SC - Anti meat sympathies

[grizly at mindspring.com]

sca-cooks at ansteorra.org wrote:
<<<SNIP>>> Your question was:  "Do more people originate from vegetarian cultures or meat-eating cultures originally? .... and I don't mean A.D."  

I would submit that the (limited) evidence is humans were omnivores with a primarily vegetarian diet, who developed hunting skills to expand available foods and developed agricultural skills to increase the quantities of food available. <<<SNIP>>>

The various cultures that you see as vegetarian or meat-eating are products more of environmental limitations than intent, and those cultures which developed "plant-raising" (especially cereals) proved to be more efficient in the growth game.  Ergo, most people have their origin in the "vege-cultures."  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Thanks so much for your well presented response.  It contains much of what I know or have learned of development of civilization and human settlements.

What I have never seen definitively presented in my scholarly searches or in the thread here is how some sub-races of humans are disposed to more easily use animal products (flesh, eggs, dairy, etc.), others more easily use cereals and vegetable matter, and still others balance the two classes fo food more easily.  that is the crux of my disagreement that the world would be a better place if we didn't eat meat for every meal, that we should curtail animal meat production, and by extension eat vegetarian diets the restof the time.

Different bodies use differnet foods differently, and to contend that as a species we need to grealty reduce our animal foods seems overly simplistic and lacks consideration of the diversity of physiological efficiencies.

The idea that the qualifier in the original post about "medical and genetic conditions" accounts for this diversity suggests that the entire premise is unneccessary.  If people are making choices about food based on genetic and medical needs, then we will still have large groups of people eating large amounts of animal proteins in their diets, large groups minimizing their animal product intake, and those in the middle.  It almost seems to suggest that there are people out there eating hamburgers and chicken wings for the pure recreation or amusement of it all (exaggeration for effect only, no offense intended to any participant of this thread).

PLEASETURN ON RANT FILTER (the following is all just ideas and general musings regarding meat vs. anti-meat sentiments . . . . the carnivores' side of the argument)

My baseline understanding of the original post, that I was responding to, is that meat eating is making the world a worse place to live and needs to be stopped however and whenever possible . . . whenever not an absolute necessity, we need to eat only gains and vegetables, which are incidentally grown with chemical pesticides, hormones and herbicides (remember DDT anyone), strip the earth of top soil and nutrients which then require artificial fertilizers and nutrients (since all those animals will stop producing manure since the populations are going to be slashed), require motorized machinery to produce (sowers, reapers, harvesters, balers, facotries, trucks to transport).  I wonder how increasing the world's dependence on agricultural products will impact the available fresh water sources and wetlands.  All presented mostly tongue in cheek to suggest that vegetable and cereal inductries ain't the squeeky clena answer to 'cleaning up the world'.  I left off unemployment and !
!
economic factros that could lead to more starvation due to growing impoverishment.

niccolo difrancesco