Oh. You’re a philosopher. We should have figured that out with your appeals to some sort of fundamental nature as opposed to observed behaviours.
Nevermind then, and I apologize on behalf of the entire board for wasting your time with objective argumentation.
I should probably apologize. My first lengthy forum post discussion, what ever you want to call it. I didn’t know what to expect. Perhaps I should post a warning or tag of some sort.
" CAUTION: WILL ENTERTAIN OR PERSUE ANY PARTICULAR NOTION WITH NO REGARD FOR FACTS. "
I thankful for the information though. I’ve learned quite a bit, and am starting to think that meat eating may be somehow engrained in human behavior, but in a different way then I thought might be. The new stuff on chimps using it for reproductive purposes as well as nutrition, makes it a way way huger factor. Some of this makes me almost think of meat as a commodity among chimps, a trading instinct possibly built in possibly.
I did not consider I would learn that, by this discussion.
Actually, there are some interesting findings that put that under scrutiny. Some higher order mammals show evidence of transmitting behaviors and feeding styles through social groups. For instance, there are bottle-nosed dolphins that live in the East coast of the US, South Carolina or somewhere, that have a unique feeding style only found in dolphins in that one region. They chase fish up onto the banks of the creeks to catch them, and end up biting the dirt in the process. Their teeth shows wear from all the dirt/rock chewing. This has only been observed with dolphins in this one geographic area. Other dolphin feeding behaviors have been observed in different geographic areas with similar uniqueness. This strongly suggests that feeding behaviors are learned and shared. This could be considered culture.
It also puts a different spin on your questions about the human nature without the context of culture. If other mammals are experiencing a similar if less dramatic culture contribution, then it shows again how trying to speak of an innate human nature without tools and training is pointless.
Human nature given abundance seems to be to sit on our ass and eat everything we can, and get fat. YMMV.
Good point I have a book on the shelf called “Dolphins people of the Sea”. Culture may extend to other animals too. I tend to agree, there may be elements of culture in other animals.
There is some stuff in chimps that suggests they may have some built in trading instincts, I think its being found in orangoutangs too.
But, I’ve heard some talk about the “spirit” of a given creature, and a captive creature lacking that, which could be an illusion to their “culture” or “things they would have learned in the wild from others of their species” and been past on to them over time through generations of that species learnings, things like migrational behaviors, what’s good to eat. A domestic creature being a sort of shadow of its natural self, having never learned what it’s do to. I think this sorta is why there are issues reintroducing human raised creatures to the wild. They don’t identify with the wild,and have no reason to do their “natural” thing, because maybe they have no idea what that is.
Not a good day to be a sloth.
You also should understand that this board is a magnet for people trying to prove all sorts of bizarre theories, backing them up with questionable reasoning and dubious sources. (“Prove” may not be the best word there, either – maybe “disseminate”.) Your opening post bore many of the hallmarks of one of these.
Powers &8^]
I doubt it, since you clearly misunderstood, or at least only read half of what I posted.
Your basic principle is sound, but you’re overstating things a bit; human beings, after all, aren’t tribbles.
No, it made prefect sense so I didn’t feel a need to ad to it. People eat what they nutritionally need to live.
I just wondered about any genetic variance in HGs, since their diet may largely dependent on meat sources(not live to propagate with out it). And thusly posted. Or for that matter Eskimos, would be interesting to know.
Point taken, I did see one fellow post something odd about the poison content of seeds, insist on the facts of it, then create a new account to agree with himself/herself. (I was going to post a comment to say in some types of poisons it’s possible to develop tolerance or immunity, though there is no proof regarding his particular case, and the poison he named, in the way he named.)
It did occur to me from that to make a JXesbugh account to announce the JZesbaugh should be burnt at the stake.
No, you cherry-picked the bit that appeared to agree with you, and ignored the rest.
But really, who cares? This thread is a monumental waste of electrons.
You’re absolutely right, I went back and reread it. At that time I was going through responding to several posts at once. No I did not see the whole what you were actually saying, I apologize. Really an error, there were lots of post flying at me.
I can see how grandparents would play a role. It opens a whole nest of questions about early human social structure. I can see how that would have, as the other fellow put it, been a very low selection vector.
At the time I was also thinking on how men are, as I understand it, basically fertile till they pass on, so longevity might be a role for men. I don’t think I ever got the opportunity to type that it got lost in the shuffle of so many folks posting at me at once, and trying to keep up. But admittedly a lot of it falls to social structure, and unknowns. What survives being the key. ( That would have been my response)
In responding to so many posts flying at me I have missed a thing or two, truly nothing personal intended.
OK, thanks.
I’m still not sure this thread is going anywhere though.
Someone once said to me that giraffes were the perfect proof that evolution is false, arguing “If evolution is true, how could something as ridiculously unsuited for survival as the giraffe come to exist?”
I pointed out that if the giraffe really was unsuited for survival, there simply wouldn’t be any giraffes.
And I think the same problem is happening here in this thread. Not denial of evolution, as such, but it just cannot be correct that eating meat is something terribly detrimental to humans, or something that evolution would select against, because as far as we can tell, humans have always eaten meat and here we still are (and still eating meat).
Of course, there are diets that have too much or too little of this or that for individuals, but that’s not the same topic at all.
It is a bit knit picky of me, but the topic is interesting enough to me to get knit picky about. The chimp behavior is my focus now, specifically the social trading, and the higher success rates of births for female chimps who males share meat with. This is sort of telling to me, and I sort of suspect why women in current day are less likely to suffer heart disease till menopause. It could also point to why hunting on the ground would be important if game in the trees became scarce, an early man might need to be a good hunter to earn the right to reproduce more.
thus far it's been an interesting discussion.You know what’s nit picky of me? Picking on your use of “knit picky”. But that’s just me, picking nits - nits are the larval stage of body lice. Picking nits is grooming each other and pulling out the tiniest bits. Which is a very ape thing to do.
Ha!
Picking nits is vitally important.
Nits (and fleas, ticks and such) nibbled in the universal ritual of grooming provides primates with the B-12, Omega-3 and essential amino acids that their biology requires for their continued good health.
While there’s little doubt that most Americans eat too much red meat, there is no doubt at all as to our dietary classification - you can quit Mensa or the Rotary Club over philosophical differences, but you can’t cease being an obligate omnivore merely with an act of will (no matter how much will JZesbaugh has).
That’s pointing at a very bizarre symbiotic relationship, though typically those animals ticks and mites are called parasites. In the context that usually parasites and symbiotics are seen on opposite ends of the spectrum.
I still think human beings are odd ducks, or platoipi, if you will, in terms of applying this classification.I remember reading an article (I think) in Science News about sheep eating mice as they graze. I believe this was in Scotland, and when sheep graze, they’d occasionally would find a headless mouse corpse around. The question was whether the sheep did this on purpose. The article supported the idea that sheep were doing so on purpose to get nutrients that weren’t readily available in the grass.
So, even sheep – those urber vegans – might be snacking on an occasional bit of flesh which says that dividing animals into carnivore, herbivore, and omnivore maybe a bit 19th century. Remember it wasn’t so long ago we thought our closest chimp cousins were peaceful vegetarians who lived in a jungle paradise. We now know they hunt and love eating meat.
However, what I understood from that report is that sheep are getting a taste of animal flesh and soon will turn to crave human flesh. Our streets will be over run by carnivorous sheep seeking a taste of human blood. While the vegans and vegetarians cower in their homes waiting for the inevitable, I’ll be waiting for those wooly monsters with a knife, fork, and a jar of mint jelly.
I just checked yah they do apparently, longhorn sheep, which in thinking about it makes sense. There is no reason for the sheep not to eat the mouse. It doesn’t know what it’s supposed to be dietarily, or rather what we have coined it. So you find most mammals being opportunistic omnivores. Imagine how red their faces will be when they read they are herbivores.
Obviously the sheep would have trouble with larger game such as yourself, just hope they don't learn to use tools. Or you take a nap in the wrong field.
Well don’t forget you may need someway to deal with a whole herd, a table knife might not be up to the task, you’ll have a hell of a fight on your hands if you don’t have a bit of amo, and a rapid amo dispensing system.
But what good are clips if you don’t have an amo firing system?