Destruction of rainforest accelerates despite outcry

By Daniel Howden, Deputy Foreign Editor
Published: 18 January 2008

The destruction of the Amazon rainforest has surged in the past four
months, raising the prospect of 2008 being a disastrous year for the
world's most important eco-system, a senior Brazilian government
scientist has warned.

Dr Carlos Nobre, a scientist with a government agency that monitors the
Amazon said thousands of square miles of rainforest had been destroyed
since October, after four years in which deforestation rates had begun
to slow.

"I think the past four months is a big concern for the government and
now they are sending people to do more law enforcement," Dr Nobre,
told a seminar in Washington yesterday. "But I can tell you that it
[deforestation] is going to be much higher than 2007."

The claims from the head of Brazil's National Institute for Space
Research appear to undermine the government's record on environmental
protection and come in the same week as a major report was released
detailing the growth of cattle ranching in the Amazon.

Dr Nobre said 2,300 sq miles of forest had been lost in the past four
months. That compares with an estimated 3,700 sq miles in the 12 months
that ended on 31 July, which Brazilian officials hailed as the lowest
deforestation rate since the 1970s.

Those figures had already been hotly disputed by conservationists who
point to increasing pressure from sugar cane plantations to feed the
ethanol boom, illegal cattle ranching for beef exports, soybean
production and illegal logging operations. "All those drivers of change
are there," said Dr Nobre. "The three years of reduced deforestation...
did not bring by themselves a cure for illegal deforestation."

Roberto Smeraldi, from Friends of the Earth Brazil, said the surge was
part of the same cycle of destruction that has seen so much of the
forest cleared in the past. "We had a real overdose of deforestation
between 2002 and 2005, which led to abundant availability of cleared
land," he said. "Now this land has been occupied, the process heats up
again."

Friends of the Earth released a report this week which revealed that 74
million cattle are reared in the Amazon basin where they outnumber
people by a ratio of more than three to one.

Deforestation has emerged as the second leading source of the carbon
emissions driving climate change. Brazil is now among the four main
carbon polluters in the world and deforestation accounts for more than
three quarters of its emissions.

Despite its acknowledged role as one the largest carbon sinks on the
planet, its unrivalled biodiversity and the fact it stores half the
world's fresh water, one fifth of the Amazon basin has been destroyed in
recent years. There are serious concerns that the very survival of the
world's largest rainforest is threatened and, last month, the WWF
published research suggesting the Amazon could be wiped out by 2030.

A record drought two years ago reduced the Amazon to less than a trickle
in large sections and fires last year, caused in part by forest-clearing
for ranches, scattered tonnes of ash over Brazil, Bolivia and Paraguay.

Now in his second term Brazil's President, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva,
has made a series of commitments to safeguarding the Amazon and his
Environment Minister, Marina da Silva, has been feted for her stance on
conservation.

But there is serious criticism of the government's record: that it has
tended to favour industrial growth over environmental concerns.
President Lula's administration has signed off on a rash of questionable
infrastructure projects.

"Infrastructure is associated with aggressive and progressive land use
change," said Dr Nobre.

Amazon threats

Cattle Ranching

New industrial slaughterhouses in the Amazon basin, funded in part by
the World Bank, are fuelling the number of ranches, with cows now
outnumbering people by 10 to 1 in some of the northern states.

Soya farming

Surging demand from Europe encouraged agribusiness giants to set up
illegal ports on the Amazon river and facilitate massive forest
clearance to plant the bean. A fragile moratorium on Amazonian soya
has been declared after adverse publicity for the food giants.

Illegal logging

Always in the front line of deforestation, the loggers clear the way for
the cattle ranchers and farmers to follow in a vicious cycle that has
already consumed one fifth of the rainforest.

Biofuels

Rocketing oil prices mean the ethanol boom is here to stay. The
government insists that sugar cane plantations won't eat into the Amazon
but history shows that every agricultural boom in Brazil pushes
prospectors deeper into the Amazon.

http://environment.independent.co.uk/green_living/article3348001.ece

pearl wrote:
> Destruction of rainforest accelerates despite outcry
> 
> By Daniel Howden, Deputy Foreign Editor
> Published: 18 January 2008
> 
> The destruction of the Amazon rainforest has surged in the past four
> months, raising the prospect of 2008 being a disastrous year for the
> world's most important eco-system, a senior Brazilian government
> scientist has warned.

And it wasn't to supply western developed nations with 
"beefburgers".

"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13p4frfn16iuhae@corp.supernews.com...
> pearl wrote:
> > Destruction of rainforest accelerates despite outcry
> >
> > By Daniel Howden, Deputy Foreign Editor
> > Published: 18 January 2008
> >
> > The destruction of the Amazon rainforest has surged in the past four
> > months, raising the prospect of 2008 being a disastrous year for the
> > world's most important eco-system, a senior Brazilian government
> > scientist has warned.
>
> And it wasn't to supply western developed nations with
> "beefburgers".

Demand for Brazilian beef threatens rainforest
5 April 2004
Source: SciDev.Net

Brazil's growing success as an exporter of beef is responsible for much
of the recent rise in the rate of destruction of the Amazon rainforest,
according to new research.

A report to be released later this year by the Indonesia-based Center for
International Forestry Research (CIFOR) suggests a strong link between
the fivefold increase in Brazilian beef exports in the past six years and
increasingly rapid destruction of the Amazon rainforest.

In the past 12 years, the number of cattle in the Amazon has more than
doubled, from 26 million in 1990 to 57 million in 2002. The report shows
that the overwhelming majority of the new cattle are concentrated in
Brazil' s Amazon states of Mato Grosso, Pará, and Rondônia, which
were also the states with the greatest deforestation in 2002.

"This research provides the first substantial data to support recent
speculation about the role international demand for Brazilian beef is
playing in Brazil's skyrocketing deforestation rate," says David
Kaimowitz, director-general of CIFOR and one of the report's authors.
"Cattle ranchers are making mincemeat out of Brazil's Amazon rainforests."

The report, Hamburger Connection Fuels Amazon Destruction, suggests
that the increase in worldwide demand for Brazilian beef may have been
fuelled by concerns regarding the threat of mad cow disease in other
cattle-producing nations. The recent devaluation of the Brazilian currency
and a decrease in the nation's incidence of foot-and-mouth disease may
also have played a part.

"Brazil's success in combating foot-and-mouth disease may be good news
for the cows, but it is bad news for the forest," Kaimowitz says.

The Brazilian government's Space Research Institute (INPE) is expected
shortly to release satellite images confirming that the Amazon forest is
rapidly disappearing. Last year, INPE's data showed a 40 per cent increase
in deforestation rates over 2002.

In March, Brazil's President Luiz Inácio 'Lula' da Silva announced a new
US$135-million action plan to prevent and control deforestation in the
Amazon.

The government's approach goes in the right direction, but unless urgent
action is taken, the Brazilian Amazon could lose an additional area the size
of Denmark over the next 18 months, warns Benoit Mertens, one of the
authors of the report and a CIFOR researcher.

"The international and domestic market forces currently promoting the
cattle-driven deforestation described in CIFOR's report are much
stronger than ever," he says. "Even with the most determined policy
response, it might be hard to decisively curb deforestation. To limit the
negative impact on Brazilian rainforests will require a massive effort."

Link to a summary of the report's main findings in English

http://www.scidev.net/News/index.cfm?fuseaction=readNews&itemid=1314&language=1

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13p4frfn16iuhae@corp.supernews.com...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> Destruction of rainforest accelerates despite outcry
>>>
>>> By Daniel Howden, Deputy Foreign Editor
>>> Published: 18 January 2008
>>>
>>> The destruction of the Amazon rainforest has surged in the past four
>>> months, raising the prospect of 2008 being a disastrous year for the
>>> world's most important eco-system, a senior Brazilian government
>>> scientist has warned.
>> And it wasn't to supply western developed nations with
>> "beefburgers".
> 
> Demand for Brazilian beef threatens rainforest
> 5 April 2004
> Source: SciDev.Net
> 
> Brazil's growing success as an exporter of beef

*NOT* from the Amazonian region.  Brazil's beef exports 
come from its south-west, e.g. Anastácio.  See 
http://www.mongabay.com/external/brazils_soaring_beef_exports.htm

Fresh beef from the Amazon basin may *NOT* be imported 
into North America, and almost certainly not into 
western Europe, because of hoof and mouth disease is 
endemic there.

MEANWHILE, we see that you have thrown in the towel - 
conceded defeat - on the issue of meat always and at 
all times being a dietary staple for homo sapiens.  You 
had to, given that meat was a dietary staple of pre 
homo sapiens hominids for some 2.25 million years.

"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13p4rubse1kj060@corp.supernews.com...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13p4frfn16iuhae@corp.supernews.com...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> Destruction of rainforest accelerates despite outcry
> >>>
> >>> By Daniel Howden, Deputy Foreign Editor
> >>> Published: 18 January 2008
> >>>
> >>> The destruction of the Amazon rainforest has surged in the past four
> >>> months, raising the prospect of 2008 being a disastrous year for the
> >>> world's most important eco-system, a senior Brazilian government
> >>> scientist has warned.
> >> And it wasn't to supply western developed nations with
> >> "beefburgers".
> >
> > Demand for Brazilian beef threatens rainforest
> > 5 April 2004
> > Source: SciDev.Net
> >
> > Brazil's growing success as an exporter of beef

'The report shows that the overwhelming majority of the new cattle are
concentrated in Brazil' s Amazon states of Mato Grosso, Pará, and
Rondônia, which were also the states with the greatest deforestation in
2002.'
http://www.scidev.net/News/index.cfm?fuseaction=readNews&itemid=1314&language=1

> *NOT* from the Amazonian region.  Brazil's beef exports
> come from its south-west, e.g. Anastácio.  See
> http://www.mongabay.com/external/brazils_soaring_beef_exports.htm

Anastácio is in the Amazon state of Matto Grosso do Sul.

'In the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso, verdant green Amazon
Rainforest is broken up by broad tracts of pale green and tan
deforested land. In 2005, the government of Brazil said that
48 percent of Amazon deforestation that took place in 2003
and 2004 occurred in Mato Grosso.                      [   ]
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17358

From your source:

"In 1971, heeding advice from the head of a meatpacking company,
Mr. Russo sold everything and bought a spread in the still-wild
Brazilian west. Mato Grosso do Sul, a hot, Montana-size province
with prime grazing land, was one of the last regions of Brazil to be
settled. The western part of the state includes some of the Pantanal,
the Americas' largest wetlands. The eastern part of the state, where
Mr. Russo built his ranch, is a type of savannah known locally as
cerrado... "

'Mongabay: Can you describe the sort of environment where you have
your ranch? Is it former rainforest, surrounded by rainforest, or cerrado
grassland habitat?

Carter: When I first came to the ranch is was 60 percent forest and 40
percent pasture. Most of the forest was secondary forest that had been
previously deforested but had regrown. The ranch is located in the
southeast Amazon forest  -- the so-called transition forest in northeastern
Mato Grosso. Most of that region was forest but I've witnessed the vast
majority of that area cleared over the past 10 years. It's been very fast-
paced progress with the frontier rapidly moving across the Amazon.
Just a short time ago we had wilderness, but now we have Cargill at our
back door.

Mongabay: What about the laws that require ranchers to keep a portion
of their land forested? Has this not slowed deforestation?

Carter: Yes, since I arrived here there's been a forest reserve law in place.
Actually in 1998 they raised it from 50 percent of your land kept as forest
to 80 percent. That provision really backfired for the environmental
movement. The law was already contested at 50 percent. Raising it to 80
percent just created a mass hysteria and a state of civil disobedience
where landowners said "to heck with this" and just tore down everything.

The fact is, most people never respected the 50 percent requirement in
the first place. For the most part, they just classified rainforest as cerrado
so they could clear more land.
..'
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0607-carter_interview.html

> Fresh beef from the Amazon basin may *NOT* be imported
> into North America, and almost certainly not into
> western Europe, because of hoof and mouth disease is
> endemic there.

14/01/2008
Europe is our biggest client ....
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N14427141.htm

> MEANWHILE, we see that you have thrown in the towel -
> conceded defeat - on the issue of meat always and at
> all times being a dietary staple for homo sapiens.  You
> had to, given that meat was a dietary staple of pre
> homo sapiens hominids for some 2.25 million years.

I've made my case.  You ignore evidence to the contrary and
continue to state your assertions.  If you think that's 'winning'..

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13p4rubse1kj060@corp.supernews.com...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13p4frfn16iuhae@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> Destruction of rainforest accelerates despite outcry
>>>>>
>>>>> By Daniel Howden, Deputy Foreign Editor
>>>>> Published: 18 January 2008
>>>>>
>>>>> The destruction of the Amazon rainforest has surged in the past four
>>>>> months, raising the prospect of 2008 being a disastrous year for the
>>>>> world's most important eco-system, a senior Brazilian government
>>>>> scientist has warned.
>>>> And it wasn't to supply western developed nations with
>>>> "beefburgers".
>>> Demand for Brazilian beef threatens rainforest
>>> 5 April 2004
>>> Source: SciDev.Net
>>>
>>> Brazil's growing success as an exporter of beef
> 
> 'The report shows that the overwhelming majority of the new cattle are
> concentrated in Brazil' s Amazon states of Mato Grosso, Pará, and
> Rondônia, which were also the states with the greatest deforestation in
> 2002.'

But that's *NOT* where the exports originate.


>> Fresh beef from the Amazon basin may *NOT* be imported
>> into North America, and almost certainly not into
>> western Europe, because of hoof and mouth disease is
>> endemic there.
> 
> 14/01/2008
> Europe is our biggest client ....
> http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N14427141.htm

*Nothing* in that says that the beef comes from the 
Amazonian region of Brazil.  In fact, it doesn't - it 
comes from the south-west.


> 
>> MEANWHILE, we see that you have thrown in the towel -
>> conceded defeat - on the issue of meat always and at
>> all times being a dietary staple for homo sapiens.  You
>> had to, given that meat was a dietary staple of pre
>> homo sapiens hominids for some 2.25 million years.
> 
> I've made my case. 

You didn't.  You *couldn't* - the facts are entirely 
against you.  Homo sapiens has always - always and at 
all places - eaten meat, which is not surprising, as 
the predecessor hominid species ate meat for over 2.25 
million years.

"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13p5khoe070o069@corp.supernews.com...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13p4rubse1kj060@corp.supernews.com...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13p4frfn16iuhae@corp.supernews.com...
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> Destruction of rainforest accelerates despite outcry
> >>>>>
> >>>>> By Daniel Howden, Deputy Foreign Editor
> >>>>> Published: 18 January 2008
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The destruction of the Amazon rainforest has surged in the past four
> >>>>> months, raising the prospect of 2008 being a disastrous year for the
> >>>>> world's most important eco-system, a senior Brazilian government
> >>>>> scientist has warned.
> >>>> And it wasn't to supply western developed nations with
> >>>> "beefburgers".
> >>> Demand for Brazilian beef threatens rainforest
> >>> 5 April 2004
> >>> Source: SciDev.Net
> >>>
> >>> Brazil's growing success as an exporter of beef
> >
> > 'The report shows that the overwhelming majority of the new cattle are
> > concentrated in Brazil' s Amazon states of Mato Grosso, Pará, and
> > Rondônia, which were also the states with the greatest deforestation in
> > 2002.'
>
> But that's *NOT* where the exports originate.

Funny ball.  In your last post, you were claiming they *DID*:
*
> *NOT* from the Amazonian region.  Brazil's beef exports
> come from its south-west, e.g. Anastácio.  See
> http://www.mongabay.com/external/brazils_soaring_beef_exports.htm

Anastácio is in the Amazon state of Matto Grosso do Sul.

'In the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso, verdant green Amazon
Rainforest is broken up by broad tracts of pale green and tan
deforested land. In 2005, the government of Brazil said that
48 percent of Amazon deforestation that took place in 2003
and 2004 occurred in Mato Grosso.                      [   ]
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17358

From your source:

"In 1971, heeding advice from the head of a meatpacking company,
Mr. Russo sold everything and bought a spread in the still-wild
Brazilian west. Mato Grosso do Sul, a hot, Montana-size province
with prime grazing land, was one of the last regions of Brazil to be
settled. The western part of the state includes some of the Pantanal,
the Americas' largest wetlands. The eastern part of the state, where
Mr. Russo built his ranch, is a type of savannah known locally as
cerrado... "

'Mongabay: Can you describe the sort of environment where you have
your ranch? Is it former rainforest, surrounded by rainforest, or cerrado
grassland habitat?

Carter: When I first came to the ranch is was 60 percent forest and 40
percent pasture. Most of the forest was secondary forest that had been
previously deforested but had regrown. The ranch is located in the
southeast Amazon forest  -- the so-called transition forest in northeastern
Mato Grosso. Most of that region was forest but I've witnessed the vast
majority of that area cleared over the past 10 years. It's been very fast-
paced progress with the frontier rapidly moving across the Amazon.
Just a short time ago we had wilderness, but now we have Cargill at our
back door.

Mongabay: What about the laws that require ranchers to keep a portion
of their land forested? Has this not slowed deforestation?

Carter: Yes, since I arrived here there's been a forest reserve law in place.
Actually in 1998 they raised it from 50 percent of your land kept as forest
to 80 percent. That provision really backfired for the environmental
movement. The law was already contested at 50 percent. Raising it to 80
percent just created a mass hysteria and a state of civil disobedience
where landowners said "to heck with this" and just tore down everything.

The fact is, most people never respected the 50 percent requirement in
the first place. For the most part, they just classified rainforest as cerrado
so they could clear more land.
..'
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0607-carter_interview.html
*

> >> Fresh beef from the Amazon basin may *NOT* be imported
> >> into North America, and almost certainly not into
> >> western Europe, because of hoof and mouth disease is
> >> endemic there.
> >
> > 14/01/2008
> > Europe is our biggest client ....
> > http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N14427141.htm
>
> *Nothing* in that says that the beef comes from the
> Amazonian region of Brazil.  In fact, it doesn't - it
> comes from the south-west.

Too late, ball, you've already told us that it does:
*
> *NOT* from the Amazonian region.  Brazil's beef exports
> come from its south-west, e.g. Anastácio.  See
> http://www.mongabay.com/external/brazils_soaring_beef_exports.htm

Anastácio is in the Amazon state of Matto Grosso do Sul.
*
How do they get around the foot-and-mouth disease?..

'The requirements include holding animals in EU approved territories
free of foot-and-mouth disease for at least 90 days and keeping
cattle at the designated ranches for at least 40 days prior to slaughter.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N14427141.htm

> >> MEANWHILE, we see that you have thrown in the towel -
> >> conceded defeat - on the issue of meat always and at
> >> all times being a dietary staple for homo sapiens.  You
> >> had to, given that meat was a dietary staple of pre
> >> homo sapiens hominids for some 2.25 million years.
> >
> > I've made my case.
>
> You didn't.  You *couldn't* - the facts are entirely
> against you.  Homo sapiens has always - always and at
> all places - eaten meat, which is not surprising, as
> the predecessor hominid species ate meat for over 2.25
> million years.

'While the amount of meat consumed by our distant ancestors
is still hotly debated, there is consensus that the Pleistocene
diet consisted overwhelmingly of vegetable material.
..'
http://veg.ca/content/view/285/113/

Paleodiet and Its Relation to Atherosclerosis
'... Homo erectus and Homo sapiens, it is assumed that erectus'
basically raw vegetarian diet may be encoded in our present genome.
However, the prehistoric diet, especially during the last 35000 years
(the verified existence of Homo sapiens sapiens [now 195,000ys]),
exhibits a wide variability of dietetic composition due to various
subsistence strategies and geoclimatic conditions of Eurasia.39
...'
http://www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/reprint/827/1/382.pdf

Snip it again.

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13p5khoe070o069@corp.supernews.com...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13p4rubse1kj060@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13p4frfn16iuhae@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>> Destruction of rainforest accelerates despite outcry
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By Daniel Howden, Deputy Foreign Editor
>>>>>>> Published: 18 January 2008
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The destruction of the Amazon rainforest has surged in the past four
>>>>>>> months, raising the prospect of 2008 being a disastrous year for the
>>>>>>> world's most important eco-system, a senior Brazilian government
>>>>>>> scientist has warned.
>>>>>> And it wasn't to supply western developed nations with
>>>>>> "beefburgers".
>>>>> Demand for Brazilian beef threatens rainforest
>>>>> 5 April 2004
>>>>> Source: SciDev.Net
>>>>>
>>>>> Brazil's growing success as an exporter of beef
>>> 'The report shows that the overwhelming majority of the new cattle are
>>> concentrated in Brazil' s Amazon states of Mato Grosso, Pará, and
>>> Rondônia, which were also the states with the greatest deforestation in
>>> 2002.'
>> But that's *NOT* where the exports originate.
> 
> Funny ball.  In your last post, you were claiming they *DID*:

No, I didn't.


> *
>> *NOT* from the Amazonian region. 

Right:  the exports are *NOT* from the Amazonian region.



> Anastácio is in the Amazon state of Matto Grosso do Sul.

*NO*, you stupid cunt:  Mato Grosso do Sul is *not* an 
Amazonian (not "Amazon") state.  You don't know what 
the fuck you're talking about (but you never do.) 
*LOOK* at a map of Brazil, for the love of fuck, you 
goddamned idiot.


> 
> 'In the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso,

DIFFERENT STATE, you goddamned idiot twat.  Mato Grosso 
do Sul is a DIFFERENT STATE from Mato Grosso.  It is to 
the *SOUTH* of it, *OUTSIDE* the Amazon basin.

You are so colossally stupid.



>>>> Fresh beef from the Amazon basin may *NOT* be imported
>>>> into North America, and almost certainly not into
>>>> western Europe, because of hoof and mouth disease is
>>>> endemic there.
>>> 14/01/2008
>>> Europe is our biggest client ....
>>> http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N14427141.htm
>> *Nothing* in that says that the beef comes from the
>> Amazonian region of Brazil.  In fact, it doesn't - it
>> comes from the south-west.
> 
> Too late, Rudy, 

It was too late for you years back, bitch.


>> *NOT* from the Amazonian region.  Brazil's beef exports
>> come from its south-west, e.g. Anastácio.  See
>> http://www.mongabay.com/external/brazils_soaring_beef_exports.htm
> 
> Anastácio is in the Amazon state of Matto Grosso do Sul.

Mato Grosso do Sul is *NOT* an Amazonian state.  You 
don't know geography, you don't know paleontology, you 
don't know a fucking thing.



>>>> MEANWHILE, we see that you have thrown in the towel -
>>>> conceded defeat - on the issue of meat always and at
>>>> all times being a dietary staple for homo sapiens.  You
>>>> had to, given that meat was a dietary staple of pre
>>>> homo sapiens hominids for some 2.25 million years.
>>> I've made my case.
>> You didn't.  You *couldn't* - the facts are entirely
>> against you.  Homo sapiens has always - always and at
>> all places - eaten meat, which is not surprising, as
>> the predecessor hominid species ate meat for over 2.25
>> million years.
> 
> 'While the amount of meat consumed by our distant ancestors
> is still hotly debated,

It is not.  It is not debated at all, at least not by 
any scientists.

You lost, bitch.  You can't cite a *single* source that 
isn't a crackpot "veg" site that supports your bullshit 
claim.  Every bit of shit hemorrhage you've flooded us 
with came from a BULLSHIT "veg" page, and they're all 
polemical liars - as are you.

Meat was a staple of hominid diet for 2.25 million 
years before the appearance of homo sapiens.  Homo 
sapiens evolved as a meat eater, and this is not 
contested by *any* scientist.

"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13p78qm7fpinvf2@corp.supernews.com...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13p5khoe070o069@corp.supernews.com...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13p4rubse1kj060@corp.supernews.com...
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13p4frfn16iuhae@corp.supernews.com...
> >>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>> Destruction of rainforest accelerates despite outcry
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> By Daniel Howden, Deputy Foreign Editor
> >>>>>>> Published: 18 January 2008
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The destruction of the Amazon rainforest has surged in the past four
> >>>>>>> months, raising the prospect of 2008 being a disastrous year for the
> >>>>>>> world's most important eco-system, a senior Brazilian government
> >>>>>>> scientist has warned.
> >>>>>> And it wasn't to supply western developed nations with
> >>>>>> "beefburgers".
> >>>>> Demand for Brazilian beef threatens rainforest
> >>>>> 5 April 2004
> >>>>> Source: SciDev.Net
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Brazil's growing success as an exporter of beef
> >>> 'The report shows that the overwhelming majority of the new cattle are
> >>> concentrated in Brazil' s Amazon states of Mato Grosso, Pará, and
> >>> Rondônia, which were also the states with the greatest deforestation in
> >>> 2002.'
> >> But that's *NOT* where the exports originate.
> >
> > Funny ball.  In your last post, you were claiming they *DID*:
>
> No, I didn't.
>
>
> > *
> >> *NOT* from the Amazonian region.
>
> Right:  the exports are *NOT* from the Amazonian region.

'Mato Grosso do Sul literally means "Southern Thick Forest", a name
inherited from its northern neighbour state of Mato Grosso, of which
it was part until split in the 70s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mato_Grosso_do_Sul

Not thick forest anymore.  But, ok, it isn't part of Mato Grosso now.

Nevertheless, a link to an article about a rancher just to the south is
not proof that animals aren't raised in the Amazon for beef exports.

'The Independant

World Bank pledges to save trees... then helps cut down Amazon forest

A month ago it vowed to fight deforestation. Now research reveals it
funds the rainforest's biggest threat.

By Daniel Howden
Published: 13 January 2008

The World Bank has emerged as one of the key backers behind an
explosion of cattle ranching in the Amazon, which new research has
identified as the greatest threat to the survival of the rainforest.
Ranching has grown by half in the last three years, driven by new
industrial slaughterhouses which are being constructed in the Amazon
basin with the help of the World Bank. The revelation flies in the face
of claims from the bank that it is funding efforts to halt deforestation
and reduce the massive greenhouse gas emissions it causes.

Roberto Smeraldi, head of Friends of the Earth Brazil and lead author
of the new report, obtained exclusively by The Independent on Sunday,
said the bank's contradictory policy on forests was now clear: "On the
one hand you try and save the forest, on the other you give incentives
for its conversion."

There are now more than 74 million cattle reared in the Amazon basin,
the world's most important eco-system, where they outnumber people
by a ratio of more than three to one. Fuelled by massive illegal ranches,
the South American giant has become the world's leading beef exporter,
rearing more cattle than all 25 EU members put together. This industrial
expansion comes despite international agreements to combat deforestation,
and claims from the government of Brazil that it is succeeding in slowing
the destruction of the world's largest standing forest.

"Land-use change in the Amazon is first and foremost a product of
ranching. It is on the hooves of cattle, out on the forest fringe, where
the repercussions are being felt," said Mr Smeraldi.

The new report, "The Cattle Realm", comes after a year in which
deforestation was acknowledged as the second leading cause of carbon
emissions worldwide and was included in the plan for a new global treaty
to fight climate change. But the catastrophic destruction of the Amazon
to make way for ranches is being funded by the same international
institutions that have pledged to fight deforestation.

The World Bank, which unveiled a new programme to fund "avoided
deforestation" at the UN climate summit in Bali last month, is at the
same time pouring money into the expansion of slaughterhouses in
the Amazon region. The new report estimates that the internationally
funded expansion of Brazil's beef industry was responsible for up to
12 billion tons of CO2 emissions over the past decade - an amount
comparable to two years of emissions from the US.

The World Bank, which British taxpayers help to fund, lent its backing
to the inclusion of deforestation in the Bali "road map" signed by 180
countries last month. At the summit the bank unveiled its Forest Carbon
Partnership Facility (FCPF), aimed at reducing deforestation by
compensating developing countries for carbon dioxide reductions
realised by maintaining their forests. The pilot programme has received
more than $160m (£82m) in funding from donor governments.

The World Bank's president, Robert Zoellick, claimed that the project
"signals that the world cares about the global value of forests and is
ready to pay for it. There is now a value to conserving, not just
harvesting the forest." But the institution, set up to provide loans to
developing countries aimed at reducing poverty, has been accused of
hypocrisy as it talks up relatively low levels of funding on "avoided
deforestation" while spending millions more on the industries - such
as cattle ranching and soya production - that are the acknowledged
drivers of forest destruction.

In a single project last year, the IFC - part of the World Bank group -
handed $9m to Brazil's leading beef processor to upgrade its
slaughterhouse operations in the Amazon, despite an environmental
study, carried out for the IFC, which showed that expansion of a
single slaughterhouse in Maraba would lead to the loss of up to
300,000 hectares of forest to make way for more cattle.

The project was signed off despite angry resistance from up to 30 NGOs
in Brazil and the intervention of the influential US lobbying group the
Sierra Club, all of which pointed out that the high-risk agricultural project
contradicted the bank's stated aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

In the past three years Brazil's National Development Bank and the World
Bank have poured funds into the southern Amazon, fuelling the expansion
of the cattle industry with new slaughterhouses and four million additional
head of cattle. "While governments insist they are doing their utmost to
stop deforestation they have been putting in place incentives for the
destruction of the forest. It is taxpayers' money fuelling this," said Mr
Smeraldi.

Only the US rears more cattle than Brazil, which since 2004 has led the
world in beef exports. The endangered eco-system of the Amazon basin
has accounted for 96 per cent of all growth in the country's cattle industry.
The ranchers are expanding as meat consumption soars both in Brazil and
the rest of the world. Britain is the sixth largest importer of Brazilian beef,
buying more than 80,000 tons in the year to November 2007.

The Amazon basin is home to one in 10 of the world's mammals and 15
per cent of land-based plant species. It holds more than half the world's
fresh water, and its vast forests act as the largest carbon sink on the planet,
providing a vital check on the greenhouse effect. This vital resource faces
three main dangers: the expansion of the soya industry, driven by high
prices for animal feed; the surge in sugarcane plantations to feed the
sudden and insatiable global appetite for bio-fuels; and the traditional
threat of cattle ranching, underestimated in recent years as soya and
sugarcane have received more attention.

Since the "Save the Amazon" campaigns of the 1970s the role of illegal
ranchers in the destruction of the rainforest has been widely known.
Virtually non-existent government control has allowed ranchers to clear
large areas of remote forest for pasture. But the land - while initially fertile
- quickly erodes, spurring the need for new pasture and driving the
chainsaws further into the forest, in a vicious cycle largely unchecked
for decades. Carbon dioxide emissions from the fires set to clear the
trees have helped to propel Brazil into the top four carbon polluters in
the world, exceeded only by the US, China and Indonesia.

At the end of each dry season, in anticipation of the first winter rains,
farmers and cattle ranchers throughout South America set fires to
"renovate" pasture land. But this process has spun out of control as
deforestation and climate change have created a tinderbox, leading to
ever-larger blazes. Last October a record area of the rainforest went up
in flames, choking vast areas of not just Brazil but Paraguay and Bolivia.

There are increasing signs that the strain placed on the Amazon's
eco-system could lead to an irreversible breakdown Last month the
WWF predicted that the combination of drought and fire could wipe
out the Amazon by 2030, with disastrous consequences for the world.

http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article3333872.ece

> >>>> MEANWHILE, we see that you have thrown in the towel -
> >>>> conceded defeat - on the issue of meat always and at
> >>>> all times being a dietary staple for homo sapiens.  You
> >>>> had to, given that meat was a dietary staple of pre
> >>>> homo sapiens hominids for some 2.25 million years.
> >>> I've made my case.
> >> You didn't.  You *couldn't* - the facts are entirely
> >> against you.  Homo sapiens has always - always and at
> >> all places - eaten meat, which is not surprising, as
> >> the predecessor hominid species ate meat for over 2.25
> >> million years.
> >
> > 'While the amount of meat consumed by our distant ancestors
> > is still hotly debated,
>
> It is not.  It is not debated at all, at least not by
> any scientists.

Archaeological evidence for meat-eating by Plio-Pleistocene ...
The importance of meat-eating in human evolution has long been
a controversial subject1?4. The best available evidence of hominid
activities between 2 and ...
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v291/n5816/abs/291574a0.html

JSTOR: Meat Eating and Hominid Evolution
In spite of the central place assigned to studies of meat eating,
scholars from the ... "Rethinking the Behavioral Ecology of
Plio-Pleistocene Hominid Meat ...
links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0011-3204(199912)40%3A5%3C726%3AMEAHE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E

IngentaConnect Male strategies and Plio-Pleistocene archaeology
Collectively, Plio-Pleistocene site location and assemblage composition are
... Even if meat were acquired more reliably than the archaeology indicates, ...
www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/hu/2002/00000043/00000006/art00604 -

Testing meat-eating in early hominids: an analysis of butchery ...
..tions at Plio-Pleistocene sites is still a controversial issue. Meat-.
eating and bone marrow consumption are often presented either ...
www.springerlink.com/index/N3613VK677403542.pdf -

> You lost, bitch.  You can't cite a *single* source that
> isn't a crackpot "veg" site that supports

Projection.

Paleodiet and Its Relation to Atherosclerosis
'... Homo erectus and Homo sapiens, it is assumed that erectus'
basically raw vegetarian diet may be encoded in our present genome.
However, the prehistoric diet, especially during the last 35000 years
(the verified existence of Homo sapiens sapiens [now 195,000ys]),
exhibits a wide variability of dietetic composition due to various
subsistence strategies and geoclimatic conditions of Eurasia.39
...'
http://www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/reprint/827/1/382.pdf

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13p78qm7fpinvf2@corp.supernews.com...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13p5khoe070o069@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13p4rubse1kj060@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13p4frfn16iuhae@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Destruction of rainforest accelerates despite outcry
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> By Daniel Howden, Deputy Foreign Editor
>>>>>>>>> Published: 18 January 2008
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The destruction of the Amazon rainforest has surged in the past four
>>>>>>>>> months, raising the prospect of 2008 being a disastrous year for the
>>>>>>>>> world's most important eco-system, a senior Brazilian government
>>>>>>>>> scientist has warned.
>>>>>>>> And it wasn't to supply western developed nations with
>>>>>>>> "beefburgers".
>>>>>>> Demand for Brazilian beef threatens rainforest
>>>>>>> 5 April 2004
>>>>>>> Source: SciDev.Net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brazil's growing success as an exporter of beef
>>>>> 'The report shows that the overwhelming majority of the new cattle are
>>>>> concentrated in Brazil' s Amazon states of Mato Grosso, Pará, and
>>>>> Rondônia, which were also the states with the greatest deforestation in
>>>>> 2002.'
>>>> But that's *NOT* where the exports originate.
>>> Funny Rudy.  In your last post, you were claiming they *DID*:
>> No, I didn't.
>>
>>
>>> *
>>>> *NOT* from the Amazonian region.
>> Right:  the exports are *NOT* from the Amazonian region.

And they aren't.  The exports come from the Brazilian 
south-west - *outside* of Amazonia.


> 
> 'Mato Grosso do Sul literally means "Southern Thick Forest",

It's not part of the Amazonian basin, you stupid cunt. 
  No amount of your shit hemorrhage will change that 
(nor will it change the fact you're a stupid cunt.)


> 
>>>>>> MEANWHILE, we see that you have thrown in the towel -
>>>>>> conceded defeat - on the issue of meat always and at
>>>>>> all times being a dietary staple for homo sapiens.  You
>>>>>> had to, given that meat was a dietary staple of pre
>>>>>> homo sapiens hominids for some 2.25 million years.
>>>>> I've made my case.
>>>> You didn't.  You *couldn't* - the facts are entirely
>>>> against you.  Homo sapiens has always - always and at
>>>> all places - eaten meat, which is not surprising, as
>>>> the predecessor hominid species ate meat for over 2.25
>>>> million years.
>>> 'While the amount of meat consumed by our distant ancestors
>>> is still hotly debated,
>> It is not.  It is not debated at all, at least not by
>> any scientists.
> 
> Archaeological evidence for meat-eating by Plio-Pleistocene ...

Homo sapiens evolved as meat eaters.  This is not 
disputed by anyone.  Archeological evidence for meat 
eating extends back for millions of years prior to the 
appearance of homo sapiens.  Homo erectus ate meat, 
period, and did so for millions of years prior to homo 
sapiens.


>> You lost, bitch.  You can't cite a *single* source that
>> isn't a crackpot "veg" site that supports
> 
> Projection.

No.  You can't cite a single source that isn't a 
crackpot "veg" site that says the hominids from which 
homo sapiens evolved did not include meat as a staple 
element of their diet.  You lost.

"Rudy Canoza" 

Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment.
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

On Jan 21, 11:29 am, "pearl"  wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" 
>
> Faking quotes,

Faking nothing.  Rather, demolishing you and your fuckwitted pseudo-
arguments.

You *always* lose on the facts, bitch.  Brazil's fresh beef exports to
the developed world do not come from the Amazonian basin (although a
little bit of canned (tinned) beef does make it to the U.S.)  Their
fresh beef exports are from the Brazilian south-west, *OUTSIDE* the
Amazonian basin.

And humans have always, and at all places, eaten meat.  This is not
disputed by any legitimate scientists.

"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:f6d8138e-b0bb-4772-9cbc-93315cb15c96@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 21, 11:29 am, "pearl"  wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" 
>
> Faking quotes,

<Faking nothing.  Rather, demolishing you and your fuckwitted pseudo-
<arguments.
<
<You *always* lose on the facts, bitch.  Brazil's fresh beef exports to
<the developed world do not come from the Amazonian basin (although a
<little bit of canned (tinned) beef does make it to the U.S.)  Their
<fresh beef exports are from the Brazilian south-west, *OUTSIDE* the
<Amazonian basin.

You're either delusional or lying, and wrong, as ever.

'1.5 One third of Brazilian fresh beef exports in 2007 came from direct
exports from the Amazon, notably from the states of Mato Grosso,
Pará, Rondônia and Tocantins.  Since 1994, Pará increased its direct
exports (by weight) 7,800%, Rondônia by 1,350%, Tocantins by 150%
and Mato Grosso by 360%.  These data do not include exports of live
cattle by Pará that exceeded 200,000 head in 2007.  Mato Grosso
mainly exported to Russia, Egypt, China (via Hong Kong), United
Kingdom, Italy, Germany and the United States.  Rondônia's principle
importers included Russia, Egypt, China and the United Kingdom.
Pará, whose exports boomed since mid-2007, has Israel, Egypt, China,
Saudi Arabia, Ivory Coast, Lebano and Angola as main importers.

1.6 The removal of restrictions against the Amazon region for control
of hoof-and-mouth disease not only placed it in the same phyto-
sanitary category as other regions of the country, but made it a zone
of preference for some importers.  The new phenomenon is that the
south and southeast regions were once again threatened by this
disease, owing to their greater contact and integration with infected
areas.  The substitution of ranching by other, more profitable uses of
land (grain, sugarcane, urbanization, etc.) in the south and southeast
regions, and the facility of land access in the Amazon, may have
contributed to a progressive transference of the herd to the North.
Ranchers who transferred their herds to the Amazon now participate,
with lesser restrictions, in the growing export market.
....'
http://www.amazonia.org.br/arquivos/259673.pdf

'Local and International ramifications based on the findings of
the Cattle Realm report, with consensus on its results - 01/17/2008

Locality: São Paulo - SP
Source: Amigos da Terra - Amazônia Brasileira
Link: http://www.amigosdaterra.org.br

The Cattle Realm report, launched this Sunday by Amigos da Terra
- Amzônia Brasileira (Friends of the Earth - Brazilian Amazon),
opened up a broad public debate regarding the chain of activities that
has resulted in the movement of livestock to the North of the country,
and ranching expansion.

The minister of agriculture Reinhold Stephanes reported to the Brazilian
newspaper, Folha de São Paulo, that he was "very concerned" with the
occurring phenomenon and admitted that the government's policy
changes regarding the use of land was made only "in theory". Still, the
minister made a faithful declaration: "As Minister of Agriculture, I
believe that we do not need to do this (deforest the Amazon) in order
to export meat."

The findings traced by the report seem to be unanimous among all the
stakeholders, even those with interests diametrically opposed to this
cause. As found by Folha de Sao Paulo the impacts were being caused
by various local players. Carlos Xavier himself, who is the chairman of
the committee of the Amazon of the National Confederation of
Agriculture, noted that the livestock are being "pushed towards this
region" with a "very strong pressure" due to extreme amounts of activity
generated from other agricultural activities. Already the mayor of São Félix
do Xingu , Denimar Rodrigues, openly admits that "it is much cheaper to
clear land for pasture than to invest in the land's recovery," because
"nobody respects the limit." This morning, Amigos da Terra was reported
to have received dozens of emails as a reaction to the report, including
major pastoralists (livestock owners), all agreeing with the analysis of the
report.

There was a lower consensus on possible solutions and
recommendations, at least from the facts raised by Folha de São Paulo.
The newspaper found that the arrival of new refrigerators does not
replace the local market, which pays a pathetic price and consumes meat
in large quantities. As argued by Roberto Smeraldi, director of Amigos
da Terra - Amzônia Brasileira, in a newspaper interview, the two markets
tend to complement and coexist, increasing the impact of the activity.
..'
http://www.amazonia.org.br/english/noticias/noticia.cfm?id=259744

<And humans have always, and at all places, eaten meat.  This is not
<disputed by any legitimate scientists.

Meaning only those who support your views...   LOL.

On Jan 21, 12:33 pm, "pearl"  wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in messagenews:f6d8138e-b0bb-4772-9cbc-93315cb15c96@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Jan 21, 11:29 am, "pearl"  wrote:
>
> > "Rudy Canoza" 
>
> > Faking quotes,
>
> <Faking nothing.  Rather, demolishing you and your fuckwitted pseudo-
> <arguments.
> <
> <You *always* lose on the facts, bitch.  Brazil's fresh beef exports to
> <the developed world do not come from the Amazonian basin (although a
> <little bit of canned (tinned) beef does make it to the U.S.)  Their
> <fresh beef exports are from the Brazilian south-west, *OUTSIDE* the
> <Amazonian basin.
>
> You're either delusional or lying, and wrong, as ever.
>

Yes, you are both, and no matter how much shit hemorrhage you spew
into usenet, it won't change that:

   There is no farming of beef for export on deforested Amazon land.
   While the growth of beef production in Brazil is sometimes cited
   by activists as putting pressure on the rainforest, this is not
the
   case. There is much better, more productive agricultural land
which
   is unexploited across the rest of the country. While cattle will
be
   grazed on deforested land, this is not for export production and
   indeed has more to do with 'staking out' territory. The exporters'
   trade organisation (ABIEC) is a strong supporter of the Institute
   for Responsible Agribusiness, which is dedicated to sustainable
   production.

   http://www.brazilianbeef.info/faq.html


You are completely full of shit.



> <And humans have always, and at all places, eaten meat.  This is not
> <disputed by any legitimate scientists.
>
> Meaning only those who support your views

No - meaning that you cannot cite a *single* scientist who disagrees
with the claim that meat was a staple food of the hominids from which
homo sapiens evolved for millions of years.  Your "veg" page shit
hemorrhage citations are not based on any science.

"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:722a703e-dc7e-48f5-a0a0-409794342497@s27g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 21, 12:33 pm, "pearl"  wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in messagenews:f6d8138e-b0bb-4772-9cbc-93315cb15c96@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > On Jan 21, 11:29 am, "pearl"  wrote:
> >
> > > "Rudy Canoza" 
> >
> > > Faking quotes,
> >
> > <Faking nothing.  Rather, demolishing you and your fuckwitted pseudo-
> > <arguments.
> > <
> > <You *always* lose on the facts, bitch.  Brazil's fresh beef exports to
> > <the developed world do not come from the Amazonian basin (although a
> > <little bit of canned (tinned) beef does make it to the U.S.)  Their
> > <fresh beef exports are from the Brazilian south-west, *OUTSIDE* the
> > <Amazonian basin.
> >
> > You're either delusional or lying, and wrong, as ever.
>
> Yes, you are both, and no matter how much shit hemorrhage you spew
> into usenet, it won't change that:
>
>    There is no farming of beef for export on deforested Amazon land.
>    While the growth of beef production in Brazil is sometimes cited
>    by activists as putting pressure on the rainforest, this is not
> the
>    case. There is much better, more productive agricultural land
> which
>    is unexploited across the rest of the country. While cattle will
> be
>    grazed on deforested land, this is not for export production and
>    indeed has more to do with 'staking out' territory. The exporters'
>    trade organisation (ABIEC) is a strong supporter of the Institute
>    for Responsible Agribusiness, which is dedicated to sustainable
>    production.
>
>    http://www.brazilianbeef.info/faq.html
>
>
> You are completely full of shit.

Projection.  But thanks for showing us the meat industry's blatant lies.
The report you're ignoring is based on Ministry of Development data.

<restore>

 '1.5 One third of Brazilian fresh beef exports in 2007 came from direct
exports from the Amazon, notably from the states of Mato Grosso,
Pará, Rondônia and Tocantins.  Since 1994, Pará increased its direct
exports (by weight) 7,800%, Rondônia by 1,350%, Tocantins by 150%
and Mato Grosso by 360%.  These data do not include exports of live
cattle by Pará that exceeded 200,000 head in 2007.  Mato Grosso
mainly exported to Russia, Egypt, China (via Hong Kong), United
Kingdom, Italy, Germany and the United States.  Rondônia's principle
importers included Russia, Egypt, China and the United Kingdom.
Pará, whose exports boomed since mid-2007, has Israel, Egypt, China,
Saudi Arabia, Ivory Coast, Lebanon and Angola as main importers.

1.6 The removal of restrictions against the Amazon region for control
of hoof-and-mouth disease not only placed it in the same phyto-
sanitary category as other regions of the country, but made it a zone
of preference for some importers.  The new phenomenon is that the
south and southeast regions were once again threatened by this
disease, owing to their greater contact and integration with infected
areas.  The substitution of ranching by other, more profitable uses of
land (grain, sugarcane, urbanization, etc.) in the south and southeast
regions, and the facility of land access in the Amazon, may have
contributed to a progressive transference of the herd to the North.
Ranchers who transferred their herds to the Amazon now participate,
with lesser restrictions, in the growing export market.
.....'
http://www.amazonia.org.br/arquivos/259673.pdf

> > <And humans have always, and at all places, eaten meat.  This is not
> > <disputed by any legitimate scientists.
> >
> > Meaning only those who support your views......  LOL.
>
> No - meaning that you cannot cite a *single* scientist who disagrees
> with the claim that meat was a staple food of the hominids from which
> homo sapiens evolved for millions of years.  Your "veg" page shit
> hemorrhage citations are not based on any science.

Projection.

'Robert W. Sussman, Ph.D., professor of anthropology in Arts
& Sciences,
...
Since the process of human evolution is so long and varied,
Sussman and his co-author, Donna L. Hart, decided to focus
their research on one specific species, Australopithecus afarensis,
which lived between five million and two and a half million years
ago and is one of the better known early human species. Most
paleontologists agree that Australopithecus afarensis is the
common link between fossils that came before and those that
came after. It shares dental, cranial and skeletal traits with both.
It's also a very well-represented species in the fossil record.

"Australopithecus afarensis was probably quite strong, like a
small ape," Sussman says. Adults ranged from around 3 to 5
feet and they weighed 60-100 pounds. They were basically
smallish bipedal primates. Their teeth were relatively small, very
much like modern humans, and they were fruit and nut eaters.

But what Sussman and Hart discovered is that Australopithecus
afarensis was not dentally pre-adapted to eat meat.

"It didn't have the sharp shearing blades necessary to retain and
cut such foods," Sussman says. "These early humans simply
couldn't eat meat. If they couldn't eat meat, why would they hunt?"

It was not possible for early humans to consume a large amount
of meat until fire was controlled and cooking was possible.

Sussman points out that the first tools didn't appear until two
million years ago. And there wasn't good evidence of fire until
after 800,000 years ago. "In fact, some archaeologists and
paleontologists don't think we had a modern, systematic method
of hunting until as recently as 60,000 years ago," he says.
..'
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=38011

On Jan 21, 3:44 pm, "pearl"  wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in messagenews:722a703e-dc7e-48f5-a0a0-409794342497@s27g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jan 21, 12:33 pm, "pearl"  wrote:
> > > "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in messagenews:f6d8138e-b0bb-4772-9cbc-93315cb15c96@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Jan 21, 11:29 am, "pearl"  wrote:
>
> > > > "Rudy Canoza" 
>
> > > > Faking quotes,
>
> > > <Faking nothing.  Rather, demolishing you and your fuckwitted pseudo> > > <arguments.
> > > <
> > > <You *always* lose on the facts, bitch.  Brazil's fresh beef exports to
> > > <the developed world do not come from the Amazonian basin (although a
> > > <little bit of canned (tinned) beef does make it to the U.S.)  Their> > > <fresh beef exports are from the Brazilian south-west, *OUTSIDE* the
> > > <Amazonian basin.
>
> > > You're either delusional or lying, and wrong, as ever.
>
> > Yes, you are both, and no matter how much shit hemorrhage you spew
> > into usenet, it won't change that:
>
> >    There is no farming of beef for export on deforested Amazon land.> >    While the growth of beef production in Brazil is sometimes cited
> >    by activists as putting pressure on the rainforest, this is not
> > the
> >    case. There is much better, more productive agricultural land
> > which
> >    is unexploited across the rest of the country. While cattle will
> > be
> >    grazed on deforested land, this is not for export production and
> >    indeed has more to do with 'staking out' territory. The exporters> >    trade organisation (ABIEC) is a strong supporter of the Institute> >    for Responsible Agribusiness, which is dedicated to sustainable
> >    production.
>
> >    http://www.brazilianbeef.info/faq.html
>
> > You are completely full of shit.
>
> Projection.

Nope.  You are full of shit.


> .....'http://www.amazonia.org.br/arquivos/259673.pdf

Another bullshit activist site.



>
> > > <And humans have always, and at all places, eaten meat.  This is not> > > <disputed by any legitimate scientists.
>
> > > Meaning only those who support your views......  LOL.
>
> > No - meaning that you cannot cite a *single* scientist who disagrees
> > with the claim that meat was a staple food of the hominids from which
> > homo sapiens evolved for millions of years.  Your "veg" page shit
> > hemorrhage citations are not based on any science.
>
> Projection.

Nope.  You cannot cite a *single* source showing that homo sapiens, as
well as its predecessors extending back some 2.5 million years, didn't
regularly eat meat.


> 'Robert W. Sussman, Ph.D., professor of anthropology in Arts
> & Sciences,
> ...
> Since the process of human evolution is so long and varied,
> Sussman and his co-author, Donna L. Hart, decided to focus
> their research on one specific species, Australopithecus afarensis,

That species preceded homo sapiens by 2.5 million years.  But that
species also ate meat.  Intermediate species between a. afarensis and
h. sapiens ate even more meat.

You lose.  Homo sapiens has always eaten meat, at all times and
places, and the predecessor species between h. sapiens and a.
afarensis also ate meat.

"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:a243fc8e-3980-4c1d-8c70-8d6d61b68b4a@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 21, 3:44 pm, "pearl"  wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in messagenews:722a703e-dc7e-48f5-a0a0-409794342497@s27g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jan 21, 12:33 pm, "pearl"  wrote:
> > > "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in messagenews:f6d8138e-b0bb-4772-9cbc-93315cb15c96@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Jan 21, 11:29 am, "pearl"  wrote:
>
> > > > "Rudy Canoza" 
>
> > > > Faking quotes,
>
> > > <Faking nothing. Rather, demolishing you and your fuckwitted pseudo-
> > > <arguments.
> > > <
> > > <You *always* lose on the facts, bitch. Brazil's fresh beef exports to
> > > <the developed world do not come from the Amazonian basin (although a
> > > <little bit of canned (tinned) beef does make it to the U.S.) Their
> > > <fresh beef exports are from the Brazilian south-west, *OUTSIDE* the
> > > <Amazonian basin.
>
> > > You're either delusional or lying, and wrong, as ever.
>
> > Yes, you are both, and no matter how much shit hemorrhage you spew
> > into usenet, it won't change that:
>
> > There is no farming of beef for export on deforested Amazon land.
> > While the growth of beef production in Brazil is sometimes cited
> > by activists as putting pressure on the rainforest, this is not
> > the
> > case. There is much better, more productive agricultural land
> > which
> > is unexploited across the rest of the country. While cattle will
> > be
> > grazed on deforested land, this is not for export production and
> > indeed has more to do with 'staking out' territory. The exporters'
> > trade organisation (ABIEC) is a strong supporter of the Institute
> > for Responsible Agribusiness, which is dedicated to sustainable
> > production.
>
> > http://www.brazilianbeef.info/faq.html
>
> > You are completely full of shit.
>
> Projection.

Nope.  You are full of shit.

<<<<<<<<<

Projection.  But thanks for showing us the meat industry's blatant lies.
The report you're ignoring is based on Ministry of Development data.

<restore>

 '1.5 One third of Brazilian fresh beef exports in 2007 came from direct
exports from the Amazon, notably from the states of Mato Grosso,
Pará, Rondônia and Tocantins.  Since 1994, Pará increased its direct
exports (by weight) 7,800%, Rondônia by 1,350%, Tocantins by 150%
and Mato Grosso by 360%.  These data do not include exports of live
cattle by Pará that exceeded 200,000 head in 2007.  Mato Grosso
mainly exported to Russia, Egypt, China (via Hong Kong), United
Kingdom, Italy, Germany and the United States.  Rondônia's principle
importers included Russia, Egypt, China and the United Kingdom.
Pará, whose exports boomed since mid-2007, has Israel, Egypt, China,
Saudi Arabia, Ivory Coast, Lebanon and Angola as main importers.

1.6 The removal of restrictions against the Amazon region for control
of hoof-and-mouth disease not only placed it in the same phyto-
sanitary category as other regions of the country, but made it a zone
of preference for some importers.  The new phenomenon is that the
south and southeast regions were once again threatened by this
disease, owing to their greater contact and integration with infected
areas.  The substitution of ranching by other, more profitable uses of
land (grain, sugarcane, urbanization, etc.) in the south and southeast
regions, and the facility of land access in the Amazon, may have
contributed to a progressive transference of the herd to the North.
Ranchers who transferred their herds to the Amazon now participate,
with lesser restrictions, in the growing export market.
.....'
http://www.amazonia.org.br/arquivos/259673.pdf
*

> .....'http://www.amazonia.org.br/arquivos/259673.pdf

Another bullshit activist site.

<<<<<<<<<<<<

"Propagandists love short-cuts -- particularly those which short-circuit
rational thought. They encourage this by agitating emotions, by exploiting
insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending
the rules of logic." Aaron Delwiche, from: "Why Think About Propaganda?
..'
http://www.lkwdpl.org/wildideas/propaganda.html

> > > <And humans have always, and at all places, eaten meat. This is not
> > > <disputed by any legitimate scientists.
>
> > > Meaning only those who support your views...... LOL.
>
> > No - meaning that you cannot cite a *single* scientist who disagrees
> > with the claim that meat was a staple food of the hominids from which
> > homo sapiens evolved for millions of years. Your "veg" page shit
> > hemorrhage citations are not based on any science.
>
> Projection.

Nope.  You cannot cite a *single* source showing that homo sapiens, as
well as its predecessors extending back some 2.5 million years, didn't
regularly eat meat.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I just did!!

> 'Robert W. Sussman, Ph.D., professor of anthropology in Arts
> & Sciences,
> ...
> Since the process of human evolution is so long and varied,
> Sussman and his co-author, Donna L. Hart, decided to focus
> their research on one specific species, Australopithecus afarensis,

That species preceded homo sapiens by 2.5 million years.  But that
species also ate meat.  Intermediate species between a. afarensis and
h. sapiens ate even more meat.

You lose.  Homo sapiens has always eaten meat, at all times and
places, and the predecessor species between h. sapiens and a.
afarensis also ate meat.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Paleodiet and Its Relation to Atherosclerosis
'... Homo erectus and Homo sapiens, it is assumed that erectus'
basically raw vegetarian diet may be encoded in our present genome.
However, the prehistoric diet, especially during the last 35000 years
(the verified existence of Homo sapiens sapiens [now 195,000ys]),
exhibits a wide variability of dietetic composition due to various
subsistence strategies and geoclimatic conditions of Eurasia.39
...'
http://www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/reprint/827/1/382.pdf

'Anthropologically speaking, humans were high consumers of calcium
until the onset of the Agricultural Age, 10,000 years ago. Current
calcium intake is one-quarter to one-third that of our evolutionary diet
and, if we are genetically identical to the Late Paleolithic Homo sapiens,
we may be consuming a calcium-deficient diet our bodies cannot adjust
to by physiologic mechanisms.

The anthropological approach says, with the exception of a few small
changes related to genetic blood diseases, that humans are basically
identical biologically and medically to the hunter-gatherers of the late
Paleolithic Era.17  During this period, calcium content of the diet was
much higher than it is currently.  Depending on the ratio of animal to
plant foods, calcium intake could have exceeded 2000 mg per day.17
Calcium was largely derived from wild plants, which had a very high
calcium content; animal protein played a small role, and the use of
dairy products did not come into play until the Agricultural Age
10,000 years ago. Compared to the current intake of approximately
500 mg per day for women age 20 and over in the United States,18
hunter-gatherers had a significantly higher calcium intake and
apparently much stronger bones. As late as 12,000 years ago, Stone
Age hunters had an average of 17-percent more bone density (as
measured by humeral cortical thickness). Bone density also appeared
to be stable over time with an apparent absence of osteoporosis.17

High levels of calcium excretion via renal losses are seen with both
high salt and high protein diets, in each case at levels common in the
United States.10,11
..
The only hunter-gatherers that seemed to fall prey to bone loss were
the aboriginal Inuit (Eskimos). Although their physical activity level
was high, their osteoporosis incidence exceeded even present-day
levels in the United States. The Inuit diet was high in phosphorus
and protein and low in calcium.20
..'
http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/fulltext/calcium4-2.html


Bluster on, ball.  I'm sure I'm not the only one laughing *AT* you.

On Jan 21, 5:48 pm, "pearl"  wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in messagenews:a243fc8e-3980-4c1d-8c70-8d6d61b68b4a@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Jan 21, 3:44 pm, "pearl"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in messagenews:722a703e-dc7e-48f5-a0a0-409794342497@s27g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Jan 21, 12:33 pm, "pearl"  wrote:
> > > > "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in messagenews:f6d8138e-b0bb-4772-9cbc-93315cb15c96@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > On Jan 21, 11:29 am, "pearl"  wrote:
>
> > > > > "Rudy Canoza" 
>
> > > > > Faking quotes,
>
> > > > <Faking nothing. Rather, demolishing you and your fuckwitted pseudo-> > > > <arguments.
> > > > <
> > > > <You *always* lose on the facts, bitch. Brazil's fresh beef exports to
> > > > <the developed world do not come from the Amazonian basin (although a
> > > > <little bit of canned (tinned) beef does make it to the U.S.) Their
> > > > <fresh beef exports are from the Brazilian south-west, *OUTSIDE* the> > > > <Amazonian basin.
>
> > > > You're either delusional or lying, and wrong, as ever.
>
> > > Yes, you are both, and no matter how much shit hemorrhage you spew
> > > into usenet, it won't change that:
>
> > > There is no farming of beef for export on deforested Amazon land.
> > > While the growth of beef production in Brazil is sometimes cited
> > > by activists as putting pressure on the rainforest, this is not
> > > the
> > > case. There is much better, more productive agricultural land
> > > which
> > > is unexploited across the rest of the country. While cattle will
> > > be
> > > grazed on deforested land, this is not for export production and
> > > indeed has more to do with 'staking out' territory. The exporters'
> > > trade organisation (ABIEC) is a strong supporter of the Institute
> > > for Responsible Agribusiness, which is dedicated to sustainable
> > > production.
>
> > >http://www.brazilianbeef.info/faq.html
>
> > > You are completely full of shit.
>
> > Projection.
>
> Nope.  You are full of shit.
>
> <<<<<<<<<
>
> Projection.

<snip bullshit from another unreliable bullshit activist site>


> > .....'http://www.amazonia.org.br/arquivos/259673.pdf
>
> Another bullshit activist site.
>
> <<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> "Propagandists love short-cuts

Yes, you do.  That's why you keep going back to bullshit activist
sites.



> > > > <And humans have always, and at all places, eaten meat. This is not
> > > > <disputed by any legitimate scientists.
>
> > > > Meaning only those who support your views...... LOL.
>
> > > No - meaning that you cannot cite a *single* scientist who disagrees
> > > with the claim that meat was a staple food of the hominids from which
> > > homo sapiens evolved for millions of years. Your "veg" page shit
> > > hemorrhage citations are not based on any science.
>
> > Projection.
>
> Nope.  You cannot cite a *single* source showing that homo sapiens, as
> well as its predecessors extending back some 2.5 million years, didn't
> regularly eat meat.
>
>
>
> I just did!!

You didn't, cunt.  It does *NOT* say that humans haven't always eaten
meat.  It makes *ONE* tiny, narrow claim that IN NO WAY supports your
bullshit belief:  it says that a. afarensis didn't have specialized
teeth for eating meat.  But it does *NOT* say that a. afarensis didn't
eat meat.  NOR does it say anything about the intermediate species -
h. habilis and h. erectus, e.g. - that occupied the 2.25 MILLION years
between the disappearance of a. afarensis and h. sapiens.

FACTS, you stupid lying cunt:

  - a. afarensis ate meat, irrespective of its teeth
  - h. habilis and h. erectus ate meat, increasingly
  - 2.25 MILLION years of meat-eating by homo species
    that followed a. afarensis and preceded h. sapiens


THOSE are the facts that you need to try to refute, bitch, but you
cannot find any scientist to cite who will support your bullshit
claim.  H. sapiens first appeared *as* a meat eating species, and its
immediate homo predecessor species had been eating meat for 2.25
millions years, and the australopithecenes for another 2.5 million
years before that.

Homo sapiens eats meat, and has done so at all times and places since
its appearance 250,000 years ago.  This is not in serious scientific
dispute.

You're fucked.  You lost.  Meat is a natural food for h. sapiens, and
always has been.

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:a243fc8e-3980-4c1d-8c70-8d6d61b68b4a@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 21, 3:44 pm, "pearl"  wrote:
>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in messagenews:722a703e-dc7e-48f5-a0a0-409794342497@s27g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Jan 21, 12:33 pm, "pearl"  wrote:
>>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in messagenews:f6d8138e-b0bb-4772-9cbc-93315cb15c96@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Jan 21, 11:29 am, "pearl"  wrote:
>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" 
>>>>> Faking quotes,
>>>> <Faking nothing. Rather, demolishing you and your fuckwitted pseudo-
>>>> <arguments.
>>>> <
>>>> <You *always* lose on the facts, bitch. Brazil's fresh beef exports to
>>>> <the developed world do not come from the Amazonian basin (although a
>>>> <little bit of canned (tinned) beef does make it to the U.S.) Their
>>>> <fresh beef exports are from the Brazilian south-west, *OUTSIDE* the
>>>> <Amazonian basin.
>>>> You're either delusional or lying, and wrong, as ever.
>>> Yes, you are both, and no matter how much shit hemorrhage you spew
>>> into usenet, it won't change that:
>>> There is no farming of beef for export on deforested Amazon land.
>>> While the growth of beef production in Brazil is sometimes cited
>>> by activists as putting pressure on the rainforest, this is not
>>> the
>>> case. There is much better, more productive agricultural land
>>> which
>>> is unexploited across the rest of the country. While cattle will
>>> be
>>> grazed on deforested land, this is not for export production and
>>> indeed has more to do with 'staking out' territory. The exporters'
>>> trade organisation (ABIEC) is a strong supporter of the Institute
>>> for Responsible Agribusiness, which is dedicated to sustainable
>>> production.
>>> http://www.brazilianbeef.info/faq.html
>>> You are completely full of shit.
>> Projection.
> 
> Nope.  You are full of shit.
> 
> <<<<<<<<<
> 
> Projection.  But thanks for showing us the meat industry's blatant lies.
> The report you're ignoring is based on Ministry of Development data.
> 
> <restore>
> 
>  '1.5 One third of Brazilian fresh beef exports in 2007 came from direct
> exports from the Amazon, notably from the states of Mato Grosso,
> Pará, Rondônia and Tocantins.  Since 1994, Pará increased its direct
> exports (by weight) 7,800%, Rondônia by 1,350%, Tocantins by 150%
> and Mato Grosso by 360%.  These data do not include exports of live
> cattle by Pará that exceeded 200,000 head in 2007.  Mato Grosso
> mainly exported to Russia, Egypt, China (via Hong Kong), United
> Kingdom, Italy, Germany and the United States.  Rondônia's principle
> importers included Russia, Egypt, China and the United Kingdom.
> Pará, whose exports boomed since mid-2007, has Israel, Egypt, China,
> Saudi Arabia, Ivory Coast, Lebanon and Angola as main importers.
> 
> 1.6 The removal of restrictions against the Amazon region for control
> of hoof-and-mouth disease not only placed it in the same phyto-
> sanitary category as other regions of the country, but made it a zone
> of preference for some importers.  The new phenomenon is that the
> south and southeast regions were once again threatened by this
> disease, owing to their greater contact and integration with infected
> areas.  The substitution of ranching by other, more profitable uses of
> land (grain, sugarcane, urbanization, etc.) in the south and southeast
> regions, and the facility of land access in the Amazon, may have
> contributed to a progressive transference of the herd to the North.
> Ranchers who transferred their herds to the Amazon now participate,
> with lesser restrictions, in the growing export market.
> .....'
> http://www.amazonia.org.br/arquivos/259673.pdf
> *
> 
>> .....'http://www.amazonia.org.br/arquivos/259673.pdf
> 
> Another bullshit activist site.
> 
> <<<<<<<<<<<<
> 
> "Propagandists love short-cuts -- particularly those which short-circuit
> rational thought. They encourage this by agitating emotions, by exploiting
> insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending
> the rules of logic." Aaron Delwiche, from: "Why Think About Propaganda?
> ..'
> http://www.lkwdpl.org/wildideas/propaganda.html
> 
>>>> <And humans have always, and at all places, eaten meat. This is not
>>>> <disputed by any legitimate scientists.
>>>> Meaning only those who support your views...... LOL.
>>> No - meaning that you cannot cite a *single* scientist who disagrees
>>> with the claim that meat was a staple food of the hominids from which
>>> homo sapiens evolved for millions of years. Your "veg" page shit
>>> hemorrhage citations are not based on any science.
>> Projection.
> 
> Nope.  You cannot cite a *single* source showing that homo sapiens, as
> well as its predecessors extending back some 2.5 million years, didn't
> regularly eat meat.
> 
> 
> I just did!!

You just *DIDN'T*, you lying slut.  Sussman does *NOT 
SAY* that humans and their hominid predecessors didn't 
eat meat.


> 
>> 'Robert W. Sussman, Ph.D., professor of anthropology in Arts
>> & Sciences,

...does *NOT* say that a. afarensis didn't eat meat.


> That species preceded homo sapiens by 2.5 million years.  But that
> species also ate meat.  Intermediate species between a. afarensis and
> h. sapiens ate even more meat.
> 
> You lose.  Homo sapiens has always eaten meat, at all times and
> places, and the predecessor species between h. sapiens and a.
> afarensis also ate meat.
> 
> 
> Paleodiet and Its Relation to Atherosclerosis

That article *ALSO* doesn't say that humans don't eat 
meat naturally.

You lose, you stupid whore.

"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pc1eri3pvckaa@corp.supernews.com...
> pearl wrote:

> > Paleodiet and Its Relation to Atherosclerosis
>
> That article *ALSO* doesn't say that humans don't eat
> meat naturally.

Answer this one question, ball:  Have you, or any human you know
*EVER* caught and killed an animal with bare hands and eaten the
body, or taken it back to your family to bite into raw and bloody?
That's what *ALL* naturally carnivorous animals do.  Don't deny it.

Direct evidence of meat-eating by our distant ancestors is *"RARE"*,
and *ALL* of the evidence suggests that meat was eaten to augment
plant resources when conditions necessitated that.  *TRUE* scientists
acknowledge this, ball.  Now be a good ghoul, and go 'hunt' roadkill..

On Jan 22, 7:30 am, "pearl"  wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in messagenews:13pc1eri3pvckaa@corp.supernews.com...
> > pearl wrote:
> > > Paleodiet and Its Relation to Atherosclerosis
>
> > That article *ALSO* doesn't say that humans don't eat
> > meat naturally.
>
> Answer this one question, Rudy:  Have you, or any human you know
> *EVER* caught and killed an animal with bare hands and eaten the
> body, or taken it back to your family to bite into raw and bloody?

Irrelevant, a stupid question, and evasive.

The FACT, lesley, is that humans naturally eat meat.  It doesn't
matter how we acquire it.  Your definition of "natural" is
deliberately vague and flexible.

In the 2.25 million years between the disappearance of a. afarensis,
which was increasing the amount of meat in its diet, and the
appearance of h. sapiens, the several intermediate species - h.
habilis, h. erectus - evolved to be anatomically and physically suited
to eat meat.  Meat is a natural food for humans, and you can't cite a
single scientifically legitimate source that says otherwise.  You can
only find, and tediously copy/paste, your shit hemorrhages from
fanatical "veg" sites:  sites that prove nothing but their own
polemical stupidity.

On Jan 22, 6:38 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> On Jan 22, 7:30 am, "pearl"  wrote:
>
> > "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in messagenews:13pc1eri3pvckaa@corp.supernews.com...
> > > pearl wrote:
> > > > Paleodiet and Its Relation to Atherosclerosis
>
> > > That article *ALSO* doesn't say that humans don't eat
> > > meat naturally.
>
> > Answer this one question, Rudy:  Have you, or any human you know
> > *EVER* caught and killed an animal with bare hands and eaten the
> > body, or taken it back to your family to bite into raw and bloody?
>
> Irrelevant, a stupid question, and evasive.
>
> The FACT, lesley, is that humans naturally eat meat.  It doesn't
> matter how we acquire it.  Your definition of "natural" is
> deliberately vague and flexible.
>
> In the 2.25 million years between the disappearance of a. afarensis,
> which was increasing the amount of meat in its diet, and the
> appearance of h. sapiens, the several intermediate species - h.
> habilis, h. erectus - evolved to be anatomically and physically suited
> to eat meat.  Meat is a natural food for humans, and you can't cite a
> single scientifically legitimate source that says otherwise.  You can
> only find, and tediously copy/paste, your shit hemorrhages from
> fanatical "veg" sites:  sites that prove nothing but their own
> polemical stupidity.


We also naturally kill each other and even nuke each other.
Not that good for us but it's natural!

I hate that word. The word drives a dichotomy between humans and
everything else which doesn't really exist.

On Jan 22, 10:16 am, luke.s...@space.unibe.ch wrote:
> On Jan 22, 6:38 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 22, 7:30 am, "pearl"  wrote:
>
> > > "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in messagenews:13pc1eri3pvckaa@corp.supernews.com...
> > > > pearl wrote:
> > > > > Paleodiet and Its Relation to Atherosclerosis
>
> > > > That article *ALSO* doesn't say that humans don't eat
> > > > meat naturally.
>
> > > Answer this one question, Rudy:  Have you, or any human you know
> > > *EVER* caught and killed an animal with bare hands and eaten the
> > > body, or taken it back to your family to bite into raw and bloody?
>
> > Irrelevant, a stupid question, and evasive.
>
> > The FACT, lesley, is that humans naturally eat meat.  It doesn't
> > matter how we acquire it.  Your definition of "natural" is
> > deliberately vague and flexible.
>
> > In the 2.25 million years between the disappearance of a. afarensis,
> > which was increasing the amount of meat in its diet, and the
> > appearance of h. sapiens, the several intermediate species - h.
> > habilis, h. erectus - evolved to be anatomically and physically suited
> > to eat meat.  Meat is a natural food for humans, and you can't cite a
> > single scientifically legitimate source that says otherwise.  You can
> > only find, and tediously copy/paste, your shit hemorrhages from
> > fanatical "veg" sites:  sites that prove nothing but their own
> > polemical stupidity.
>
> We also naturally kill each other and even nuke each other.
> Not that good for us but it's natural!

Human conflict is unavoidable.  It's good to try to avoid warfare and
lower levels of violence, but sometimes it's just going to happen.


> I hate that word. The word drives a dichotomy between humans and
> everything else which doesn't really exist.

I'm not too keen on it, either, but in this instance, my goal -
achieved - has been to show that the person who introduced the term is
wrong.  This idiot lesley has never been able to argue the (pseudo)
ethics of meat eating, pretending for all these years that she can
show it is against our nature to eat it.  She cannot show it, because
it is perfectly consistent with our nature...and there is nothing at
all unethical about it.  There is simply no direct moral implication
to the act of killing animals in order to eat them.

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pc1eri3pvckaa@corp.supernews.com...
>> pearl wrote:
> 
>>> Paleodiet and Its Relation to Atherosclerosis
>> That article *ALSO* doesn't say that humans don't eat
>> meat naturally.
> 
> Answer this one question,

No, bitch.  *FIRST*, you acknowledge that your site 
does *not* say that humans don't eat meat naturally. 
SAY it.


> Have you, or any human you know
> *EVER* caught and killed an animal with bare hands and eaten the
> body, or taken it back to your family to bite into raw and bloody?

A stupid, digressive, evasive question.  You're trying 
to avoid having to face up to the FACT that humans are 
meat eaters, and have been for all their existence.  It 
does not matter how the meat is obtained - the simple 
fact is, humans eat meat, and always have.


> That's what *ALL* naturally carnivorous animals do. 

FALSE.  Anyway, humans are omnivores, not carnivores.

You're trying to turn this into a discussion of 
aesthetics and "culture", and that has nothing to do 
with man's *natural* diet:  that diet includes meat, 
and always has.

wrote in message news:56162d5d-b79a-40e3-8152-906957c29eab@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

> We also naturally kill each other and even nuke each other.
> Not that good for us but it's natural!

It's abnormal behaviour.  The exception (3-4%) isn't the rule.

'in·hu·man
adj.
1. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel.
2. Deficient in emotional warmth; cold.
3. Not suited for human needs: an inhuman environment.
4. Not of ordinary human form; monstrous.
..
inhuman
adj 1: without compunction or human feeling; "in cold blood";
"cold-blooded killing"; "insensate destruction" [syn: cold,
cold-blooded, insensate] 2: belonging to or resembling something
nonhuman; "something dark and inhuman in form"; "a babel of
inhuman noises"
..'
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?qinhuman

"Brain Abnormality Linked To Pathology "
by Erica Goode The New York Times, February 15, 2000

"Ask the average social scientist why people become
criminals, and the answer is apt to center on poverty and
abuse, not brain structure and neurochemicals.

But in a new study, appearing in the February issue of the
Archives of General Psychiatry, researchers report that 21
men with antisocial personality disorder, a psychiatric
diagnosis often applied to people with a history of criminal
behavior, and a history of violence had subtle abnormalities
in the structure of the brain's frontal lobe.

The abnormalities, the researchers found, distinguished the
men with the disorder from healthy subjects, as well as from
subjects who abused alcohol or drugs, or who suffered
from other psychiatric disorders like schizophrenia.

When combined with the results of previous studies, write
the researchers, led by Dr. Adrian Raine, Robert Wright
Professor of Psychology at the University of Southern
California, the findings suggest ''that there is a significant
brain basis to APD over and above contributions from the
psychosocial environment, and that these neurobehavioral
processes are relevant to understanding violence in
everyday society.''

The official diagnostic manual of the American Psychiatric
Association lists a variety of criteria for a diagnosis of
antisocial personality disorder, including 'a failure to
conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors,'
deceitfulness, impulsiveness, reckless disregard for the
safety of self or others, lack of remorse and 'consistent
irresponsibility.'
...'
http://www.forensic-psych.com/articles/artGoode.html

"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pdkrol8507n51@corp.supernews.com...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pc1eri3pvckaa@corp.supernews.com...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >
> >>> Paleodiet and Its Relation to Atherosclerosis
> >> That article *ALSO* doesn't say that humans don't eat
> >> meat naturally.
> >
> > Answer this one question,
>
> No, bitch.  *FIRST*, you acknowledge that your site
> does *not* say that humans don't eat meat naturally.
> SAY it.

What it says is that Homo erectus was basically eating
a raw vegetarian diet.  Why do you think that is, ball?

> > Have you, or any human you know
> > *EVER* caught and killed an animal with bare hands and eaten the
> > body, or taken it back to your family to bite into raw and bloody?
>
> A stupid, digressive, evasive question.  You're trying
> to avoid having to face up to the FACT that humans are
> meat eaters, and have been for all their existence.  It
> does not matter how the meat is obtained - the simple
> fact is, humans eat meat, and always have.

Show us the FACTS that you're basing that assertion on.

> > That's what *ALL* naturally carnivorous animals do.
>
> FALSE.  Anyway, humans are omnivores, not carnivores.

It isn't false at all, and omnivores are naturally carnivorous.

"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:1424ee15-8cba-4ace-9505-b250c4e2244b@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 22, 7:30 am, "pearl"  wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in messagenews:13pc1eri3pvckaa@corp.supernews.com...
> > pearl wrote:
> > > Paleodiet and Its Relation to Atherosclerosis
>
> > That article *ALSO* doesn't say that humans don't eat
> > meat naturally.
>
> Answer this one question, ball: Have you, or any human you know
> *EVER* caught and killed an animal with bare hands and eaten the
> body, or taken it back to your family to bite into raw and bloody?

Irrelevant, a stupid question, and evasive.

The FACT, lesley, is that humans naturally eat meat.

>>>>>

ball's predictable evasion.  The answer is of course *NO*.  So
why is that, if humans naturally eat meat as you keep claiming?

What makes you think that humans' ancestors found the sight and
smell of raw flesh any more appetizing than modern humans do(n't)?

pearl wrote:
>  wrote in message news:56162d5d-b79a-40e3-8152-906957c29eab@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> 
>> We also naturally kill each other and even nuke each other.
>> Not that good for us but it's natural!
> 
> It's abnormal behaviour.  The exception (3-4%) isn't the rule.

What the fuck is this "3-4%" figure you pulled out of 
your stinking asshole?

Sorry, but warfare is not abnormal behavior.  It's 
undesirable, but not abnormal.  As always, you don't 
know what the fuck you're talking about.

In any case, meat-eating certainly isn't abnormal 
behavior, and your 3-4% figure probably is about right 
for the percentage of vegetarians in most of the world; 
it's an even tinier percentage for "vegans":  now, 
*there's* something abnormal for you.

[snip meaningless shit hemorrhage]

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pdkrol8507n51@corp.supernews.com...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pc1eri3pvckaa@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> Paleodiet and Its Relation to Atherosclerosis
>>>> That article *ALSO* doesn't say that humans don't eat
>>>> meat naturally.
>>> Answer this one question,
>> No, bitch.  *FIRST*, you acknowledge that your site
>> does *not* say that humans don't eat meat naturally.
>> SAY it.
> 
> What it says is that Homo erectus was basically eating
> a raw vegetarian diet.

It does *NOT* say that at all, you stupid cunt.  That
site you linked does not contain the material you
attribute to it.  I don't know where you found that
bullshit, but it's not at that site; you LIED.


> Why do you think that is, Rudy?

It doesn't say that, bitch.  You falsely attributed the
bullshit you posted to that site; the site doesn't
contain it.

But here's a site that specifically talks about homo
erectus eating meat, and my link - unlike your filthy
false link - will actually show you the material:

    Homo erectus (or the various species which may be
    subsumed under that appellation) are extremely
    important in the study of modern human origins. The
    Middle Pleistocene is where the modern human
    postcrania develops, the modern cranial features
    begin to develop, and significant increases in brain
    size occur. It is also important because many
    behavioral changes occur in this time period, e.g.,
    much more developed lithic industries, the
    controlled use of fire, regular meat-eating,
    hunting, etc. This is where the things most people
    consider "human" start to develop to the point where
    most people would recognize these pattern of
    anatomy and behavior as human. This is also a
    dynamic time in the evolutionary perspective caused
    by these species, with the recent well-dated Dmanisi
    remains in the Republic of Georgia, dated to 1.7 myr.

    http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/homoerectus.htm


Your site is bullshit:  It doesn't say what you claim
it does.

> 
>>> Have you, or any human you know
>>> *EVER* caught and killed an animal with bare hands and eaten the
>>> body, or taken it back to your family to bite into raw and bloody?
>> A stupid, digressive, evasive question.  You're trying
>> to avoid having to face up to the FACT that humans are
>> meat eaters, and have been for all their existence.  It
>> does not matter how the meat is obtained - the simple
>> fact is, humans eat meat, and always have.
> 
> Show us the FACTS that you're basing that assertion on.

I've been doing that for the last several weeks.  YOU
can't show a single valid source that says otherwise.


> 
>>> That's what *ALL* naturally carnivorous animals do.
>> FALSE.  Anyway, humans are omnivores, not carnivores.
> 
> It isn't false at all,

It's false.  LOTS of naturally carnivorous animals
don't obtain meat as in your wildly extravagant 
fantasy.  Sea stars, baleen whales, anteaters - there 
are too many to count.  Plus, there are a lot of 
scavenger species who don't kill the animals they eat, 
but meat is a staple in their diet.  Your objection to 
scavenging, of course, is based entirely on your 
clueless-urbanite sense of aesthetics.

You are proved wrong on all of this:  australopithecus 
ate meat; homo habilis and homo erectus ate meat; homo 
heidelbergensis ate meat; and homo sapiens ate meat 
when the species first evolved, has done so at all 
times and places, and continues to do so today.  Humans 
eat meat:  it is a natural food for humans.

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:1424ee15-8cba-4ace-9505-b250c4e2244b@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 22, 7:30 am, "pearl"  wrote:
>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in messagenews:13pc1eri3pvckaa@corp.supernews.com...
>>> pearl wrote:
>>>> Paleodiet and Its Relation to Atherosclerosis
>>> That article *ALSO* doesn't say that humans don't eat
>>> meat naturally.
>> Answer this one question, ball: Have you, or any human you know
>> *EVER* caught and killed an animal with bare hands and eaten the
>> body, or taken it back to your family to bite into raw and bloody?
> 
> Irrelevant, a stupid question, and evasive.
> 
> The FACT, lesley, is that humans naturally eat meat.

You really are a stupid twat.  For the last dozen or so 
posts, you've FUCKED UP the attributions.  *I* wrote 
the two sentences above, but because of your FUCK UP, 
it looks in the chain as if you did.  You stupid cow.


> 
> 
> Rudy's predictable evasion.

No.  The question is what is evasive, irrelevant and 
clearly an attempt by you to avoid acknowledging the 
scientific consensus:  humans and the several ancestor 
species that led to them ate meat, and always did.  It 
doesn't matter how they obtained it - they *did* obtain 
it and eat it, and it is and always was a natural 
staple for humans.


> The answer is of course *NO*.

Irrelevant.  The question itself is irrelevant and evasive.


> So why is that, if humans naturally eat meat as you keep claiming?

Because they obtained it in other ways.


> 
> What makes you think that humans' ancestors found the sight and
> smell of raw flesh any more appetizing than modern humans do(n't)?

They must have - they ate it.

"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13peot3pd649o64@corp.supernews.com...
> pearl wrote:
> >  wrote in message news:56162d5d-b79a-40e3-8152-906957c29eab@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >> We also naturally kill each other and even nuke each other.
> >> Not that good for us but it's natural!
> >
> > It's abnormal behaviour.  The exception (3-4%) isn't the rule.
>
> What the fuck is this "3-4%" figure you pulled out of
> your stinking asshole?

Great display right there.

'Sociopaths, who comprise only 3-4% of the male population and
less than 1% of the female population (Strauss & Lahey 1984,
Davison and Neale 1994, Robins, Tipp & Przybeck 1991), are
thought to account for approximately 20% of the United States'
prison population (Hare 1993) and between 33% and 80% of the
population of chronic criminal offenders (Mednick, Kirkegaard-
Sorensen, Hutchings, Knop, Rosenberg & Schulsinger 1977,
Hare 1980, Harpending & Sobus 1987).
..
Whether criminal or not, sociopaths typically exhibit what is
generally considered to be irresponsible and unreliable behavior;
their attributes include egocentrism, an inability to form lasting
personal commitments and a marked degree of impulsivity.
Underlying a superficial veneer of sociability and charm,
sociopaths are characterized by a deficit of the social emotions
(love, shame, guilt, empathy, and remorse). On the other hand,
they are not intellectually handicapped, and are often able to
deceive and manipulate others through elaborate scams and
ruses including fraud, bigamy, embezzlement, and other crimes
which rely on the trust and cooperation of others. The sociopath
is "aware of the discrepancy between his behavior and societal
expectations, but he seems to be neither guided by the possibility
of such a discrepancy, nor disturbed by its occurrence" (Widom
1976a, p 614). This cold- hearted and selfish approach to human
interaction at one time garnered for sociopathy the moniker
"moral insanity" (McCord 1983, Davison & Neale 1990).
...'
http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/OldArchive/bbs.mealey.html

> Sorry, but warfare is not abnormal behavior.  It's
> undesirable, but not abnormal.  As always, you don't
> know what the fuck you're talking about.

'Civilization, as we know it, is largely the creation of psychopaths.
All civilizations, our own included, have been based on slavery
and "warfare." Incidentally, the latter term is a euphemism for
mass murder.

The prevailing recipe for civilization is simple:

1) Use lies and brainwashing to create an army of controlled,
systematic mass murderers;

2) Use that army to enslave large numbers of people (i.e. seize
control of their labour power and its fruits);

3) Use that slave labour power to improve the brainwashing
process (by using the economic surplus to employ scribes,
priests, and PR men). Then go back to step one and repeat
the process.

Psychopaths have played a disproportionate role in the
development of civilization, because they are hard-wired to lie,
kill, injure, and generally inflict great suffering on other humans
without feeling any remorse. The inventor of civilization - the
first tribal chieftain who successfully brainwashed an army of
controlled mass murderers-was almost certainly a genetic
psychopath. Since that momentous discovery, psychopaths
have enjoyed a significant advantage over non-psychopaths in
the struggle for power in civilizational hierarchies - especially
military hierarchies.

Military institutions are tailor-made for psychopathic killers. The
5% or so of human males who feel no remorse about killing their
fellow human beings make the best soldiers. And the 95% who
are extremely reluctant to kill make terrible soldiers - unless they
are brainwashed with highly sophisticated modern techniques that
turn them (temporarily it is hoped) into functional psychopaths.

In On Killing, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman has re-written military
history, to highlight what other histories hide: The fact that
military science is less about strategy and technology, than about
overcoming the instinctive human reluctance to kill members of
our own species. The true "Revolution in Military Affairs" was
not Donald Rumsfeld's move to high-tech in 2001, but Brigadier
Gen. S.L.A. Marshall's discovery in the 1940s that only 15-20%
of World War II soldiers along the line of fire would use their
weapons: "Those (80-85%) who did not fire did not run or hide
(in many cases they were willing to risk great danger to rescue
comrades, get ammunition, or run messages), but they simply
would not fire their weapons at the enemy, even when faced
with repeated waves of banzai charges" (Grossman, p. 4).

Marshall's discovery and subsequent research, proved that in
all previous wars, a tiny minority of soldiers - the 5% who
are natural-born psychopaths, and perhaps a few temporarily-
insane imitators-did almost all the killing. Normal men just
went through the motions and, if at all possible, refused to take
the life of an enemy soldier, even if that meant giving up their
own. The implication: Wars are ritualized mass murders by
psychopaths of non-psychopaths. (This cannot be good for
humanity's genetic endowment!)

Marshall's work, brought a Copernican revolution to military
science. In the past, everyone believed that the soldier willing
to kill for his country was the (heroic) norm, while one who
refused to fight was a (cowardly) aberration. The truth, as it
turned out, was that the normative soldier hailed from the
psychopathic five percent. The sane majority, would rather
die than fight.

The implication, too frightening for even the likes of Marshall
and Grossman to fully digest, was that the norms for soldiers'
behaviour in battle had been set by psychopaths. That meant
that psychopaths were in control of the military as an institution.
Worse, it meant that psychopaths were in control of society's
perception of military affairs. Evidently, psychopaths exercised
an enormous amount of power in seemingly sane, normal society.
...'
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/01/02/02073.html#

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13peot3pd649o64@corp.supernews.com...
>> pearl wrote:
>>>  wrote in message news:56162d5d-b79a-40e3-8152-906957c29eab@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> We also naturally kill each other and even nuke each other.
>>>> Not that good for us but it's natural!
>>> It's abnormal behaviour.  The exception (3-4%) isn't the rule.
>> What the fuck is this "3-4%" figure you pulled out of
>> your stinking asshole?
> 
> Great display right there.

[snip digressive and irrelevant shit hemorrhage]

No, you spouted more bullshit.  Haven't you learned 
anything, bitch?  I can snip your shit hemorrhage out 
many times faster than you can locate it and copypasta 
the thing in.


>> Sorry, but warfare is not abnormal behavior.  It's
>> undesirable, but not abnormal.  As always, you don't
>> know what the fuck you're talking about.
> 
> 'Civilization, as we know it, is largely the creation of psychopaths.

[snip shit hemorrhage of utter bullshit]

See?  Just like that.

Your statement is bullshit.


Back to the FACT:  humans have always eaten meat, and 
our hominid ancestors ate it at all times and places 
for literally millions of years before h. sapiens 
appeared; that is not in dispute by any scientists.

"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13per0nlod632e3@corp.supernews.com...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pdkrol8507n51@corp.supernews.com...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pc1eri3pvckaa@corp.supernews.com...
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> Paleodiet and Its Relation to Atherosclerosis
> >>>> That article *ALSO* doesn't say that humans don't eat
> >>>> meat naturally.
> >>> Answer this one question,
> >> No, bitch.  *FIRST*, you acknowledge that your site
> >> does *not* say that humans don't eat meat naturally.
> >> SAY it.
> >
> > What it says is that Homo erectus was basically eating
> > a raw vegetarian diet.
>
> It does *NOT* say that at all, you stupid cunt.  That
> site you linked does not contain the material you
> attribute to it.  I don't know where you found that
> bullshit, but it's not at that site; you LIED.

I already gave you a link showing you that it does.

Paleodiet and Its Relation to Atherosclerosis
Paleodiet and Its Relation. to Atherosclerosis. J. UETAVA,a M.
THURZO,b ..... basically raw vegetarian diet may be encoded in
our present genome. ...
www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/reprint/827/1/382.pdf

Paleodiet and Its Relation Atherosclerosis
Paleodiet and Its Relation. to. Atherosclerosis ..... it is assumed
that erectus'. basically raw vegetarian diet may be encoded in our
present genome. ...
www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1997.tb51849.x -

http://tinyurl.com/2s5woo

> > Why do you think that is, Rudy?
>
> It doesn't say that, bitch.  You falsely attributed the
> bullshit you posted to that site; the site doesn't
> contain it.

See above.

> But here's a site that specifically talks about homo
> erectus eating meat, and my link - unlike your filthy
> false link - will actually show you the material:
>
>     Homo erectus (or the various species which may be
>     subsumed under that appellation) are extremely
>     important in the study of modern human origins. The
>     Middle Pleistocene is where the modern human
>     postcrania develops, the modern cranial features
>     begin to develop, and significant increases in brain
>     size occur. It is also important because many
>     behavioral changes occur in this time period, e.g.,
>     much more developed lithic industries, the
>     controlled use of fire, regular meat-eating,
>     hunting, etc. This is where the things most people
>     consider "human" start to develop to the point where
>     most people would recognize these pattern of
>     anatomy and behavior as human. This is also a
>     dynamic time in the evolutionary perspective caused
>     by these species, with the recent well-dated Dmanisi
>     remains in the Republic of Georgia, dated to 1.7 myr.
>
>     http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/homoerectus.htm


"Plio-Pleistocene site location and assemblage composition are
consistent with the hypothesis that large carcasses were taken *not*
for purposes of provisioning, but in the context of competitive male
displays."  ...

Male strategies and Plio-Pleistocene archaeology
Authors: O'Connell J.F.1; Hawkes K.2; Lupo K.D.3; Blurton Jones
N.G.4 Source: Journal of Human Evolution, Volume 43, Number 6,
December 2002 , pp. 831-872(42) Publisher: Academic Press

Abstract:
Archaeological data are frequently cited in support of the idea that
big game hunting drove the evolution of early Homo, mainly through
its role in offspring provisioning. This argument has been disputed
on two grounds: (1) ethnographic observations on modern foragers
show that although hunting may contribute a large fraction of the
overall diet, it is an unreliable day-to-day food source, pursued
more for status than subsistence; (2) archaeological evidence from
the Plio-Pleistocene, coincident with the emergence of Homo can
be read to reflect low-yield scavenging, *not* hunting. Our review
of the archaeology yields results consistent with these critiques: (1)
early humans acquired large-bodied ungulates primarily by
aggressive scavenging, not hunting; (2) meat was consumed at or
near the point of acquisition, not at home bases, as the hunting
hypothesis requires; (3) carcasses were taken at highly variable rates
and in varying degrees of completeness, making meat from big game
an even less reliable food source than it is among modern foragers.
Collectively, Plio-Pleistocene site location and assemblage
composition are consistent with the hypothesis that large carcasses
were taken *not* for purposes of provisioning, but in the context of
competitive male displays. Even if meat were acquired more reliably
than the archaeology indicates, its consumption cannot account for
the significant changes in life history now seen to distinguish early
humans from ancestral australopiths. The coincidence between the
earliest dates for Homo ergaster and an increase in the archaeological
visibility of meat eating that many find so provocative instead reflects:
(1) changes in the structure of the environment that concentrated
scavenging opportunities in space, making evidence of their pursuit
more obvious to archaeologists; (2) H. ergaster's larger body size
(itself a consequence of other factors), which improved its ability at
interference competition.

Document Type: Research article
DOI: 10.1006/jhev.2002.0604
Affiliations: 1: Department of Anthropology, University of Utah,
270 South 1400 East, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84112, U.S.A.
2: Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, 270 South
1400 East, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84112, U.S.A.
3: Department of Anthropology, Washington State University,
Pullman, Washington, 99164, U.S.A. 4: Departments of
Anthropology and Psychiatry, and Graduate School of Education,
University of California, Los Angeles, California, 90095, U.S.A.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/hu/2002/00000043/00000006/art00604

> Your site is bullshit:  It doesn't say what you claim
> it does.

These people don't think so..

Paleodiet and its relation to atherosclerosis.
Title:, Paleodiet and its relation to atherosclerosis. Author:, Lietava,
J : Thurzo, M : Dukat, A. Citation:, Ann-N-Y-Acad-Sci. 1997 Sep 20;
827382-91 ...
http://grande.nal.usda.gov/ibids/index.php?mode2=detail&origin=ibids_references&therow=84174

> >>> Have you, or any human you know
> >>> *EVER* caught and killed an animal with bare hands and eaten the
> >>> body, or taken it back to your family to bite into raw and bloody?

> >> A stupid, digressive, evasive question.  You're trying
> >> to avoid having to face up to the FACT that humans are
> >> meat eaters, and have been for all their existence.  It
> >> does not matter how the meat is obtained - the simple
> >> fact is, humans eat meat, and always have.
> >
> > Show us the FACTS that you're basing that assertion on.
>
> I've been doing that for the last several weeks.  YOU
> can't show a single valid source that says otherwise.

I've shown you plenty of valid sources - all of whom agree
that the diet was a basically raw vegetarian diet unless plant
foods were scarce due to various geo-climatic conditions.

> >>> That's what *ALL* naturally carnivorous animals do.
> >> FALSE.  Anyway, humans are omnivores, not carnivores.
> >
> > It isn't false at all,
>
> It's false.  LOTS of naturally carnivorous animals
> don't obtain meat as in your wildly extravagant
> fantasy.  Sea stars, baleen whales, anteaters - there
> are too many to count.  Plus, there are a lot of
> scavenger species who don't kill the animals they eat,
> but meat is a staple in their diet.  Your objection to
> scavenging, of course, is based entirely on your
> clueless-urbanite sense of aesthetics.

So that's your objection.  But they do ALL eat raw flesh.

> You are proved wrong on all of this:  australopithecus
> ate meat; homo habilis and homo erectus ate meat; homo
> heidelbergensis ate meat; and homo sapiens ate meat
> when the species first evolved, has done so at all
> times and places, and continues to do so today.  Humans
> eat meat:

Some may have, at times, in places, but that's not you're claim.
What you're asserting is that all hominids and humans ate meat,
as an integral part of the diet - always, but the evidence doesn't
support that claim.  While you and some lads were off playing
'Ug the scavenger', the gals, kids and co. were busy foraging.

> it is a natural food for humans.

'There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or
minimization of fat intake beyond which further disease prevention
does not occur. These findings suggest that even small intakes of
foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in
plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn,
with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality
rates. - Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative
diseases: perspectives from China. Am J Clin Nutr 1994 May;59
(5 Suppl):1153S-1161S.'

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13per0nlod632e3@corp.supernews.com...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pdkrol8507n51@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pc1eri3pvckaa@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>> Paleodiet and Its Relation to Atherosclerosis
>>>>>> That article *ALSO* doesn't say that humans don't eat
>>>>>> meat naturally.
>>>>> Answer this one question,
>>>> No, bitch.  *FIRST*, you acknowledge that your site
>>>> does *not* say that humans don't eat meat naturally.
>>>> SAY it.
>>> What it says is that Homo erectus was basically eating
>>> a raw vegetarian diet.
>> It does *NOT* say that at all, you stupid cunt.  That
>> site you linked does not contain the material you
>> attribute to it.  I don't know where you found that
>> bullshit, but it's not at that site; you LIED.
> 
> I already gave you a link showing you that it does.
> 
> Paleodiet and Its Relation to Atherosclerosis
> Paleodiet and Its Relation. to Atherosclerosis. J. UETAVA,a M.
> THURZO,b ..... basically raw vegetarian diet may be encoded in
> our present genome. ...
> www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/reprint/827/1/382.pdf

You did NOT, you lying whore:  the page that links to 
does *not* contain the bullshit about homo erectus and 
a "largely vegetarian" diet.  The page says "This item 
requires a subscription to Annals of the New York 
Academy of Sciences Online", and I know for certain you 
do not have such a subscription.  It also says you may 
purchase the article for US$15.00, and I know you 
didn't buy it.

You're fabricating the material.


> 
> Paleodiet and Its Relation Atherosclerosis
> Paleodiet and Its Relation. to. Atherosclerosis ..... it is assumed
> that erectus'. basically raw vegetarian diet may be encoded in our
> present genome. ...
> www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1997.tb51849.x -
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/2s5woo

Same thing, whore:  "You are attempting to access the 
PDF of this article. To access this content you, or 
your library, will need to have an online subscription 
to the journal. Alternatively you can purchase 
immediate access to the article using a credit card."

You didn't buy the article, and you do *not* have 
access to it.


> 
>>> Why do you think that is, Rudy?
>> It doesn't say that, bitch.  You falsely attributed the
>> bullshit you posted to that site; the site doesn't
>> contain it.
> 
> See above.

BULLSHIT above.  The material is not on the pages you 
linked.  There is a reference to some article entitled 
"Paleodiet and Its Relation to Atherosclerosis", but 
there is no text from the abstract.

You're lying.


> 
>> But here's a site that specifically talks about homo
>> erectus eating meat, and my link - unlike your filthy
>> false link - will actually show you the material:
>>
>>     Homo erectus (or the various species which may be
>>     subsumed under that appellation) are extremely
>>     important in the study of modern human origins. The
>>     Middle Pleistocene is where the modern human
>>     postcrania develops, the modern cranial features
>>     begin to develop, and significant increases in brain
>>     size occur. It is also important because many
>>     behavioral changes occur in this time period, e.g.,
>>     much more developed lithic industries, the
>>     controlled use of fire, regular meat-eating,
>>     hunting, etc. This is where the things most people
>>     consider "human" start to develop to the point where
>>     most people would recognize these pattern of
>>     anatomy and behavior as human. This is also a
>>     dynamic time in the evolutionary perspective caused
>>     by these species, with the recent well-dated Dmanisi
>>     remains in the Republic of Georgia, dated to 1.7 myr.
>>
>>     http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/homoerectus.htm
> 
> 
> "Plio-Pleistocene site location and assemblage composition are
> consistent with the hypothesis that large carcasses were taken *not*
> for purposes of provisioning, but in the context of competitive male
> displays."  ...

They ate the meat.  Also, the word "not" was not 
emphasized; note your editing, bitch.


[snip shit hemorrhage that doesn't say what you claim]

> 
> http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/hu/2002/00000043/00000006/art00604

That site does *NOT* say that homo ergaster didn't eat 
meat.  It says homo ergaster *DID* eat meat.


> 
>> Your site is bullshit:  It doesn't say what you claim
>> it does.
> 
> These people don't think so..
> 
> Paleodiet and its relation to atherosclerosis.

[snip bullshit]

That article does not say that homo erectus did not eat 
meat.  It doesn't say what you claim.

It is widely acknowledged that a "paleodiet" actually 
*REDUCES* the incidence of atherosclerosis:

    According to S. Boyd Eaton and colleagues, judging
    from subsistence patterns and biomarkers of
    hunter-gatherers studied in the last century, modern
    humans seem to be well adapted to the diet of their
    Paleolithic ancestors.[43] The diet of modern
    hunter-gatherer groups is believed to be
    representative of patterns for humans of 50 to 25
    thousand years ago,[43] and these foragers,[44][45]
    including the elderly,[46][47] seem to be largely
    free of the signs and symptoms of chronic disease
    (such as obesity, high blood pressure,
    nonobstructive coronary atherosclerosis, and insulin
    resistance) that universally afflict the elderly in
    western societies (with the exception of
    osteoarthritis, which afflicts both populations).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet


You are completely full of shit, and your so-called 
"sources" do not say what you claim.


>>>>> Have you, or any human you know
>>>>> *EVER* caught and killed an animal with bare hands and eaten the
>>>>> body, or taken it back to your family to bite into raw and bloody?
> 
>>>> A stupid, digressive, evasive question.  You're trying
>>>> to avoid having to face up to the FACT that humans are
>>>> meat eaters, and have been for all their existence.  It
>>>> does not matter how the meat is obtained - the simple
>>>> fact is, humans eat meat, and always have.
>>> Show us the FACTS that you're basing that assertion on.
>> I've been doing that for the last several weeks.  YOU
>> can't show a single valid source that says otherwise.
> 
> I've shown you plenty of valid sources 

ZERO.  You have shown *ZERO* sources that say the 
hominids from a. afarensis up to h. sapiens didn't eat 
meat as a *staple* of their diet; ZERO.

You're a fucking liar.


>>>>> That's what *ALL* naturally carnivorous animals do.
>>>> FALSE.  Anyway, humans are omnivores, not carnivores.
>>> It isn't false at all,
>> It's false.  LOTS of naturally carnivorous animals
>> don't obtain meat as in your wildly extravagant
>> fantasy.  Sea stars, baleen whales, anteaters - there
>> are too many to count.  Plus, there are a lot of
>> scavenger species who don't kill the animals they eat,
>> but meat is a staple in their diet.  Your objection to
>> scavenging, of course, is based entirely on your
>> clueless-urbanite sense of aesthetics.
> 
> So that's your objection.

No, my objection is to your unending stream of 
BULLSHIT, and your sudden switching from pseudo-science 
to aesthetics.  You think scavenging is "gross" - 
"icky".  But that's not a valid point to try to claim 
that meat has not been a staple of human diet since the 
very beginning of the hominid line.


>> You are proved wrong on all of this:  australopithecus
>> ate meat; homo habilis and homo erectus ate meat; homo
>> heidelbergensis ate meat; and homo sapiens ate meat
>> when the species first evolved, has done so at all
>> times and places, and continues to do so today.  Humans
>> eat meat:
> 
> Some may have, at times, in places,

*ALL* did, at *ALL* times and *ALL* places.  You can 
cite *nothing* to show otherwise.  Your BULLSHIT 
citations do not say what you claim they do.

>> it is a natural food for humans.
> 
> 'There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment

[snip "China study" bullshit]

The issue, cunt, is whether or not humans and their 
predecessor hominid species have always eaten meat. 
They have.  Meat is a natural food for humans, and 
always has been.  Your claims are debunked.

"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfa1ec37k1s5c@corp.supernews.com...
> pearl wrote:

> > I already gave you a link showing you that it does.
> >
> > Paleodiet and Its Relation to Atherosclerosis
> > Paleodiet and Its Relation. to Atherosclerosis. J. UETAVA,a M.
> > THURZO,b ..... basically raw vegetarian diet may be encoded in
> > our present genome. ...
> > www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/reprint/827/1/382.pdf
>
> You did NOT,

This is a link to the Google search: http://tinyurl.com/2s5woo .

It's right there for everyone to see!    LOL.

>> "Plio-Pleistocene site location and assemblage composition are
>> consistent with the hypothesis that large carcasses were taken *not*
>> for purposes of provisioning, but in the context of competitive male
>> displays."  ...

> They ate the meat.

*Who* ate meat?

> Also, the word "not" was not emphasized;

It certainly is.

> > http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/hu/2002/00000043/00000006/art00604

> It is widely acknowledged that a "paleodiet" actually
> *REDUCES* the incidence of atherosclerosis:
>
>     According to S. Boyd Eaton and colleagues, judging
>     from subsistence patterns and biomarkers of
>     hunter-gatherers studied in the last century, modern
>     humans seem to be well adapted to the diet of their
>     Paleolithic ancestors.[43] The diet of modern
>     hunter-gatherer groups is believed to be
>     representative of patterns for humans of 50 to 25
>     thousand years ago,[43] and these foragers,[44][45]
>     including the elderly,[46][47] seem to be largely
>     free of the signs and symptoms of chronic disease
>     (such as obesity, high blood pressure,
>     nonobstructive coronary atherosclerosis, and insulin
>     resistance) that universally afflict the elderly in
>     western societies (with the exception of
>     osteoarthritis, which afflicts both populations).
>     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet

Emphasis added*:

'Anthropologically speaking, humans were high consumers of calcium
until the onset of the Agricultural Age, 10,000 years ago. Current
calcium intake is one-quarter to one-third that of our evolutionary diet
and, if we are genetically identical to the Late Paleolithic Homo sapiens,
we may be consuming a calcium-deficient diet our bodies cannot adjust
to by physiologic mechanisms.

The anthropological approach says, with the exception of a few small
changes related to genetic blood diseases, that humans are basically
identical biologically and medically to the hunter-gatherers of the late
Paleolithic Era.17  During this period, calcium content of the diet was
much higher than it is currently.  Depending on the ratio of animal to
plant foods, calcium intake could have exceeded 2000 mg per day.17
Calcium was largely derived from wild plants, which had a very high
calcium content; *animal protein played a small role*, and the use of
dairy products did not come into play until the Agricultural Age
10,000 years ago. Compared to the current intake of approximately
500 mg per day for women age 20 and over in the United States,18
hunter-gatherers had a significantly higher calcium intake and
apparently much stronger bones. As late as 12,000 years ago, Stone
Age hunters had an average of 17-percent more bone density (as
measured by humeral cortical thickness). Bone density also appeared
to be stable over time with an apparent absence of osteoporosis.17

High levels of calcium excretion via renal losses are seen with both
high salt and high protein diets, in each case at levels common in the
United States.10,11
..
The only hunter-gatherers that seemed to fall prey to bone loss were
the aboriginal Inuit (Eskimos). Although their physical activity level
was high, their osteoporosis incidence exceeded even present-day
levels in the United States. The Inuit diet was high in phosphorus
and protein and low in calcium.20
..'
http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/fulltext/calcium4-2.html


'Do one' some more, ball.  LOL!!!!

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfa1ec37k1s5c@corp.supernews.com...
>> pearl wrote:
> 
>>> I already gave you a link showing you that it does.
>>>
>>> Paleodiet and Its Relation to Atherosclerosis
>>> Paleodiet and Its Relation. to Atherosclerosis. J. UETAVA,a M.
>>> THURZO,b ..... basically raw vegetarian diet may be encoded in
>>> our present genome. ...
>>> www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/reprint/827/1/382.pdf
>> You did NOT,
> 
> This is a link to the Google search: http://tinyurl.com/2s5woo .
> 
> It's right there for everyone to see!    LOL.

It does *NOT* say that the expression "basically raw 
vegetarian diet may be encoded in our present genome" 
is *CONTAINED* in the article, you stupid lying cunt. 
If I do a search on "Kennedy assassination" + "lesley" 
+ reflexology and get hits, does that mean you did it? 
  HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW!  http://tinyurl.com/39j8cx

You did it.  I can find links to show you did it.  You 
stupid bitch.


> 
>>> "Plio-Pleistocene site location and assemblage composition are
>>> consistent with the hypothesis that large carcasses were taken *not*
>>> for purposes of provisioning, but in the context of competitive male
>>> displays."  ...
> 
>> They ate the meat.
> 
> *Who* ate meat?

homo erectus


> 
>> Also, the word "not" was not emphasized;
> 
> It certainly is.

No, *YOU* did that.


> 
>>> http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/hu/2002/00000043/00000006/art00604
> 
>> It is widely acknowledged that a "paleodiet" actually
>> *REDUCES* the incidence of atherosclerosis:
>>
>>     According to S. Boyd Eaton and colleagues, judging
>>     from subsistence patterns and biomarkers of
>>     hunter-gatherers studied in the last century, modern
>>     humans seem to be well adapted to the diet of their
>>     Paleolithic ancestors.[43] The diet of modern
>>     hunter-gatherer groups is believed to be
>>     representative of patterns for humans of 50 to 25
>>     thousand years ago,[43] and these foragers,[44][45]
>>     including the elderly,[46][47] seem to be largely
>>     free of the signs and symptoms of chronic disease
>>     (such as obesity, high blood pressure,
>>     nonobstructive coronary atherosclerosis, and insulin
>>     resistance) that universally afflict the elderly in
>>     western societies (with the exception of
>>     osteoarthritis, which afflicts both populations).
>>     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet
> 
> Emphasis added*:
> 
> 'Anthropologically speaking, humans were high consumers of calcium
> [snip shit hemorrhage that does not support your point]

That bullshit does *NOT* suggest that the hominids 
preceding h. sapiens didn't eat meat, and lots of it.

You're full of shit.  You've lost, cunt.  You need to 
find something that says hominids before h. sapiens 
didn't regularly eat meat as a staple part of their 
diet, and you can't find it because it's not there: 
scientists unanimously believe that the hominids from 
a. afarensis up to h. sapiens ate meat, as much of it 
as they could get.

"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfbubqhd6123b@corp.supernews.com...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfa1ec37k1s5c@corp.supernews.com...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >
> >>> I already gave you a link showing you that it does.
> >>>
> >>> Paleodiet and Its Relation to Atherosclerosis
> >>> Paleodiet and Its Relation. to Atherosclerosis. J. UETAVA,a M.
> >>> THURZO,b ..... basically raw vegetarian diet may be encoded in
> >>> our present genome. ...
> >>> www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/reprint/827/1/382.pdf
> >> You did NOT,
> >
> > This is a link to the Google search: http://tinyurl.com/2s5woo .
> >
> > It's right there for everyone to see!    LOL.
>
> It does *NOT* say that the expression "basically raw
> vegetarian diet may be encoded in our present genome"
> is *CONTAINED* in the article,

So Google's making it up?  What a joke!

> >>> "Plio-Pleistocene site location and assemblage composition are
> >>> consistent with the hypothesis that large carcasses were taken *not*
> >>> for purposes of provisioning, but in the context of competitive male
> >>> displays."  ...
> >
> >> They ate the meat.
> >
> > *Who* ate meat?
>
> homo erectus

Homo erectus ate a basically raw vegetarian diet
- which is NOT consistent with your assertions.

> >> Also, the word "not" was not emphasized;
> >
> > It certainly is.
>
> No, *YOU* did that.

Everyone can check these links.  You're an idiot.

> >>> http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/hu/2002/00000043/00000006/art00604
> >
> >> It is widely acknowledged that a "paleodiet" actually
> >> *REDUCES* the incidence of atherosclerosis:
> >>
> >>     According to S. Boyd Eaton and colleagues, judging
> >>     from subsistence patterns and biomarkers of
> >>     hunter-gatherers studied in the last century, modern
> >>     humans seem to be well adapted to the diet of their
> >>     Paleolithic ancestors.[43] The diet of modern
> >>     hunter-gatherer groups is believed to be
> >>     representative of patterns for humans of 50 to 25
> >>     thousand years ago,[43] and these foragers,[44][45]
> >>     including the elderly,[46][47] seem to be largely
> >>     free of the signs and symptoms of chronic disease
> >>     (such as obesity, high blood pressure,
> >>     nonobstructive coronary atherosclerosis, and insulin
> >>     resistance) that universally afflict the elderly in
> >>     western societies (with the exception of
> >>     osteoarthritis, which afflicts both populations).
> >>     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet
> >
> > Emphasis added*:
> >
> > 'Anthropologically speaking, humans were high consumers of calcium
> > [snip

As ever.  Start debating like an adult by addressing the evidence
presented, in an intellectually-honest manner, and, the arguments
actually presented, rather than what you yourself dishonestly invent.
+ Refraining from obscene language and baseless personal attacks.

You can't do it.

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfbubqhd6123b@corp.supernews.com...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfa1ec37k1s5c@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> I already gave you a link showing you that it does.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paleodiet and Its Relation to Atherosclerosis
>>>>> Paleodiet and Its Relation. to Atherosclerosis. J. UETAVA,a M.
>>>>> THURZO,b ..... basically raw vegetarian diet may be encoded in
>>>>> our present genome. ...
>>>>> www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/reprint/827/1/382.pdf
>>>> You did NOT,
>>> This is a link to the Google search: http://tinyurl.com/2s5woo .
>>>
>>> It's right there for everyone to see!    LOL.
>> It does *NOT* say that the expression "basically raw
>> vegetarian diet may be encoded in our present genome"
>> is *CONTAINED* in the article,
> 
> So Google's making it up?  What a joke!

You don't know how to interpret Google search results.

The fact that the article title, and the expression 
"basically raw vegetarian diet may be encoded in our 
present genome", appear in the Google "hit" does *NOT* 
mean that the expression appears in the article.

But thanks for admitting, bitch, that you did NOT read 
the expression in the article - because you did *NOT* 
read the article.


> 
>>>>> "Plio-Pleistocene site location and assemblage composition are
>>>>> consistent with the hypothesis that large carcasses were taken *not*
>>>>> for purposes of provisioning, but in the context of competitive male
>>>>> displays."  ...
>>>> They ate the meat.
>>> *Who* ate meat?
>> homo erectus
> 
> Homo erectus ate a basically raw vegetarian diet

FALSE.  You have no citation to support that.


>>>> Also, the word "not" was not emphasized;
>>> It certainly is.
>> No, *YOU* did that.
> 
> Everyone can check these links. 

I did check them, bitch, and they don't contain what 
you said they contain.  You LIED.


>>>>> http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/hu/2002/00000043/00000006/art00604
>>>> It is widely acknowledged that a "paleodiet" actually
>>>> *REDUCES* the incidence of atherosclerosis:
>>>>
>>>>     According to S. Boyd Eaton and colleagues, judging
>>>>     from subsistence patterns and biomarkers of
>>>>     hunter-gatherers studied in the last century, modern
>>>>     humans seem to be well adapted to the diet of their
>>>>     Paleolithic ancestors.[43] The diet of modern
>>>>     hunter-gatherer groups is believed to be
>>>>     representative of patterns for humans of 50 to 25
>>>>     thousand years ago,[43] and these foragers,[44][45]
>>>>     including the elderly,[46][47] seem to be largely
>>>>     free of the signs and symptoms of chronic disease
>>>>     (such as obesity, high blood pressure,
>>>>     nonobstructive coronary atherosclerosis, and insulin
>>>>     resistance) that universally afflict the elderly in
>>>>     western societies (with the exception of
>>>>     osteoarthritis, which afflicts both populations).
>>>>     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet
>>> Emphasis added*:
>>>
>>> 'Anthropologically speaking, humans were high consumers of calcium
>>> [snip
> 
> As ever. 

Yes, because the stuff I snipped does not support your 
claim.  The claim you're trying to make is that meat is 
not a natural staple of human diet, and that bullshit 
about calcium in no way supports your claim.  *NOTHING* 
you have cited supports your claim.

Face the facts, bitch:  you cannot find *any* citation 
that supports your bullshit claim that meat was not a 
staple element of human diet for millions of years 
before the appearance of modern homo sapiens.  You lose.

"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfe8jr91ct185@corp.supernews.com...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfbubqhd6123b@corp.supernews.com...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfa1ec37k1s5c@corp.supernews.com...
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> I already gave you a link showing you that it does.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Paleodiet and Its Relation to Atherosclerosis
> >>>>> Paleodiet and Its Relation. to Atherosclerosis. J. UETAVA,a M.
> >>>>> THURZO,b ..... basically raw vegetarian diet may be encoded in
> >>>>> our present genome. ...
> >>>>> www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/reprint/827/1/382.pdf
> >>>> You did NOT,
> >>> This is a link to the Google search: http://tinyurl.com/2s5woo .
> >>>
> >>> It's right there for everyone to see!    LOL.
> >> It does *NOT* say that the expression "basically raw
> >> vegetarian diet may be encoded in our present genome"
> >> is *CONTAINED* in the article,
> >
> > So Google's making it up?  What a joke!
>
> You don't know how to interpret Google search results.

You apparently can't read Google search results!  Rotfl.

> >>>>> "Plio-Pleistocene site location and assemblage composition are
> >>>>> consistent with the hypothesis that large carcasses were taken *not*
> >>>>> for purposes of provisioning, but in the context of competitive male
> >>>>> displays."  ...
> >>>> They ate the meat.
> >>> *Who* ate meat?
> >> homo erectus
> >
> > Homo erectus ate a basically raw vegetarian diet
>
> FALSE.  You have no citation to support that.

ROTFLMAO!

> >>>> Also, the word "not" was not emphasized;
> >>> It certainly is.
> >> No, *YOU* did that.
> >
> > Everyone can check these links.
>
> I did check them, bitch, and they don't contain what
> you said they contain.  You LIED.

You're the one who's lying here for all to see.  ZERO credibility!

> >>>>> http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/hu/2002/00000043/00000006/art00604

> >>>> It is widely acknowledged that a "paleodiet" actually
> >>>> *REDUCES* the incidence of atherosclerosis:
> >>>>
> >>>>     According to S. Boyd Eaton and colleagues, judging
> >>>>     from subsistence patterns and biomarkers of
> >>>>     hunter-gatherers studied in the last century, modern
> >>>>     humans seem to be well adapted to the diet of their
> >>>>     Paleolithic ancestors.[43] The diet of modern
> >>>>     hunter-gatherer groups is believed to be
> >>>>     representative of patterns for humans of 50 to 25
> >>>>     thousand years ago,[43] and these foragers,[44][45]
> >>>>     including the elderly,[46][47] seem to be largely
> >>>>     free of the signs and symptoms of chronic disease
> >>>>     (such as obesity, high blood pressure,
> >>>>     nonobstructive coronary atherosclerosis, and insulin
> >>>>     resistance) that universally afflict the elderly in
> >>>>     western societies (with the exception of
> >>>>     osteoarthritis, which afflicts both populations).
> >>>>     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet

> >>> Emphasis added*:
> >>>
> >>> 'Anthropologically speaking, humans were high consumers of calcium
> >>> [snip
> >
> > As ever.
>
> Yes, because the stuff I snipped does not support your
> claim.  The claim you're trying to make is that meat is
> not a natural staple of human diet, and that bullshit
> about calcium in no way supports your claim.  *NOTHING*
> you have cited supports your claim.

It *ALL* supports my  claim, ball, and *that's* why you snip it.

<bluster>

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfe8jr91ct185@corp.supernews.com...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfbubqhd6123b@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfa1ec37k1s5c@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>> I already gave you a link showing you that it does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paleodiet and Its Relation to Atherosclerosis
>>>>>>> Paleodiet and Its Relation. to Atherosclerosis. J. UETAVA,a M.
>>>>>>> THURZO,b ..... basically raw vegetarian diet may be encoded in
>>>>>>> our present genome. ...
>>>>>>> www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/reprint/827/1/382.pdf
>>>>>> You did NOT,
>>>>> This is a link to the Google search: http://tinyurl.com/2s5woo .
>>>>>
>>>>> It's right there for everyone to see!    LOL.
>>>> It does *NOT* say that the expression "basically raw
>>>> vegetarian diet may be encoded in our present genome"
>>>> is *CONTAINED* in the article,
>>> So Google's making it up?  What a joke!
>> You don't know how to interpret Google search results.
> 
> You apparently can't read Google search results!  Rotfl.
> 
>>>>>>> "Plio-Pleistocene site location and assemblage composition are
>>>>>>> consistent with the hypothesis that large carcasses were taken *not*
>>>>>>> for purposes of provisioning, but in the context of competitive male
>>>>>>> displays."  ...
>>>>>> They ate the meat.
>>>>> *Who* ate meat?
>>>> homo erectus
>>> Homo erectus ate a basically raw vegetarian diet
>> FALSE.  You have no citation to support that.
> 
> ROTFLMAO!
> 
>>>>>> Also, the word "not" was not emphasized;
>>>>> It certainly is.
>>>> No, *YOU* did that.
>>> Everyone can check these links.
>> I did check them, bitch, and they don't contain what
>> you said they contain.  You LIED.
> 
> You're the one who's lying here for all to see.  ZERO credibility!
> 
>>>>>>> http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/hu/2002/00000043/00000006/art00604
> 
>>>>>> It is widely acknowledged that a "paleodiet" actually
>>>>>> *REDUCES* the incidence of atherosclerosis:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     According to S. Boyd Eaton and colleagues, judging
>>>>>>     from subsistence patterns and biomarkers of
>>>>>>     hunter-gatherers studied in the last century, modern
>>>>>>     humans seem to be well adapted to the diet of their
>>>>>>     Paleolithic ancestors.[43] The diet of modern
>>>>>>     hunter-gatherer groups is believed to be
>>>>>>     representative of patterns for humans of 50 to 25
>>>>>>     thousand years ago,[43] and these foragers,[44][45]
>>>>>>     including the elderly,[46][47] seem to be largely
>>>>>>     free of the signs and symptoms of chronic disease
>>>>>>     (such as obesity, high blood pressure,
>>>>>>     nonobstructive coronary atherosclerosis, and insulin
>>>>>>     resistance) that universally afflict the elderly in
>>>>>>     western societies (with the exception of
>>>>>>     osteoarthritis, which afflicts both populations).
>>>>>>     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet
> 
>>>>> Emphasis added*:
>>>>>
>>>>> 'Anthropologically speaking, humans were high consumers of calcium
>>>>> [snip
>>> As ever.
>> Yes, because the stuff I snipped does not support your
>> claim.  The claim you're trying to make is that meat is
>> not a natural staple of human diet, and that bullshit
>> about calcium in no way supports your claim.  *NOTHING*
>> you have cited supports your claim.
> 
> It *ALL* supports my  claim

*NONE* of it supports your BULLSHIT claim, bitch - not 
one word of it.  Your claim is that humans and their 
hominid ancestors did not include meat as a dietary 
staple, and that BULLSHIT about calcium in no way 
supports your claim.

You lose.

On Jan 23, 12:39 pm, "pearl"  wrote:
>  wrote in messagenews:56162d5d-b79a-40e3-8152-906957c29eab@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > We also naturally kill each other and even nuke each other.
> > Not that good for us but it's natural!
>
> It's abnormal behaviour.  The exception (3-4%) isn't the rule.
>
> 'in·hu·man
> adj.
> 1. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel.
> 2. Deficient in emotional warmth; cold.
> 3. Not suited for human needs: an inhuman environment.
> 4. Not of ordinary human form; monstrous.
> ..
> inhuman
> adj 1: without compunction or human feeling; "in cold blood";
> "cold-blooded killing"; "insensate destruction" [syn: cold,
> cold-blooded, insensate] 2: belonging to or resembling something
> nonhuman; "something dark and inhuman in form"; "a babel of
> inhuman noises"
> ..'http://dictionary.reference.com/search?qinhuman
>

I guess I don't really like that word either, or the definition, but I
was talking about the word "natural" which I  try to avoid.  We need
to be more specific.  A slug is not of human form, but it is hardly
monstrous.  A mother mouse hardly lacks compassion.  Are horses
emotionally deficient?

Also, something that occurs infrequently is still natural.

I still agree with Paul Hogan: "You can eat it, but it tastes like
shit".
Maybe what you want to say is that we don't digest it properly or
fully like a cat's gut can.

When the supply of plants dwindles and the winter seems very long, you
might be forced to eat meat.  Try to enjoy it.

wrote in message news:fdfebf98-ab00-4ebb-9202-7dffacff4db4@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 23, 12:39 pm, "pearl"  wrote:
>  wrote in messagenews:56162d5d-b79a-40e3-8152-906957c29eab@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > We also naturally kill each other and even nuke each other.
> > Not that good for us but it's natural!
>
> It's abnormal behaviour.  The exception (3-4%) isn't the rule.
>
> 'in·hu·man
> adj.
> 1. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel.
> 2. Deficient in emotional warmth; cold.
> 3. Not suited for human needs: an inhuman environment.
> 4. Not of ordinary human form; monstrous.
> ..
> inhuman
> adj 1: without compunction or human feeling; "in cold blood";
> "cold-blooded killing"; "insensate destruction" [syn: cold,
> cold-blooded, insensate] 2: belonging to or resembling something
> nonhuman; "something dark and inhuman in form"; "a babel of
> inhuman noises"
> ..'http://dictionary.reference.com/search?qinhuman
>

I guess I don't really like that word either, or the definition, but I
was talking about the word "natural" which I  try to avoid.  We need
to be more specific.  A slug is not of human form, but it is hardly
monstrous.  A mother mouse hardly lacks compassion.  Are horses
emotionally deficient?

Also, something that occurs infrequently is still natural.

I still agree with Paul Hogan: "You can eat it, but it tastes like
shit".
Maybe what you want to say is that we don't digest it properly or
fully like a cat's gut can.

-------------

'Linneaus, who introduced binomial nomenclature (naming
plants and animals according to their physical structure) wrote:
"Man's structure, external and internal, compared with that
of other animals shows that fruit and succulent vegetables
constitute his natural food."
..
Dr. S.M. Whitaker, MRCS, LRCP, in Man's Natural Food: An
Enquiry, concluded, "Comparative anatomy and physiology
indicate fresh fruits and vegetables as the main food of man."
..'
http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/tsnhod-14.html

'Furthermore, William C. Roberts, M.D., Professor and Director
of the Baylor University Medical Center, and Editor in Chief of the
American Journal of Cardiology, stated in this peer-reviewed journal,

Thus, although we think we are one and we act as if we are one,
human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to
eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains
cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings,
who are natural herbivores.[11]
..
[11] Roberts, William C. American Journal of Cardiology.
Volume 66, P. 896. 1 Oct, 1990 .
..'
http://animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Morality/examination_of_property.htm

'There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or
minimization of fat intake beyond which further disease prevention
does not occur.  These findings suggest that even small intakes of
foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in
plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn,
with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality
rates. - Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative
diseases: perspectives from China. Am J Clin Nutr 1994 May;59
(5 Suppl):1153S-1161S.'


-----------

When the supply of plants dwindles and the winter seems very long, you
might be forced to eat meat.  Try to enjoy it.

----------

Operative word being, "forced".

.

pearl wrote:
>  wrote in message news:fdfebf98-ab00-4ebb-9202-7dffacff4db4@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 23, 12:39 pm, "pearl"  wrote:
>>  wrote in messagenews:56162d5d-b79a-40e3-8152-906957c29eab@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>> We also naturally kill each other and even nuke each other.
>>> Not that good for us but it's natural!
>> It's abnormal behaviour.  The exception (3-4%) isn't the rule.
>>
>> 'in·hu·man
>> adj.
>> 1. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel.
>> 2. Deficient in emotional warmth; cold.
>> 3. Not suited for human needs: an inhuman environment.
>> 4. Not of ordinary human form; monstrous.
>> ..
>> inhuman
>> adj 1: without compunction or human feeling; "in cold blood";
>> "cold-blooded killing"; "insensate destruction" [syn: cold,
>> cold-blooded, insensate] 2: belonging to or resembling something
>> nonhuman; "something dark and inhuman in form"; "a babel of
>> inhuman noises"
>> ..'http://dictionary.reference.com/search?qinhuman
>>
> 
> I guess I don't really like that word either, or the definition, but I
> was talking about the word "natural" which I  try to avoid.  We need
> to be more specific.  A slug is not of human form, but it is hardly
> monstrous.  A mother mouse hardly lacks compassion.  Are horses
> emotionally deficient?
> 
> Also, something that occurs infrequently is still natural.
> 
> I still agree with Paul Hogan: "You can eat it, but it tastes like
> shit".
> Maybe what you want to say is that we don't digest it properly or
> fully like a cat's gut can.
> 

More FUCKED UP attributions.  You didn't write the 
above, but you make it appear as if you did.


> -------------
> 
> 'Linneaus, who introduced binomial nomenclature

...which you don't know a THING about...


The fact is, meat is one of man's natural foods.

On Jan 24, 1:07 am, luke.s...@space.unibe.ch wrote:
> On Jan 23, 12:39 pm, "pearl"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >  wrote in messagenews:56162d5d-b79a-40e3-8152-906957c29eab@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > > We also naturally kill each other and even nuke each other.
> > > Not that good for us but it's natural!
>
> > It's abnormal behaviour.  The exception (3-4%) isn't the rule.
>
> > 'in·hu·man
> > adj.
> > 1. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel.
> > 2. Deficient in emotional warmth; cold.
> > 3. Not suited for human needs: an inhuman environment.
> > 4. Not of ordinary human form; monstrous.
> > ..
> > inhuman
> > adj 1: without compunction or human feeling; "in cold blood";
> > "cold-blooded killing"; "insensate destruction" [syn: cold,
> > cold-blooded, insensate] 2: belonging to or resembling something
> > nonhuman; "something dark and inhuman in form"; "a babel of
> > inhuman noises"
> > ..'http://dictionary.reference.com/search?qinhuman
>
> A mother mouse hardly lacks compassion.  

Mice do not experience or show compassion.


> Are horses emotionally deficient?

Compared with humans, yes.  Horses feel only very primitive emotions:
fear, anger, basic contentment.  If you have two mares who are
sisters, and the foal of one mare dies, the other mare feels no
emotion at all - zero - and the mare whose foal died probably feels
very little, if any; it does not "mourn".

Get a grip.  Stop anthropomorphizing animals.

"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:a7f3c519-24c9-4095-8ccd-1babe90a16ac@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 24, 1:07 am, luke.s...@space.unibe.ch wrote:
> On Jan 23, 12:39 pm, "pearl"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >  wrote in messagenews:56162d5d-b79a-40e3-8152-906957c29eab@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > > We also naturally kill each other and even nuke each other.
> > > Not that good for us but it's natural!
>
> > It's abnormal behaviour. The exception (3-4%) isn't the rule.
>
> > 'in·hu·man
> > adj.
> > 1. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel.
> > 2. Deficient in emotional warmth; cold.
> > 3. Not suited for human needs: an inhuman environment.
> > 4. Not of ordinary human form; monstrous.
> > ..
> > inhuman
> > adj 1: without compunction or human feeling; "in cold blood";
> > "cold-blooded killing"; "insensate destruction" [syn: cold,
> > cold-blooded, insensate] 2: belonging to or resembling something
> > nonhuman; "something dark and inhuman in form"; "a babel of
> > inhuman noises"
> > ..'http://dictionary.reference.com/search?qinhuman
>
> A mother mouse hardly lacks compassion.

-Mice do not experience or show compassion.

> Are horses emotionally deficient?

-Compared with humans, yes.  Horses feel only very primitive emotions:
-fear, anger, basic contentment.  If you have two mares who are
-sisters, and the foal of one mare dies, the other mare feels no
-emotion at all - zero - and the mare whose foal died probably feels
-very little, if any; it does not "mourn".

And you *know* this, how?

- Get a grip.  Stop anthropomorphizing animals.

'Centre for Bioethics / IX Annual Symposium on Biomedicine,
Ethics and Society

Abstract of Keynote talk:

Marc Bekoff

PhD, Professor of Biology, University of Colorado, USA
(Printable version, pdf)

Wild justice, cooperation, and fair play: Can animals be moral beings?

Can nonhuman animals (hereafter animals) be moral beings? Yes
they can. Research in cognitive ethology, evolutionary biology,
and social neuroscience, along with common sense, clearly shows
that animals are emotional and empathic beings (including mice who
have been shown to display empathy) and that they display moral
sensibility. What we observe when animals interact with one another
tells us a lot about what's happening inside their heads and hearts.
Animals' lives are very public, not hidden, private, or secret, and
the privacy of mind argument that we can never know what
animals are thinking or feeling is over-used and goes against solid
arguments based on evolutionary continuity and ethological and
neurobiological data.

In my presentation I will stress the importance of interdisciplinary
research and collaboration for coming to terms with various
aspects of animal emotions and morality. I will also discuss
anthropomorphism and why it is a very useful and inevitable way
to describe and explain animal behavior. To make my case about
animal morality I will focus on the details of social play behavior -
the many ways in which animals play fairly and honestly signal
their intentions - and also discuss research on inequity aversion
in animals. When animals play they carefully signal their intentions
to cooperate and to play, they trust that playmates will obey the
rules of fair play, and they forgive and apologize to one another
so that play can continue as play and not escalate to aggression.
Individuals fine-tune their interactions "on the run" by paying
attention to what is happening from moment to moment.

I will also argue that cognitive ethology is the unifying science
for understanding the subjective, emotional, empathic, and moral
lives of animals because it's essential to know what animals do,
think, and feel as they go about their daily routines in the company
of their friends and when they are alone. Research on mirror
neurons is also important to factor into discussions of fair play
and moral behavior. It is essential to learn why both the similarities
and differences between humans and other animals have evolved.
The more we come to understand other animals the more we will
appreciate them as the amazing beings they are and the more we
will come to understand ourselves. If humans are moral beings
then so are other animals. We are not alone in the moral arena.

Finally, I will argue not only that individual animals matter, but so
does what they feel, and what they feel is very much related to
how they behave. Surely, a whimpering dog, a playing wolf having
fun on the run and doing "what's right", and a grieving chimpanzee
or elephant feel something. They are not unfeeling objects. And
what animals feel matters very much as they try to negotiate their
lives in a human-dominated and often abusive world in which we
attempt to manage their lives for our and not their benefit. I am
incredulous that some skeptics actually question whether animals
feel anything (and even if they think).

We owe it to all individual animals to make every attempt to come
to a greater understanding and appreciation for who they are -
emotional, empathic, and often moral beings - in their own worlds.
And, when we're not sure about what they're feeling, we should
leave them alone. Quite often good welfare isn't good enough -
offering animals food, a bed, and health insurance just isn't enough.
They deserve more and we can always do better. This sort of respect
will go a long way toward ending, once and for all, the unnecessarily
cruel treatment to which far too many non-consenting individuals
are subjected each and every second of each and every day.

Some references:

Bekoff, M. 1994. Wild justice and fair play: cooperation, forgiveness,
and morality in animals. Biology & Philosophy 19: 489-520.

Allen, C., and M. Bekoff. 2005. Animal play and the evolution of
social morality: An ethological approach. Topoi 24, 125-135.

Bekoff, M. 2006. Animal passions and beastly virtues: Cognitive
ethology as the unifying science for understanding the subjective,
emotional, empathic, and moral lives of animals. Zygon (Journal of
Religion and Science) 41, 71-104.

Bekoff, M. 2007. The Emotional Lives of Animals: A Leading
Scientist Explores Animal Joy, Sorrow, and Empathy - and why
They Matter . New World Library, Novato, California .
_______

Marc Bekoff is Professor of Biology at the University of Colorado ,
Boulder , and co-founder with Jane Goodall of Ethologists for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals. He has won many awards for his
scientific research including a Guggenheim Fellowship, and is a
prolific writer with more than 200 articles as well two encyclopedias
to his credit. The author or editor of numerous books, including the
Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare, The Ten Trusts:
What We Must Do to Care for the Animals We Love (with Jane
Goodall), and The Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior, his most
recent books include The Smile of a Dolphin, Minding Animals,
Animal Passions and Beastly Virtues: Reflections on Redecorating
Nature, The Emotional Lives of Animals, and Animals Matter. In
2005 Marc was presented with The Bank One Faculty Community
Service Award for the work he has done with children, senior
citizens, and prisoners.
Marc Bekoff's website: http://literati.net/Bekoff.

More (EETA): www.ethologicalethics.org

Books:
New: The Emotional Lives of Animals, [..]

Animals Matter

Centre for Bioethics at Karolinska Institutet & Uppsala University
With support from:

[..]

http://www.bioethics.uu.se/symposium/2007/abstracts/bekoff.html

On Jan 24, 12:57 pm, "pearl"  wrote:
>  wrote in messagenews:fdfebf98-ab00-4ebb-9202-7dffacff4db4@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> -------------
>
> 'Linneaus, who introduced binomial nomenclature (naming
> plants and animals according to their physical structure) wrote:
> "Man's structure, external and internal, compared with that
> of other animals shows that fruit and succulent vegetables
> constitute his natural food."
> ..

Thanks for these quotes Pearl!  So what do you think he meant by
"natural"?  Maybe I'm not seeing the context.  If he means that fruit
and succulent vegetables are the most common food of man I think he
could have just looked at food production or consumptions statistics
to ascertain that instead of physical structure.  More likely he means
something more subtle..


> Dr. S.M. Whitaker, MRCS, LRCP, in Man's Natural Food: An
> Enquiry, concluded, "Comparative anatomy and physiology
> indicate fresh fruits and vegetables as the main food of man."
> ..'http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/tsnhod-14.html
>

Again, this could also be ascertained by looking around the
marketplace.  The main foods of man are wheat, rice, corn, potatoes..
what is next?

> 'Furthermore, William C. Roberts, M.D., Professor and Director
> of the Baylor University Medical Center, and Editor in Chief of the
> American Journal of Cardiology, stated in this peer-reviewed journal,
>
> Thus, although we think we are one and we act as if we are one,
> human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to
> eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains
> cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings,
> who are natural herbivores.[11]
> ..

Well natural omnivores is a little more accurate I would say.  Also,
the cholesterol and fat are probably better for us than the protein.
That's probably an old quote?

> [11] Roberts, William C. American Journal of Cardiology.
> Volume 66, P. 896. 1 Oct, 1990 .
> ..'http://animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Morality/examination_of_p...
>
> 'There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or
> minimization of fat intake beyond which further disease prevention
> does not occur.  These findings suggest that even small intakes of
> foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in
> plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn,
> with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality
> rates. - Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative
> diseases: perspectives from China. Am J Clin Nutr 1994 May;59
> (5 Suppl):1153S-1161S.'
>

I think they are overstating the conclusion here.  From what I
remember of the Campbell studies of mice being injected with
carcinogens, the tumor rate dropped to zero at something like 5%
animal protein.  If that's true, the difference between 1% of your
dietary protein from animals and .001% of your dietary protein from
animals is basically nil.  After all, spiders have been climbing down
our throats while we sleep for millions of years.  Our digestive
system is built to handle an occasional bit of craziness I think..
you aren't one of those people who won't touch a potato that touched a
steak are you?


> -----------
>
> When the supply of plants dwindles and the winter seems very long, you
> might be forced to eat meat.  Try to enjoy it.
>
> ----------
>
> Operative word being, "forced".
>
>

Why else would any animal develop carnivorous behavior?
Thanks again -

On Jan 24, 9:27 pm, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> On Jan 24, 1:07 am, luke.s...@space.unibe.ch wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 23, 12:39 pm, "pearl"  wrote:
>
> > >  wrote in messagenews:56162d5d-b79a-40e3-8152-906957c29eab@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > > > We also naturally kill each other and even nuke each other.
> > > > Not that good for us but it's natural!
>
> > > It's abnormal behaviour.  The exception (3-4%) isn't the rule.
>
> > > 'in·hu·man
> > > adj.
> > > 1. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel.
> > > 2. Deficient in emotional warmth; cold.
> > > 3. Not suited for human needs: an inhuman environment.
> > > 4. Not of ordinary human form; monstrous.
> > > ..
> > > inhuman
> > > adj 1: without compunction or human feeling; "in cold blood";
> > > "cold-blooded killing"; "insensate destruction" [syn: cold,
> > > cold-blooded, insensate] 2: belonging to or resembling something
> > > nonhuman; "something dark and inhuman in form"; "a babel of
> > > inhuman noises"
> > > ..'http://dictionary.reference.com/search?qinhuman
>
> > A mother mouse hardly lacks compassion.
>
> Mice do not experience or show compassion.
>

To nurse and care for aa child is compassionate.

> > Are horses emotionally deficient?
>
> Compared with humans, yes.  Horses feel only very primitive emotions:
> fear, anger, basic contentment.  If you have two mares who are
> sisters, and the foal of one mare dies, the other mare feels no
> emotion at all - zero - and the mare whose foal died probably feels
> very little, if any; it does not "mourn".
>

Just like humans, horses grieve the dead or missing who have spent the
most time with them and influenced them, i.e. those they miss.

wrote in message news:afa17388-56bd-4ac1-88f7-c69284399276@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 24, 12:57 pm, "pearl"  wrote:
> >  wrote in messagenews:fdfebf98-ab00-4ebb-9202-7dffacff4db4@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > -------------
> >
> > 'Linneaus, who introduced binomial nomenclature (naming
> > plants and animals according to their physical structure) wrote:
> > "Man's structure, external and internal, compared with that
> > of other animals shows that fruit and succulent vegetables
> > constitute his natural food."
> > ..
>
> Thanks for these quotes Pearl!  So what do you think he meant by
> "natural"?  Maybe I'm not seeing the context.  If he means that fruit
> and succulent vegetables are the most common food of man I think he
> could have just looked at food production or consumptions statistics
> to ascertain that instead of physical structure.  More likely he means
> something more subtle..

You're welcome, Saul.  The context is evolutionary dietary niche.

'Fossil Implies Our Early Kin Lived in Trees, Study Says
..
The Carpolestes, which weighed about 4 ounces (100 grams),
had a long tail, and a body about 14 inches (35 centimeters) long,
shared some, but not all of the characteristics of modern primates,
and thus can be viewed as a transitional animal. It had very primate
like teeth that were highly specialized for eating flowers, seeds, and
fruit. The opposable big toe gave it a grasping ability that indicates
it spent most of its time climbing trees.

Carpolestes also had a nail on its big toe, but its eyes were not
forward facing, and it did not have the bone structure that would
allow for specialized leaping, like some of the earliest primates.

Bloch and his co-author Doug Boyer conclude that Carpolestes
spent most of its time clinging to tree branches and eating fruit,
rather than spotting prey or leaping for its dinner. Boyer has been
working with Bloch under a National Science Foundation grant
to study plesiadapiform skeletons from Wyoming and the origin
of primates.

The authors speculate that as the diversity of fruits, flowers,
leaf buds, and nectar increased in the Paleocene, 65 to 55 million
years ago, Carpolestes took to the trees to exploit a new food
source and to avoid competition with early rodents.

A small group of scientists, led by Robert D. Martin at the Field
Museum in Chicago, has argued for a primate origin date of 85
million years ago, based on statistical modeling. There is no
fossil evidence to support the contention, and most paleontologists
rely on the fossil record to piece together the story of evolution.

Clarks Fork Basin, where the fossil was found, is particularly
rich and has yielded many nearly complete and almost fully
articulated Eocene (55 to 34 million years ago) fossils. The
researchers are expanding their search to include Bighorn Basin
in Wyoming, and Crazy Mountain Basin in Montana. The quarries
are expected to produce fossils that will further scientific
understanding of the evolution of primates.
...'
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1121_021121_PrimateOrigins_2.html

> > Dr. S.M. Whitaker, MRCS, LRCP, in Man's Natural Food: An
> > Enquiry, concluded, "Comparative anatomy and physiology
> > indicate fresh fruits and vegetables as the main food of man."
> > ..'http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/tsnhod-14.html
> >
>
> Again, this could also be ascertained by looking around the
> marketplace.  The main foods of man are wheat, rice, corn, potatoes..
> what is next?
>
> > 'Furthermore, William C. Roberts, M.D., Professor and Director
> > of the Baylor University Medical Center, and Editor in Chief of the
> > American Journal of Cardiology, stated in this peer-reviewed journal,
> >
> > Thus, although we think we are one and we act as if we are one,
> > human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to
> > eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains
> > cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings,
> > who are natural herbivores.[11]
> > ..
>
> Well natural omnivores is a little more accurate I would say.  Also,
> the cholesterol and fat are probably better for us than the protein.
> That's probably an old quote?

'The most striking results from the analysis were the strong positive
associations between increasing consumption of animal fats and ischemic
heart disease mortality [death rate ratios (and 95% CIs) for the highest
third of intake compared with the lowest third in subjects with no prior
disease were 3.29 (1.50, 7.21) for total animal fat, 2.77 (1.25, 6.13) for
saturated animal fat, and 3.53 (1.57, 7.96) for dietary cholesterol; P for
trend: <0.01, <0.01, and <0.001, respectively]. In contrast, no protective
effects were noted for dietary fiber, fish, or alcohol consumption.
Consumption of eggs and cheese were both positively associated with
ischemic heart disease mortality in these subjects (P for trend, < 0.01
for both foods).
..
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/525S

> > [11] Roberts, William C. American Journal of Cardiology.
> > Volume 66, P. 896. 1 Oct, 1990 .
> > ..'http://animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Morality/examination_of_p...
> >
> > 'There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or
> > minimization of fat intake beyond which further disease prevention
> > does not occur.  These findings suggest that even small intakes of
> > foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in
> > plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn,
> > with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality
> > rates. - Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative
> > diseases: perspectives from China. Am J Clin Nutr 1994 May;59
> > (5 Suppl):1153S-1161S.'
> >
>
> I think they are overstating the conclusion here.  From what I
> remember of the Campbell studies of mice being injected with
> carcinogens, the tumor rate dropped to zero at something like 5%
> animal protein.  If that's true, the difference between 1% of your
> dietary protein from animals and .001% of your dietary protein from
> animals is basically nil.  After all, spiders have been climbing down
> our throats while we sleep for millions of years.  Our digestive
> system is built to handle an occasional bit of craziness I think..

'Dietary Risk Factors for Colon Cancer in a Low-risk Population
(white meat - fish, poultry)
..
Strong positive trends were shown for red meat intake among subjects
who consumed low levels (0-<1 time/week) of white meat and for white
meat intake among subjects who consumed low levels of (0-<1 time/week)
of red meat.  The associations remained evident after further categorization
of the red meat (relative to no red meat intake): relative risk (RR) for >0-<1
time/week = 1.38, 95 percent CI 0.86-2.20; RR for 1-4 times/week = 1.77,
95 percent CI 1.05-2.99; and RR for >4 times/week = 1.98, 95 percent CI
1.0-3.89   and white meat (relative to no white meat intake): RR for >0-<1
time/week = 1.55, 95 percent CI 0.97-2.50; RR for 1-4 times/week = 3.37,
95 percent CI 1.60-7.11; and RR for >4 times/week = 2.74, 95 percent CI
0.37-20.19 variables to higher intake levels.
..'
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/148/8/761.pdf

> you aren't one of those people who won't touch a potato that touched a
> steak are you?

Sure am.

> > -----------
> >
> > When the supply of plants dwindles and the winter seems very long, you
> > might be forced to eat meat.  Try to enjoy it.
> >
> > ----------
> >
> > Operative word being, "forced".
> >
> >
>
> Why else would any animal develop carnivorous behavior?

I suppose hunger drives carnivorous species too..

> Thanks again -

A pleasure.

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:a7f3c519-24c9-4095-8ccd-1babe90a16ac@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 24, 1:07 am, luke.s...@space.unibe.ch wrote:
>> On Jan 23, 12:39 pm, "pearl"  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>  wrote in messagenews:56162d5d-b79a-40e3-8152-906957c29eab@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>>> We also naturally kill each other and even nuke each other.
>>>> Not that good for us but it's natural!
>>> It's abnormal behaviour. The exception (3-4%) isn't the rule.
>>> 'in·hu·man
>>> adj.
>>> 1. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel.
>>> 2. Deficient in emotional warmth; cold.
>>> 3. Not suited for human needs: an inhuman environment.
>>> 4. Not of ordinary human form; monstrous.
>>> ..
>>> inhuman
>>> adj 1: without compunction or human feeling; "in cold blood";
>>> "cold-blooded killing"; "insensate destruction" [syn: cold,
>>> cold-blooded, insensate] 2: belonging to or resembling something
>>> nonhuman; "something dark and inhuman in form"; "a babel of
>>> inhuman noises"
>>> ..'http://dictionary.reference.com/search?qinhuman
>> A mother mouse hardly lacks compassion.
> 
> -Mice do not experience or show compassion.
> 
>> Are horses emotionally deficient?
> 
> -Compared with humans, yes.  Horses feel only very primitive emotions:
> -fear, anger, basic contentment.  If you have two mares who are
> -sisters, and the foal of one mare dies, the other mare feels no
> -emotion at all - zero - and the mare whose foal died probably feels
> -very little, if any; it does not "mourn".
> 
> And you *know* this, how?

No evidence in support of compassion in mice or 
advanced emotions in horses.  Rational people don't 
believe in things without evidence.


> - Get a grip.  Stop anthropomorphizing animals.
> 
> 'Centre for Bioethics 

Stop anthropomorphizing animals.  It's far too late for 
you to get a grip, but you could at least stop 
anthropomorphizing animals.

Stop with the copypasta shit hemorrhages, too.

pearl wrote:
>  wrote in message news:afa17388-56bd-4ac1-88f7-c69284399276@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 24, 12:57 pm, "pearl"  wrote:
>>>  wrote in messagenews:fdfebf98-ab00-4ebb-9202-7dffacff4db4@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> -------------
>>>
>>> 'Linneaus, who introduced binomial nomenclature (naming
>>> plants and animals according to their physical structure) wrote:
>>> "Man's structure, external and internal, compared with that
>>> of other animals shows that fruit and succulent vegetables
>>> constitute his natural food."
>>> ..
>> Thanks for these quotes Pearl!  So what do you think he meant by
>> "natural"?  Maybe I'm not seeing the context.  If he means that fruit
>> and succulent vegetables are the most common food of man I think he
>> could have just looked at food production or consumptions statistics
>> to ascertain that instead of physical structure.  More likely he means
>> something more subtle..
> 
> You're welcome, Saul.  The context is evolutionary dietary niche.

You don't know a fucking thing about it, and the 
"sources" you cite do not say that humans didn't evolve 
as meat eaters.  They *did* evolve as meat eaters.

I'm breaking the law.

I decided to do the unthinkable and question whether or not some of
the environmentalist dogma I've been fed since the early 80s is true
or not.  So I decided to run some numbers

1,500,000 - Size of the Amazon rainforest in square miles. (*)
27,878,400  - The number of square feet in a square mile
41,817,600,000,000 - Size of the forest in square feet
43,560 - The number of square feet in an acre
960,000,000 - The size of the forest in acres
14,726,880 - The number of minutes since 2/1/1980
(28*365.25*24*60)..more or less

65.2 - The minimum number of acres to destroy every minute to destroy
the entire forest
1.08 - The minimum number of acres per second to do the same.


OK!
Those rates are actually lower than the scare numbers I received in
the early 80s!
From what I read, the rate of deforestation is increasing so current
rates must be even higher  (I guess all of those "awareness raising"
concerts didn't do a damn bit of good.)


So why is the forest still there?


Could it be that environmentalists are ignorant on what's actually
occuring?  (Perhaps the same acre is being cleared, regrown, and
recleared time and time again...like my brother-in-law has seen occur
in the Central American rainforest that he lives within?)
Could it be that environmentalists are intentionally lying?  *peeks
out windows to see if cops are coming*
Why would this be?
Oh yea!  For the MONEY!



BTW: The organic food movement?  BRILLIANT!  You use more land and
resources to create fewer crops!  (If this wasn't true organic farming
would be called FARMING)  Basically your preference of the organic
food movement is forcing farmers to use more land and where do farmers
get extra land?  By ripping down forest!




(*) Only found the size posted at one site but it seems correct
considering this area creates a square 1225miles per side.