Pretentious Crap

[nomadthethird]

huh? you think hunting, even with arrows, is easier than picking nuts, fruits, and roots? err...

notice: "terms such as "hunters" or "carnivores" should probably only be applied to recent representattives of the human species with qualifications.

Sigh. Zhao. Yes. They probably ate less than 50% meat overall because that's all they could kill/hunt/scavenge. I only drink Piper Heidsieck when my bf's parents give us a bottle because I can't afford it.

Also, think about it--that's a *huge* concentration of meat in their diet. Mine is probably about 30% meat, and THAT'S on doctor's orders because people who have a history of TLE are supposed to eat high protein. Ideally you should eat about a quarter of your diet in meat and the rest in vegetables and maybe a little bit of whole grains.

"notice: "terms such as "hunters" or "carnivores" should probably only be applied to recent representattives of the human species with qualifications. "

Actually, what the article says is that humans tend to hunt and rely more on meat in their diets than other primates do.

 

[zhao]

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s18364.htm

Diet was always considered a direct contributory factor in the development of the genus Homo Sapiens. In particular, the emergence of larger brains was linked to after they began eating nutrient- and energy-rich animal foods necessary to fuel a larger brain. However, new data on the carbon isotopic evidence from the tooth enamel of Australopithecus shows that they ate from wooded areas, grasslands and probably included small mammals.

Modern chimpanzees forage mostly in wooded areas for fruits and on what are known as C3 plants, like trees, bushes and herbs. Animals incorporate their food's carbon profile into their teeth which are recorded in the enamel. Carbon isotope profiles differ from plants belonging to the C3 group to those of C4 which includes grasslands and hedges. The profiles found suggest that Australopithecus dined in the forest and grasslands with the possibility of catching small mammals dwelling in those habitats.

M. Ran, Elsevier Science Channel

 

[zhao]

Sigh. Zhao. Yes. They probably ate less than 50% meat overall because that's all they could kill/hunt/scavenge.

sigh. nomad. the article clearly said "APPRECIABLY less than 50 per cent". meaning MUCH LESS THAN 50 per cent.

how convenient of you to mis-read just to win an argument.

 

[nomadthethird]

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s18364.htm

Is this supposed to prove that we didn't eat meat, because it just said that we ate small mammals?

Zhao, nobody ever said that we didn't also eat and need to eat nutrients from plant sources. This is why it's called a hunter GATHERER society, because both activities are acknowledged.

The point is that we've always eaten meat. And our metabolisms are very obviously ketocentric. They love protein. They need it to keep going and making energy.

 

[Corpsey]

this is very interesting, I'm going to have to read the whole thread now

All very much related to a book I'm reading by Steven Pinker about how the mind has evolved.

 

[nomadthethird]

sigh. nomad. the article clearly said "APPRECIABLY less than 50 per cent". meaning MUCH LESS THAN 50 per cent.

how convenient of you to mis-read just to win an argument.

So what if it did? I'd actually be very interested in reading that page in context to see what sort of numbers it was comparing the 50% to.

How convenient of YOU to misread an entire article about how humans in tropical regions eat less meat and more fish, but still eat much more meat than other primates, and somehow think it supports the argument that humans didn't evolve eating meat.

 

[zhao]

So what if it did? I'd actually be very interested in reading that page in context to see what sort of numbers it was comparing the 50% to.

How convenient of YOU to misread an entire article about how humans in tropical regions eat less meat and more fish, but still eat much more meat than other primates, and somehow think it supports the argument that humans didn't evolve eating meat.

nomad. you are hallucinating. did you take some acid today?

i never once said humans didn't evolve eating meat.

what i am arguing, have always argued, is that the role of hunting has been over emphasized by our society which wants to paint our ancestors as primarily aggressive, war-like, male dominated meat eaters.

 

[nomadthethird]

nomad. you are hallucinating. did you take some acid today?

i never once said humans didn't evolve eating meat.

what i am arguing, have always argued, is that the role of hunting has been over emphasized by our society which wants to paint our ancestors as primarily aggressive, war-like, male dominated meat eaters.

Yes, you did. Want me to go back and get the quote?

What you claimed was that there's no such thing as "hunter-gatherer" societies, only "gatherer-hunter" societies, because hunting was only a marginal food source.

This is just not true. Hunting was a huge part of human life. And humans HAVE been war-like, and they are often aggressive. Need proof of that, too?

 

[zhao]

Yes, you did. Want me to go back and get the quote?

What you claimed was that there's no such thing as "hunter-gatherer" societies, only "gatherer-hunter" societies, because hunting was only a marginal food source.

This is just not true. Hunting was a huge part of human life. And humans HAVE been war-like, and they are often aggressive. Need proof of that, too?

"hunting was less important to early man than gathering"

DOES NOT EQUAL

"man did not evolve eating meat"


I made the first claim, and never made the second. so kindly stop putting words in my mouth. thanks.

humans are capable of war-like and aggressive behavior. yes. but what i am arguing is that for millions of years, humans were not as war-like and aggressive as now, and our ancestors were not as much as our society says they were.

 

[nomadthethird]

You know, I'm as annoyed and incensed by the patriarchal, farcical hierarchies that are hegemonic in the West as anybody, but I'm not going to try to revise human evolution to try to make it fit my ideals better.

Sure, there were matriarchal societies, too, but these weren't all paradises where war didn't happen and everyone spent all day holding hands and skipping around the maypole or whatever.

 

[nomadthethird]

Biology is the problem, more often than not, not the solution to our problems. But biology doesn't have to be our destiny.

 

[nomadthethird]

humans are capable of war-like and aggressive behavior. yes. but what i am arguing is that for millions of years, humans were not as war-like and aggressive as now, and our ancestors were not as much as our society says they were.

*rubs eyes*

Are you serious?

There's no way you can say this and really mean it, is there?

 

[zhao]

You know, I'm as annoyed and incensed by the patriarchal, farcical hierarchies that are hegemonic in the West as anybody, but I'm not going to try to revise human evolution to try to make it fit my ideals better.

unless previously held, biased views are proven false by new findings. then the history of human evolution MUST be revised.

Sure, there were matriarchal societies, too, but these weren't all paradises where war didn't happen and everyone spent all day holding hands and skipping around the maypole or whatever.

no. you are totally wrong. for most of human history hierarchy of any kind was absent. not matriarchal and not patriarchal.

 

[zhao]

*rubs eyes*

Are you serious?

There's no way you can say this and really mean it, is there?

new information is hard to digest. and for one as stubborn as you, it may be impossible.

your entire view of the violent "nature" of human kind is being challenged. deal with it.

 

[nomadthethird]

unless previously held, biased views are proven false by new findings. then the history of human evolution MUST be revised.



no. you are totally wrong. for most of human history hierarchy of any kind was absent. not matriarchal and not patriarchal.

No, you are totally wrong, but you believe what you want to believe, because you have some weird need to believe in the African motherland as somehow more pure and holy than the rest of everywhere else.

Frankly I think it's just as silly as thinking the West is intrinsically good or less "barbaric" than other places.

Humans kill. They don't just kill animals, either. They kill other humans. They get angry, they get jealous, they get sad, they get riled up, mass hysteria happens, and they dismember and brutally murder one another. This has always happened. Always. There is no society where this did not happen. You're kidding yourself if you think there is one.

"Hierarchies" don't make people violent. You can get rid of leaders, e.g. "band-level" societies (which are relatively rare), and you still have humans, with needs, wants, and drives that can easily control them and cause them to act in ways that aren't rational.

 

[swears]

no. you are totally wrong. for most of human history hierarchy of any kind was absent. not matriarchal and not patriarchal.

If hierarchy is evident in other pack animals like apes and wolves then why not early humans? What made them different? Not arguing, honest question....

 

[nomadthethird]

new information is hard to digest. and for one as stubborn as you, it may be impossible.

your entire view of the violent "nature" of human kind is being challenged. deal with it.

I love how you flatter yourself, Zhao, as if what you're saying is somehow especially profound. It's not profound, it's just naive and stupid.

Take a look around. Check out the daily police blotter for Tampa. Or Dallas. Pick a city, any city.

Check out the self-offender registries. There are several of them online.

 

[zhao]

No, you are totally wrong, but you believe what you want to believe, because you have some weird need to believe in the African motherland as somehow more pure and holy as the rest of everywhere else.

Frankly I think it's just as silly as thinking the West is intrinsically good or less "barbaric" than other places.

i don't believe that. you are hallucinating again.

but you sure are just another poor victim brainwashed by patriarchy's stories. stanley kubrick did a really good job.

 

[nomadthethird]

i don't believe that. you are hallucinating again.

but you sure are just another poor victim brainwashed by patriarchy's stories. stanley kubrick did a really good job.

Oh yeah, there it is again. Anyone who doesn't agree with Zhao is just "brainwashed"...

Or they are "hallucinating"...good one! I've tripped, hundreds of times, and I know what a hallucination is. This isn't one.

 

[nomadthethird]

If hierarchy is evident in other pack animals like apes and wolves then why not early humans? What made them different? Not arguing, honest question....

Exactly.

Not just in primates, either, in almost all mammals...

I'm the first one to admit that part of the reason why a lot of sadistic serial killer men will kill women is because they are upset that women have gained too much power and taken what the killer believes to be his rightful place on the social hierarchy.