Scylla, your views on evolution are simplistic and are leading you in the wrong direction. Let’s start from the top and see how far we can get before I run out of time.
- “I exist, and so do you, because you are in the words of Neal Stephenson, a “Colossal bad ass of evolution.” For billions of years your ancestors have been outfighting, outfucking, outkilling and outeating the 99.999999% of all species which ever existed and are now exctinct because of it.”
True, but only for a small value of true. Evolutionary competition takes many forms, most not as spectacular as Mr Stephenson envisions it. In general it’s not a good ida to get your science education from SF; I’ve had many good laughs (and many more aggravated groans) over the science, and especially the biology, in SF novels (not even to mention TV/film).
In particular, humans are a group-living species, and have been for our entire history; in fact, since well before we became a separate species. Over the majority (if not the entirety) of our evolutionary history, the strongest selective force on us has been interacting with, cooperating with, and occasionally exploiting other humans.
- “Specifically, you are adapted to hunt. It’s what you were made to do. You have little protective body hair, and lots of slow twitch endurance muscles. Your head is on a spring that lets you keep it steady when you run. You have binocular vision, and a large ass full of muscle to propel you forward. You can bleed heat by sweating profusely, operate while dehydrated.”
Essentially false. What you are describing here is the “extended running” hypothesis, which can be politely described as “highly controversial”. Binocularity is a characteristic of all primates and is probably a response to arborealism. The configuration of the human neck and buttocks are largely responses to bipedalism itself. We don’t have a clue when hairlessness evolved, so it’s hard to speculate on why. Sweating and tolerance to dehydration are adaptations to prolonged exertion, including walking (not just running), in a hot dry climate. They are unlikely to be adaptations to hunting specifically; widely distributed foraging or long-distance seasonal migration could have the same effects. Furthermore, “endurance hunting” is extremely rare among modern hunter-gatherers, and when it does occur it almost always takes the form of tracking a (usually wounded) animal at a walking pace and repeatedly driving it from cover, rather than simply running it into the ground.
The best evidence to date is that early humans had a diet similar to that of chimpanzees; mainly vegetable, with limited amounts of animal protein, and even that probably predominantly from insects, amphibians and other small fry that doesn’t require particularly athletic endeavors to catch, with only a small proportion derived from other mammals. Although chimpanzees do avidly consume meat if available, the primary value of hunting appears to be mainly social, in that it promotes cooperation and bonding between dominant males, with little of the meat being shared with subordinates, females and juveniles.
In early sites showing signs of (proto)-human consumption of large-animal meat, the topologic location and the condition of remains are most consistent with the idea that the meat has been scavenged from other predators (such as lions), not killed by the humans themselves. There is little evidence for sustained large-scale hunting until after the point at which the features you mention were already well-established (insofar as can be discerned from the fossil record).
There most probably were periods in human evolution in which hunting was dietarily important, but over the majority of our evolutionary history the major value was probably the same as in chimpanzees: promoting cooperation and bonding among the (male) members of a group.
- "My conclusions from having hunted is that there is nothing wrong with suffering and death. I don’t know why we as a society pretend there is. "
As stated above, we are a group-living species. One of the key adaptations that we as higher primates have is the “theory of mind”; that is, the ability to deduce what another person knows and believes, and predict what their subjective response will be. A key component of this is empathy; assessing another’s state of mind in a given situation by imagining what our own state of mind would be in the same circumstances. From an evolutionary perspective, this is most valuable if it is reflexive and involuntary. As such, an aversion to suffering in others and a desire to remove the cause of same has probably conferred (or at least been the byproduct of) a selective advantage throughout our history. Considering that over the last few hundred years the size of our social groups has expanded immensely and the social sanctions for violent behavior have increased commensurately, this trait is probably under significant positive selection even now.
Finally, and importantly, just because a behavior is “natural” does not mean that it is desirable in the current context. Humans have a natural ability to lie, cheat, and steal and to commit rape and murder, and all of these may bring large evolutionary rewards under the right circumstances. Yet I would argue (and I expect that most people would agree) that our current social structure is best served by suppressing these abilities as much as possible.
I do in fact believe that (properly regulated) recreational hunting is (or can be) at worst innocuous, but not for any of the reasons you present here.
As for the latter part of your post, you may have cause to regret your recreational choices in later life. Pain is usually a sign that tissue damage is occurring; repeatedly ignoring that message can lead to irreversible long-term damage and a lowered healing ability as you age.
I have to catch a bus; I’ll try to get back to this tomorrow.
JRB