'For a Nebraskan, going vegetarian means going against the grain

With friends and family in the land of Omaha steaks, it's hard to
explain that you're no longer a carnivore.

By Brad Dickson, Special to The Times
February 18, 2008

FIVE years ago I made the most difficult, painful decision of
my life. I converted from a carnivore to a vegetarian.

A bit of back story. I moved to L.A. in 1992 after growing up
in Nebraska, where beef is sacrosanct. Enough Nebraskans
are consumed with meat that gristle is classified as a vegetable.
They eat pork rinds for dessert. To succumb to "mad cow"
disease is considered a natural death. There's a steakhouse in
Omaha that serves a 32-ounce noontime T-Bone. In pre-meal
rituals, restaurant diners swallow enormous cheese- and
lard-laden bovine hunks half their body weight and call them
"appetizers."

Let me put it this way: There's one Whole Foods store in all
of Nebraska, and when I'm back, I never have trouble finding
a parking spot.

It wasn't easy telling my Cornhusker relatives, several of
whom still farm, that I'd gone vegetarian. They'd have been
less disgusted if I had joined the Taliban.

Even now when I'm visiting, my mother speaks to relatives
in hushed tones. "You know he's a vegetarian." (Said with
the same inflection as the word "communist" in the '50s.)

The vegetarian contempt is rooted in the fact that at one time
eastern Nebraska was proud home to the Omaha stockyards,
second only to Chicago as the nation's largest. Many locals
come from families that earn their livelihoods from
meatpacking and related activities. Omaha Steaks employs
thousands. If enough Americans turn vegetarian, there will be
an ill wind blowing across the local economy. You wanna
talk recession. . . .

Thus the decision to stop eating meat wasn't easy. I made the
switch after I read several books by cardiologist Dr. Dean
Ornish and took to heart his argument that vegetarianism wards
off coronary artery disease, an illness that runs in my family. I
have avoided statins out of my natural bias toward holistic
health practices. Already a runner and on-and-off health fanatic,
I embraced a dietary sea change that led me to permanently just
say no to beef.

The good news is that, according to some experts, I'm adding
years to my life. The bad news is five years later I still miss
meat so much I sometimes park outside Sizzler and watch
people leaving with doggy bags, tempted to swap my car for
half a gnawed-on chicken-fried steak.

But mostly I have an overall feeling of well-being. My running
times have improved since I'm essentially doing carbo loading
every day. I wake up clear-headed and feeling like I'm 15 years
old, and that's not bad -- to feel 15, only with some money in
the bank and a rudimentary knowledge of how the world works.

To paraphrase Thomas Wolfe, I just don't go home often. But
when I do, I'm greeted by some wonderfully warm, ingratiating
people who think that gristle is a vegetable.


Brad Dickson is a former writer for "The Tonight Show With
Jay Leno" and co-author of "Race You to the Fountain of Youth."

http://www.latimes.com/features/heal...ck=1&cset=true

pearl wrote:
> 'For a Nebraskan, going vegetarian means going against the grain

Nothing but style elevated over substance.

Humans are naturally omnivores.

On 2008-02-22, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> pearl wrote:
>> 'For a Nebraskan, going vegetarian means going against the grain
>
> Nothing but style elevated over substance.
>
> Humans are naturally omnivores.

That's fine, as long as you're careful not to confuse nature for morality.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Elflord wrote:
> On 2008-02-22, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> pearl wrote:
>>> 'For a Nebraskan, going vegetarian means going against the grain
>> Nothing but style elevated over substance.
>>
>> Humans are naturally omnivores.
>
> That's fine, as long as you're careful not to confuse nature for morality.

No confusion, but once again, the onus is on "vegans"
and other believers in animal "rights" to explain how
something that was both biologically and behaviorally
natural, and that appeared in a pre-morality era, could
become judged as immoral. Don't bother with the usual
and tired comparison to slavery, which is strictly a
cultural and behavioral artifact, and which is further
dismissable on the grounds that the slaves themselves
felt their rights were being violated and could express
that belief.

On Feb 22, 12:10 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
> No confusion, but once again, the onus is on "vegans"
> and other believers in animal "rights" to explain how
> something that was both biologically and behaviorally
> natural, and that appeared in a pre-morality era, could
> become judged as immoral.

It's a very human trait, actually, that makes for morality: empathy.
To imagine oneself in another's place.

I know I wouldn't want to be someone else's lunch. So naturally I
imagine what it would be like for an animal to have that as its sole
purpose in life, especially when that life is so made miserable by
modern manufacturing methods.

I suppose it's just a kind of moral autism that makes people not even
wonder about these things. Obviously, this is just one of those
things in life you either get or don't get. For example, exercise
nuts tend to be naturally fidgety kind of people. Something in them
just makes them physically restless. Those with a different
biochemical disposition in the brain find it weird that people should
want to go huffing and puffing on purpose.

> Don't bother with the usual
> and tired comparison to slavery, which is strictly a
> cultural and behavioral artifact,

As will meat-eating be one day, I am sure. But that's going to be
very, very far off in the future -- when people are subsisting on
magic pills, basically -- because we haven't even come around to
dealing with economic slavery yet. I think only when wage slavery is
finally addressed will the matter of animal rights be of real
concern. Basically, society is the way it is because that's the
easiest way for it to be.

Once slavery became not so easy, while industrialization and economic
slavery (wage slavery) became easier -- hey, you're still getting the
work done, what do you care -- slavery was finally abolished.

One day, technology will render our present economic arrangements
unnecessary as well. By such a time, technology should also render
meat-eating (not to mention weight-lifting and jogging!) redundant.

> and which is further
> dismissable on the grounds that the slaves themselves
> felt their rights were being violated and could express
> that belief.

You know, you can be a lawyer about anything and argue all kinds of
interesting propositions, but the only one that matters is precisely
what you're ignoring: would *you* like that to happen to you? That's
really the heart of the matter. It's really all about you, even
though the debate is often framed in terms of "the other"....

Well, I don't know if I'll ever be a vegetarian, but I'm willing to
give it a shot for thirty days (self-servingly timed to coincide with
a diet anyway)...and I know that it's certainly a messy matter of
morality, whatever the ultimate judgment of future generations.

latina_liebhaber:
> I know I wouldn't want to be someone else's lunch. So naturally I
> imagine what it would be like for an animal to have that as its sole
> purpose in life, especially when that life is so made miserable by
> modern manufacturing methods.

I see some merit in this view based on empathy, but if there's no
distinction made between an animal whose entire life is spent immobile
and force-fed in a small pen vs. one which lives its life in the wild
or grazing in a pasture, nor between species (say, primate vs.
ruminant vs. poultry vs. insects), well, that'd be so lacking in
nuance as to be more a turn-off than a foundation upon which I'd be
inclined to base much of my behavior.


> Obviously, this is just one of those
> things in life you either get or don't get. For example, exercise
> nuts tend to be naturally fidgety kind of people. Something in them
> just makes them physically restless. Those with a different
> biochemical disposition in the brain find it weird that people should
> want to go huffing and puffing on purpose.

Oh come on.

By similar token:

- all people who don't smoke are just fortunate to have different
brain chemistry and thereby lack the urge

- people who save money and live within their means have some
biochemical disposition to be nervous about the future, so they've
adjusted by becoming saps who are just easily with less of "the good
stuff"

- people who don't smoke pot, sniff coke, shoot junk are just over-
cautious nervous nellies who don't know what they're missing

- et cetera ad nauseum

Here in the real world, millions of us were never particularly fidgety
and driven to bouts of huffing and puffing, until for some reason
(e.g. quitting smoking, losing weight, whatever) we were motivated to
give it a try, fought through weeks and months of discomfort, inertia,
various setbacks, and eventually found that vigorous movement is a
deep and vital part of being fully human. Even for those of us
without the quirky biochemistry which reliably compels one to hop up
out of the La-Z-Boy mid-commercial for a quick eight miler.


> One day, technology will render our present economic arrangements
> unnecessary as well. By such a time, technology should also render
> meat-eating (not to mention weight-lifting and jogging!) redundant.

Woo-hoo, welcome to The Matrix!

What a joy it'll be to rid ourselves of these pesky artifacts like
bodies, action, thought... oh my, I can't hardly wait.

On Feb 22, 3:22 pm, Charlie Pendejo > wrote:
>
>
> I see some merit in this view based on empathy, but if there's no
> distinction made between an animal whose entire life is spent immobile
> and force-fed in a small pen vs. one which lives its life in the wild
> or grazing in a pasture, nor between species (say, primate vs.
> ruminant vs. poultry vs. insects), well, that'd be so lacking in
> nuance as to be more a turn-off than a foundation upon which I'd be
> inclined to base much of my behavior.

Sure I'd "feel better" if the animal had a nice free-ranged kind of
life and felt absolutely no pain at all upon death -- even lived to
the last year of its species' life span (unlikely, even in a very
humane industry).

But I think such "distinctions" are simply lawyers' games. It's like
the kid who really doesn't want to do his homework and will have every
imaginable excuse, some of them rather plausible in the abstract,
without context (said context being that he simply just doesn't want
any homework).

The ultimate question is, is it moral to use another life to further
or enhance your own? Which is simply to say, how would you like it
done to you?

> Oh come on.

No, really; I do think it's some kind of autism of the moral faculty
whereby some people (very few, I think, no matter what they would
claim) just can't comprehend any injustice less than the totally
obvious.

> By similar token:
>
> - all people who don't smoke are just fortunate to have different
> brain chemistry and thereby lack the urge

Actually, yeah, haven't you heard that some people are more
susceptible to chemical dependency than others?

> - people who save money and live within their means have some
> biochemical disposition to be nervous about the future, so they've
> adjusted by becoming saps who are just easily with less of "the good
> stuff"

Indeed, there's also a genetic basis (the so-called "thrill-seeking
gene") to risk-inclined behavior.

> - people who don't smoke pot, sniff coke, shoot junk are just over-
> cautious nervous nellies who don't know what they're missing
>
> - et cetera ad nauseum

The more scientists find out about our genes, the more we see how
genetically determined our tastes and capabilities are.

> Here in the real world, millions of us were never particularly fidgety
> and driven to bouts of huffing and puffing, until for some reason
> (e.g. quitting smoking, losing weight, whatever) we were motivated to
> give it a try, fought through weeks and months of discomfort, inertia,
> various setbacks, and eventually found that vigorous movement is a
> deep and vital part of being fully human. Even for those of us
> without the quirky biochemistry which reliably compels one to hop up
> out of the La-Z-Boy mid-commercial for a quick eight miler.

That your environment encouraged behavior in you which genetics
encouraged in others is neither here nor there.

> Woo-hoo, welcome to The Matrix!

Laugh all you want; it's inevitable. Read whywork.org for a primer.
Make sure to sit down and breathe deeply first.

No one wants to spend all this time doing stuff they really don't give
a flying **** about.

The fact that presently people can't imagine any other way of going
about their lives isn't the same as the possiblity that one day people
will. And the historical trajectory has been to an ever more
meaningful life for ever increasing numbers of individuals through the
technological advancements that different social organizational
strategies make possible.

> What a joy it'll be to rid ourselves of these pesky artifacts like
> bodies, action, thought... oh my, I can't hardly wait.

Hey, try explaining Nintendo to a Neanderthal.

latina_liebhaber:
> Sure I'd "feel better" if the animal had a nice free-ranged kind of
> life and felt absolutely no pain at all upon death -- even lived to
> the last year of its species' life span
>
> But I think such "distinctions" are simply lawyers' games.

Why do you say that?

If your concern is for the animal's experience - you yourself used the
word "empathy" - why do you then throw up your hands and say that the
animal's experience is irrelevant and what really matters is following
a simplistic black-and-white rule?

Supposing hypothetically that you or I were faced with the
incontestable choice to either live a full and happy life which ended
around age ninety with an unjust and intentional, but quick and
painless, assassination, versus a radically shortened lifespan as a
tortured and malnourished hostage locked in a filthy closet for
fifteen years before the same execution.

I might be a little ****ed off about my life being terminated with a
bullet through the brain (and even here, I think there's an enormous
difference between living daily with the horrible advanced knowledge
of this vs. its happening with no warning or understanding of it), but
I sure as hell know I wouldn't shrug and say, "toss a coin, after all
the distinction is simply a lawyer's game."

You? If you were making the choice for yourself, or for me, or a
relative or loved one?


> It's like the kid who really doesn't want to do his homework and will
> have every imaginable excuse, some of them rather plausible in the
> abstract, without context (said context being that he simply just doesn't
> want any homework).

Nope, sorry but that's projection. That's actually you with "only
people with a biochemical imbalance want to, and therefore engage in,
exercise".


> The ultimate question is, is it moral to use another life to further
> or enhance your own?

Boil everything down to a simple yes/no black/white question, and good
luck leading a satisfying life.


> The more scientists find out about our genes, the more we see
> how genetically determined our tastes and capabilities are.

Yes, one would need his head buried pretty deeply in the sand to
ignore all this.

Same time, one's head must also be buried in some other dark place to
see one's only reasonable response as being total submission to every
whim, because, hey, ya just can't fight determinism.


>> Woo-hoo, welcome to The Matrix!
>
> Laugh all you want; it's inevitable. Read whywork.org for a primer.

Heh, you've got it all figured out, eh?

Listen, we've had heroin for decades. Why not go out in a blaze of
neurotransmittorial satisfaction right now, rather than endure more
odious years of wage slavery, chores, physical demands, and all the
other slings and arrows of this primitive all-too-human early twenty-
first century life? Why wait for some technologically equivalent
dystopia?

Seriously, why not heroin?


> Hey, try explaining Nintendo to a Neanderthal.

Or the myth of Sisyphus to a modern deterministic dystopian.

"Elflord" > wrote in message ...
> On 2008-02-22, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > pearl wrote:
> >> 'For a Nebraskan, going vegetarian means going against the grain
> >
> > Nothing but style elevated over substance.
> >
> > Humans are naturally omnivores.
>
> That's fine,

Humans are biologically (and psychologically) frugivores.

'Journal Human Evolution
The human adaptations to meat eating: a reappraisal
Hladik C. M. 1 and Pasquet P. 2
(1) Laboratoire d'Ecologie, Éco-Anthropologie, CNRS (FRE
2323) and Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 4 avenue du
Petit Chteau, 91800 Brunoy, (France)
(2) Dynamique de l'évolution humaine CNRS (UPR 2147) 44,
rue de l'Amiral Mouchez, 75014, France
Received: 10 April 2001 Accepted: 28 December 2001

Abstract

In this paper we discuss the hypothesis, proposed by some authors,
that man is a habitual meat-eater. Gut measurements of primate
species do not support the contention that human digestive tract
is specialized for meat-eating, especially when taking into account
allometric factors and their variations between folivores, frugivores
and meat-eaters. The dietary status of the human species is that of
an unspecialised frugivore, having a flexible diet that includes seeds
and meat (omnivorous diet). Throughout the various time periods,
our human ancestors could have mostly consumed either vegetable,
or large amounts of animal matter (with fat and/or carbohydrates
as a supplement), depending on the availability and nutrient content
of food resources. Some formerly adaptive traits (e.g. the "thrifty
genotype") could have resulted from selective pressure during
transitory variations of feeding behaviour linked to environmental
constraints existing in the past.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/rr78052089583418/

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 (subscription)

Despite any *behavioural adaptation*, humans remain frugivores.

'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:
> "Elflord" > wrote in message ...
>> On 2008-02-22, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>> pearl wrote:
>>>> 'For a Nebraskan, going vegetarian means going against the grain
>>> Nothing but style elevated over substance.
>>>
>>> Humans are naturally omnivores.
>> That's fine,
>
> Humans are biologically (and psychologically) frugivores.

Meaningless. "Psychologically" is bullshit, anyway; no
such thing.

Being a "frugivore" does not mean "doesn't naturally
eat meat".

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Elflord" > wrote in message ...
> >> On 2008-02-22, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>> pearl wrote:
> >>>> 'For a Nebraskan, going vegetarian means going against the grain
> >>> Nothing but style elevated over substance.
> >>>
> >>> Humans are naturally omnivores.
> >> That's fine,
> >
> > Humans are biologically (and psychologically) frugivores.
>
> Meaningless.

Well into the 21st century, it's about time humans knew what
kind of animal we are. Many believe humans are omnivores!

> "Psychologically" is bullshit, anyway; no such thing.

Psychology is a very important aspect of human nature.

'na·ture
n.

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Elflord" > wrote in message ...
>>>> On 2008-02-22, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>> 'For a Nebraskan, going vegetarian means going against the grain
>>>>> Nothing but style elevated over substance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Humans are naturally omnivores.
>>>> That's fine,
>>> Humans are biologically (and psychologically) frugivores.
>> Meaningless.
>
> Well into the 21st century, it's about time humans knew what
> kind of animal we are. Many believe humans are omnivores!
>
>> "Psychologically" is bullshit, anyway; no such thing.
>
> Psychology is a very important aspect of human nature.

Humans are not "psychologically" frugivores. The claim
is meaningless bullshit.


>> Being a "frugivore" does not mean "doesn't naturally
>> eat meat".
>
> 'According to Tuttle,

You've never read Tuttle. Shut your ****ing mouth.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Elflord" > wrote in message ...
> >>>> On 2008-02-22, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>> 'For a Nebraskan, going vegetarian means going against the grain
> >>>>> Nothing but style elevated over substance.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Humans are naturally omnivores.
> >>>> That's fine,
> >>> Humans are biologically (and psychologically) frugivores.
> >> Meaningless.
> >
> > Well into the 21st century, it's about time humans knew what
> > kind of animal we are. Many believe humans are omnivores!
> >
> >> "Psychologically" is bullshit, anyway; no such thing.
> >
> > Psychology is a very important aspect of human nature.
>
> Humans are not "psychologically" frugivores. The claim
> is meaningless bullshit.

To you, certainly.

'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

> >> Being a "frugivore" does not mean "doesn't naturally
> >> eat meat".
> >
> > 'According to Tuttle,
>
> You've never read Tuttle. Shut your ****ing mouth.

Not celebrating your *10,000+* 'one star' average rating?

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Elflord" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>> On 2008-02-22, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>> 'For a Nebraskan, going vegetarian means going against the grain
>>>>>>> Nothing but style elevated over substance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Humans are naturally omnivores.
>>>>>> That's fine,
>>>>> Humans are biologically (and psychologically) frugivores.
>>>> Meaningless.
>>> Well into the 21st century, it's about time humans knew what
>>> kind of animal we are. Many believe humans are omnivores!
>>>
>>>> "Psychologically" is bullshit, anyway; no such thing.
>>> Psychology is a very important aspect of human nature.
>> Humans are not "psychologically" frugivores. The claim
>> is meaningless bullshit.
>
> To you, certainly.

It's just unsupported crazy bullshit, period. You made
it up. It is meaningless to say that humans are
"psychologically" frugivores; utterly meaningless bullshit.


>>>> Being a "frugivore" does not mean "doesn't naturally
>>>> eat meat".
>>> 'According to Tuttle,
>> You've never read Tuttle. Shut your ****ing mouth.
>
> Not celebrating

non sequitur

You never read "Tuttle"; you've never read *any*
original material. You've done nothing but slavishly
copypasta stuff from web pages, and you don't even
understand the stuff you sloppily copypasta.

The PBS science show Nova had this week a show on chimps. Not only did
they eat meat with great relish they did so at every opportunity.

They had invented a kind of spear to kill animals to eat. They hunt
with group cooperation and share the meat among themselves.

pearl wrote:

> 'According to Tuttle, [...]
> http://tinyurl.com/d8aqw

This is not a credible source. It is that "vegan"
polemicist John Coleman's site, and it's crap.

wrote:
> The PBS science show Nova had this week a show on chimps. Not only did
> they eat meat with great relish they did so at every opportunity.
>
> They had invented a kind of spear to kill animals to eat. They hunt
> with group cooperation and share the meat among themselves.

Chimps eat quite a lot of animal flesh - monkeys,
baboons, birds, insects - and always have. This is not
in serious dispute by researchers into chimpanzee diet.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> "Elflord" > wrote in message ...
> >>>>>> On 2008-02-22, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>> 'For a Nebraskan, going vegetarian means going against the grain
> >>>>>>> Nothing but style elevated over substance.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Humans are naturally omnivores.
> >>>>>> That's fine,
> >>>>> Humans are biologically (and psychologically) frugivores.
> >>>> Meaningless.
> >>> Well into the 21st century, it's about time humans knew what
> >>> kind of animal we are. Many believe humans are omnivores!
> >>>
> >>>> "Psychologically" is bullshit, anyway; no such thing.
> >>> Psychology is a very important aspect of human nature.
> >> Humans are not "psychologically" frugivores. The claim
> >> is meaningless bullshit.
> >
> > To you, certainly.
>
> It's just unsupported crazy bullshit, period. You made
> it up. It is meaningless to say that humans are
> "psychologically" frugivores; utterly meaningless bullshit.

You don't get it. As for others, it's a matter of cultural
conditioning, nutritional misinformation, and addiction.

Plutarch (c. 56 - 120 A.D.) (Roman historian and scholar) -

"Can you really ask what reason Pythagoras had for abstaining
from flesh? For my part I rather wonder both by what accident
and in what state of soul or mind the first man did so, touched
his mouth to gore and brought his lips to the flesh of a dead
creature, he who set forth tables of dead, stale bodies and
ventured to call food and nourishment the parts that had a little
before bellowed and cried, moved and lived. How could his eyes
endure the slaughter when throats were slit and hides flayed and
limbs torn from limb? How could his nose endure the stench?
How was it that the pollution did not turn away his taste, which
made contact with the sores of others and sucked juices and
serums from mortal wounds? . The obligations of law and
equity reach only to mankind, but kindness and benevolence
should be extended to the creatures of every species, and
these will flow from the breast of a true man, in streams that
issue from the living fountain. Man makes use of flesh not out
of want and necessity, seeing that he has the liberty to make his
choice of herbs and fruits, the plenty of which is inexhaustible;
but out of luxury, and being cloyed with necessaries, he seeks
after impure and inconvenient diet, purchased by the slaughter
of living beasts; by showing himself more cruel than the most
savage of wild beasts ... were it only to learn benevolence to
human kind, we should be merciful to other creatures. . It is
certainly not lions and wolves that we eat out of self-defense;
on the contrary, we ignore these and slaughter harmless, tame
creatures without stings or teeth to harm us, creatures that, I
swear, Nature appears to have produced for the sake of their
beauty and grace. But nothing abashed us, not the flower-like
tinting of the flesh, not the persuasiveness of the harmonious
voice, not the cleanliness of their habits or the unusual
intelligence that may be found in the poor wretches. No, for
the sake of a little flesh we deprive them of sun, of light, of
the duration of life to which they are entitled by birth and
being. Why do you belie the earth, as if it were unable to feed
and nourish you? Does it not shame you to mingle murder and
blood with her beneficent fruits? Other carnivores you call
savage and ferocious - lions and tigers and serpents - while
yourselves come behind them in no species of barbarity.
And yet for them murder is the only means of sustenance!
Whereas to you it is superfluous luxury and crime!"

> >>>> Being a "frugivore" does not mean "doesn't naturally
> >>>> eat meat".
> >>> 'According to Tuttle,
> >> You've never read Tuttle. Shut your ****ing mouth.
> >
> > Not celebrating
>
> non sequitur

Very sequitur.

> You never read "Tuttle"; you've never read *any*
> original material. You've done nothing but slavishly
> copypasta stuff from web pages, and you don't even
> understand the stuff you sloppily copypasta.

Evasion, attempted diversion and ad hominem noted.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
>
> > 'According to Tuttle, [...]
> > http://tinyurl.com/d8aqw
>
> This is not a credible source. It is that "vegan"
> polemicist John Coleman's site, and it's crap.

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

> wrote in message u...
> The PBS science show Nova had this week a show on chimps. Not only did
> they eat meat with great relish they did so at every opportunity.
>
> They had invented a kind of spear to kill animals to eat. They hunt
> with group cooperation and share the meat among themselves.

Where?

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>> "Elflord" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>> On 2008-02-22, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 'For a Nebraskan, going vegetarian means going against the grain
>>>>>>>>> Nothing but style elevated over substance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Humans are naturally omnivores.
>>>>>>>> That's fine,
>>>>>>> Humans are biologically (and psychologically) frugivores.
>>>>>> Meaningless.
>>>>> Well into the 21st century, it's about time humans knew what
>>>>> kind of animal we are. Many believe humans are omnivores!
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Psychologically" is bullshit, anyway; no such thing.
>>>>> Psychology is a very important aspect of human nature.
>>>> Humans are not "psychologically" frugivores. The claim
>>>> is meaningless bullshit.
>>> To you, certainly.
>> It's just unsupported crazy bullshit, period. You made
>> it up. It is meaningless to say that humans are
>> "psychologically" frugivores; utterly meaningless bullshit.
>
> You don't get it.

I do get it: "psychologically" frugivores is utterly
meaningless bullshit.


>>>>>> Being a "frugivore" does not mean "doesn't naturally
>>>>>> eat meat".
>>>>> 'According to Tuttle,
>>>> You've never read Tuttle. Shut your ****ing mouth.
>>> Not celebrating
>> non sequitur
>
> Very sequitur.

non sequitur


>> You never read "Tuttle"; you've never read *any*
>> original material. You've done nothing but slavishly
>> copypasta stuff from web pages, and you don't even
>> understand the stuff you sloppily copypasta.
>
> Evasion,

You've never read Tuttle. You did a slovenly copypasta
off that "vegan" extremist/terrorist Coleman's BULLSHIT
site. That BULLSHIT he says about Tuttle is unsourced
and secondary.

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>> pearl wrote:
>>
>>> 'According to Tuttle, [...]
>>> http://tinyurl.com/d8aqw
>> This is not a credible source. It is that "vegan"
>> polemicist John Coleman's site, and it's crap.
>
> Faking quotes,

Faking nothing.

Coleman's site is unsubstantiated polemical crap.

pearl wrote:
> > wrote in message u...
>> The PBS science show Nova had this week a show on chimps. Not only did
>> they eat meat with great relish they did so at every opportunity.
>>
>> They had invented a kind of spear to kill animals to eat. They hunt
>> with group cooperation and share the meat among themselves.
>
> Where?

In their entire range.

wrote:
> The PBS science show Nova had this week a show on chimps. Not only did
> they eat meat with great relish they did so at every opportunity.
>
> They had invented a kind of spear to kill animals to eat. They hunt
> with group cooperation and share the meat among themselves.
>
>

"The more significant role of social-insect/termite/ant
consumption. Now of course, meat consumption among
chimps is what gets the headlines these days, but the
bulk of chimpanzees' animal food consumption actually
comes in the form of social insects (termites, ants,
and bees), which constitute a much higher payoff for
the labor invested to obtain them than catching the
colobus monkeys that are often the featured flesh item
for chimps. However, insect consumption has often been
virtually ignored since it constitutes a severe blind
spot for the Western world due to our cultural
aversions and biases about it. And by no means is
insect consumption an isolated occurrence among just
some chimp populations. With very few exceptions,
termites and/or ants are eaten about half the days out
of a year on average, and during peak seasons are an
almost daily item, constituting a significant staple
food in the diet (in terms of regularity), the remains
of which show up in a minimum of approximately 25% of
all chimpanzee stool samples."

http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...hs%20ab%20apes



Paleontological evidence shows
humans have always been omnivores

What kind of "evidence" are we talking about here?

At its most basic, an accumulation of archaeological
excavations by paleontologists, ranging all the way
from the recent past of 10,000-20,000 years ago back to
approximately 2 million years ago, where ancient
"hominid" (meaning human and/or proto-human) skeletal
remains are found in conjunction with stone tools and
animal bones that have cut marks on them. These cut
marks indicate the flesh was scraped away from the bone
with human-made tools, and could not have been made in
any other way. You also find distinctively smashed
bones occurring in conjunction with hammerstones that
clearly show they were used to get at the marrow for
its fatty material.[3]

Prior to the evidence from these earliest stone tools,
going back even further (2-3 million years) is chemical
evidence showing from strontium/calcium ratios in
fossilized bone that some of the diet from earlier
hominids was also coming from animal flesh.[4]
(Strontium/calcium ratios in bone indicate relative
amounts of plant vs. animal foods in the diet.[5])
Scanning electron microscope studies of the microwear
of fossil teeth from various periods well back into
human prehistory show wear patterns indicating the use
of flesh in the diet too.[6]

The consistency of these findings across vast eons of
time show that these were not isolated incidents but
characteristic behavior of hominids in many times and
many places.

Evidence well-known in scientific community;
controversial only for vegetarians. The evidence--if it
is even known to them--is controversial only to
Hygienists and other vegetarian groups, few to none of
whom, so far as I can discern, seem to have acquainted
themselves sufficiently with the evolutionary picture
other than to make a few armchair remarks. To anyone
who really looks at the published evidence in the
scientific books and peer-reviewed journals and has a
basic understanding of the mechanisms for how evolution
works, there is really not a whole lot to be
controversial about with regard to the very strong
evidence indicating flesh has been a part of the human
diet for vast eons of evolutionary time. The real
controversy in paleontology right now is whether the
earliest forms of hominids were truly "hunters," or
more opportunistic "scavengers" making off with pieces
of kills brought down by other predators, not whether
we ate flesh food itself as a portion of our diet or
not.[7]

http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...erview1b.shtml

The PBS science show Nova had this week a show on chimps. Not only did
they eat meat with great relish they did so at every opportunity.

They had invented a kind of spear to kill animals to eat. They hunt
with group cooperation and share the meat among themselves.

"Where?"

In my living room. Oh, you mean where the show was filmed. PBS has
transcripts often and I think entire shows for viewing online.

wrote:
> The PBS science show Nova had this week a show on chimps. Not only did
> they eat meat with great relish they did so at every opportunity.
>
> They had invented a kind of spear to kill animals to eat. They hunt
> with group cooperation and share the meat among themselves.
>
> "Where?"
>
> In my living room. Oh, you mean where the show was filmed. PBS has
> transcripts often and I think entire shows for viewing online.

I think lesley (the whore of Cork) meant where in the
range of chimpanzee habitat did this hunting behavior
occur. The correct answer is, EVERYWHERE in the range
of chimpanzee habitat. Chimps hunt, period.

On Feb 22, 8:28*am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> pearl wrote:
> > 'For a Nebraskan, going vegetarian means going against the grain
>
> Nothing but style elevated over substance.
>
> Humans are naturally omnivores.

Bullshit.

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>> "Elflord" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>> On 2008-02-22, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 'For a Nebraskan, going vegetarian means going against the grain
>>>>>>>>> Nothing but style elevated over substance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Humans are naturally omnivores.
>>>>>>>> That's fine,
>>>>>>> Humans are biologically (and psychologically) frugivores.
>>>>>> Meaningless.
>>>>> Well into the 21st century, it's about time humans knew what
>>>>> kind of animal we are. Many believe humans are omnivores!
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Psychologically" is bullshit, anyway; no such thing.
>>>>> Psychology is a very important aspect of human nature.
>>>> Humans are not "psychologically" frugivores. The claim
>>>> is meaningless bullshit.
>>> To you, certainly.
>> It's just unsupported crazy bullshit, period. You made
>> it up. It is meaningless to say that humans are
>> "psychologically" frugivores; utterly meaningless bullshit.
>
> You don't get it.

I get it: your claim that humans are "psychologically
frugivores" is bullshit.


> Plutarch (c. 56 - 120 A.D.) (Roman historian and scholar) -
>
> [snip probable bullshit]

You've never read Plutarch.


>
>>>>>> Being a "frugivore" does not mean "doesn't naturally
>>>>>> eat meat".
>>>>> 'According to Tuttle,
>>>> You've never read Tuttle. Shut your ****ing mouth.
>>> Not celebrating
>> non sequitur
>
> [...]
>
>> You never read "Tuttle"; you've never read *any*
>> original material. You've done nothing but slavishly
>> copypasta stuff from web pages, and you don't even
>> understand the stuff you sloppily copypasta.
>
> Evasion,

No evasion. You've never read "Tuttle", and it's a
safe bet that lying "vegan" extremist and polemicist
John Coleman, from whose extremist page your did the
copypasta of "Tuttle", never read Tuttle either.
You've never read *any* of these people you
deliberately misrepresent, and you always use a website
many times removed from the original as your source.

Chimpanzees eat meat, eggs, birds and insects in
sufficient quantities, and over the course of enough
days of the year, that animal protein is considered a
staple of chimp diet. You've fished selectively for a
citation that gives the false appearance of supporting
your utterly wrong belief, but that citation does not
represent the consensus of those who study chimpanzee
diet. The consensus of those who study chimpanzee diet
is that chimps eat quite a lot of animal protein, and
spend a lot of feeding time acquiring and eating it.

Your laughable misunderstanding of the word "frugivore"
really is extremely comical. You equivocate on both
the meaning, and how the term comes to be applied to a
species. "Frugivore" does not mean "eats only (or
primarily) fruit"; it simply means, "is observed eating
fruit". Herbivores aren't observed eating fruit;
they're observed eating grass and other herbs. The
classification comes *first* and primarily from
observed feeding behavior. Only subsequent to that is
some anatomical study done to see if there are shared
characteristics of different observed frugivores,
shared characteristics of different observed folivores,
and so on. The classification is done first and
foremost on observed feeding behavior.

Humans are observed eating meat, as well as various
fruits and vegetables, and they have been observed
eating all these foods at all times and places (except
Inuit in the far north have seldom been observed eating
fresh fruit and vegetables prior to very recent times.)
Humans are omnivores, both as a matter of observation
of feeding behavior, and from investigation of human
anatomy and physiology that finds that humans have
adaptations to eating a wide variety of foods,
including meat. Humans are adapted to eating meat.
This is the consensus of biologists, anatomists and
physiologists. This consensus is not in dispute among
members of the scientific community who study these
issues. John Coleman is not a scientist, and neither
are you, and neither of you has read any original
scientific research on the issue. You absolutely
cannot read such research, nor do you have any access
to it; and Coleman almost certain has not and cannot.

Humans eat meat, and they and their hominid ancestors
have naturally been eating it for 2.5 million years,
possibly more (but no less.) Humans are evolutionarily
adapted to eating meat. You are psychologically
adapted to lying and spewing bullshit.

Sympatric populations of lowland gorillas (Gorilla
gorilla gorilla) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes
troglodytes) in the Lopé Reserve in central Gabon
consumed insects at similar average frequencies over a
7-year period (30% versus 31% feces contained insect
remains). Data came mostly from fecal analysis
supplemented by observation and trail evidence. The
weaver ant (Oecophylla longinoda) was the species eaten
most frequently by both gorillas and chimpanzees. Other
species of insects wore eaten but there was virtually
no overlap: Chimpanzees used tools to eat Apis bees
(and their honey) and two large species of ants;
gorillas ate three species of small ants. Thus, despite
their shared habitat, the esources utilized were not
identical as gorillas do not show the tool-use
technology of chimpanzees. The frequency of
insect-eating by both species of ape varied seasonally
and between years but in different ways. This variation
did not seem to be related to the ratio of fruit to
foliage in their diets. Gorillas of all age-classes ate
insects at similar rates. Comparisons with insectivory
by other populations of gorillas indicate differences
exist. Mountain gorillas (Gorilla g. beringei) in the
Virunga Volcanoes, Rwanda, consume thousands of
invertebrates daily, eating them inadvertently with
handfuls of herbaceous foods but they deliberately
ingest insect-foods only rarely. Lowland gorillas at
Lopé habitually ate social insects, and their selective
processing of herbaceous foods probably minimizes
inadvertent consumption of other invertebrates.
Gorillas at Belinga in northeastern Gabon, 250 km from
Lop6, ate social insects at similar rates but ignored
weaver ants in favor of Cubitermes sulcifrons, a small
species of termite that occurs at Lopé but was not
eaten by gorillas. This indicates that local traditions
similar to those reported for chimpanzees also exist
amongst populations of gorillas.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/c...TRY=1&SRETRY=0

In the early 1960s, when the british primatologist
Jane Goodall first observed wild chimpanzees hunting
and eating meat in Gombe National Park, Tanzania, it
was widely believed that these animals were strict
vegetarians. Skeptics suggested that the diet of the
Gombe chimpanzees was aberrant. Others suggested that
the quantity of meat the chimpanzees ate was trivial.
After more than 30 years of research, however, it is
now clear that meat is a natural part of the
chimpanzees' diet. Indeed, hunting has been observed at
most of the other sites where chimpanzees are studied
across central Africa. And, it turns out, a chimpanzee
community may eat several hundred kilograms of meat in
a single year.

To many anthropologists this is a surprising
development. Of all the higher primates, only human
beings and chimpanzees hunt and eat meat on a regular
basis. The similarities pose an intriguing prospect:
Might the close evolutionary relationship between
chimpanzees and human beings provide some clues to the
evolution of our own behavior? We do know that the
earliest bipedal hominids, the australopithecines,
evolved in Africa about 5 million years ago and that
they shared a common ancestor with modern chimpanzees
shortly before that time. Unfortunately, the evidence
for the occurrence of meat-eating among the early
australopithecines is spotty at best. Primitive stone
tools that were made 2.5 million years ago suggest that
early hominids had the means to carve the flesh from
large carcasses, but we know very little about their
diets before that time. Were they hunters or perhaps,
as many anthropologists now argue, scavengers? The
behavior of chimpanzees may provide a window through
which we can see much that has been lost in the fossil
record.

http://www.americanscientist.org/tem...true&print=yes

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> > > wrote in message u...
> >> The PBS science show Nova had this week a show on chimps. Not only did
> >> they eat meat with great relish they did so at every opportunity.
> >>
> >> They had invented a kind of spear to kill animals to eat. They hunt
> >> with group cooperation and share the meat among themselves.
> >
> > Where?
>
> In their entire range.

'Relating Chimpanzee Diets to Potential Australopithecine Diets
Conklin-Brittain, Nancy Lou
Wrangham, Richard W.

We report data using an ape model to reconstruct the nutrient
composition of the frugivorous diet of our last common ancestor
with African great apes. We aimed to determine whether the
African ape clade, from which hominids evolved, has any unusual
features. We studied frugivory by comparing chimpanzee diets to
that of three species of cercopithecine monkeys in Kibale Forest,
Uganda.

Data came from a 12-month period that showed inter-monthly
variation in fruit abundance. The monkeys consumed stable
nutrient levels except for lipid, which was low (3.2 +/- 2.0 %
dry matter (DM)), but peaked at about 9% DM during ripe fruit
abundance. Chimpanzees also consumed low lipid and sugar diets
during fruit poor seasons. Protein intake reflected each species'
fallback food: leaf consumption kept the protein levels high for
monkeys (16.7 +/- 1.9% DM); chimpanzees relied on herbaceous
piths and maintained a low protein intake (9.5 +/- 3.0% DM).
Fallback food was probably also responsible for the high fiber
(NDF) intakes by monkeys, which was not significantly different
from chimpanzees' (32.4 +/- 3.6% NDF versus 33.6 +/- 4.5%
NDF respectively).

Three conclusions emerge: fat intake was low for all frugivores,
protein intake was low for chimpanzees, and fiber intake was high
for all species. Our data (from a lipid-poor habitat) show that
high lipid or high protein is not needed for normal health and
reproduction of chimpanzees. Therefore, hominids were probably
capable of living on a low-fat, low-protein diet such as would be
provided by fibrous roots commonly found in a seasonal woodland
environment.

http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes.../abstract.html

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...

> The real
> controversy in paleontology right now is whether the
> earliest forms of hominids were truly "hunters," or
> more opportunistic "scavengers" making off with pieces
> of kills brought down by other predators, not whether
> we ate flesh food itself as a portion of our diet or
> not.[7]
>
> http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...erview1b.shtml

'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/conten...00006/art00604

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 (subscription)

'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/full...alcium4-2.html

'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.'

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
> Sympatric populations of lowland gorillas (Gorilla
> gorilla gorilla) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes
> troglodytes) in the Lopé Reserve in central Gabon
> consumed insects at similar average frequencies over a
> 7-year period (30% versus 31% feces contained insect
> remains). Data came mostly from fecal analysis
> supplemented by observation and trail evidence. The
> weaver ant (Oecophylla longinoda) was the species eaten
> most frequently by both gorillas and chimpanzees. Other
> species of insects wore eaten but there was virtually
> no overlap: Chimpanzees used tools to eat Apis bees
> (and their honey) and two large species of ants;
> gorillas ate three species of small ants. Thus, despite
> their shared habitat, the esources utilized were not
> identical as gorillas do not show the tool-use
> technology of chimpanzees. The frequency of
> insect-eating by both species of ape varied seasonally
> and between years but in different ways. This variation
> did not seem to be related to the ratio of fruit to
> foliage in their diets. Gorillas of all age-classes ate
> insects at similar rates. Comparisons with insectivory
> by other populations of gorillas indicate differences
> exist. Mountain gorillas (Gorilla g. beringei) in the
> Virunga Volcanoes, Rwanda, consume thousands of
> invertebrates daily, eating them inadvertently with
> handfuls of herbaceous foods but they deliberately
> ingest insect-foods only rarely. Lowland gorillas at
> Lopé habitually ate social insects, and their selective
> processing of herbaceous foods probably minimizes
> inadvertent consumption of other invertebrates.
> Gorillas at Belinga in northeastern Gabon, 250 km from
> Lop6, ate social insects at similar rates but ignored
> weaver ants in favor of Cubitermes sulcifrons, a small
> species of termite that occurs at Lopé but was not
> eaten by gorillas. This indicates that local traditions
> similar to those reported for chimpanzees also exist
> amongst populations of gorillas.
>
> http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/c...TRY=1&SRETRY=0

'Diet and seasonal changes in sympatric gorillas and chimpanzees
at Kahuzi-Biega National Park
Juichi Yamagiwa1 and Augustin Kanyunyi Basabose2
(1) Laboratory of Human Evolution Studies, Graduate School of
Sciences, Kyoto University, Sakyo, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan
(2) Centre de Recherche en Sciences Naturelles, Lwiro, Bukavu,
Democratic Republic of the Congo

Received: 30 July 2004 Accepted: 22 January 2005 Published
online: 3 September 2005

Abstract Based on 8 years of observations of a group of western
lowland gorillas (Gorilla beringei graueri) and a unit-group of
chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii) living sympatrically
in the montane forest at Kahuzi-Biega National Park, we compared
their diet and analyzed dietary overlap between them in relation to
fruit phenology. Data on fruit consumption were collected mainly
from fecal samples, and phenology of preferred ape fruits was
estimated by monitoring. Totals of 231 plant foods (116 species)
and 137 plant foods (104 species) were recorded for gorillas and
chimpanzees, respectively. Among these, 38% of gorilla foods
and 64% of chimpanzee foods were eaten by both apes. Fruits
accounted for the largest overlap between them (77% for gorillas
and 59% for chimpanzees). Gorillas consumed more species of
vegetative foods (especially bark) exclusively whereas chimpanzees
consumed more species of fruits and animal foods exclusively.
Although the number of fruit species available in the montane forest
of Kahuzi is much lower than that in lowland forest, the number of
fruit species per chimpanzee fecal sample (average 2.7 species) was
similar to that for chimpanzees in the lowland habitats. By contrast,
the number of fruit species per gorilla fecal sample (average 0.8
species) was much lower than that for gorillas in the lowland habitats.
Fruit consumption by both apes tended to increase during the dry
season when ripe fruits were more abundant in their habitat. However,
the number of fruit species consumed by chimpanzees did not change
according to ripe fruit abundance. The species differences in fruit
consumption may be attributed to the wide ranging of gorillas and
repeated usage of a small range by chimpanzees and/or to avoidance
of inter-specific contact by chimpanzees. The different staple foods
(leaves and bark for gorillas and fig fruits for chimpanzees) characterize
the dietary divergence between them in the montane forest of Kahuzi,
where fruit is usually scarce. Gorillas rarely fed on insects, but
chimpanzees occasionally fed on bees with honey, which possibly
compensate for fruit scarcity. A comparison of dietary overlap
between gorillas and chimpanzees across habitats suggests that
sympatry may not influence dietary overlap in fruit consumed but
may stimulate behavioral divergence to reduce feeding competition
between them.

Keywords Chimpanzee - Diet - Gorilla - Niche divergence - Sympatry

http://www.springerlink.com/content/v074m6375801080w/

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
> In the early 1960s, when the british primatologist
> Jane Goodall first observed wild chimpanzees hunting
> and eating meat in Gombe National Park, Tanzania, it
> was widely believed that these animals were strict
> vegetarians. Skeptics suggested that the diet of the
> Gombe chimpanzees was aberrant.

Gombe National Park is a limited and highly populated area.

'..The park is made up of narrow mountain strip of land about
16 kilometers long and 5 kilometers wide on the shore of Lake
Tanganyika. From the lake shore steep slopes rises up to form the
Rift Valley's escapement, which is covered by the dense forest.
...
The dominating vegetation in this park include the open
deciduous woodland on the upper slopes, gallery forests on
the valleys and lower slopes. This type of vegetation is unique in
Tanzania and has been supporting a large number of Chimpanzee,
Baboons, and a large number of bird species. Other species seen
here are colobus, blue and red tail monkeys.
...'
http://www.utalii.com/gombe%20national%20park.htm

> Others suggested that
> the quantity of meat the chimpanzees ate was trivial.
> After more than 30 years of research, however, it is
> now clear that meat is a natural part of the
> chimpanzees' diet. Indeed, hunting has been observed at
> most of the other sites where chimpanzees are studied
> across central Africa. And, it turns out, a chimpanzee
> community may eat several hundred kilograms of meat in
> a single year.
>
> To many anthropologists this is a surprising
> development. Of all the higher primates, only human
> beings and chimpanzees hunt and eat meat on a regular
> basis.

Chimpanzees' habitat been increasingly encroached upon,
destroyed, and fragmented by human activites. This has
undeniably caused an increase in population in remaining
habitat, and thus increased competition for the available
resources. This is why the earlier studies more reliably
reflect primates' natural dietary preferences and habits.

> The similarities pose an intriguing prospect:
> Might the close evolutionary relationship between
> chimpanzees and human beings provide some clues to the
> evolution of our own behavior? We do know that the
> earliest bipedal hominids, the australopithecines,
> evolved in Africa about 5 million years ago and that
> they shared a common ancestor with modern chimpanzees
> shortly before that time. Unfortunately, the evidence
> for the occurrence of meat-eating among the early
> australopithecines is spotty at best. Primitive stone
> tools that were made 2.5 million years ago suggest that
> early hominids had the means to carve the flesh from
> large carcasses, but we know very little about their
> diets before that time. Were they hunters or perhaps,
> as many anthropologists now argue, scavengers? The
> behavior of chimpanzees may provide a window through
> which we can see much that has been lost in the fossil
> record.
>
> http://www.americanscientist.org/tem...true&print=yes

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...

> pearl wrote:
> >
> > Faking quotes,
>
> Faking nothing.

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

"Chimpanzees' habitat been increasingly encroached upon,
destroyed, and fragmented by human activites. This has
undeniably caused an increase in population in remaining
habitat, and thus increased competition for the available
resources. This is why the earlier studies more reliably
reflect primates' natural dietary preferences and habits."

This begs the question and is a tautology ,ie. the snake chasing its
logical tail.

Chimps eat meat, do so with great energy and relish consuming it.

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> > wrote in message u...
>>>> The PBS science show Nova had this week a show on chimps. Not only did
>>>> they eat meat with great relish they did so at every opportunity.
>>>>
>>>> They had invented a kind of spear to kill animals to eat. They hunt
>>>> with group cooperation and share the meat among themselves.
>>> Where?
>> In their entire range.
>
> 'Relating Chimpanzee Diets

You never read it, and it does not say that chimps
don't hunt throughout their range. Chimps *do* hunt
throughout their range.

In the early 1960's, when Dr. Jane Goodall began her
now famous study of the chimpanzees of Gombe
National Park, Tanzania, it was thought that
chimpanzees were strictly vegetarian. In fact, when
Goodall first reported this behavior, many people
were skeptical and claimed that meat was not a
natural part of the chimpanzee diet. Today, hunting
by chimpanzees at Gombe has been well documented
(Teleki 1973; Goodall 1986), and hunting has also
been observed at most other sites in Africa where
chimpanzees have been studied, including Mahale
Mountains National Park (Uehara et al. 1992) (also
in Tanzania) and Tai National Park in Ivory Coast in
West Africa (Boesch and Boesch 1989). At Gombe, we
now know that chimpanzees may kill and eat more than
150 small and medium sized animals such as monkeys,
wild pigs and small antelopes each year.
http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html


Craig Stanford is the foremost expert in chimpanzee
behavior today.

Primates eat insects as part of a feeding strategy in a particular
ecological niche. Body size and nutrition density play a part.

Monkey Maddness - Natural Diet of Primates

http://monkeymaddness.com/articles/naturaldiet.html

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>
>> The real
>> controversy in paleontology right now is whether the
>> earliest forms of hominids were truly "hunters," or
>> more opportunistic "scavengers" making off with pieces
>> of kills brought down by other predators, not whether
>> we ate flesh food itself as a portion of our diet or
>> not.[7]
>>
>> http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...erview1b.shtml
>
> 'Male strategies and Plio-Pleistocene archaeology

You never read this paper, and it does not support your
claim. Humans - homo sapiens - was eating meat when
the species first appeared, and the predecessor
hominids had been eating meat as a staple element of
their diet for 2.25 million years before that.

Humans eat meat, and are biologically adapted to do so.
This is not in dispute, except by irrational "vegan"
extremists.

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>> Sympatric populations of lowland gorillas (Gorilla
>> gorilla gorilla) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes
>> troglodytes) in the Lopé Reserve in central Gabon
>> consumed insects at similar average frequencies over a
>> 7-year period (30% versus 31% feces contained insect
>> remains). Data came mostly from fecal analysis
>> supplemented by observation and trail evidence. The
>> weaver ant (Oecophylla longinoda) was the species eaten
>> most frequently by both gorillas and chimpanzees. Other
>> species of insects wore eaten but there was virtually
>> no overlap: Chimpanzees used tools to eat Apis bees
>> (and their honey) and two large species of ants;
>> gorillas ate three species of small ants. Thus, despite
>> their shared habitat, the esources utilized were not
>> identical as gorillas do not show the tool-use
>> technology of chimpanzees. The frequency of
>> insect-eating by both species of ape varied seasonally
>> and between years but in different ways. This variation
>> did not seem to be related to the ratio of fruit to
>> foliage in their diets. Gorillas of all age-classes ate
>> insects at similar rates. Comparisons with insectivory
>> by other populations of gorillas indicate differences
>> exist. Mountain gorillas (Gorilla g. beringei) in the
>> Virunga Volcanoes, Rwanda, consume thousands of
>> invertebrates daily, eating them inadvertently with
>> handfuls of herbaceous foods but they deliberately
>> ingest insect-foods only rarely. Lowland gorillas at
>> Lopé habitually ate social insects, and their selective
>> processing of herbaceous foods probably minimizes
>> inadvertent consumption of other invertebrates.
>> Gorillas at Belinga in northeastern Gabon, 250 km from
>> Lop6, ate social insects at similar rates but ignored
>> weaver ants in favor of Cubitermes sulcifrons, a small
>> species of termite that occurs at Lopé but was not
>> eaten by gorillas. This indicates that local traditions
>> similar to those reported for chimpanzees also exist
>> amongst populations of gorillas.
>>
>> http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/c...TRY=1&SRETRY=0
>
> 'Diet and seasonal changes in sympatric gorillas and chimpanzees

You haven't read that paper, and it doesn't dispute the
fact that gorillas eat LOTS of insects. They do. So
do chimpanzees.