Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 17:48:19 +0100
From: The Natural Philosopher 
Newsgroups: uk.d-i-y uk.education.misc uk.education.schools-it uk.finance uk.food+drink.misc uk.food+drink.real-ale
Subject: Re: 10 Reasons to go veggie

John Cartmell wrote:
> In article <1158664315.65337.0@despina.uk.clara.net>,
>    The Natural Philosopher  wrote:
>> Anyine whoi has actually visited the plains and seashores of Africa will 
>> know what its like. Meat is there. Water is scarce and plants you can 
>> eat - apart from fruit - are vanishingly scarce. Unless cultivated.
> 
> But what was it like? The climate changed dramatically over time and much of
> Africa was desert or the Sahara was full of animals that needed water - pick
> your date and get the climate of your choice - Importantly what was it like on
> the beaches of the freshwater lakes of East Africa over the last 5 million
> years and what was it like on the coastal beaches of the horn of Africa, Red
> Sea, Arabia and India over the last 80,000 years? Because that's where we
> became what we are.
> 
> We *know* that fruit 
Yes

and vegetables

No.

The concept of a vegetable simply did not exist then. It still doesn't 
in Africa, much.  Fruit and meat is actually pretty much all you need. 
The sugars and starches from raw vegetation ate not actually that useful.

Carnivires do not suffer vbitamin deficiencies either.



> were plentiful in the diet to the extent
> that they were never missing from the diet (evidence from vitamin
> requirements).

No evidence at all.

East enough meat and you get te vitamisn you need that way.

> We can guess that fish/shellfish were likely items in the diet
> (evidence from piles of shells). We know that small mammals were sometimes
> included in the diet of some of those people (evidence from bones included
> with those shells - but only in a very small number of cases).
> 
> Any other claims need justification - and much in the past has been based on
> pure speculation. Man as a savanna animal is one for which there is no
> evidence whatsoever even though it has been repeated time and again and is
> still the most used icon for early man in textbooks. That sort of 'hunter
> gatherer' has no foundation - though there is evidence for such at a much
> later date (eg Neolithic and in recent times).

Oh don't be daft. I agree te seashores are where we find the earliest 
man, but animals themselves are 'hunter gatherers' fer gawds sake.

Thats always been the most basic way to survive. And still exists today 
in the pygmies, the bushmen the amazonian indians and of course teh 
chavs and pikeys in this country.

I am sure the first use of a hand held stone was to bash mussels off a 
rock, and the second was to bash someone else who tried to take your 
pile away.


>