you are the most anti-meat member so I guess that makes you the Vegan of the group.

[PeakOiler]

I just can't help thinking about the significance and symbolism of this image:



It's just primal instinct to increase one's chances for survival. New food sources and defense by using tools to kill were a significant step in our evolution. Seems that eating meat is natural. How long have humans been herding animals? Thousands of years. I don't think it'll stop anytime soon.