Vegetarian Discussion: The Logic Of Livestock Hatred

The Logic Of Livestock Hatred
Posts: 114

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)

D*@.
2006-02-07 11:52:50 EST
The Logic of the Larder means decent AW.
_________________________________________________________
Logic of the Larder

by Henry S. Salt

Excerpted from The Humanities of Diet. Manchester: The Vegetarian Society, 1914

It is often said, as an excuse for the slaughter of animals, that it is better for them to live and
to be butchered than not to live at all. Now, obviously, if such reasoning justifies the practice of
flesh-eating, it must equally justify all breeding of animals for profit or pastime, when their life
is a fairly happy one.
[...]
Let us heartily accept all that may be said of "the joyfulness of life." But what is the moral to
be drawn from that fact? Surely not that we are justified in outraging and destroying life, to
pamper our selfish appetites, because forsooth we shall then produce more of it! But rather that we
should respect the beauty and sanctity of life in others as in ourselves, and strive as far as
possible to secure its fullest natural development. This logic of the larder is the very negation of
a true reverence for life; for it implies that the real lover of animals is he whose larder is
fullest of them:

He prayeth best, who eateth best
All things both great and small.

It is the philosophy of the wolf, the shark, the cannibal. If there be any truth in such an
argument, let those who believe it have the courage of their convictions, and face the inevitable
conclusion.
[...]
[2] "If the motive that might produce the greatest number of the happiest cattle would be the
eating of beef, then beef-eating, so far, must be commended. And while, heretofore, the motive has
not been for the sake of cattle, it is conceivable that, if Vegetarian convictions should spread
much further, love for cattle would (if it be not psychologically incompatible) blend with the love
of beef in the minds of the opponents of Vegetarianism. With deeper insight, new and higher motives
may replace or supplement old ones, and perpetuate but ennoble ancient practices."—Dr. Stanton Coit.

http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
After reading all that it's clear The Logic of the Vegan is a very inaccurate title.
The Logic of Livestock Hatred is accurate. It is well known that vegans hate meat
to the extent that they would promote veganism even when it results in the deaths
of more animals than raising livestock would, as in the case of rice milk vs. grass
raised cow milk. It is now established that:

The Logic of the Larder = Decent Animal Welfare
The Logic of the Vegan = The Logic of Livestock Hatred


Immortalist
2006-02-07 12:46:23 EST

<*h@.> wrote in message news:etjhu1p74pfvreknn79dndsfa111kgpe4t@4ax.com...
> The Logic of the Larder means decent AW.
> _________________________________________________________
> Logic of the Larder
>
> by Henry S. Salt
>
> Excerpted from The Humanities of Diet. Manchester: The Vegetarian Society,
> 1914
>
> It is often said, as an excuse for the slaughter of animals, that it is
> better for them to live and
> to be butchered than not to live at all.

Do you think that this argument would apply to the argument about Deer
reproduction and how they will overpopulate an area unless humans kill a
percentage of them? In this way we could justify the waste of their meat by
throwing it away and killing them, hence we have a version of this animal
logic in which it is better to not only kill them but to throw away the meat
if need be, for their betterment.

http://www.google.com/search?q=deer+population

> Now, obviously, if such reasoning justifies the practice of
> flesh-eating, it must equally justify all breeding of animals for profit
> or pastime, when their life
> is a fairly happy one.
> [...]
> Let us heartily accept all that may be said of "the joyfulness of life."
> But what is the moral to
> be drawn from that fact? Surely not that we are justified in outraging and
> destroying life, to
> pamper our selfish appetites, because forsooth we shall then produce more
> of it! But rather that we
> should respect the beauty and sanctity of life in others as in ourselves,
> and strive as far as
> possible to secure its fullest natural development. This logic of the
> larder is the very negation of
> a true reverence for life; for it implies that the real lover of animals
> is he whose larder is
> fullest of them:
>

If we humans have this capacity to eat and digest meat, a capacity whos
assembly is directed by the genes, why should we justify this instinct in
any way? If we rule against these human traits do we learn of a way to drug
those parts of the brain so they don't work properly, or perhaps, cut them
out of our brains so they don't bother us any more?

> He prayeth best, who eateth best
> All things both great and small.
>
> It is the philosophy of the wolf, the shark, the cannibal. If there be any
> truth in such an
> argument, let those who believe it have the courage of their convictions,
> and face the inevitable
> conclusion.
> [...]
> [2] "If the motive that might produce the greatest number of the happiest
> cattle would be the
> eating of beef, then beef-eating, so far, must be commended. And while,
> heretofore, the motive has
> not been for the sake of cattle, it is conceivable that, if Vegetarian
> convictions should spread
> much further, love for cattle would (if it be not psychologically
> incompatible) blend with the love
> of beef in the minds of the opponents of Vegetarianism. With deeper
> insight, new and higher motives
> may replace or supplement old ones, and perpetuate but ennoble ancient
> practices."-Dr. Stanton Coit.
>
> http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.htm
> \ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd
> After reading all that it's clear The Logic of the Vegan is a very
> inaccurate title.
> The Logic of Livestock Hatred is accurate. It is well known that vegans
> hate meat
> to the extent that they would promote veganism even when it results in the
> deaths
> of more animals than raising livestock would, as in the case of rice milk
> vs. grass
> raised cow milk. It is now established that:
>
> The Logic of the Larder = Decent Animal Welfare
> The Logic of the Vegan = The Logic of Livestock Hatred
>

Why should the style of managing food animals be relevant to the
justifiaction for instinctually killing and eating them? Don't we need to
justify these instincts first before considering the consequences to our
dinner victoms? I am a vegan but freely admit that my body is set up to
instinctually drive me towards both meat and vegetables.

Consider the possibilities;

1. we could just hunt them in the wild and disturb their natural function as
least as possible before killing and eating them

2. we pen them and treat them as we may before killing them for dinner

3. we stop eating all meat

4. stop eating all vegetables and kill even more animals for fun and fat

Someone said that if I don't vote that I vote because I am a citizen and am
noted in some statistic and my non-vote influenced something an a different
way than had I not been born. Whatever we humans do with animals at this
point seem to be problematical to some degree.




Leif Erikson
2006-02-07 12:50:36 EST
Fuckwit David Harrison, cracker, lied:

> The Logic of the Larder means decent AW.

It does not, Fuckwit. It has *nothing* to do with the animals'
welfare. The (Il)Logic of the Larder is a discredited bit of sophistry
employed by liars like you to justify your consumption of animals. It
is predicated on the utterly illogical and wrong belief that causing
animals to exist is doing them some kind of favor. It is not doing any
kind of favor to cause animals to exist, Fuckwit: existence is not a
"benefit" to animals.


Dutch
2006-02-07 15:01:06 EST

<*h@.> wrote
> The Logic of the Larder means decent AW.

No, it doesn't. The Logic of the Larder has *nothing* to do with animal
welfare. LoL refers to the reasoning that since livestock are living
animals, and we consider life to be "a good thing" per se, therefore we are
doing something beneficial by consuming meat.

_________________________________________________________
> Logic of the Larder
>
> by Henry S. Salt
>
> Excerpted from The Humanities of Diet. Manchester: The Vegetarian Society,
> 1914
>
> It is often said, as an excuse for the slaughter of animals, that it is
> better for them to live and
> to be butchered than not to live at all. Now, obviously, if such reasoning
> justifies the practice of
> flesh-eating, it must equally justify all breeding of animals for profit
> or pastime, when their life
> is a fairly happy one.
> [...]
> Let us heartily accept all that may be said of "the joyfulness of life."
> But what is the moral to
> be drawn from that fact? Surely not that we are justified in outraging and
> destroying life, to
> pamper our selfish appetites, because forsooth we shall then produce more
> of it! But rather that we
> should respect the beauty and sanctity of life in others as in ourselves,
> and strive as far as
> possible to secure its fullest natural development. This logic of the
> larder is the very negation of
> a true reverence for life; for it implies that the real lover of animals
> is he whose larder is
> fullest of them:
>
> He prayeth best, who eateth best
> All things both great and small.
>
> It is the philosophy of the wolf, the shark, the cannibal. If there be any
> truth in such an
> argument, let those who believe it have the courage of their convictions,
> and face the inevitable
> conclusion.
> [...]
> [2] "If the motive that might produce the greatest number of the happiest
> cattle would be the
> eating of beef, then beef-eating, so far, must be commended. And while,
> heretofore, the motive has
> not been for the sake of cattle, it is conceivable that, if Vegetarian
> convictions should spread
> much further, love for cattle would (if it be not psychologically
> incompatible) blend with the love
> of beef in the minds of the opponents of Vegetarianism. With deeper
> insight, new and higher motives
> may replace or supplement old ones, and perpetuate but ennoble ancient
> practices."-Dr. Stanton Coit.
>
> http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.htm
> \ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd
> After reading all that it's clear The Logic of the Vegan is a very
> inaccurate title.

You're not reading with clarity, at ALL.

> The Logic of Livestock Hatred is accurate.

No it's not. Vegans don't hate livestock, they pity them.

> It is well known that vegans hate meat
> to the extent that they would promote veganism even when it results in the
> deaths
> of more animals than raising livestock would, as in the case of rice milk
> vs. grass
> raised cow milk.

That shows that they *pity* livestock a lot, not that they hate them.

It is now established that:

The Logic of the Larder = Taking pride from the lives of livestock, circular
fuckwitted illogic

The Logic of the Vegan = Taking pity on the lives of livestock, to the point
of extremism



Pearl
2006-02-07 15:30:02 EST
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:025Gf.39300$bF.20115@dukeread07...
<..>
> If we humans have this capacity to eat and digest meat,

'Scientists may have found meat link to colon cancer
Wed Feb 1, 2006 12:38 AM ET

By Patricia Reaney
LONDON (Reuters) - Scientists said on Tuesday they may
have found a reason why eating too much red meat increases
the risk of colorectal cancer.

By studying cells from volunteers eating different diets, they
discovered that red meat raises levels of compounds in the
large bowel which can alter DNA and increase the likelihood
of cancer.

"It is the first definite link between red meat and the very first
stage in cancer," said Professor Sheila Bingham, of the
Medical Research Council Dunn Nutrition Unit in Cambridge,
England.

In earlier research, Bingham and her team showed there was
a strong correlation between eating red and processed meat
and the risk of colon cancer.

The chance of developing colorectal cancer was a third higher
in people who regularly ate more than two portions of red or
processed meat a day compared to someone who ate less
than one portion a week.

In their latest study, published in the journal Cancer Research,
the scientists studied cells from the lining of the colon from
people who consumed red meat, vegetarian, high red meat or
high fiber diets for 15 days.

"We looked at whether eating red meat alters the DNA of
these cells," Bingham told Reuters.

They found that red meat consumption was linked to increased
levels of substances called N-nitrosocompounds, which are
formed in the large bowel. The compounds may stick to DNA,
making it more likely to undergo mutations that increase the
odds of cancer.

The DNA damage may be repaired naturally in the body, and
fiber in the diet may help the process. But if it isn't, cancer
can develop, Bingham said.

The scientists said the findings could help to develop a
screening test for very early changes related to the disease.

Colorectal is one of the most common cancers in developed
countries. More than 940,000 cases are diagnosed each year
and about 492,000 people die from the illness, according to
the International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) in Lyon,
France.

A diet rich in fat, animal protein and refined carbohydrates
and lack of exercise are risk factors for the illness. Most
cases are in people over 60 years old and about 5 percent
of them are inherited.

Health experts estimate that about 70 percent of colorectal
cancers could be prevented by changes in diet and nutrition.
Diarrhea, constipation and rectal bleeding can be symptoms.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2006-02-01T053831Z_01_L30758771_RTRUKOC_0_US-CANCER-MEAT.xml

See: http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm .

> a capacity whos
> assembly is directed by the genes, why should we justify this instinct in
> any way?

*Fat*, including the fat in meat, is a primary reinforcer..

'Measuring Brain Activity In People Eating Chocolate Offers
New Clues About How The Body Becomes Addicted

CHICAGO --- Using positron emission tomography scans to
measure brain activity in people eating chocolate, a team of U.S.
and Canadian neuroscientists believe they have identified areas
of the brain that may underlie addiction and eating disorders.

Dana Small, assistant professor of neurology at Northwestern
University Medical School, and colleagues found that individuals'
ratings of the pleasantness of eating chocolate were associated
with increased blood flow in areas of the brain, particularly in
the orbital frontal cortex and midbrain, that are also activated
by addictive drugs such as cocaine.
..
According to Small, a primary reinforcer is a stimulus that an
individual doesn't have to learn to like but, rather, is enjoyed
from birth. Addictive drugs can be viewed as primary
reinforcers. Fat and sweet also are primary reinforcers, and
chocolate is chock full of fat and sweet, Small said.
..
Small explained that studying the brain's response to eating a
highly rewarding food such as chocolate provides an effective
"in-health" model of addiction. "
..'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/08/010829082943.htm

> If we rule against these human traits do we learn of a way to drug
> those parts of the brain so they don't work properly, or perhaps, cut them
> out of our brains so they don't bother us any more?

Eat healthful fatty plant foods like avocados, nuts, or olives instead.



Immortalist
2006-02-07 16:23:34 EST

"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:dsavr8$rnv$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> "Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:025Gf.39300$bF.20115@dukeread07...
> <..>
>> If we humans have this capacity to eat and digest meat,
>
> 'Scientists may have found meat link to colon cancer
> Wed Feb 1, 2006 12:38 AM ET
>
>
> http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2006-02-01T053831Z_01_L30758771_RTRUKOC_0_US-CANCER-MEAT.xml
>
> See: http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm .
>
>> a capacity whos
>> assembly is directed by the genes, why should we justify this instinct in
>> any way?
>
> *Fat*, including the fat in meat, is a primary reinforcer..
>
> 'Measuring Brain Activity In People Eating Chocolate Offers
> New Clues About How The Body Becomes Addicted
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/08/010829082943.htm
>
>> If we rule against these human traits do we learn of a way to drug
>> those parts of the brain so they don't work properly, or perhaps, cut
>> them
>> out of our brains so they don't bother us any more?
>
> Eat healthful fatty plant foods like avocados, nuts, or olives instead.
>

Then maybe our instincts for eating meat will go away and the genes that
direct the assembly of these instincts will mutate to direct the assembly of
animal love instincts? Not a bad idea but it might take a while to happen.

OUR KIND by Marvin Harris 1989
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060919906/

9 - MEAT

THE OPEN COUNTRY beckoned wich another resource. In rhe forest, animals tend
to be small, furtive, difficult to see. But the savanna teemed with visible
herds. From time to time a stick-carrying group of australopithecines would
encounter an infant gazelle or antelope that had strayed from the protection
of its mother and they would surround, seize, and eat it. Occasionally they
would also stumble upon the remains of a larger animal that had died from
natural causes or had been killed by the feline predators that lived off the
herds. Hooting and howling and waving their sticks, they would drive away
the vultures and jackals, rush in and rear off bits of decaying meat, and
run to the nearest clump of trees, ready to drop everything and seek safety
in the branches if one of the felines returned and interrupted their meal.

I confess that there is no archaeological evidence that such events ever
happened. But rhe behavior of chimpanzees and other primates, as well as our
kind's dietary preferences, leave little doubt that the ausrralopithecines
had a special fondness for meat. And as savanna-dwelling, tool-using
animals, they had a developed capacity and plenty of opportunity to scavenge
and hunt. As for seeking the safety of trees, we do have the fossil evidence
of curved fingers and toes and the chimpanzeelike long arms and short legs.

Not so long ago scientists believed that monkeys and apes were strict
vegetarians. After meticulous observation in the wild, most primates turned
out to be omnivores. Like humans, they ear both plant and animal foods.
Being rather small creatures, monkeys necessarily prey mostly on insects
rather than on game. And a significant amount of their insect eating is
simply a natural by-product of the consumption of leaves and fruit. When
they encounter a leaf with a weevil wrapped in it, or a fig with a worm in
it, they do not spit out the intruder. If anything, they spit out the leaf
or fruit, a practice that produces a steady rain ot half-chewed plant food
as the troop progresses from tree to tree.

As among most human populations, monkeys usually eat only relatively small
amounts of animal food compared to plant food. This is not a matter of
choice, bur simply of the difficulties monkeys confront in obtaining a
steady supply of animal flesh. Studies in Namibia and Botswana show that
baboons will stop eating virtually everything else when insects swarm. They
prefer animal matter first; roots, seeds, fruits, and flowers second; and
leaves and grass third. At certain seasons of the year, they spend as much
as 75 percent of their eating time on insects. Several species of large
monkeys not only consume insects but actually hunt small game. My
reconstruction of the australopithecine way of life gains plausibility from
the fact that the most accomplished hunters among monkeys appear ro be
grounddwelling baboons that live in open country. During a year of
observation near Gelgil, Kenya, Robert Harding observed forty-seven small
vertebrates being killed and eaten by baboons. The most common prey were
infant gazelles and antelopes. If mere baboons are capable of capturing
infant gazelles and antelopes, the early australopithecines cannot have been
less capable.

Among extant nonhuman primates, chimpanzees are the most ardent meat eaters.
The time and effort expended m termiring and anting alone suggest the degree
of their fondness for animal flesh. And let us not forget the painful bites
and stings that they risk in order to get at these tidbits. Nor do
chimpanzees confine their pursuit of animal flesh to anting and termiting.
They actively hunt and eat at least twenty-three species of mammals,
including several kinds of monkeys and baboons, galagos, bush bucks, bush
pigs, duikers, mice, rars, squirrels, shrews, mongooses, and hyraxes. They
also kill and eat chimpanzee and even human babies if they get a chance. At
Gombe, over the course of a decade, observers witnessed the consumption of
ninety-five small animals-mostly infant baboons, monkeys, and bush pigs.
This is only a partial accounting because the chimpanzees consumed
additional animals out of sight of the observers. Altogether, Gombe
chimpanzees devoted about 10 percent of their time spent on feeding to the
pursuit and consumption of game.

Chimpanzees usually hunt cooperatively and share their quarry with each
other. In fact, if a chimpanzee is unable to get others to join in, it will
abandon the hunt. Throughout the entire process of killing, distributing,
and consuming prey animals, they display an unusual level of social
interaction and excitement. During the hunt, anywhere from three to nine
chimpanzees try to surround the prey animal. They keep positioning and
repositioning themselves for as long as an hour, trying to cut off potential
escape routes.

Both males and females hunt and consume meat. During an eight-year period,
from 1974 to 1981, females captured or stole, and then ate, at least part of
forty-four prey animals, not counting another twenty-one prey animals that
they attacked or seized but were unable to hold on to. Males hunted more
than females and consumed more meat. Chimpanzees occasionally share plant
foods, but they always share meat unless the prey is captured by a solitary
chimpanzee in the forest. Meat-sharing often results from persistent
"begging." The supplicant holds an outstretched hand under the meat
possessor's mouth, or parts the lips of a meat-chewing companion. If these
tactics fail, the supplicant may begin to whimper and to express rage and
frustration. Van Lawick-Goodall describes how a young chimp named Mr. Worzle
threw a tantrum when Goliath, a dominant male, refused to share the body of
a baby baboon with him. Mr. Worzle followed Goliath from branch to branch,
hand outstretched and whimpering. "When Goliath pushed Worzle's hand away
for the eleventh time, the lower-ranking male . . . hurled himself backward
off the branch, screaming and hitting wildly at the surrounding vegetation.
Goliath looked at him and then, with a great effort (using hands, teeth, and
one foot), tore his prey in two and handed the entire hindquarters to
Worzle."

10 - AFRICAN GENESIS REVISITED

CHIMPANZEES HUNT more often than they scavenge. The reason is obvious. In
the forest, there are fewer carcasses of large animals and they are harder
to find. Given the great herds that grazed on the savanna, the early
australopithecines probably scavenged more than they hunted. Their digging
sticks were not sharp or strong enough to pierce the skin of wildebeests,
antelopes, zebras, or gazelles. Fangless and bereft of cutting implements,
they had no way of breaking through tough hides to get at the meat, even if
they somehow succeeded in killing an adult. Scavenging solved these
problems. Lions and other predators did the killing and obligingly ripped
open the carcass, exposing the meat. Once the predators had eaten their
fill, they departed to a shady spot and took a nap. The principal problem
for our ancestors then became how to get rid of other scavengers. Vultures
and jackals could be driven off by swinging and jabbing the digging sticks.
They also undoubtedly threw stones if any were available in the immediate
vicinity of the carcass. Hyenas, with their powerful bone-crushing jaws,
would present a more formidable problem to a group of three- or
four-foot-tall primates. The australopithecines were well advised to keep
their distance if hyenas got to the carcass first; or to leave promptly if
hyenas showed up after they had begun to dine. In any event, it was a good
idea not to linger but tear and break off as much as they could and get to a
safer place as quickly as possible. Predator cats might return to the scene
of the kill for dessert; or if the carcass had been created by a natural
death, the cats might soon be by to investigate-most predators have no
qualms about doing a little scavenging on the side. The safer place was a
grove of trees where, if danger threatened, the australopithecines could
drop their sticks, grasp the bark with their curved toes, and scamper into
the upper branches.

I don't want to overestimate the timorousness of the australopithecines.
Japanese observers report that they have seen groups of chimpanzees at
Mahale National Park in Tanzania occasionally confront and intimidate one or
two big cats and sometimes succeed in taking meat away from them. The
australopithecines with their sticks and stones might have done even better.
Yet I doubt that they were like the fierce "killer apes" from whom we
allegedly derive our "instinct to kill with a weapon," as depicted in Robert
Ardrey's popular book, African Genesis. The idea that the australopithecines
were mighty hunters grew out of Raymond Dart's belief that the fossil bones,
horns, and tusks found at several australopithecine fossil sites in southern
Africa were used by them as weapons. But I cannot see how these objects
could have inflicted major wounds on large, tough-skinned animals. Even if
they could have had lethal effects, how could the australopithecines have
gotten close enough to use them against full-grown prey animals without
being kicked or gored to death? A more likely explanation of the association
between australopithecine fossils and the bones, horns, and tusks of other
animals is that the caves where they occur together were hyena dens and that
they were collected and deposited together by hyenas.

While the australopithecines never became mighty hunters, they did
eventually improve their ability to compete as scavengers. The barrier to
their success was that they had to wait for the teeth of better-endowed
natural hunters or scavengers to penetrate the hides before they could
approach a carcass. But sometime between 3 million and 2.5 million years
ago, long before Louis Leakey's handy person was on the scene, the
australopithecines achieved a technologl breakthrough-as great as any that
was ever to occur in human history. They began to make cutting, slicing, and
chopping implements out of pieces of rock. Hide, muscle, sinew, and bone
yielded to the new devices as readily as to the sharpest tooth and claw, and
a bolder way of life beckoned.

11 - KNAPPER BUTCHER SCAVENGER HUNTER

THE EARLEST AUSTRALOPITHECINES must have used stones at least to the same
extent as do modern chimpanzees -as missiles to repel intruders and as
hammers to break open nuts. This throwing and hammering would occasionally
split off scone fragments whose edges were sharp enough to cut through
hides. But such incidents occurred in the context of activities that could
not be made more efficient by using sharp-edged implements and so their
potential was not utilized. Sharp flakes created by ricocheting scones
hurled to drive away vultures and jackals would have a better chance of
being recognized as a way of cutting through rough hides, slicing off hunks
of meat, and removing limb bones. The next step was to pick up a rock and
bash it against another on the ground and then to search in the debris for
the sharpest flakes. Finally, a rock was held in each hand and a carefully
aimed blow was delivered to the edge of one rock by using the other as a
hammer. Repeated hammering not only yielded useful flakes, but the core from
which they were detached would itself begin to acquire edges useful for
cutting and chopping.

The earliest stone tools-those found at Gona and Omo, in Ethiopia-already
reveal a trained facility for selecting the best available materials to
serve as cores and hammers and for delivering well-aimed blows to detach
razor-sharp flakes. Experiments by archaeologists who have taught themselves
to produce replicas of these earliest srone tools show that cores and flakes
were equally valuable. Hammersrone blows delivered to one side of the end of
a core produced a heavy chopping tool that is effective in severing tendons
and sinews and in breaking joints apart. The flakes are best for cutting
through hides and slicing through meat. Heavy cores are good for smashing
bones to get at the marrow and for breaking open skulls to get at the
brains. Nicholas Toch of Indiana University has duplicated these simple
tools and used them to butcher elephants and other large, tough-skinned
animals. The australopithecines undoubtediy applied their stone tool kit to
tasks other than butchering carcasses. Toth found that heavy chopper cores
were good for severing straight branches from a tree and that with small
flakes he could whittle down and shape the points of digging sticks into
spears. Other flakes were useful for scraping meat, fat, and hair from
hides.

Some kind of container for carrying things was also probably essential for
the australopithecine way of life after they began to use stone tools.
Analysis of stone artifacts at sites in Tanzania that date to about two
million years ago reveals that there are more flakes than can be accounted
for by the number of scars on the cores found with them. This suggests that
whoever did the knapping carried a supply of pre-struck flakes and perhaps a
small core and hammerstone or two from one butchering site to another. A
small bag made out of scraped hide and secured by bits of sinew around the
waist or over the shoulder would have made an appropriate container.

With the manufacture of core and flake scone tools, sharpened digging
sticks, thongs, and skin bags, and the carrying and storing of tools and
materials, the limit of the ape brain was reached. While none of these
artifacts or behaviors in isolation would have taxed the capabilities of a
chimpanzee, to operate them all as part of an increasingly complex
scavenging, hunting, gathering, and digging system of production called for
cognitive abilities that were beyond those of the early australopithecines.
Natural selection favored the individuals who learned most quickly to make
the best tools, who made the cleverest decisions concerning when to use
them, and who could optimize production in relation to daily and seasonal
changes in the abundance and availability of plant and animal foods.
Selection for these capabilities may account for the 40 percent to 50
percent increment in the size ofhabilis's brain over that of the
australopithecines.

But despite the more elaborate tool kit and bigger brains, there is no
evidence that habilis was any closer to being a hunter of large game. Its
diminutive stature and its curved fingers and toes-still indicative of tree
climbing as a means of avoiding predators-do not bespeak of boldness in the
hunt. And its tools, however useful in butchering large animals, show no
sign of being useful in hunting them.

Our ancestors must have remained primarily scavengers, at least until the
appearance of the first erectus, 1.6 million years ago. Everything about
erectus suggests that it was filling an ecological niche based on a new mode
of subsistence. It was a conspicuously taller species than habilis, and its
fingers and toes had lost all vestiges of arboreal agility. Its tools
consisted of sharp flakes and new kinds of cores that were worked on both
sides and shaped into large ovate, pointed "hand axes," cleavers, and picks.
Experimental trials with these "bifaces" show that they are useful aids in
the butchering of large animals. Moreover, microscopic striations
interpreted as "cut marks" on animal bones associated with erectus tools
provide direct evidence that they were used for dismembering and defleshing
animals. Erectus was also probably skilled in using both core and flake
tools to whittle, shave, and scrape sharp-pointed wooden spears.

Yet butchers need not be hunters. Moreover, there is something missing from
erectus's bag of tools (and from habilis's tool kit as well). None of the
cores or flakes are of the sort that could be inserted or hatred as points
for spears or other projectiles. Perhaps they threw their wooden spears at
small animals with deadly effect, but without stone or bone points they were
unlikely, at a distance, to pierce the hides and penetrate to the vital
organs of larger prey. The absence of stone projectile points lends support
to the view that erectus was simply a more efficient scavenger than earlier
hominids, and that if some of them occasionally did hunt, it was only for
small animals.

I personally doubt that erecrus settled for being a scavenger first and a
hunter second. The readily visible herds of large animals would have acted
as a constant temptation to take direct action in order to assure a supply
of its favorite food. After all, the development of stone technology was
largely a consequence of the australopithecine's attempt to exploit the
nutritional advantages of meat. Having gone so far as to invent knives,
hammers, axes, and containers primarily ro facilitate the butchery of
animals, the failure of erec- tus to invent stone-tipped projectiles need
not indicate that they were not habitual hunters. Rather, it may simply
indicate that they did nor hunt by hurling spears at a distance but by
thrusting them into their quarry at close quarters. Archaeology does not
provide the evidence for this line of reasoning. We must turn instead to
certain peculiarities of the human form-to our lack of body hair, to our
sweat-gland-packed skins, and to our ability to run marathons. But first I
shall have to say some unflattering things about erectus's brain.

OUR KIND by Marvin Harris 1989
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060919906/

>



Pearl
2006-02-07 19:33:13 EST
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Ed8Gf.39582$bF.12276@dukeread07...
>
> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:dsavr8$rnv$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> > "Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:025Gf.39300$bF.20115@dukeread07...
> > <..>
> >> If we humans have this capacity to eat and digest meat,
> >
> > 'Scientists may have found meat link to colon cancer
> > Wed Feb 1, 2006 12:38 AM ET
> >
> >
> >
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2006-02-01T053831Z_01_L30758771_RTRUKOC_0_US-CANCER-MEAT.xml
> >
> > See: http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm .
> >
> >> a capacity whos
> >> assembly is directed by the genes, why should we justify this instinct in
> >> any way?
> >
> > *Fat*, including the fat in meat, is a primary reinforcer..
> >
> > 'Measuring Brain Activity In People Eating Chocolate Offers
> > New Clues About How The Body Becomes Addicted
> >
> > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/08/010829082943.htm
> >
> >> If we rule against these human traits do we learn of a way to drug
> >> those parts of the brain so they don't work properly, or perhaps, cut
> >> them
> >> out of our brains so they don't bother us any more?
> >
> > Eat healthful fatty plant foods like avocados, nuts, or olives instead.
> >
>
> Then maybe our instincts for eating meat

...... the *fat* you _crave_.

\ufffdCan 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? \ufffd 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. \ufffd 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\ufffdWhy 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!\ufffd
Plutarch (c. 56 \ufffd 120 A.D.) (Roman historian and scholar)

> will go away and the genes that
> direct the assembly of these instincts will mutate to direct the assembly of
> animal love instincts? Not a bad idea but it might take a while to happen.

Every normal human (not psychopath) has an innate sense of compassion.

> OUR KIND by Marvin Harris 1989
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060919906/
>
> 9 - MEAT
>
> THE OPEN COUNTRY beckoned wich another resource.

Puleease. Have you read nothing I've posted?

In short:

"Studies of frugivorous communities elsewhere suggest that
dietary divergence is highest when preferred food (succulent
fruit) is scarce, and that niche separation is clear only at such
times (Gautier-Hion & Gautier 1979: Terborgh 1983). "
- Foraging profiles of sympatric lowland gorillas and
chimpanzees in the Lop\ufffd Reserve, Gabon, p.179, Philosophical
Transactions: Biological Sciences vol 334, 159-295, No. 1270 '




Immortalist
2006-02-08 12:22:21 EST

"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:dsbe2u$j6$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> "Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Ed8Gf.39582$bF.12276@dukeread07...
>>
>> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
>> news:dsavr8$rnv$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> > "Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:025Gf.39300$bF.20115@dukeread07...
>> > <..>
>> >> If we humans have this capacity to eat and digest meat,
>> >
>> > 'Scientists may have found meat link to colon cancer
>> > Wed Feb 1, 2006 12:38 AM ET
>> >
>> >
>> >
> http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2006-02-01T053831Z_01_L30758771_RTRUKOC_0_US-CANCER-MEAT.xml
>> >
>> > See: http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm .
>> >
>> >> a capacity whos
>> >> assembly is directed by the genes, why should we justify this instinct
>> >> in
>> >> any way?
>> >
>> > *Fat*, including the fat in meat, is a primary reinforcer..
>> >
>> > 'Measuring Brain Activity In People Eating Chocolate Offers
>> > New Clues About How The Body Becomes Addicted
>> >
>> > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/08/010829082943.htm
>> >
>> >> If we rule against these human traits do we learn of a way to drug
>> >> those parts of the brain so they don't work properly, or perhaps, cut
>> >> them
>> >> out of our brains so they don't bother us any more?
>> >
>> > Eat healthful fatty plant foods like avocados, nuts, or olives instead.
>> >
>>
>> Then maybe our instincts for eating meat
>
> ...... the *fat* you _crave_.
>
> "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!"
> Plutarch (c. 56 - 120 A.D.) (Roman historian and scholar)
>
>> will go away and the genes that
>> direct the assembly of these instincts will mutate to direct the assembly
>> of
>> animal love instincts? Not a bad idea but it might take a while to
>> happen.
>
> Every normal human (not psychopath) has an innate sense of compassion.
>

How is it possible for normal humans to participate in acts of
non-compassion if all normal humans have an innate sense of compassion? Or
are you claiming that no normal humans are humans that participate in
non-compassion?

>> OUR KIND by Marvin Harris 1989
>> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060919906/
>>
>> 9 - MEAT
>>
>> THE OPEN COUNTRY beckoned wich another resource.
>
> Puleease. Have you read nothing I've posted?
>

Yes, and I like it!

> In short:
>
> "Studies of frugivorous communities elsewhere suggest that
> dietary divergence is highest when preferred food (succulent
> fruit) is scarce, and that niche separation is clear only at such
> times (Gautier-Hion & Gautier 1979: Terborgh 1983). "
> - Foraging profiles of sympatric lowland gorillas and
> chimpanzees in the Lop\ufffd Reserve, Gabon, p.179, Philosophical
> Transactions: Biological Sciences vol 334, 159-295, No. 1270 '
>

So you are appealing to "niche creation" through fruit scarcity? Interesting
inverse proportionality, I must say! I could envision a world where humans
evolved feline like pure meating eating needs if some humans had no access
to fruits for 10,000 years or more and then when fruit came back into their
area they may not be able to evolve back those lost traits except through a
convergence. If it is then by convergence I sense a contradiction in the use
of the term (divergence). Although I agree with the proportionality of
degrees between fruit and meat sources and needs I doubt it is inverse to
the degree.

>
>



D*@.
2006-02-08 12:54:58 EST
On 7 Feb 2006 Goo wrote:

>Fuckwit David Harrison, cracker, lied:
>
>> The Logic of the Larder means decent AW.
>
>It does not

Yes it does Goo. Salt even said so:

"when their life is a fairly happy one." - Salt

D*@.
2006-02-08 12:59:08 EST
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 09:46:23 -0800, "Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:etjhu1p74pfvreknn79dndsfa111kgpe4t@4ax.com...
>> The Logic of the Larder means decent AW.
>> _________________________________________________________
>> Logic of the Larder
>>
>> by Henry S. Salt
>>
>> Excerpted from The Humanities of Diet. Manchester: The Vegetarian Society,
>> 1914
>>
>> It is often said, as an excuse for the slaughter of animals, that it is
>> better for them to live and
>> to be butchered than not to live at all.
>
>Do you think that this argument would apply to the argument about Deer
>reproduction and how they will overpopulate an area unless humans kill a
>percentage of them? In this way we could justify the waste of their meat by
>throwing it away and killing them, hence we have a version of this animal
>logic in which it is better to not only kill them but to throw away the meat
>if need be, for their betterment.

Well of course. What possible difference could it make to a dead deer
what happens to its dead body? In regards to cruelty to the animals, it
doesn't matter what we do with their dead body afaik. If there's some
reason why or how it could matter to them, I have yet to learn what it is.

>http://www.google.com/search?q=deer+population
>
>> Now, obviously, if such reasoning justifies the practice of
>> flesh-eating, it must equally justify all breeding of animals for profit
>> or pastime, when their life
>> is a fairly happy one.
>> [...]
>> Let us heartily accept all that may be said of "the joyfulness of life."
>> But what is the moral to
>> be drawn from that fact? Surely not that we are justified in outraging and
>> destroying life, to
>> pamper our selfish appetites, because forsooth we shall then produce more
>> of it! But rather that we
>> should respect the beauty and sanctity of life in others as in ourselves,
>> and strive as far as
>> possible to secure its fullest natural development. This logic of the
>> larder is the very negation of
>> a true reverence for life; for it implies that the real lover of animals
>> is he whose larder is
>> fullest of them:
>>
>
>If we humans have this capacity to eat and digest meat, a capacity whos
>assembly is directed by the genes, why should we justify this instinct in
>any way?

We don't need to. But when people like "aras" insist that another
option is the most ethically superior, we need not be afraid to examine
whether or not they have the best idea. As yet they haven't presented
any reason to agree that they do. I'm still waiting to learn, so if you know
please don't keep it a secret like they do.

>If we rule against these human traits do we learn of a way to drug
>those parts of the brain so they don't work properly, or perhaps, cut them
>out of our brains so they don't bother us any more?

I don't know what they have in mind on that. Probably nothing, as
with a number of other things.

>> He prayeth best, who eateth best
>> All things both great and small.
>>
>> It is the philosophy of the wolf, the shark, the cannibal. If there be any
>> truth in such an
>> argument, let those who believe it have the courage of their convictions,
>> and face the inevitable
>> conclusion.
>> [...]
>> [2] "If the motive that might produce the greatest number of the happiest
>> cattle would be the
>> eating of beef, then beef-eating, so far, must be commended. And while,
>> heretofore, the motive has
>> not been for the sake of cattle, it is conceivable that, if Vegetarian
>> convictions should spread
>> much further, love for cattle would (if it be not psychologically
>> incompatible) blend with the love
>> of beef in the minds of the opponents of Vegetarianism. With deeper
>> insight, new and higher motives
>> may replace or supplement old ones, and perpetuate but ennoble ancient
>> practices."-Dr. Stanton Coit.
>>
>> http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.htm
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> After reading all that it's clear The Logic of the Vegan is a very
>> inaccurate title.
>> The Logic of Livestock Hatred is accurate. It is well known that vegans
>> hate meat
>> to the extent that they would promote veganism even when it results in the
>> deaths
>> of more animals than raising livestock would, as in the case of rice milk
>> vs. grass
>> raised cow milk. It is now established that:
>>
>> The Logic of the Larder = Decent Animal Welfare
>> The Logic of the Vegan = The Logic of Livestock Hatred
>>
>
>Why should the style of managing food animals be relevant to the
>justifiaction for instinctually killing and eating them? Don't we need to
>justify these instincts first before considering the consequences to our
>dinner victoms? I am a vegan but freely admit that my body is set up to
>instinctually drive me towards both meat and vegetables.
>
>Consider the possibilities;
>
>1. we could just hunt them in the wild and disturb their natural function as
>least as possible before killing and eating them
>
>2. we pen them and treat them as we may before killing them for dinner
>
>3. we stop eating all meat
>
>4. stop eating all vegetables and kill even more animals for fun and fat
>
>Someone said that if I don't vote that I vote because I am a citizen and am
>noted in some statistic and my non-vote influenced something an a different
>way than had I not been born. Whatever we humans do with animals at this
>point seem to be problematical to some degree.

We are in the period where it will be determined how much influence humans
will have on wildlife. "aras" pretend that they want to provide all animals with
the right to not be killed, while at the same time they contribute to most of the
same animal deaths that everyone else does. At this point the only things we
know "ar" has to "offer" are:

1. the elimination of domestic animals
2. the elimination of wildlife population control
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron