Guest guest Posted September 20, 2007 Report Share Posted September 20, 2007 Oh, yes. I know that the terms are meant to be design descriptive. I didn't state that very well. *sorry* What I meant to say is I don't always agree with such label/descriptors as fact because I don't believe humans are designed to eat meat (long digestive tract being the main reason). Hence, I don't view humans to be omnivores. Animals are eating foods not meant for their systems, too (cows, chickens, pets, probably zoo animals, etc.). When people debate over such things, they are usually observing animals, as you said, that have been influenced by humans in some way, so their conclusions about those observations are skewed, if not completely innacurate. This is somewhat like the discussion about the Inuit/Eskimo people living on raw meat. We can't look at modern-day Inuit/Eskimo people to arrive at any sensible cause of health and longevity. Anyway, no disagreement here... Janet rawfood , " Elchanan " <Elchanan wrote: > > Actually, Janet, the " vore " names are indeed intended as design-descriptive > terms. There is a large body of work on distinctions of digestive design > underlying the taxonomy. The problem is that the intent becomes clouded when > scientists (and others) observe what IS eaten ... which is subject to many > exogenous influences. For example, the diets of most species today are > influenced by human behavior. But much of what is eaten is suboptimal. > > Also, digestive systems can accommodate far more foods than they can process > optimally. For example, a cat will eat corn voraciously when sufficiently > hungry. But this should never be taken to mean that cats are well-designed > to eat corn. Rather, it should be understood to mean that cats wish to > survive. > > Best, > Elchanan > _____ > > rawfood [rawfood ] On Behalf Of > Janet FitzGerald > Wednesday, September 19, 2007 2:45 PM > rawfood > [Raw Food] Re: Vores (great website references for both sides) > > > Living by the design of nature, and figuring out what that design is, > is the question, I believe. I believe the natural hygienists have > answered that question better than any I have read to date. > > Also, I believe the labels " omnivore, carnivore, herbivore " are used > to describe what CAN be eaten, and not what the body was DESIGNED to > eat most efficiently. > > For those interested in learning more about natural hygiene, writings > by Dr. Herbert Shelton can be found at www.soilandhealth.org. > > Janet > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2007 Report Share Posted September 20, 2007 Hi again Janet, Yep, we appear to agree! Science and scientists face the same challenges everyone faces when it comes to separating out their own preexisting knowledge/beliefs ... their biases .... as they observe and experiment in Nature. In our culture, the notion that humans may ever have lived a completely, or nearly completely vegan lifestyle seems almost incompressible to most people, scientists among them. So they come up with descriptions such as " hunter-gatherer " , " omnivore " , etc. to describe our species. Once we separate ourselves from the mainstream belief system to even a reasonable degree, we open for ourselves a whole new set of potential perceptions ... we create for ourselves a clean slate on which to draw/paint an entirely different picture of our history, our design, and our place in Nature's design. So I agree that we are clearly not omnivores by design, for dozens of reasons, not just the length of the digestive tract in relation to the length of the torso. And at the same time, I can genuinely comprehend why many, and including the scientists, are closed even to considering such a proposition. Perhaps, as in the time of Moses, we simply need to wait another 40 years. :) Best, Elchanan _____ rawfood [rawfood ] On Behalf Of Janet FitzGerald Wednesday, September 19, 2007 9:23 PM rawfood [Raw Food] Re: Vores Oh, yes. I know that the terms are meant to be design descriptive. I didn't state that very well. *sorry* What I meant to say is I don't always agree with such label/descriptors as fact because I don't believe humans are designed to eat meat (long digestive tract being the main reason). Hence, I don't view humans to be omnivores. Animals are eating foods not meant for their systems, too (cows, chickens, pets, probably zoo animals, etc.). When people debate over such things, they are usually observing animals, as you said, that have been influenced by humans in some way, so their conclusions about those observations are skewed, if not completely innacurate. This is somewhat like the discussion about the Inuit/Eskimo people living on raw meat. We can't look at modern-day Inuit/Eskimo people to arrive at any sensible cause of health and longevity. Anyway, no disagreement here... Janet rawfood , " Elchanan " <Elchanan wrote: Actually, Janet, the " vore " names are indeed intended as design-descriptive terms. There is a large body of work on distinctions of digestive design underlying the taxonomy. The problem is that the intent becomes clouded when scientists (and others) observe what IS eaten ... which is subject to many exogenous influences. For example, the diets of most species today are influenced by human behavior. But much of what is eaten is suboptimal. Also, digestive systems can accommodate far more foods than they can process optimally. For example, a cat will eat corn voraciously when sufficiently hungry. But this should never be taken to mean that cats are well-designed to eat corn. Rather, it should be understood to mean that cats wish to survive. Best, Elchanan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2007 Report Share Posted September 20, 2007 At Thu, 20 Sep 2007 it looks like vegigran composed: > ...if you're some retired old man or old lady with little to do, or > some middle aged wife with a family, i.e., someone who longer has need for a social life or close friends, then yes by all means experiment with completely taking meat out of your diet. It will likely be the best thing for you. But for those who are new or young and struggling with it, and who want to still go out with the team and enjoy a beer and burger night after playing sports, by all means if all you can only do is 90% raw well then that IS GREAT! .... > > WOW Joe, > I'm seventy and all I can say is " you are in for a big surprise " ! You seem to think that only the new and young have a need for close friends or a social life. I just had lunch with seven of my friends and family this afternoon. Age and food has no bearing on the need for personal relationships. > > > Sharon > In our hearts we plan our day, but it is God who determines our steps. Proverbs 16:9 > When the " raw-food-police " used to ask me at raw food events " are you 100% raw? " I could hardly contain my grin when I'd reply... " Ahh, no, I'm only 99% raw but DAMM that rib-eye steak sure tastes good every Sunday night! " You could almost see the blood drain out of their faces for as long as I could hold a straight face! (giggle) -- " Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing. " -- Redd Foxx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.