scratch-mark

The Elephant in the Evolutionary Room

Yea, we’re such pristine, evolved frugivores.

Don’t know about you, but that looks to me like a highly evolved skill (what balls growing supplement they’re taking, I don’t know). Note the ages of those men. Here’s what I see after numerous viewings: an elder who has done this dozens of times and two young’ns, learning the ropes, to eventually be passed down.

I sent this video out to some friends & family and one of my brothers came back with the observation that humans are the apex predator. I thought that was an elegant integration given that nothing else was actually killed or harmed.

Hell, it might even give a vegan pause, since that animal was already brutally murdered and would have been consumed in whole anyway. Moreover, I also very much like the implied ethic of the thing — they only took one rump roast, not the whole thing, leaving the rest for the lions as if to plant an evolutionary seed: fear us just enough. And why would they want to do any harm whatsoever to those furry gods, those wondrous, beautiful killing machines? They would want to protect them in oder to perpetuate this sort of symbiotic existence.

But the elephant in the room is: how in the world did this behavior evolve? How long might it have been going on? The African Savannah is the most ancient womb of life, development and evolution on the planet.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More

328 Comments

  1. Steve Carter on March 11, 2011 at 04:30

    See also:

    I emailed Richard about this programme back when it first aired last year but unfortunately it wasn’t viewable outside the UK. Gives another perspective on the whole “hunting” thing. It’s not all about chasing down mammoth.
    See the last minute or so of part 1 and the start of part 2 for what I’m talking about.

    Steve

  2. qualia on March 10, 2011 at 14:29

    what’s at least as fascinating is the camera work. one could almost think the whole thing is staged using circus lions..

    • Katt on March 10, 2011 at 14:32

      Those aren’t circus animals. I used to work for a small zoo. Every caged lion or tiger I’ve ever seen has a scarred area just above the nose where they’ve rubbed the fur off pacing back and forth along the bars of the cage. The noses on these cats are unmarked.

    • Richard Nikoley on March 10, 2011 at 14:42

      leave it for someone to leave a jerk of a comment.

    • Travis on March 11, 2011 at 10:50

      Yes, it was the same people who faked the moon landing. They’ve moved into nature films. Bastards!

      • Jane on March 12, 2011 at 07:32

        So funny Travis! Thanks for the laugh.



    • Ned Kock on March 11, 2011 at 17:49

      Most land predators tend to fear humans. You don’t see this type of behavior among sharks, for example.

      Earlier human ancestors probably killed the lions that tried to prey on them, and the lions that had the phenotype that made them fear humans survived.

      By the way, the human body seems more adapted to scavenging than hunting. Like that of the T-Rex, believe or not.

      Great video!

      • gallier2 on March 12, 2011 at 00:01

        I don’t think that the lions “fear” the humans because some hypothetic ancestor of them got killed. The behavior is probably much deeper ingrained and boils down to be careful of animals that are taller than you and do not smell of fear. The men in the video wouldn’t be able to perform their stunt if they were crawling. There are other videos on youtube showing the same behaviour of the lions when buffalos are coming directly in their direction without flinching (the Krugerpark video where lions are kicked of their stolen prey by adult buffalos come to mind .



      • Ned Kock on March 12, 2011 at 09:41

        Sorry, I meant to say “genotype” in my comment above.

        I think you are absolutely right about the walking erect and self-confidence aspects, but I am also fairly convinced that ancestral humans hunted and killed land animals that tried to prey on them. And I don’t think they did that in the Masai warrior style; they probably did things like digging up holes and making the animals fall into them before killing them.

        I just can’t find the references at the moment. But humans tend to be a powerful selective force wherever they are. A somewhat related example, that illustrates this “artificial” selection idea, is the emergence of the dog species from wolves in just about 12,000 years or so (according to the literature I’ve seen).

        Our ancestors came into contact with packs of wolves, and systematically killed the wolves that were the most aggressive toward them in those packs, and fed the ones that were the most sociable toward them. This had a MAJOR effect on the reproductive success of those wolves with favorable genotypes.

        By the way, this idea formed the basis of H. G. Wells’s The Time Machine.



  3. Katt on March 10, 2011 at 14:30

    That was beautiful.

  4. scott on March 10, 2011 at 14:30

    Looks like they were waiting for the lion’s hunger to be satiated before moving in. Maybe you need a big brain to do that?

    Very cool video.

  5. Paleo Steph on March 10, 2011 at 14:31

    wow, who would have thought that this behavior existed!

  6. Kim on March 10, 2011 at 14:46

    When the lions are devouring the kill would most likely be a dangerous time to approach them…..not to mention when they’re not eating. Therefore, it’s clear that the lions respect the humans as top of the food chain. What’s kinda funny is the look on the lions face after the bushmen come and steal some of their food; “WTF! We just spent half the day chasing that prey down and you come in here while we’re enjoying the fruits (no pun intended toward Durian F. Rider) of our labor and walk off with a chunk of it”.

  7. Garth on March 10, 2011 at 14:57

    I need that supplement. I’m sure that would get me all the chicks. Or maybe the balls are from a 20 squat program? If you don’t get this look at Mark Rippetoe wiki on 20 squat programs.

  8. Daniel on March 10, 2011 at 14:58

    BAD FUCKING ASS!!! That makes me feel good to be a carnivore, and damn proud to be a human.

    • Richard Nikoley on March 10, 2011 at 15:40

      doesn’t it, Dan, in a culture that does it’s level best to make you guilty and ashamed (fuck damn, I should have integrated that into the post!) to be a hman?

      You know what? I think I’d do it, provided I was dressed in the same garb and I had an old guy who’d done it lots of times before, and a skinny guy I was sure I could outrun. 🙂

  9. Stabby on March 10, 2011 at 17:12

    Our African forefathers were so completely and utterly badass that lions have genes to make them afraid of human hunters. Does one get so badass by eating fruit and wagging their fingers at that darn dirty crocodile over there for being a baddy who eats animals?

    Hopefully evolution doesn’t produce or select any lion variant genes that make lions bolder any time soon. There is clearly an evolutionary benefit to one that insinuates the message “that guy is bluffing! He can’t really kill you and you shouldn’t let him take your kill”. Lions with those genes would get more food and thus propagate the new “no bs” lion genes.

    However it looks like the fear is thoroughly entrenched, thankfully.

    • _trgdr on March 11, 2011 at 10:07

      I dunno. I would assume that all the lions who felt that way in the past (“no bs”) got killed off by our bad-ass ancestors. If another one popped up, perhaps natural selection (spears) would get him the same way.

  10. dr. gabriella kadar on March 10, 2011 at 17:35

    Well, that was reasonable. They took a haunch. Not the whole darn Wildebeest. Plenty left for the lions and plenty enough for the humans. It seems even lions can calculate: not worth getting pissy at the humans when most of the meat is still there on the ground. Now they can get on with their meal. Peace isn’t free. I’m looking at this from the lion point of view.

    • Richard Nikoley on March 10, 2011 at 18:21

      Gabriella:

      Why would you do that?

      The humans are so clearly the impressive ones here. Or, to put it another way, 15 lions have not a clue of whats going on and 3 big brained humans know everything that’s going on.

      The meta point is simple, though: Free the Animal (I’ve always had it right).

      • dr. gabriella kadar on March 11, 2011 at 13:11

        I did because the three dudes did as well.

        The outcome would have been different if they would have attempted to abscond with the entire carcass or if their knives would have been less sharp. It’s all about calculations.



      • John on March 12, 2011 at 20:21

        The outcome would have been different if they would have attempted to abscond with the entire carcass or if their knives would have been less sharp. It’s all about calculations.
        And you know this how — telepathically?

        I think the lion’s attempt to drag the carcass back into the bushes signifies anxiety that the big scary humans might come back for the rest of it.



  11. Mango on March 10, 2011 at 18:11

    I’ll probably get bombarded with criticism for writing this, at least, for writing it here. Firstly it’s pretty blatantly obvious that humans have the ability to be the apex predator, but just because we have an ability to do something, does not make it the right thing to do. I mean, it seems like you are justifying human dominance over animals, because of our often times superior intellect and technological expertise. If it were at all a valid reason, I guess that may have been the logic used to enslave more primitive cultures in the past too, or do you think it is only members of other species that one should permit oneself to enslave, slaughter, butcher and eat when the stomach growls? If so, why is it you consider only other species fair game? why not other humans? what is the difference for you? It’s a simple question.

    Also, even if we have been predominantly flesh eaters in the past, as far as I am aware, it is often the breaking free of fixed habits which enable humans to evolve. Perhaps it is time for us to step free of the dark ages, and realise that kill or be killed is not the only path.

    In every given scenario, is it not always a good rule of thumb to try and put ourselves in the mind of the others our actions effect, and hypothesise, “how would we feel subject to similar threats and/or invasions of our free will?”.

    Mango

    • Scott C on March 10, 2011 at 19:34

      Actually, this is a very good example of game theory.
      Outright theft of large cat kills would lead to a very bad situation for both.
      [For a great read, check out to see what happens when you take a tiger’s kill]

      Having taken enough meat to eat but not enough to infringe on the lions hunting rights, the hunters in this case allowed the situation to have the most payoff to both parties.

    • Katt on March 10, 2011 at 18:59

      “I mean, it seems like you are justifying human dominance over animals, because of our often times superior intellect and technological expertise. ”

      Actually, it’s more about the inter-species relationships shown in that video between the humans and the lions. A relationship forged over millenia.

      • Mango on March 10, 2011 at 19:14

        yes.. i was refering more to richards overall view on human dominance over other species..



      • Richard Nikoley on March 10, 2011 at 20:20

        that’s exactly right, Mamgo, with no apology given, nor necessary (teenage girls excepted – I may blithely “aplogogiize,” knowing they”ll get a brain someday).

        I’ll deal with your other tripe tomorrow.



    • chuck on March 10, 2011 at 19:01

      natural selection means

    • chuck on March 10, 2011 at 19:10

      natural selections means that when a species evolves or an evolution is occuring, the individuals of that species who cannot tolerate the evolution either die or fail to reproduce. either way they cannot pass on their genes. i personally don’t want to be part of the vegetarian evolution. i want to continue eating the diet we have evolved to eat and live to pass on my genes.

      this video is proof as to how valuable meat is to humans. they would risk interupting savage lions in the middle of quenching their hunger on their latest kill by forcing their way in for a piece of meat. seems like it would be safer to just go find some edible weeds but those are not nourishing enough for these men to want to gather at that moment.

      i read somewhere that vegetarians/vegans don’t think, they believe. to blindly believe while ignoring logic is not how i want to live.

      • Mango on March 10, 2011 at 19:56

        Hi Chuck,
        This video does not prove that meat is valuable to humans. I wonder how one can reach such a conclusion(?) I would guess it does prove that these 3 hunters are brave and understand lion psychology, and that they desire, and possibly consider meat valuable. But one cannot logically argue the conclusion that it proves meat is valuable for humans per se. I suppose they chose to eat this way, because the Savannah offers little other choice, so yes, they are in an environment, where it would seem there was little choice.

        Hmm.. I fail to understand your logic that vegetarians/vegans don’t think(?). Again how can anyone reach such a conclusion, and how could someone else believe it? Was not Einstein reported to be vegetarian? As was Gandhi, both were great thinkers. Sure maybe they had a belief or 2 too, as do you (blindly believing that vegans don’t think?).

        I find it interesting too, how the questions I posed in my comment were avoided.



      • EdwinB on March 10, 2011 at 21:11

        From Ghandi, his vegetarianism certainly expanded his compassion :

        His description of black inmates: “Only a degree removed from the animal.” Also, “Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized – the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals.” – Mar. 7, 1908 (Reference: CWMG, Vol VIII, pp. 135-136)



      • Mango on March 10, 2011 at 21:20

        Edwin,
        I certainly don’t agree with everything Gandhi did said or stood for, for that matter, the same goes for Einstein, but you are missing the point. I was addressing the totally illogical statement Chuck put forward, about vegetarians not thinking.



      • David Csonka on March 10, 2011 at 21:53

        Vegans do love to play with logic and such don’t they? When science provides no support for the cause, they’ll rely on logical syllogisms to show everyone why eating meat is so logically wrong!

        Maybe the reason why you cannot understand why 3 adult African men would risk their lives by walking towards a pride of lions for a chunk of meat, is because most vegans are typically trapped (voluntarily) in a modern industrial civilized safety net that prevents them from comprehending what it means to live in an environment that doesn’t have B-12 vitamins and dehydrated kale chips on the supermarket shelves.

        You play coy with your logical deductions and feint a lack of comprehension of others supposed conclusions but it’s really just faux intellectualism.

        The desire and need for meat by the human species is not so complicated to require such elaborate logical devices. It is only confusing to you because your beliefs preclude your ability to accept basic biological principles.

        And yes, it is belief. The vegan love of deductive reasoning has much in common with St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas and their efforts to rationalize the existence of God through logic. When science and the observable nature of the world abandons you, drown them with logic till they agree with you so that you’ll shut up.



      • Mango on March 10, 2011 at 22:50

        David,
        You have failed to read what I have written. I have never said I don’t understand why 3 adult African men would risk their lives by walking toward a pride of lion, nor do I not understand. I find it odd that you have jumped to such a conclusion based on what I have written. I have merely asked questions, and never suggested there was any “logical wrongness” with eating meat, again you misquote me.

        You talk of my beliefs, as if you do not have them yourself. Sure, I have beliefs, I have never denied that, sure I believe the eating of meat to be unnecessary, now please admit that it is purely a belief that makes you suppose that you are better off with it. Even much of supposed nutritional science is based on belief. Belief is what we all use when stating our opinions here or anywhere else..



      • scott on March 11, 2011 at 02:43

        Are you really wondering why meat eaters don’t eat humans?



      • David Csonka on March 11, 2011 at 08:30

        No, it is not belief. It is a scientific understanding of the last million years of human evolution that drives me to eat meat.

        If, after examining the evidence, it became apparent to me that meat was not healthy for me, or not the food which my body evolved to eat, I would stop eating meat. That is because I am a rational person.

        You are so robotic, you sound like a college freshmen who just took their first philosophy 101 course. Seriously man, it’s faux intellectualism to hide the fact that veganism is scientifically bankrupt.

        I can successfully use logic to argue that an arrow being shot at an apple over your head does not actually move. That doesn’t mean it was what actually happened. It merely proves that logic can be used by people to prove things that aren’t empirically true. Like vegansim.



      • John on March 11, 2011 at 10:02

        “No, it is not belief. It is a scientific understanding of the last million years of human evolution that drives me to eat meat.”

        For me it’s the delicious taste, texture and consistency of animal flesh that does the trick.



      • Richard Nikoley on March 11, 2011 at 10:57

        Word, John. Me too.

        All this evolution stuff is just hunting moron for sport.



      • David Csonka on March 11, 2011 at 15:02

        Well, admitting that it’s primarily about taste opens up the door to the predictable vegan logical arguments about morality, etc. blah blah

        In all honesty, if I knew that meat was bad for me, based on proven scientific rationale, or that it wasn’t actually what humans evolved to eat – I would give it up, regardless of taste.

        I love the taste of Coca-Cola, sometimes I still crave it, and yet I gave it up along with all other soft drinks for the rationale I mentioned above.



      • el-bo on March 11, 2011 at 15:12

        “Well, admitting that it’s primarily about taste opens up the door to the predictable vegan logical arguments about morality, etc. blah blah

        not all vegans are the same….many understand the attachment to the test, but get a little frustrated when people claim we need it for health



      • John on March 11, 2011 at 15:13

        Coca-cola is a product, meat is a food. It doesn’t take a research team to develop a flavor and texture profile for a steak to make you believe it’s delicious. It just is. Innate desire is the essence of natural selection’s hand.

        “Well, admitting that it’s primarily about taste opens up the door to the predictable vegan logical arguments about morality, etc. blah blah”

        When I open *my* door, I like to keep my hand on the back and my knee in the scant 4 inch gap I create. People can moralize their food choices all they want, but I don’t have to care.



      • el-bo on March 11, 2011 at 15:17

        i meant “taste”

        many vegans make their choices as individuals, doing what they believe to be best for their health, family’s health and the welfare of the animals and living as an example for anyone who is interested



      • Richard Nikoley on March 10, 2011 at 22:17

        Mango regurgitated like a cheap whore:

        “Was not Einstein reported to be vegetarian? As was Gandhi, both were great thinkers.”

        My bad. I was actually fooled from his former post and the preceding para in the comment where this “observation” showed up that I might be dealing with a mind.

        My mistake, I’m sure.



      • Mango on March 10, 2011 at 22:40

        Richard. I expected a more intelligible reply. 🙁



      • Richard Nikoley on March 11, 2011 at 08:00

        I’d love to provide you with more intelligible replies, Mango and I will concede that now after having read more of your comments I like you. I disagree, but you’re a gentlemanly, likable sort so far as I can tell.

        …But…

        “This video does not prove that meat is valuable to humans.”

        This kind of stuff just sets me off a bit. First of all, the video is not intended to show or prove anything of the sort. It’s intended to demonstrate a developed skill, as well as a sound ethic for sustainability or whatever you want to call it.

        Nobody needs to prove that meat is valuable to humans. I’t’s a-priori, i.e., one doesn’t not even need to get up off the couch to know its true.



      • Mango on March 11, 2011 at 12:04

        thanks richard,
        You read my line out of context though, I never just came in and said that the video does or does not prove anything, I merely responded to Chuck who DID respond that the video WAS proof of those things. I agree with you that the video is not intended to prove anything.



      • ken on March 11, 2011 at 01:51

        “Again how can anyone reach such a conclusion, and how could someone else believe it? Was not Einstein reported to be vegetarian? As was Gandhi, both were great thinkers.”

        implied fallacy



      • Emily Deans MD on March 11, 2011 at 08:23

        All due respect to Einsten and Ghandi, but I have serious doubts about their comprehensive knowledge of human biochemistry.



      • Emily Deans MD on March 11, 2011 at 08:25

        I submit that their spelling was likely better than my own…



      • David Csonka on March 11, 2011 at 08:32

        The problem I have when people invoke Einstein as an intelligent authority, is that one having genius level understanding of quantum mechanics experimental physics does not make one knowledgeable about biology or even normal common sense.

        It’s the same as asking Barbara Streisand what she thinks about the lipid hypothesis. Or making some kind of inference because she eats a low-fat diet.



      • Travis on March 11, 2011 at 10:23

        I completely agree with your observation that Famous Person X being a genius in subject Z does not imply that he or she is automatically an authority or genius in all human matters. That sort of leap of faith gets under my skin every time. Even worse is when some celebrity endorses a dubious “health” product and the sheep buy it just because the celebrity says it’s good! Worse yet is when actors or musicians become instant experts in politics and economics.

        Einstein’s relativity — the universe from a macroscopic point of view — was his magnum opus. J. Robert Oppenheimer was the master of quantum mechanics. Einstein did not buy the theory of quantum mechanics. I’m sure he understood most of the math, but he was not a driving force behind its development. He couldn’t get his head around the idea of the microscopic universe as a realm of probabilities.



      • Al Ciampa on March 11, 2011 at 10:54

        Dr. Deans/David/Travis,

        I think Mango was referring to examples of their high cognitive function fueled by a vegetarian diet, and not that they are experts in nutrition.

        Maybe I read that wrong, though.

        -Al



      • Joe Brancaleone on March 11, 2011 at 10:56

        Yeah that’s what could be called the “Fallacy of Extended Genius”. It’s blind belief that extends beyond recognition of someone’s accomplishments in subject X, believing the person to have superior powers of perception and analysis in other areas Y and Z!



      • Travis on March 11, 2011 at 11:28

        Perhaps. I didn’t consider it from that angle.



      • Mango on March 11, 2011 at 12:11

        It seems you guys all missed my point about gandhi/einstein.. I don’t look up to either, and i wasn’t referring to eithers knowledge of nutritional science or such. I merely mentioned 2 names of people who were clearly considered thinkers, in retrospect I realise that doing so was unnecessary, as chucks whole argument, to which i was responding, about vegans not thinking was totally illogical anyway. I guess I must have been exercising my right as a vegan, to “not think”. 🙂



      • Richard Nikoley on March 11, 2011 at 20:27

        ” in retrospect I realise that doing so was unnecessary”

        It was non sequitur and the logical fallacy of appeal to authority (in an indirect way, which is actually worse). Props for fessing up though.

        Onward.



      • Becky on March 12, 2011 at 20:06

        This. <3 <3 <3

        If I could flip this around – maybe the issue is veggies think *too much*. No other evolved predator has the "benefit" of contemplating the moral value of tucking into warm flesh. They either eat their food, or they go hungry and starve to death.

        I'll put my food choices in the hands of millions of years of evolution rather than a few years of deep, introspective, morally-subjective thought.



      • Jorge from Venezuela on March 11, 2011 at 05:59

        “Was not Einstein reported to be vegetarian? As was Gandhi, both were great thinkers”

        Gandhi was born in India, so he was culturally vegetarian, he also drank milk so more like a lacto-vegetarian. He wasn’t a great thinker just a politic. Also not a great example of vegetarian as he was very polemic, with marks of racism, self-destructive thinking and also in his hidden history he received accusations of paedophilia, so again, not a great thinker nor a great example.

        Einstein was a great scientific, most of his apportation to modern physics theory was done while he was a meat eater, then he switched to vegetarianism for his last year of life, then he died. Again not a good example.

        Your arguments are a big fail. Maybe good for uninformed people, but here you don’t have a chance.



      • dr. gabriella kadar on March 11, 2011 at 13:15

        Adolph Hitler was also a vegetarian.



      • dr. gabriella kadar on March 11, 2011 at 13:20

        Oh, and the Dalai Lama eats meat. Just not when he’s at home. He’s usually ‘on the road’ for half of each year. He tried vegetarianism and it didn’t sit well with constitution.



      • Tracy on March 12, 2011 at 13:40

        I can vouch for this – I interviewed one of his chefs a few years back for a piece in a local paper (I live in an area that has one of the largest Tibetan populations in Canada). Not that it matters if the DL eats meat or not 🙂

        As an aside, I was invited to a huge party by that chef at a local Tibetan resto… was surprised to find copious meat dishes being passed around, plus a rockin’ Tibetan band and more booze than I’d had in the entire year! Asking around I learned that they do eat meat, they just try to stick to large animals (one feeds many) as opposed to smaller animals, like shrimp etc. I also learned not to challenge a Tibetan when it comes to drinking, because you will lose. Badly. To all of them. 😉



      • el-bo on March 11, 2011 at 14:32

        “I would guess it does prove that these 3 hunters are brave and understand lion psychology”

        indeed…and only till the lions realise “it’s a bluff”….opportunistic thievery, at best

        great vid, though 🙂



      • Flying Burrito on March 11, 2011 at 14:55

        Actually, there was nothing that Einstein loved more than sausages with his coffee or tea.



    • EdwinB on March 10, 2011 at 20:41

      If it were at all a valid reason, I guess that may have been the logic used to enslave more primitive cultures in the past too, or do you think it is only members of other species that one should permit oneself to enslave, slaughter, butcher and eat when the stomach growls? If so, why is it you consider only other species fair game? why not other humans? what is the difference for you? It’s a simple question.

      The only reason you have the room to create such a malformed thought is that your betters stamped out a world with some degree of security and order. They stamped out the world via force, at no time in the history of man has is it been the norm to willingly surrender to another tribe or the elements. If the supermarkets weren’t restocked I can predict it would be all of 5 days before your neighbours were kicking in your door for your sweet juicy fruits.

      Also, even if we have been predominantly flesh eaters in the past, as far as I am aware, it is often the breaking free of fixed habits which enable humans to evolve. Perhaps it is time for us to step free of the dark ages, and realise that kill or be killed is not the only path.

      Like breathing, wiping after pooping, etc? No thanks I like meat going to take a big pass on mamby pamby land. In fact I’ll go further and say I will actively resist it and instill the same resistance in my offspring. In the event you get to close or to insistent with that line of insanity ill punch you in your fruit hole for good measure.

      In every given scenario, is it not always a good rule of thumb to try and put ourselves in the mind of the others our actions effect, and hypothesise, “how would we feel subject to similar threats and/or invasions of our free will?”.

      Potentially – theres a limit though. Frankly I’m appraising this in the context of your intended coercion. Your attempt to influence us to at least consider you are coming from a rational position. Can’t do it though, just better to call crazy crazy and be done with it.

      Rationally it’s about improving or maintaining our position, with the guiding principle to do as much good or as little harm as the occasion allows. Hence why they hunters didn’t take the lion’s share of the meat 🙂

      • Mango on March 10, 2011 at 21:59

        I agree that we have a history which is somewhat bloody to say the least. No disagreement there. But where we differ is that you seem to believe that this scenario cannot and should not change. I am sure you are right about the hypothetical situation of infrastructure collapsing and supermarkets closing. But all this shows is our ability to panic in such dire situations. I believe that we all ultimately have a deep inner desire to live in peace, and to not fear any potential threat of jealous neighbours.

        I think when one has to resort to name calling, throwing insults such as “mamby Pamby” or “tripe”, or violence as you propose, this really just shows that ones arguments are inherently weak.

        I suspect you don’t fully believe your own last paragraph. If you truly believed that the principle is to do as little harm as possible for the occasion (something that no doubt if I had written you would have labeled “mamby pamby”), you would understand more where I was coming from.



      • Richard Nikoley on March 11, 2011 at 07:46

        “But all this shows is our ability to panic in such dire situations. I believe that we all ultimately have a deep inner desire to live in peace, and to not fear any potential threat of jealous neighbors.”

        There seems to be this perpetual undertone that meat eating is incompatible with peacefulness. It’s a false alternative.



      • Mango on March 11, 2011 at 12:16

        Sorry Richard, but meat eating IS incompatible with peacefulness. You can’t get around that one. Maybe you are narrowing your parameters for the definition of peacefulness, so it becomes compatible, but the truth is there is definitely nothing peaceful in it for the animal being hunted.



      • John on March 11, 2011 at 13:50

        If his parameters are narrowed, then yours are stretched. Having said that, I don’t personally care about the amorphous and nearly meaningless concept of peace. Not beating up my neighbors is about as far as I can go in the “care” spectrum. If you have a savior complex, then indulge it to your satisfaction, but you’re a fool if you think you’re arguing beyond any layer but someone’s core nature. An honestly, no such society-of-peace will ever exist, per Darwin, and if there was I wouldn’t want to live in it. You’re all pie in the sky brother.



      • VelaCreations on March 11, 2011 at 21:02

        “meat eating IS incompatible with peacefulness”

        I eat meat daily, yet I haven’t killed or beaten anyone in at least a week.



      • Mango on March 11, 2011 at 21:06

        John, Peace, as defined by an online dictionary:

        a state that is calm and tranquil.

        In a hunter/hunted situation, perhaps I can concede that one side believes they are at peace, but consider all parties, and there is definitely no peacefulness.



      • Richard Nikoley on March 11, 2011 at 21:07

        Mango:

        Peace is not a concept that applies to anyone but humans. If you don’t believe me, just ask them.

        I should be explicitly clear and I will be blogging on this soon: morality and rights do not in the slightest apply to non-human animals. Better yet, there’s physiological reasons. Nothing to do with woo, or spacemen with sooper pow3erz.



      • Mango on March 11, 2011 at 21:10

        VelaCreations, perhaps you are at peace when you eat meat, but the process of bringing it to your plate was unavoidably NOT.



      • John on March 11, 2011 at 21:13

        But think of all the poor bugs that we step on accidentally just through the violent act of locomotion. They aren’t at peace.

        Joking aside, I already stated that I have a limited (natural) concern for peace, and I certainly don’t abstract it beyond a level required for the survival of me and my own, so there are really no grounds of debate with me. It’s sort of like how Jehovah’s Witnesses specialize in converting Catholics and other nominal Christians. They can really only get a foothold with people that already believe in the efficacy of their magical middle eatern story book. I don’t subscribe to the basic premises you’re proposing here.



      • Mango on March 11, 2011 at 21:24

        Richard said:

        “Peace is not a concept that applies to anyone but humans. If you don’t believe me, just ask them.”

        Maybe you could say “peace does not apply to babies, just ask them.” or “peace does not apply to brain dead humans, and demented senior citizens. Just ask them”. How can you really logically make such a swooping statement. What do you base this conclusion upon? All animals avoid discomfort and will flee danger, they naturally seek a peaceful environment where they are safe.

        If you don’t believe morals apply to animals, why have you insisted that they are treated with respect by hunters? This makes little sense to me.. I wont argue whether or not animals themselves have morals, but this is really irrelevant, the point is that we do, and to randomly dismiss certain beings from being recipient of them based on no other reason than them having a different form than ourselves, is illogical.

        I’m not at all sure I understand your bizarre reference to spacemen and “woo”?

        Honestly, Coming here I have been quite disappointed in the responses I have received, it has been full of insults, disrespect, and lack of logic, and we vegans get accused of being emotional and such.. I have even been misquoted, random conclusions drawn as facts, threatened, and told that I am attacking, and morally superior, when I have done no such thing and feel no such emotion. Even told to fornicate out of here, but I’m a stubborn guy, and have persisted, believing that sooner or later someone might be up for a rational debate. clearly I am beginning to see how mistaken I have been.



      • John on March 11, 2011 at 21:28

        “If you don’t believe morals apply to animals, why have you insisted that they are treated with respect by hunters? This makes little sense to me.”

        I agree. It’s an unnecessary appeal to an undesirable sentiment.



      • Liz Downunder on March 12, 2011 at 02:17

        “Peace is not a concept that applies to anyone but humans.”

        I’m not sure I agree with that, Richard. OK, I agree peace isn’t a ‘concept’ for animals, but as you know, many animals (and to a lesser extent, some birds) have complex social structures in which order (peace?) is desirable and rigorously maintained, to ensure the success of the pack.



      • VelaCreations on March 12, 2011 at 06:26

        I kill all of my own food. Meat, plants, fungi, whatever.

        It is always peaceful. Non-peaceful harvesting makes for bad food.

        It has been shown that the sight of raw meat has a calming effect on humans.



      • Richard Nikoley on March 12, 2011 at 11:59

        “Maybe you could say “peace does not apply to babies, just ask them.” or “peace does not apply to brain dead humans, and demented senior citizens. Just ask them”.

        Yes, because of course the only thing that keeps us from killing and eating our young and old is…uh…I forget.

        “f you don’t believe morals apply to animals, why have you insisted that they are treated with respect by hunters?”

        I have insisted no such thing. Perhaps because you come from the perspective of a group, like vegans, who insist upon forcing their meatless values on others (through the force of government), you find it difficult to distinguish between personally held beliefs, practices or “ethics,” and social moral issues.

        This, for example, is likely why you can’t see the difference between eating ants and babies…or…uh…was it animals with faces and old people…or something else? I forget.

        “I’m not at all sure I understand your bizarre reference to spacemen and “woo”?”

        Most people see morals as coming from some authority such as a God.



      • Richard Nikoley on March 12, 2011 at 12:00

        “It’s an unnecessary appeal to an undesirable sentiment.”

        Unnecessary to whom? Undesirable to whom?



      • EdwinB on March 12, 2011 at 12:01

        Veganism seems like an express train to pliabilty and neo-serfism.



      • Mango on March 12, 2011 at 12:46

        Richard, I note once more your ability to totally avoid the crux of what I have said, and to politically skirt around the question. You know you’re original supposed reasoning I was parodying was “Peace does not apply to animals, just ask them”, like you were trying to be clever and show that if you asked them they would not be able to answer. Of course not, they don’t speak English. Me substituting babies, and such, was an attempt to show how weak and inherently illogical your answer was. And yet you quote me fully out of context, as if I myself came up with those questions out of the blue.

        “if you don’t believe morals apply to animals, why have you insisted that they are treated with respect by hunters?”

        OK, i realise I re reading this there is a certain ambiguity in what I have written, anyone with reasonable English may have spotted it. I know you have not insisted that animals be treated with respect, but you have insisted that hunters like yourself do treat them with respect. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

        If you see morals coming from spacemen and God, that is totally your issue, I am not concerned where you consider they come from.



      • John on March 12, 2011 at 13:41

        “Unnecessary to whom? Undesirable to whom?”

        To me; me again….the only person I’m qualified to account for. Eating meat isn’t any more or less reasonable for me whether the animal experienced a life of dread, or whether it was given daily massages. I don’t care if it’s butcher “respected” it, or despised it, or derived joy from annihilating it, or sang spiritual hymns to it to let the air know how much he values its meat. Once you start down the path of moralizing consumption, or any bodily function, you’ve crossed over into religion land. I don’t need bullshit justifications to make me feel good about shredding an animal’s flesh with my teeth.



      • Tracy on March 12, 2011 at 13:57

        Actually, depends on the situation. In properly designed abattoirs and with proper handling, cortisol levels in cattle have been shown to be the same as for normal farm handling. In other words, cortisol levels are low. In crappy abattoirs, where they do not handle the animals properly or have proper conditions for them, cortisol/stress is definitely higher… and higher still, I’d imagine, for a cow being hunted and eaten alive by a pack of wolves. (grandin.com for more info)

        I’d take issue with the notion that there is nothing ‘peaceful’ for an animal about being… if the hunter is hidden, and the animal is not aware of him/her, how does that cause any stress? If the animal is then killed swiftly/properly (as most hunters attempt to do), it’s over before they even knew anything was happening.



      • Becky on March 12, 2011 at 20:16

        We were designed to live in a delicate balance with our food. We cull them of the weak and infirm to aid in the reproduction of the most robust herd possible. When a predator fails at this, the food source dwindles and the predator dies off. When it succeeds, both flourish. To disrespect our food is to create a system where we are in total dominance – and look where factory farming got us.



      • EdwinB on March 11, 2011 at 13:11

        Mango some of my replies were exageration, you are probably a decent enough person and generally harmless. In a different context I would have been more gentle with you. In some degree though I think our tolerance and universal acceptance is de-volving society. We seem to entertain any and every notion, in fact were so open minded we are leaking brains all over the place.

        Think about that video, if the two younger men had not followed the older man that tribe would not have meat that day or perhaps that weak. Stretch enough of those days and weeks together and that tribe becomes sickly, perhaps some die, they become less competitive and the tribe is on the express train to extinction.

        We have to stand up to the neutering forces that want to diminish us and our cognitive clarity. Every silly idea, or philosophy ought not to be entertained with the same seriousness. The SAD diet and other cultural shifts, have left to sedentary, over medicated people, with hormonal profiles generally a poor fraction of their parents or grandparents.

        A Frutarian diet might show some cardio vascular improvement over the SAD but would be another step along to serfdom, cognitive decline, demasculinization, and creating a scurisome race of wastrels.

        No.



      • Mango on March 11, 2011 at 22:15

        Hi EdwinB, yeah, I like to think I’m decent enough, and get on well with most people. I never came here to create conflict, but to genuinely seek an answer to a question or 2. I respect that you believe that a fruitarian diet will not end well, but I also acknowledge that it is purely a belief. I suspect you have likely never met a fruitarian before (please correct if wrong) and that this notion is purely preconceived based on no real experience. Of course, that’s not to say that you may not be right. Naturally I don’t believe so though.



      • EdwinB on March 12, 2011 at 00:28

        Mango, if a frutarian diet enhances your life and health, or even if you just want to do it for your own personal reasons thats fine, it’s none of my damn business. Most of my issues are with the evangelistic vegan types who want to impose their version of morality onto me either through coercion or what have you. Particularly galling to me is those who equate the life of a pig or cow with a human. The capacity to generate and entertain such a notion devoid of intellectual or moral clarity suggests stong mental illness, and less respect for life not more.

        I’m not dogmatically paleo I just think a meat/fat centric diet makes sense for a myriad of reasons not the least of which it brings me much enjoyment and pleasure. The cool thing about this particular community is your participation is completely voluntary. Richard’s not going to hold you down and shove a roast down your gullet. I’m a fairly sincere if doctrinely poor Christian, I’m not out to convert any members here though. I can’t argue my faith though because I instinctively realize a large portion of it isn’t constructed on reason. A lot of what I hear from veganism sounds exactly like religion though: from poorly constructed axiomatic statements and particularly emphatic pleas to guilt and shame.



      • Liz Downunder on March 12, 2011 at 02:27

        “evangelistic vegan types who want to impose their version of morality onto me either through coercion or what have you.”

        They embody the opposite of ‘peace’, and fail to see the irony…



      • Richard Nikoley on March 12, 2011 at 04:14

        Is there possibly any activist group that, pound for pound, is more activist in government?

        http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

        Suck a “peaceful” lot.

        Te anti-abortionists have nothing on them.



      • Mango on March 12, 2011 at 12:59

        EdwinB, Have I been at all evangelical here? Look again please, I have merely asked questions which no one here cares to answer truthfully. That is not being evangelical (my understanding of the word is that it means “bearing good news”, and has christian connotations).

        Instead of randomly dismissing the comparison between and a pig, cow and human, why don’t you just humor me, and give me a serious answer that tells me what you believe is the fundamental difference that makes it acceptable to you personally to kill and eat one but not the other.. surely, it is not too difficult a question? But I do very much realise I’m flogging a dead horse here, you nor likely anyone else here is willing to stand up to that question. Of course, you are under no obligation to. Noone is. What I find curious is that people feign to reply to my posts, but in the end the only thing I really get from people here is illogical and irrational responses, and immediate judgments on who and what I stand for. I have not offered any such judgment here, merely asked questions civilly. You have jumped to an irrational conclusion of mental illness, to me irrationality is a sign of mental illness, or possibly just a low IQ.



      • EdwinB on March 12, 2011 at 13:20

        Mango, pigs and cows are livestock, they have some intelligence but nothing on the order of a well fed man. Virtually all pigs and cows alive today (at least in north america) have been bred to serve man as food.

        A pig or cow while sentient will never be the equal of man. There is no abstract thought or moral judgements. They won’t create a piece of art, or a philosophy, build shelter etc. Equating the life of a pig, cow, or other animal with the life of a man devalues humanity.

        I’m thankful for the meat I eat and attempt to purchase as much grassfed humanely locally raised beef as time and budget allow.

        I’d personally never hunt for sport itself but have hunted for food and probably will do so again. Here in Hawaii the feral pigs make good eating, and when not hunted do tons of damage to the environment and native plants. Our family hunts pigs with dogs and finishes them with a knife, its a grueling very physical hunt.

        I probably would never eat animals higher on the cognitive spectrum dogs, monkeys, dolphin but thats more for emotional reasons than intellectual. We have two sister chiahua-rat terrier mixes, and I do tell the fatter of the two she’s looking tastier everday but thats just to keep her alert.

        Mango in fairness I will give this some more thought but to be frank the very idea of having to justify eating meat, and placing the life of a lower animal on par with man is distant from the realm of the sane I’m not sure where to begin.

        I literally feel like you are asking me why water makes you wet, or why fire burns.



      • Tracy on March 12, 2011 at 14:27

        Hmm… I’ll answer, off the top of my head, even though IMHO it’s a bit of a false dichotomy.

        I suppose if we’re to be honest, it’s conditioning, partly, that keeps us from eating one another. We’ve created a society in which it is considered taboo to eat another human (unless of course, your plane crashes in the Andes). Of course, there are cultures who have practiced cannibalism (either eating people from other tribes – not their own group – or ritualistically, when a revered member dies, etc) and some animals do as well… sexual cannibalism, eating their young, fish eating each other, etc.

        Also, I don’t eat other people because I obviously relate to them (they are ‘like me’ so to speak) and I can put myself in their shoes and understand how they would react, the impact their death would have on their families, friends, and so on.

        While I respect animals, I also understand my place in the food chain and I feel no more guilt about eating a cow than a wolf feels about eating a deer. Why? Partly conditioning, perhaps… partly my understanding of evolution/natural selection and what seems to be best for me health-wise. I do not feel that a cow is the same as a human being, and while I think both should be treated humanely and with respect, I don’t think that cows have the same capacity for abstract thought and/or emotion as we do. You may not agree… that’s a-ok with me 🙂 I have vegan friends. (and they don’t give a crap about what I eat either)

        Incidentally, even if I thought that killing/eating a cow (for example) was wrong and decided not to eat them, I couldn’t extrapolate that to, say, a clam. Or to eating honey (bee rape??)



      • Vegan Virtues on March 20, 2011 at 06:07

        Mango why do u bother wasting ur time with these morons? They not going to read or listen to u or any other plant eater. These ppl live in a blinkered world surrounded by like minded moron.



      • Richard Nikoley on March 20, 2011 at 08:36

        Now that’s what I call an admirable display of “Vegan Virtues.”



      • Melissa Fritcher on March 12, 2011 at 10:11

        Your reply, out of all of these, most clearly mirrors my own views on what is happening in the world. When I started seeing all the young bucks doing Paleo/Primal, getting all buff and manly, it all got very evolutionary for me. Looking back at the SAD/CW men I see a lot of women in the making. Not just in terms of estrogenics, but in societal pressure to be nice, gentle, etc. Not that I’m hoping to go back to the good old days with ‘insult me and throw down right there’, but society and bad food is crushing mens balls in too many ways.

        My daughter has a friend who doesn’t like meat. Why our eating pig and cow translates to eating cat, etc is beyond me. Frankly, cats are a little stringy for my tastes. I’d go for larger game, though. My first taste of venison was freaking orgasmic.

        I know how I want me and mine to look and live. I’ve done my best to instill the same love of animal flesh in my spawn. Not just eating it, but hunting/procuring it as well as adoring it and being grateful for its’ sacrifice and a solid scientific base in what this does to fuel our bodies. I consider myself to be a very empathetic, sympathetic, gentle, nice person, but when it comes to survival and living well, I can get all huntress on your ass in a nano-second. I lived SAD for way too many years. I did the vegetarian thing.

        I am of child-bearing age – and #1: I need red meat during that time of the month to replenish energy and nutrients – it’s the only thing that calms the vampire. and #2: I had boob milk supply issues until I started eating meat at every single meal. Within hours of having a massive bloody steak for dinner, I had more milk than twins would have taken.

        I know what’s right for my body and I’ve done a lot of observation and experimentation with my own health markers and my own family and we are Primal for life. Bottom line, it’s better for us. Emotionally, physically/biologically, menstrually, testicularly, hormonally, etc. I can only guess that it could be so for others, because we can’t be the only family on the planet who can improve a thousand papercuts of health issues with Primal/Paleo.

        I do believe strongly in the ethical raising and killing and processing of meat. I’ve looked in the eyes of the cows I’ve had on my plate. I wanted to pet them (massage them, feed them beer) and I thanked them when they were still alive, as well as freshly butchered, as well as with the best cooking preparations because I believe it’s all about showing respect to that amazing creature for giving their lives to nourish our bodies.

        In the end, I’m cool with militant vegans. Live and let get sick and die. More meat for me.



      • EdwinB on March 12, 2011 at 11:29

        In the end, I’m cool with militant vegans. Live and let get sick and die. More meat for me.

        That is the upside, provided we can weather what ever malformed constructs their brains create in a nutrient and fat starved state 🙂



      • Melissa Fritcher on March 12, 2011 at 13:03

        I’m willing to bunker down for it. I’ve got a deep freezer filled with meat. 😀



      • Travis on March 13, 2011 at 14:29

        ” ….. society and bad food is crushing mens balls in too many ways.”

        Amen and pass the the rare steak.



    • TJ on March 10, 2011 at 21:54

      Mango, I read your blog entry, “Should We Really Eat Meat”:

      http://mangodurian.blogspot.com/2011/02/should-we-really-eat-meat.html

      That you hit the “publish” button on that little gem calls into question your ethos to attack other people’s logos (as you do below).

      Just a thought…

      • Mango on March 10, 2011 at 22:00

        attack? I merely question.. why do you feel attacked?



    • JLL on March 11, 2011 at 00:54

      Mango:

      Humans and animals do not share the same moral values. In fact, they don’t even occupy the same “moral space”, if you will. Therefore it is morally neutral to enslave or eat another species, just as those species do to other species. Morals exist within species that have the means to communicate those morals to other members of the same species.

      Once a lion (or other animals) learns how to communicate and reason with humans, then we’ll re-think the whole thing.

      – JLL

      • Richard Nikoley on March 11, 2011 at 08:39

        I do have a post on morality coming. There is way to much muddled thinking and equivocation on the issue. But good start, JLL



      • Mango on March 11, 2011 at 12:27

        JLL, so, if I understand correctly, it would seem from your last paragraph that I can infer that it is the intelligence of those involved, and their ability to reason which would potentially theoretically protect them from being “fair game”. Thus what would stop one attacking and eating the guy up the road from here who has been confined to a wheel chair all his life, and whose mind never developed beyond that of a 2 year olds? He clearly has no real reasoning power, well likely comparable to that of a gazelle maybe.. Certainly he has no means to effectively communicate any morals. Probably less so than most animals that attempt to flee, defend themselves if threatened, or clearly otherwise vocally express disapproval, even if not in any particular human species language.



      • Zach on March 11, 2011 at 13:29

        Hes probably not as tasty as a well exercised cow. Probably all skin and bones.



      • VelaCreations on March 11, 2011 at 21:11

        why do vegans use exceptions to describe a norm?

        And just because a gazelle could communicate its morals, does it really matter? Those are gazelle morals, not human morals. Imposing your morals on other species is unethical at best.



      • Mango on March 12, 2011 at 13:04

        To the best of my knowledge morals cannot really imposed on anyone, or any other other species or being. I’m not at all sure what your bizarre statement here means. Morals have to come from oneself. I have not tried to impose moral on anyone here. I state again, I have simply asked questions that are of a moral nature.



      • Richard Nikoley on March 12, 2011 at 17:56

        Mango says:

        “To the best of my knowledge morals cannot really imposed on anyone, or any other other species or being.”

        It’s a prima facie fact that morals are imposed upon people in abundance. Ever read a law book? What, you think, statutes are based in thin air, out of ass ideas? How about murder? Rape? Kidnapping and robbery?

        See, that’s the rub, Mango. it is precisely because the state assumes the power to enforce the general sense of morality, codified in statute, that makes vegans and their activism worrisome.

        Perhaps not you. I know you’re trying to persuade here and IF you would have no intention of having that carry over to statutory enforcement of your values upon those who do not share them, then I may have given you too little credit.

        A personal example is that I’m an w atheist (20 years now). And yet, I hate and loath the activist atheists who seek to impose their values on others. Yea, I know: there’s a divinity scene on public property. BFD. Lighten up. It’s not like Christmas seems to make people worse than better. I love Christmas. I don’t take it literally. I take it fun, and I love my family and friends.

        So, what is it, Mango? Are you only about persuasion, or force through legislation?



      • VelaCreations on March 12, 2011 at 21:59

        You are enforcing morals on other animals by assuming that something is “wrong” with actions involving them. That’s based on YOUR morals, not the animal’s morals. You disrespect species by assuming to speak for them.



      • VelaCreations on March 13, 2011 at 09:23

        Morality is a mutual agreement between moral agents who can advocate the liberty of each other, reciprocate, and whose behaviors are amendable by reason. No human’s life was ever made more free by affording animals rights. There is a difference between love of causing pain and indifference to pain for pragmatic purposes. It is a fallacious argument that animals ought to be considered valuable beyond what they are good for to us. My question to the animals: wherein lies the justification for your indignation and moralizing? Justify yourselves.



      • aLEX on March 14, 2011 at 22:25

        Not sure if you were aware, but Mungo answered this on his recent blog post. He’s clutching at straws and needs his head examined. I say, feed him to the lions and be done with him!



      • aLEX on March 14, 2011 at 22:47

        Richard, did you noticed mango replied to this on his latest blog post? He’s a weak witted soul. I say feed him to the lions and be done with him!



      • Richard Nikoley on March 14, 2011 at 23:40

        I saw something someone emailed me about complaining of different dictionaries and such.

        I can’t help it if he’s never had exposure to classical Enlightenment thought and finds it as if of another language.



      • Richard Nikoley on March 11, 2011 at 21:25

        Mango:

        “Thus what would stop one attacking and eating the guy up the road from here who has been confined to a wheel chair all his life, and whose mind never developed beyond that of a 2 year olds? ”

        This reminds me of when I talk anarchism to friends & family and I always get the same regurgitation (because few people actually think).

        “So, when there are no laws, which teenage girls are you going to rape first?”



      • Mango on March 11, 2011 at 21:29

        Humor me won’t you.. instead of avoiding the question, why not answer it rationally? much as you may feign otherwise, it is a very rational question and if you can face it, addresses the crux of our differences.



      • gallier2 on March 12, 2011 at 03:21

        If the only thing holding you from eating your peers is external threat (by gods, laws and society) it’s you that is fucked up in the head being basically a psychopath.
        That’s also the reason why I think that atheist have stronger moral values than believers and anarchist are better citizens than political activists (left or right).



      • Richard Nikoley on March 12, 2011 at 12:04

        “Humor me won’t you.. instead of avoiding the question, why not answer it rationally?”

        Why? It’s an irrational question. I don’t answer irrational, ethics on the fringe, emergency situation questions.

        For example: “Thus what would stop one attacking and eating the guy up the road from here who has been confined to a wheel chair all his life, and whose mind never developed beyond that of a 2 year olds?”

        What is stopping one now? Huh? Answer _that_.



      • Mango on March 12, 2011 at 13:05

        gallier, lucky then that those things are not holding me back from doing anything.



      • Mango on March 12, 2011 at 13:07

        Richard, you ask a bizarre question that I would have thought you know the answer to. It is likely morals that are holding you back from doing those things. Or for those that are fully without them, the physical threat of law.



      • Tracy on March 12, 2011 at 14:31

        Slippery slope, anyone?



      • JLL on March 13, 2011 at 05:38

        Mango,

        As others have pointed out, that’s a fringe scenario, but to answer it anyway, if you could prove that someone’s brain will never develop any reasoning power, then that person would not occupy the same moral realm either. And so you could pretty much do what you like.

        In reality, though, his/her parents would probably prevent you from doing such things, because they would be the legal owners of that person. And in reality, only people with serious psychological issues would actually *want* to eat a retard, and retard-eaters would be viewed with suspicion — despite not actually having broken any moral rules.

        And then there’s the issue whether the damage is irreparable. I would consider it immoral to eat a child, for example, because we know from experience that children eventually become adults.

        And before you accuse me of cruelty (as all moral relativists end up doing), perhaps you should ask yourself why the first question you come up with has to do with eating people in wheel chairs.

        – JLL



      • Ruben on March 17, 2011 at 01:45

        I would have drowned him like an unwanted kitten at the first sign of those symptoms.

        Would I eat him? They don’t call it ‘long pork’ for nothing, so why not? I’ve never really understood this taboo on cannibalism, except from a disease POV.

        Then again: maybe I’m unusual. I’m just a peg leg and a parrot short of being a pirate anyway.



    • Jorge from Venezuela on March 11, 2011 at 06:50

      “why is it you consider only other species fair game? why not other humans? what is the difference for you?”

      We usually don´t eat each other as the same reason lions usually don´t eat other lions, the meat don´t give the same nutrition as the one of grazing animals. Is all about nutritional value, we instinctively go for the grass-fed ruminants, as those provide the best nutrition for us.

      But under survival circumstances lions will eat another lions or carnivores species and even cubs from rival lions. This is very rare, but it does happends.
      But also under survival mode we will do so, to memory comes the most famous case of Andes Plane Crash in 1972, there is a movie called “Alive” and also a documental called “Stranded” about this famous case.
      And if you wonder more about this you can look in Zoology books or Discovery or Animal Planet documentals. Also in history books you will find lots of canibalism example. To memory comes the Amazon canibal tribes that existed until past century.
      We also usually kill others humans for the same reason lions kill another lions, territory and resources.

      My logic and arguments are based in information, observation and experience.
      I went to live in the Jungle with native indian tribes for 6 months and was an eye opener for me.

      Do you want to experience the true?, then do yourself a favour and get away from your city (zoo) and go in the wild. Then comeback here and try to make a valid pro-vegetarian argument.

    • Richard Nikoley on March 11, 2011 at 07:32

      Mango says:

      “Also, even if we have been predominantly flesh eaters in the past, as far as I am aware, it is often the breaking free of fixed habits which enable humans to evolve. Perhaps it is time for us to step free of the dark ages, and realise that kill or be killed is not the only path.”

      I don’t know where this bizarre notion comes from that just because we hunt to eat that it must mean we’ve full of blood lust and drives to dominate. A simpler explanation if that we’re hungry and that’s our food source. There was something going around the webs the other day that I don’t have the link for handy, a series of photos with three lions playing with a young gazelle, petting it, licking it, then letting it go on its way. They weren’t interested in killing it just to kill it and my observation with human behavior has been along those lines as well.

      Our family ethic growing up as hunters of deer & elk, game birds and fish is that everything was always respected as food and used to the fullest. And we had a natural disdain that I harbor to this very day towards trophies. Most hunters I’ve ever known behave the same way.

      It’s also about nutrition. Now, you may be perfectly happy on a diet of fruit. More power to you. But I’m going to go with the greater likelihood that my own biology is optimized to the extent I get closer to a varied diet of animals and plants because I have the authority of millions of years of evolution that says it’s the most likely scenario, as well as the authority of seeing how it has radically changed my body composition and general health over these last four years.

      • Mango on March 11, 2011 at 12:53

        “full of blood lust and drives to dominate…” Sorry, I thought I said “kill or be killed is not the only path”, it would help if you didn’t twist words, or misquote. You say “everything was always respected as FOOD”.. That’s my point really, you never respected it as an animal, a living breathing individual that clearly wanted not to be hunted, slaughtered and butchered.



      • Zach on March 11, 2011 at 13:37

        Mango, you should respond to Jorge from Venezuela’s post above.

        Also so you are saying the people who eat meat cant respect the animal? Native americans were about as respectful and and spiritual as you get when it came to hunting and using animals. Do you believe they didnt really respect the animal?



      • Mango on March 11, 2011 at 16:22

        Hi Zach,
        I have responded to Jorge, i think, but somehow must have done so from the wrong place as my response got added further down..

        I am saying that people who eat meat DO not respect the animal. yes. To suppose otherwise would imply that if you were to kill me for food, and even use every part of me, without my will, and with my very clear objections, this would be respecting me. If you think I am twisting the fact, using a self aware human as an example instead of an animal, (even though I think it’s been made clear hear that probably the majority of people present consider humans to be animals too), substitute a brain dead human, or a long term alzheimers patient barely aware of where he or she is instead, and tell me you can respectfully kill them. It cannot be done. It is an oxymoron.



      • el-bo on March 11, 2011 at 16:35

        the ‘respect’ thing, bound up in various ancient tribal ritual, stands up to as much scrutiny as most religious rituals



      • Mango on March 11, 2011 at 17:27

        el-bo wrote:

        “the ‘respect’ thing, bound up in various ancient tribal ritual, stands up to as much scrutiny as most religious rituals”

        .. Well said!



      • VelaCreations on March 11, 2011 at 21:13

        so, you don’t respect plants? or air? or water? or yourself?



      • Mango on March 11, 2011 at 21:35

        I respect sentient beings.



      • Richard Nikoley on March 11, 2011 at 22:31

        “I am saying that people who eat meat DO not respect the animal. yes. To suppose otherwise would imply that if you were to kill me for food, and even use every part of me, without my will, and with my very clear objections, this would be respecting me.”

        Mango:

        Tell it to the lions.

        This animal is gonna go cook a ribeye.

        Look: have your fairy tales. I no more care than I do for so many of my family who can’t seem to get over the fear of an imagined space God with soopwer pow3rz and he’s gonna fuck ’em.

        You know what? I sleep right next to two rat terriers every night. I love them dearly and the oldest, 12 years, 100% raw meat/organ/bone fed is in better health and energy than your average 6 yr old dog.

        Frankly, I doubt I could eat them even if the shit totally hit the fan. I love them too much and for too long. I’d just rather wilt away.

        That’s how selfish I am, and I mean that literally. Everything I just told you is out of profound selfishness. I wonder if you have ever heard that. If not, stop and contemplate. My values are profoundly important to me. Thee are values I would rather die than not have. Selfish.

        Why, really, do you do anything at all? Is it really out of concern for others, because that’s so easy and there are a million lapdog fools anywhere you look?

        Or, is it simpler? For me, I simply have values. I care about my values. Some, I might kill for.

        I’m profoundly selfish and so many people benefit from it. And that’s because I value them, just as I do my little furries under the sheets.



      • VelaCreations on March 12, 2011 at 06:41

        “I respect sentient beings.”

        What a convenient statement to fit your argument. So, you draw an invisible and arbitrary line, place superiority on yourself and other species that have something in common, and use that to support an unnatural lifestyle.

        So, by saying that, I assume you don’t respect non-sentient beings. What a disgraceful stance.



      • Melissa Fritcher on March 12, 2011 at 10:27

        If animals REALLY wanted to avoid being eaten, they’d evolve to prevent it. Frankly, I think their inability to grow thumbs and fight back is all the proof I need that they want to be in my belly.

        Conversely, the people being eaten by tigers because they are told they can’t fight back and just taking it w/o a fight, and people starving to death in remote parts of the world, and living in tents because they can’t build proper dwellings to protect themselves from the elements and earthquakes and ‘need aid’ to help rebuild, have little sympathy from me for not fighting back and moving to better resources.

        Survival of the fittest, smartest, better armed – brains and brawn and weapons. If you don’t demand better for yourself and go out and get it – you deserve what happens to you.



      • Reid on March 12, 2011 at 12:21

        Would any species be sentient if they didn’t evolve eating meat?



      • Mango on March 12, 2011 at 13:10

        Reid.. hmm cows? giraffe, elephant? sheep? or do you fail to recognise their sentience?



      • Reid on March 12, 2011 at 20:44

        Sorry. Was thinkin sapience.



      • VelaCreations on March 12, 2011 at 22:02

        who defines sentience, and why must it be respected? Why is a plant not sentient or worth of your respect? Your whole life depends on it, after all. Maybe it should deserve some respect for giving you life.



      • michael on March 14, 2011 at 13:45

        So you’re cool with logging, for example, because trees aren’t sentient beings? And you’re cool with clearing forests to make way for more soy fields? Just curious.



      • Mango on March 14, 2011 at 16:00

        michael, why would you even suppose that I was OK with those things? I gave no indication that that could be the case at all. I merely stated I respect sentience. Making a statement like that, does not preclude me from respecting other things.



      • el-bo on March 14, 2011 at 16:52

        “Frankly, I doubt I could eat them even if the shit totally hit the fan. I love them too much and for too long. I’d just rather wilt away.”

        such is the innate survival mechanism of man…why is it so absurd that anyone could extend this ability (to love dumb, dependent creatures) to all sentient beings ??



      • Richard Nikoley on March 14, 2011 at 17:14

        “why would you even suppose that I was OK with those things?”

        He probably wasn’t anymore than you would suppose that people would be OK with eating their children when you brought up that red herring.

        What goes around comes around.



      • Mango on March 14, 2011 at 17:17

        Richard, when did I ever suppose that people would be OK eating their children? Please don’t make things up!



      • Richard Nikoley on March 14, 2011 at 17:33

        A little problem with reading comprehension today, Mango?

        Might want to up the fat intake. After all, we’re all fat heads, literally.



      • michael on March 15, 2011 at 07:49

        Mango,

        What Richard said:-)

        Richard,

        Thanks for that video clip. Simply stunning in its beauty. My son is using it in a presentation he is giving at school on eco-systems. It says just about everything that needs to be said. Thanks as well for this incredible blog. By far the most interesting and authentic site I have come across.



      • Lisa Wainer on April 13, 2011 at 03:13

        I found this really beautiful and authentic



      • Lisa Wainer on April 13, 2011 at 03:14

        Arghhh! This came up in the wrong fucking place!



      • Lisa Wainer on April 13, 2011 at 03:16

        Richard, it was meant to be under your story about your dogs – I don’t dare try that again (new to all this posting)



      • Ruben on March 17, 2011 at 02:02

        You assume that respect is a zero-sum game. It isn’t. I truly respect livestock. I wish them the best possible treatment, and pay through the nose to see that they get it. That, however, does not mean I won’t eat them. Why? Because I respect my own feelings (both physical an emotional feelings) still slightly more.

        Wrong conclusion: 100% respect for myself, 0% respect for livestock
        Right conclusion: 100% respect for myself, 99% for livestock.

        Or, to give another example: I disagree with you, and I think you are trolling. This means I don’t respect you 100%. That doesn’t mean I automatically think you are the most evil person in the word, deserving 0% respect. I just don’t respect you as much as I do respect myself (100%). And any action I take will be based on that comparison. I will still, even though I disagree with you, let you do whatever you want. Until it clashes with my needs, at which time your needs are by definition considered inferior to mine. Always. Without exception.



    • Travis on March 11, 2011 at 11:21

      ” … it is often the breaking free of fixed habits which enable humans to evolve …”

      Define habit. Could you provide some examples of these habits and how they’re tied to the evolution of homo sapiens sapiens? What specific past habits are you referring to that have altered our course? Dig further back in human lineage if need be.

      What does evolution mean to you? It it moral or philosophical rather than selection of traits and advantages? Can morals and philosophy drive evolution somehow? Can the mind triumph over biology?

      • Travis on March 11, 2011 at 11:42

        Sorry, I meant to address the questions above to Mango.



      • Mango on March 11, 2011 at 17:19

        Hi Travis,
        yes, I was probably wrong in saying that. In any case, I am no evolution expert. And due to the glaring amount of missing links, I am not altogether certain that that is how we got here. Don’t misinterpret me, I am not saying we got here through some other method, just saying that I don’t necessarily follow the theory of evolution as pure undoubted fact. A lot of people here seem to talk of things as being factual, when all there is is evidence, without concrete proof, as far as I am concerned, everybody here is expressing belief, whether they hide behind supposed dubious scientific fact or not is irrelevant. My opinions are belief. They could be wrong, I far from consider myself beyond error.



    • Sonagi on March 11, 2011 at 18:00

      “erhaps it is time for us to step free of the dark ages, and realise that kill or be killed is not the only path.”

      Didn’t you learn about food webs back in third grade? Predators help keep prey populations manageable. When predator populations decline, prey populations increase, leading to depletion of plant resources and starvation. Predators, including humans, are not evil but a vital part of every ecosystem.

      ‘In every given scenario, is it not always a good rule of thumb to try and put ourselves in the mind of the others our actions effect, and hypothesise, “how would we feel subject to similar threats and/or invasions of our free will?”.’

      Yes and no. It is good to empathize with others, but that empathy should not prevent from us ensuring our own survival. We are all here today because our ancestors were sometimes cooperative and sometimes selfish. Animals do not have free will, and arguably, human free will isn’t completely free; that is, we do not have complete conscious control over decision-making.

      Secular humanism that ignores or contradicts science and reasoning is religion in disguise.

      • Mango on March 11, 2011 at 18:22

        Sonagi,
        any empathy I may have for animals does not jeopardize my own survival. That’s really the point. Vegetarians and vegans have comparable life expectancies to their flesh eating counterparts, they can and do live as happy and fulfilled lives as meat eaters, none of this can be questioned, indeed, some statistics have shown that the vegan life expectancy surpasses the omnivores. I don’t take any of that seriously myself. so why should one not use ones given empathy to let others live, as we too would let be lived?



      • Sonagi on March 12, 2011 at 05:22

        Your comparison of health-conscious vegetarians and vegans versus flesheaters who mostly consume a SAD and are sedentary shows that one can live a long time eating no meat. That does not mean that everyone would thrive on a vegetarian or vegan diet or that it is an optimal diet for most people. Type II diabetes runs rampant on my father’s side of the family. A low carb diet is ideal for people with or at risk of the disease. A vegetarian low-carb diet would be limited and monotonous, a low-carb vegan diet almost impossible. Beans and legumes are fairly high in protein, but most are still high in carbs.

        Your response maintains the assumption that killing livestock is cruel. I say it is not. Unlike wild animals, livestock exist only because the farmer bred them and fed them. If it weren’t for farmers, the cattle, pigs, chickens, and other farm animals never would have experienced life. For most factory farm animals, no life at all is better than a life in confinement. The livestock on the local farms from which I buy meat are free to roam in the sunshine. Whether on a farm or in the wild, all living things must die to give life to others. Livestock raised humanely are killed quickly and relatively painlessly. The humane method of killing shows respect for the sentience of the animal. Remember that these animals would not have enjoyed life at all if it weren’t for the farmer who raised them If the farmer released them into the wild, that would condemn them to a cruel death by injury, starvation, or being chased and ripped apart by another animal. Even if the farmer spent his meager earnings on maintaing the animals, they will still die of disease or old age, their meat unsuitable for human consumption. Death is unavoidable. Death gives life. If you’re not comfortable killing or eating animals, then don’t do so. Views about killing animals are personal beliefs, not universal truths. Six billion people, six billion unique brains. I co-exist easily with that reality. How about you?



      • Mango on March 12, 2011 at 13:18

        Yes, of course I believe killing livestock is cruel. Just put yourself in the place of the cow.. dumb down your IQ some in the experiment if you want. Saying that they only exist because farmers bred them justifies nothing, again, I will substitute humans in their place, and say your logic is saying that if humans are bred purposefully for meat, and exist only for that reason, then it’s not cruel to kill them. They never would have experienced life had they not been cloned and allowed to grow. There is no logic in this argument at all. no doubt you may tell me “but they’re humans!” so what, but they’re cattle! Sure every living thing must die, that does not make it right to end someones life prematurely.

        Yes, I coexist easily with the reality of 6 billions plus other unique human brains, why shouldn’t I?



      • Sonagi on March 12, 2011 at 13:42

        I don’t put myself in the place of a cow because I am not a cow. As Richard’s post from Edwin Locke explains so lucidly what people across the globe intuitively understand, human beings possess reasoning and thinking that distinguishes them from other forms of life. If you wish to ignore this distinction and give animals the same value as humans, that’s your perogative.



      • Sonagi on March 12, 2011 at 13:46

        What is a premature death? No living thing on this planet is guaranteed to live to a ripe old age. Living things die in all stages of life. Laws reflecting universal human values have determined that it is not right to end someone’s life although exceptions are made in cases of capital punishment, self defense, and war.



      • Mango on March 12, 2011 at 14:07

        Sonagi said: “I don’t put myself in the place of a cow because I am not a cow.”

        So, why would you put your self in the place of anybody else, as you are not anybody else? “I don’t put myself in the place of you, because I am not you”. Honestly, surely you can think of better reasoning than that?

        “human beings possess reasoning and thinking that distinguishes them from other forms of life.”

        As I’m learning from commentors here, not every human is capable of reasoning and thinking to that level, so it’d be ok to eat those ones right?? What you don’t see what I am getting at, is that you seem to argue that the difference and the factor that allows us to treat other animals differently is their differing intellectual prowess, and yet, disagree when the same logic is applied to other humans. I am not ignoring the difference in intellect between cattle and human, not at all, I am fully aware they are on a different level of thinking, what you do ignore however, is that in terms of their ability to wish to survive and live in safety, we are more on a par.



      • Sonagi on March 12, 2011 at 14:22

        I put myself in the place of other humans because I am a human. Human identification with and empathy for other humans appears to be universal, judging by my travels around the globe to countries where people did not look like me or speak my language yet showed kindenss and hospitality to a stranger among them.

        Individual humans may not possess high cognitive function either due to birth defects or damage from accidents or illness, yet they are generally accorded the same rights as other humans because, as explained, humans across the globe recognize other members of the species as equals. I look at a car accident victim lying in a vegetative state in a hospital and think, “That could be me.” I never look at a cow and think, “That could be me” because I do not believe in souls or reincarnation.



      • Sonagi on March 12, 2011 at 14:30

        You appear to have overlooked my earlier statements noting that I, like most humans on the planet, do not accord animals the same value as humans. I do not ignore the fact that animals want to stay alive. It’s that I am comfortable killing and eating an animal even though it doesn’t want that to happen.



    • Dave K on March 12, 2011 at 10:30

      maybe grain fed vegans but certainly not other humans

  12. David Csonka on March 10, 2011 at 18:41

    Just how bears can smell the menstruation, lions can smell the testosterone.

  13. Dominic DiCarlo on March 10, 2011 at 19:06

    The video is a beautiful expression of the moral order of nature prior to ethics grounded in monotheism, Kant, Mill, Rawls and everything cognitive. It harkens back to a time immemorial – in illo tempore – a mythic time, when a moral ecology operated free of “civilized “constraints. It is more than Rousseau’s “noble savage” metaphor – understood anthropomorphically. It underscores a tacit trust in the workings of nature. Such a world view has receded and faded away under our hubris.

  14. chuck on March 10, 2011 at 19:13

    i just realized that vegetarians fail to recognize that we are just another animal on this planet. we have primal urges that should not be denied.

    • Mango on March 10, 2011 at 20:04

      I have no primal urge to kill anything. If I were to hazard a guess, I’d say that the vast majority of meat eaters also do not find themselves in possession of such urges. Or were you referring to other primal urges that vegans and omnivores surely share. How can you reach a conclusion that we fail to recognise that humans too, are animals? I find such conclusions quite illogical

      • Al Ciampa on March 10, 2011 at 21:51

        Mango,

        I was reading through the comments thinking that you’re one of the first vegan/plant folks who actually had a amiable but argumentative demeanor, and thought out your point. Good on you; I give you credit for posting to what is a place where you’re ideas are in the minority.

        My comment goes to this last comment of yours, however:

        You and others as well, do not have the primal urge to kill because you are evolving yourself away from what is human. You’re diet, which is essentially your chief assimilation of your environment, is signaling to your chemistry to downgrade your hunter status. Essentially, from a human standpoint, you’re sick; or better yet, you are currently have been, and are, evolving into something else.

        It is not an urge to kill – it is an urge to hunt – to feed oneself. Don’t listen to some of the obvious egocentrical, “I have big balls” type of teenage testosterone-filled commenters, as they are skewing the subject. Think binocular vision and why you gaze at quick moving things in your field of view – we react to motion, like all predators.

        The urge to hunt, and ability to hunt is there. You’ve evolved into some sort of pseudo-human, due to living in society. Your trying to use your evolved brain, the one that your ancestors fought to hand down to you, to figure out how we don’t have to be that animal any longer. You’re not wrong, you’re just may be completely dissatisfied – and… other than human. Evolution is always happening.

        I personally don’t care if I’m an apex predator or sea slug – I just wanted the intense gut pain to stop. Eating in suit with my ancestry repaired that problem. Others who feel no pain or dysfunction from an “other than human diet” are eating with their current state of evolution (one would think), but it also follows, that it may be, “other than human”.

        As to your comment about enslaving each other – yes, I agree. It’s part of the ride. What are there, 7 billion of us now, almost? Half of us (at least) should spontaneously implode. Who should choose? No one, it should just happen. There are too many of us, we’re like a virus out of control; but nature will take care of that soon enough. Welcome to deep recesses of my thoughts.

        Lastly, and again, I appreciate you coming here and sharing your thoughts in the face of adversity – well done, lad.

        -Al



      • Mango on March 10, 2011 at 22:29

        Hi Al,

        You mention that we have lost that primal urge through the diet we have chosen, but I I propose that it is not only the vegans that no longer have the urge to kill, or hunt or whatever.. the majority of city dwelling meat eaters likely feel the same way. I know this is true for the meat eaters I know.

        we all react to motion, yes, all predators and the hunted alike. this is just part of being alive and aware of our surroundings.

        You suppose that the 7 billion humans on the planet are too many, and like a virus, I propose that all 7 billion could theoretically fit within Eire, with more than 1 square meter each.. ok.. not much space, but really, considering the size of the planet, there is probably enough space for twice as many people, the problem is not how many of us we are, but of how we live, what we eat etc. The cities are a big part of that problem, they are surely unsustainable and the realist within me foresees their inevitable collapse.

        anyhow, thanks for sharing your thoughts,



      • _trgdr on March 11, 2011 at 10:28

        You are probably right in saying that most city-dwelling meat eaters don’t have the urge to hunt, or kill, or whatever. And that’s too bad, because it lets us remove ourselves from whatever ethical issues might arise from what we are eating. To me, this is like buying stuff from Walmart without examining the unpleasant strategies they use to get their prices so low.
        One of my vegetarian friends once told me that his vegetarianism extends over all animals that he wouldn’t be willing to kill, and by that definition, so does mine. It should also be said, though, that if I had a cow and a shotgun, I would also have steak for dinner.



      • dr. gabriella kadar on March 11, 2011 at 13:36

        I think if there was a severe food shortage, the city dwellers around here would rapidly dispatch the Canada Geese, Mallard Ducks, Pigeons, Raccoons, Squirrels, Ground Hogs and stray cats. What do you think happens in war zones? During World War 2, city dwellers ate fallen horses. The ‘last in’ got the lungs.



      • VelaCreations on March 12, 2011 at 06:09

        The planet cannot and will not support 7 billion humans. As soon as the cheap energy is gone, our civilization we won’t be able to support such numbers.

        As far as space is concerned, that is hardly relevant. We could fit a lot of people on the moon, but humans need more than space to survive.



      • Robert on March 11, 2011 at 00:29

        “I have no primal urge to kill anything.”

        Be glad then that you live comfortably in this age or you would have been the shame of the tribe.



      • Mango on March 11, 2011 at 12:56

        Robert, yes, no doubt.



      • HeMan on March 11, 2011 at 07:03

        I love killing animals. The stalking, the target, the months of practise with the bow, all culminating in a clean kill that will feed my family for months.

        The only reason people don’t “feel” these urges is that they’ve been brainwashed into containing their instincts. Its understandable, especially when there are so many of us now, that we try to be more gentle in order to keep social peace. But to deny what runs through your veins, the two million years of hunting in our genes, is to deny your true self.



      • Becky on March 12, 2011 at 20:43

        “The only reason people don’t “feel” these urges…”
        I don’t think predators have an urge to kill, anymore than a locust has the urge to strip a tree bare. We have an urge to eat. It just so happens we’re optimized to get that food via killing (and locusts by stripping trees).

        I’ve never killed an animal, but I’ve done a good bit of veggie production, and I’ve never had the urge to pick cucumbers. I’ve had an urge to EAT a cucumber, and picking it was just something I had to do to get there. Growing was enjoyable insomuch as it heightened the anticipation of how good that cuke would taste. While, I have no doubt that the HUNT is a highly enjoyable experience, I have a hard time accepting the actual kill as enjoyable beyond the payoff.



      • John on March 12, 2011 at 21:59

        “I don’t think predators have an urge to kill, anymore than a locust has the urge to strip a tree bare.”

        Yes, predators don’t have the urge to kill, because that’s a conceptual abstraction. What they have is the urge to chase things that are intensely afraid, to pin them down with their teeth and/or rend them while they squirm, make high pitched noises, and bleed out. Does that sound less sinister? Does it seem more moral-appropriate to pretend that no desire to inflict ill is intended by the hunter, human or animal? Real predation is vicious, and brutal, and painful…and the predator thoroughly enjoys the act from beginning to end.



      • Sue on March 12, 2011 at 21:13

        We don’t have to hunt for our food but if we had to we would.



  15. Rob on March 10, 2011 at 19:37

    Thanks for posting this. This takes me back to when I was a kid in the 80’s and was horrified when I watched those Mutual of Omaha shows on Saturdays and saw those predators running down, killing, and eating their prey. As I grew older and wiser, I learned to appreciate the necessity of things occurring in nature as they are supposed to. Brutal yet beautiful at the same time.

  16. Alan on March 10, 2011 at 19:52

    The second to last shot where the lion is dragging the rest of the carcass away, you can see him thinking, “I’ll let you have that bit but you’re not getting any more” . Classic.

  17. Lord Dianabol on March 10, 2011 at 20:52

    Mango – you say “Also, even if we have been predominantly flesh eaters in the past, as far as I am aware, it is often the breaking free of fixed habits which enable humans to evolve. Perhaps it is time for us to step free of the dark ages, and realise that kill or be killed is not the only path.”

    Breaking free of fixed but good habits is idiotic. Change should be embraced only if it confers a survival advantage. It’s because of flesh/animal consumption that we’ve progressed to such brain develpment. Regressing to vegetarianism in whatever shape or form fights evolution and may even result in a smaller brain.

    You know what? Just shut the fuck up and fuck the hell off if all you have is an emotional vego fucktard soapbox wail. Eating some meat might do you good a lot of good, it might even give you the brain development to come up with a better argument.

    • Al Ciampa on March 10, 2011 at 21:55

      Lord Dianabol,

      Is your username a reference to exogenous anabolic steroids? Or just coincidence?

      -Al

    • Mango on March 10, 2011 at 23:03

      Diana,
      temper temper! I don’t see that you have said anything particularly insightful, you offer no evidence to support that a change in either direction will result in anything.

      • Lente on March 11, 2011 at 00:32

        Your trying to take the moral high ground, how pathetic.



      • anand srivastava on March 11, 2011 at 05:49

        Durian Rider with a new name.



      • Liz Downunder on March 12, 2011 at 03:17

        Hardly. Mango’s communication has been courteous and not inflammatory. Peaceful, actually. 🙂



      • Mango on March 12, 2011 at 13:20

        Anand, durian riders approach would no doubt be radically different to my own. He is more into the whole physical nutritional science side of things, I am perhaps more cerebral.



  18. TJ on March 10, 2011 at 21:33

    I’ve lost the link, but I’m sure I saw a similar video of DurianRider and 15 skinny vegans using tennis rackets to chase off a chimp in order to steal its bananas…

    • Al Ciampa on March 10, 2011 at 22:27

      It was three chimps, dude – don’t exaggerate for effect.

      • anand srivastava on March 11, 2011 at 05:26

        It was actually 3 chimps that drove the 15 vegans, to eat their bananas. Ofcourse they would have left the majority of it back for them, so that they can get more the next day ;-).



  19. Matthew Perry on March 10, 2011 at 22:06

    Perhaps humans are not the apex predators and skilled persistance hunters as we’d like to believe – perhaps our preference for meat and consequent selection for intelligence/big brains came from our ability to scavenge from and outwit the other predators?

    • Ruben on March 11, 2011 at 00:23

      That depends on the definition of apex predator. If you define it simply as being the strongest, baddest animal, then we certainly are not the apex predator. If you define it as being extremely successful within one’s environment, then in the example above humans are clearly dominant. The behaviour seen there is the same as what bigger cats such as lions do to smaller cats (e.g. cheetahs). So in that order we outranks any predator in the savannah (possibly excepting hyenas). You could say we are so effective, we have no need to even go hunting for ourselves. To put it in human terms: who is more powerful, a burly mafia hitman, or the geriatric stick-figure capo that orders him about?

    • anand srivastava on March 11, 2011 at 05:29

      No that is ruled out by the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis. The brain increases after the diet changes not the other way around. Encephalization may increase without diet change as it does not involve brain matter growth. I guess we have had both.

    • Richard Nikoley on March 11, 2011 at 07:49

      It’s likely some of both, Matthew. That’s a fresh kill and they didn’t have to work very hard to get it. Obvious solution. At other times they must hunt for food. Survival likely demands both scavenging and hunting. Or, all “gathering” isn’t just plants.

  20. J. Stanton - gnolls.org on March 10, 2011 at 23:44

    The irony of the situation is that the wildebeest the lions are eating was very likely to have been originally killed by a spotted hyena, and appropriated by the lions. There are regions of Africa (e.g. the Ngorongoro crater) in which lions steal over ~90% of their food from hyenas!

    This goes all the way down. Lions steal from everyone. Hyenas regularly steal from cheetahs, wild dogs, caracals, and even leopards. Cheetahs lose the overwhelming majority of their kills to other predators, because they usually hunt solo and they can’t just break their prey’s neck: they have to suffocate it, and between that and catching their breath, someone else often shows up and appropriates the carcass.

    In general, the bigger and meaner the predator, the less it hunts for itself and the more it steals others’ kills.

    • Ruben on March 11, 2011 at 00:59

      Just posted above that I had my doubts about where we stood in relation to hyenas. Thanks for clearing that up. In a few nature vids I’ve seen, it was the hyenas stealing the lions’ kill, so I assumed that was the norm.

      • J. Stanton - gnolls.org on March 11, 2011 at 01:44

        Ruben: it generally depends on whether male lions are around or not.

        A lioness is about twice the size of a hyena, and hyenas will absolutely chase lionesses away (and even kill them) if they outnumber them sufficiently. However, a male lion is 4-5x the size of a hyena – and it is extremely rare for any number of hyenas to stand up to a male lion, as it’s basically guaranteed to result in the death of at least one hyena.

        On the whole (and it varies greatly between regions) lions kill about 40% of what they eat. Hyenas kill about 60-70%, and cheetahs and wild dogs kill basically 100% of what they eat. These figures are all very approximate and based on memory, so don’t take them too seriously.

        Note that there are several species of hyena: brown and striped hyenas are almost entirely scavengers. I’m speaking solely of the spotted (“laughing”) hyena, a pack hunter who evolved from scavengers, and has retained the ability to crush and digest bone.

        (As you’ll note from the name of my website and my novel, spotted hyenas are a subject of great interest to me. They’re fascinating creatures – extremely effective predators, and as smart as monkeys on certain intelligence tests – and we’re just starting to learn what that might tell us about the evolution of general-purpose intelligence.)



      • Richard Nikoley on March 11, 2011 at 08:56

        J Stanton

        Thank you for being such a valuable contributor to the comments on this blog. You have surely earned the right to use your own discretion to link up any of your great articles on you blog, or your book, whenever you deem it to suit your fancy.

        Job well done, man.



      • J. Stanton - gnolls.org on March 11, 2011 at 11:48

        Thank you, Richard. You do good work and I enjoy it here.



  21. Tomasz on March 11, 2011 at 00:42

    In Africa Blacks steal from lions.

  22. Asclepius on March 11, 2011 at 01:32

    “humans are the apex predator” – I (mildly) disagree here. Apex predators are predators that have no predators of their own, residing at the top of their food chain. But google ‘human parasites’ and you’ll see that even those guys above are a walking snack for certain species – particularly in the troical latitudes. Maybe we should use the term food cycle rather than food chain?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parasites_of_humans

    Interestingly Wiki suggests apex predators “have a crucial role in maintaining the health of their ecosystems”. Presumeably preventing overgrazing by herbivores. This underlines the fact that veganism will not resolve animal suffering. If you don’t ‘manage’ herbivore numbers, then nature will do it by famine.

    Superb footage.

    • Asclepius on March 11, 2011 at 01:41

      From Richard Dawkins:

      “The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease.”

      • J. Stanton - gnolls.org on March 11, 2011 at 01:50

        “It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored.”

        Despite our pride in our own intelligence, foresight, and problem-solving ability, humans have not proved ourselves an exception.



      • Asclepius on March 11, 2011 at 02:23

        Ah yes – I missed off the crucial next paragraph! Cheers.



      • Asclepius on March 11, 2011 at 02:27

        And for those with an misguided anthropogenic view on life:

        ” In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”



      • Richard Nikoley on March 11, 2011 at 09:03

        Asclepius:

        Indeed. I hold that the only purpose that exists in the universe is that purpose any given individual chooses for his life. And further, it is only up to that lone individual to see to its fulfillment. No one else cares, nor should they be expected to. They have their own purpose in life to see to.



    • Richard Nikoley on March 11, 2011 at 08:43

      Asclepius:

      I’m going to disagree in that humans do have a chief predator: humans. Now, if you mean to say no other important ones in other species I would agree, except of course in the case of microbes.

      Then again, there is the recognition that besides natural causes, governments kill more humans than anything, something like 200 million in the 20th century alone.

      • Richard Nikoley on March 11, 2011 at 08:44

        Google ‘Death by Government’. It’s a book and all the figures are in there.



      • Asclepius on March 11, 2011 at 11:43

        I guess what I was really trying to say is that although we are considered to be at the top of the food chain, viruses and parasites etc… feed off of us. Thus I view the food chain as more of a cycle/circle than a pyramid or heirarchycal structure. The black death, measles, small pox and flu etc being examples.

        I like your idea of other humans ‘being their own chief predator’ – I can’t help but reflect on what 30BAD do to the health of their followers. ‘Death by Government’ has just gone on to the reading list.

        Cheers,



  23. Rip on March 11, 2011 at 02:52

    “What balls-growing supplement they’re taking, I don’t know.”

    Best guess – MEAT.

    It probably isn’t something herbal.

  24. Joseph on March 11, 2011 at 05:39

    There is a beautiful balance in life: each of us lives because we all die, and we all feed off of each other. Animosity is not necessarily involved; one does what one must given the stage at which one exists.

    Thanks for the video, Richard.

  25. EdwinB on March 11, 2011 at 05:42

    Here in Hawaii watching the news with the wife at 3:40 AM. Nothing much to report so far first waves have rolled in with no damage, though the science crew is saying the first waves are not the worst typically.

  26. Jeremy Voluntaryist on March 11, 2011 at 10:58

    The article and video were great. I had to keep skipping comments due to the vegan trite being spewed. The false logic of vegetarianism is astounding.

    Argue all you want, twist logic all you want, the theory/ idea is full of holes and makes little sense except to it’s believers.

  27. Anon on March 11, 2011 at 11:45

    Sorry, but if humans are the apex predators, they should just not be stealing from lions! Go find your own meat for god’s sakes. Pretty lame if you ask me. They probably left half the lions underfed.

    • Richard Nikoley on March 11, 2011 at 12:11

      I guess you missed the part where large cats steal a lot of their food too.

      • pfw on March 11, 2011 at 12:17

        I think he missed the part where he learned what apex predator meant.



  28. Asclepius on March 12, 2011 at 02:49

    There was an interesting program aired in the UK a while back called ‘Alone in the Wild’ which featured a guy called Ed Wardle who is dropped into the Yukon wilderness with just basic provisions and cameras to film himself. He has some basic survival skills and attempts to survive completely alone:

    http://naturalmessiah.blogspot.com/2009/09/alone-in-wild.html

    It is absolutely compelling viewing. In one of the programs he is visibly starving on his ‘foraged diet’. Foraging for calories proves to be rather ineffective even with survival skills. After initial reluctance to hunt and kill porcupine he starts to get drawn by hunger in to hunting as a source of calories.

    His hunger gets to the point where he sees a large moose and opines that if he could kill. that his food supply problems would be over – but there was some legal condition he was obliged to adhere to that prevented him from doing so.

    It is still available to watch here:

  29. Anon on March 11, 2011 at 12:30

    Gee, when it is convenient for us, we brag about our intellectual prowess and then other times we justify stealing meat..why?….because of course lions do it too.

    If you want to call humans apex predators..and that includes having brains, use of hands as tools and so much more than those lions have, the least we can do is not steal from animals.

    pfw, I would be interested in finding out what apex predator means to you. Do you also steal from other animals?

    • Paul C on March 11, 2011 at 13:30

      The cats would sue in the Court of Universal Fairness, but the lawyers would get the tenderloins.

    • Jorge from Venezuela on March 11, 2011 at 15:48

      There is not steal, there is a great survival skill in this video, if you can’t see it, I will try to explain:

      They observed and waited until the lions ate the best part from the prey (that translate to the internal organs), knowing the internal organs belong to alpha lion in the group, as they know the alpha leads, they understand that if alpha is satisfied he will be the first one to run whem a menace approach and the rest of the manade will follow. So knowing this the Maasai approach showing no fear and take a piece. Then leave. Maasai have showed to the lions his dominance but also let some meat to the lion. Why they take a part? because they know in a next time they can easily replicate this situation without any confrontation.

      Why lions don’t attack? Because isn’t the first time that this situation happen and lions know they will have some meat leftover.
      Also if a lion tried to attack in the past, it would surely had died pretty fast crossed by an arrow and that knowledge is pretty inside of lion’s genes

    • pfw on March 11, 2011 at 16:16

      Hi. When I use terms like “apex predator”, I prefer to not interpret them according to some random ideology but instead use them as they are technically defined.

      An apex predator is a predator which is not prey to another species. Parasites/bacteria are excluded from this definition, even though they could be said to be predators.

      That’s what apex predator means. How apex predators acquire food varies.

      Hint: every single apex predator “steals food from other animals”.

    • Al Ciampa on March 11, 2011 at 21:18

      WE ARE ANIMALS, YOU IDIOT!

      This is the whole point – a symbiotic relationship with nature – period. Our brain is our evolved “tool”, just like claws, fangs, and/or wings. We brag about our intellectual prowess in the same way a wolf shows his teeth.

      It’s not about respecting nature – that’s an anthropocentric view, it’s about using what’s available. Killing is how it happens, be it wildebeest, fly, frog, carrot, turnip, pig…, or, dare I say it – human. There’s nothing emotional about it until some nut-fuck, less than human comes along and cries about things dying.

      That’s life – get involved, or off yourself, your using up precious resources.

      -Al

      • Richard Nikoley on March 11, 2011 at 21:30

        Amen, Al.

        All the hand ringing simply cause me to wonder why the suicide rate is not a lot higher.

        (I wonder the same thing about those who believe they have a wonderful place in heaven, awaiting them.)



      • Mango on March 11, 2011 at 21:50

        So Al, Richard, anyone really up to the challenge, do you believe that morals have no place in this world? You seem to believe you live on a survival of the fittest planet, where it’s basically kill or be killed, and that really anything goes. Fundamentally, what I am getting at, and have been since my first yet unanswered question to Richard, is if you genuinely consider morals an acceptable qquality, and have them toward other humans, why should other species be excluded. Like, what is the crucial difference that makes humans worthy, but other species not. Please don’t repeat as most have done that they are animals, and we are humans. that doesn’t address my question in the lightest. You have already yourself stated clearly your belief that we too are animals. So what’s the difference real difference?

        Please address the particular quality of an animal that makes them different, don’t just generalize. I’ve heard well, “lions don’t generally kill other lions”, but that looks like you are looking to the lion for inspiration. Surely you can do better than that? If you are saying it’s because they lack our intelligence, or are unaware, then I repeat, why don’t you kill and eat other humans that for whatever reasons also lack those abilities? Or is the only reason because their forms are different to ours? or because the law would punish you for killing another human regardless of his/her mental capacity?



      • Al Ciampa on March 11, 2011 at 22:48

        Mango,

        I’ll tackle this one, but be forewarned, I’ve been toasting the gods of “the great tsunami” (that never hit).

        First, I’m too liquored up to find your original question, so if you don’t mind re-quipping, that would be great.

        Secondly, morals. I believe that morals can be applied to a small group of people, not the the extended human race – that’s getting into an anthropocentric posture. If you think tribal, morals fit nicely; if you think the 7 billion chinless, obese, motorcart shopping, sick, and welfare seeking (and that’s just the DMV!) population, then no, morals don’t apply. It’s an imperfect world, don’t blame me.

        But let me ensure I get at what you’re asking: morals are applied to your particular group of animals – your tribe. They don’t apply to (IMO) to anyone, or anything else. Society skews this idea, more than any statistical measure can be measured. I surely do not have to mention religion in this forum.

        Murder is against the law. Killing is the same thing but outside the law. Those definitions are imposed morals, of a population, unto a population… that cannot take care of itself. Humans aren’t more worthy than other species, they just don’t taste as good. Encroachment might be a better term.

        I think I’ve got at most of your concerns, Mango (considering my condition)… and truly… more power to you. You have much more than half a brain in your head, and no lack of persistence. You’re taking on a whole Platoon of converse opinion (and in the opposing court), and you still remain cordial. It’s enjoyable to go mano a mano with you. I truly hope you’re one of those that has evolved enough to get by without animal substance.

        I’m less evolved, however.

        Cheers bro.

        -Al



      • Mango on March 12, 2011 at 13:45

        Hi Al, thanks for your reply, I appreciate you tackling my question, even though I can’t say I agree with your reply, at least you are being amicable, and not reaching forgone conclusions about who and what you believe I am and stand for. I think my disagreement lies in that you appear to be supposing there is a broad set of shared morals between us, I believe that we each form our own sets that can and do differ radically from individual to individual. Part of my purpose of being here was to try and discover what has made some choose ones that seem incompatible with my own. Not to force my own morals on anyone, but to better understand why others have not reached the same conclusion. It does appear that there is a certain lack of follow through logic here.. Like Edwin, who just answered my post again, above, about comparing livestock with humans.. he claims the difference is our intelligence, and yet, when I have tried to suggest that if that were truly the case, then other humans of equally comparable intellectual ability (to that of the livestock) should also be fair game, I am poo pooed out of here.. I think Richard has been more honest by just stating that basically he doesn’t give a fuck about morals really, and does everything he does for purely selfish reasons, and to satisfy gluttony and his taste for flesh.

        Glad to hear the tsunami fizzled out before reaching your shores, we had a similar issue with a massive cyclone recently, thankfully it skirted around us (rather like most people have done here with the valid questions I’ve posed them 🙂 ).



      • EdwinB on March 12, 2011 at 14:10

        Mango a man is not a cow. Unless I won’t to live alone and harder than neccessary I need to cooperate with other men, so though in some instances a man may be my competitor he may more likely be my collaborator if I am good, clever, and useful.

        A man’s level of cognition is in an entirely different sphere than a cow, pig, or lamb. Those animals could never entertain the abstract thoughts you’ve put forward here. I can’t murder a lesser animal, I can deprive it of life, or cause it pain but I can not by definition murder it.

        A good bit of my morality is based on my religious beliefs, I can’t debate those because they are based on some axiomatic things it would essentially become circular reasoning , or as I like to tell my wife you can’t argue me into liking brussel sprouts or changing my favorite color 🙂

        Reason suggests to me that the life of a man is potentially infinitely more valuable than the life of a livestock animal. Where a man may be breed and feed and literally increase the number of livestock by 10-fold within a decade, the livestock would never do the same.

        Place the cow in front of the Mona Lisa, or a 10 foot high pile of classical irreplaceable paintings. Now set them afire. While the cow may react to the fire or smoke there will be absolutely no sense of loss or reaction to the actual destruction of the works of man.

        Ultimately that is what sets us apart Mango , a man may create and impose at least in a limited sense his will on his surroundings. A cow or a pig can eat, reproduce, and defecate and little else.



      • Mango on March 12, 2011 at 14:16

        OK.. I’m done here, I am growing a little tired of facing irrational and illogical questioning and arguments, and understand there is really little point in me being here, I am clearly wasting my time, people like Jorge who fully don’t understand english and try to redefine the term respect to suit his argument, and all the teenager anger and inability to defend ones point of view without resorting to name calling, threats or insults. the word twisting and misquotes. I have seen enough. I have said enough. Thankyou to those who offered more amicable and welcoming responses, you I admire more.



      • Sonagi on March 12, 2011 at 16:14

        Deriding everyone who disagrees with you as irrational, illogical, and angry and dismissing the factually supported views of a very knowlegeable and articulate commenter because his native language is not English? Thanks for staying classy through the end, Mango.



      • Jorge from Venezuela on March 14, 2011 at 09:02

        Mango said:
        “OK.. I’m done here, I am growing a little tired of facing irrational and illogical questioning and arguments, and understand there is really little point in me being here, I am clearly wasting my time, people like Jorge who fully don’t understand english and try to redefine the term respect to suit his argument”

        I say:
        Your arguments are childish, at most.

        I will defend my position here.

        I understand pretty well your language but writing it, is more complicated, specially the grammar. Understanding English isn’t the same as writing it.

        About making terms suit our arguments that is something we all do in a Debate, is a good tool in any Debate, I did it and you did it, so is a fair game.

        I shared my experience in an approach to make you understand how things works in nature, in the wild! and how unrealistic is your pro-vegetarian position in that context.
        I tried to defend my arguments based in my own experience, if you dislike it then that is a shame for you. I have no problems with you, nor I know you, so I simple don’t care if you feel offended.

        And also I considered that you don’t respect yourself, based on what you wrote here.
        I concluded from your writings, that you can’t understand that you are Human. I want to point you that you are not part of another specie, don’t you get it?. How can you respect yourself? if you state that human morality apply to animals, make I guess, for all you wrote, that you feel ashamed of being Human?.
        That is why I consider that you don’t respect yourself, because basically you don’t accept yourself as an Human.
        Read the Edwin Locke’s short essay that Richard posted in a reply, about animal’s rights and try to understand it, maybe you will get the idea.

        Take in consideration that I read this blog because I am Paleo and Libertarian and I like the “no bullshit, I don’t care and go fuck yourself if you don’t like me” writing style used by Richard here. As I can guess most people here share the same liking.

        So if you come to FreeTheAnimal <===hello!! Freeeee The Aaaniiimaaall, get the clue?) and make a comment with an argument against the approach of the blog, then you should be ready to take the HEAT!,
        If you can't, then good riddance and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out!



      • Walter on March 14, 2011 at 20:26

        That’s what made “a contract is a contract is a contract, but only with another Ferengi” brilliant. The rules only apply to your tribe.



      • Liz Downunder on March 12, 2011 at 04:18

        G’Day Mango. 🙂

        “why don’t you kill and eat other humans that for whatever reasons also lack those abilities?”

        I don’t want to, and I choose not to. I don’t think animals other than humans (ie the lions who sometimes eat other lions) have such choices because they lack the ability to reason. They just run on instinct alone. The paradox of ‘civilised’ society today is we try hard to ignore and undermine our instincts, thinking that doing so is what makes us ‘human’ and not ‘animal’. I don’t have any instinct to kill or eat my fellow human beings. I don’t eat bugs either, but they’re a delicacy in some parts of the world. 🙂



      • Sonagi on March 12, 2011 at 12:01

        “Fundamentally, what I am getting at, and have been since my first yet unanswered question to Richard, is if you genuinely consider morals an acceptable qquality, and have them toward other humans, why should other species be excluded. Like, what is the crucial difference that makes humans worthy, but other species not. ”

        One word: Community. Communities of living things make and enforce rules for the group’s survival. Individuals within the group follow or don’t follow the rules, sometimes out of self-interest. Who defines morality? Religious people think God does. Atheists like me think that humans collectively and individually do. My golden rule is that I act to make the world I want to live. I don’t want to live in a world where other people steal from me or hurt me, so I don’t steal from or hurt others. I do want to live in a world where people make optimal use of natural resources, including other living things.



      • Richard Nikoley on March 12, 2011 at 12:14

        ” Richard, is if you genuinely consider morals an acceptable qquality, and have them toward other humans, why should other species be excluded. Like, what is the crucial difference that makes humans worthy, but other species not. Please don’t repeat as most have done that they are animals, and we are humans. that doesn’t address my question in the lightest. You have already yourself stated clearly your belief that we too are animals. So what’s the difference real difference?”

        I have been planning a post on this issue for some days. might actually get it written today. We’ll see. If not, it will appear on the blog something over the course of the week.

        In the meantime, here’s a decent short essay on the invalidity of the idea that animals have rights.

        ~~~

        By Edwin Locke, Ph.D.

        Recently a sixth grade student threatened to bomb the headquarters of a prominent corporation, the Gillette Company. Gillette’s “crime”? The use of animals to test the safety of their products. This student’s role models have not been so hesitant. In the name of so-called “animal rights,” terrorists have committed hundreds of violent crimes. They have vandalized or fire bombed meat companies, fur stores, fast-food restaurants, leather shops and medical research laboratories across North America. The animal “rights” movement, however, is not about the humane treatment of animals. Its goal is the animalistic treatment of human beings.

        According to these terrorists, it is immoral to eat meat, to wear fur coats or leather shoes, and to use animals in research—even if it would lead to cures for deadly diseases. The terrorists are unmoved by the indisputable fact that animal research saves human lives. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) makes this frighteningly clear: “Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.”

        How do the animal “rights” advocates try to justify their position? As someone who has debated them for years on college campuses and in the media, I know firsthand that the whole movement is based on a single—invalid—syllogism, namely: men feel pain and have rights; animals feel pain; therefore, animals have rights. This argument is entirely specious, because man’s rights do not depend on his ability to feel pain; they depend on his ability to think.

        Rights are ethical principles applicable only to beings capable of reason and choice. There is only one fundamental right: a man’s right to his own life. To live successfully, man must use his rational faculty—which is exercised by choice. The choice to think can be negated only by the use of physical force. To survive and prosper, men must be free from the initiation of force by other men—free to use their own minds to guide their choices and actions. Rights protect men against the use of force by other men.

        None of this is relevant to animals. Animals do not survive by rational thought (nor by sign languages allegedly taught to them by psychologists). They survive through inborn reflexes and sensory-perceptual association. They cannot reason. They cannot learn a code of ethics. A lion is not immoral for eating a zebra (or even for attacking a man). Predation is their natural and only means of survival; they do not have the capacity to learn any other.

        Only man has the power to deal with other members of his own species by voluntary means: rational persuasion and a code of morality rather than physical force. To claim that man’s use of animals is immoral is to claim that we have no right to our own lives and that we must sacrifice our welfare for the sake of creatures who cannot think or grasp the concept of morality. It is to elevate amoral animals to a moral level higher than ourselves—a flagrant contradiction. Of course, it is proper not to cause animals gratuitous suffering. But this is not the same as inventing a bill of rights for them—at our expense.

        The granting of fictional rights to animals is not an innocent error. We do not have to speculate about the motive, because the animal “rights” advocates have revealed it quite openly. Again from PETA: “Mankind is the biggest blight on the face of the earth”; “I do not believe that a human being has a right to life”; “I would rather have medical experiments done on our children than on animals.” These self-styled lovers of life do not love animals; rather, they hate men.

        The animal “rights” terrorists are like the Unabomber and Oklahoma City bombers. They are not idealists seeking justice, but nihilists seeking destruction for the sake of destruction. They do not want to uplift mankind, to help him progress from the swamp to the stars. They want mankind’s destruction; they want him not just to stay in the swamp but to disappear into its muck.

        There is only one proper answer to such people: to declare proudly and defiantly, in the name of morality, a man’s right to his life, his liberty, and the pursuit of his own happiness.



      • Reid on March 12, 2011 at 12:32

        Morals have nothing to do with eating meat. We evolved to eat meat. Which came first; morals or meat eating? Eating meat was most likely one of the primary reasons we developed into the sentient species that we are today. You appear to believe that now that we have developed to this point and we are more thoughtful and moral than other “animals” we should revert back to a species that only feeds on non-sentient species.

        Maybe after millions of years living your way we would develop into those brain dead humans you like to speak of. Then we can be killed off by some superior, meat eating species.



      • Tracy on March 12, 2011 at 14:54

        You’re not going to accept any answer given… so why ask?

        “Like, what is the crucial difference that makes humans worthy (of moral consideration), but other species not.”

        The question itself assumes that people who eat meat have no moral consideration towards animals. In fact, many people of the paleo/primal etc persuasion do, which is why they make an effort to source animals that have been raised… oh blah blah blah, why bother. The difficulty here is that your definition of what constitutes ‘moral’ behaviour is different from Richard’s, and mine, and most others here. We could dance in circles for centuries dealing with that.

        You’ve made a decision that people who eat meat are not ‘moral’ towards animals… we are walking graveyards, and so forth. Nothing we say is going to shed any more light on the subject for you. (So why do I feel compelled to reply… lol?)



  30. Mango on March 11, 2011 at 12:42

    Hi Jorge,
    I suspect that the reason we “usually” don’t eat other humans, has nothing to do with the reasons lions usually don’t eat others of their own species. I mean, vegans would surely be fair game considering our clearly nutritionally superior content from plant eating..

    I have seen the Andes plane crash documentary, and know that cannibalism existed, and likely still goes on in certain fashions in certain corners of the globe. The reason it has really been stopped is because humans have morals that have made us question the habit. I merely propose those same morals can be applied to members of other beings not belonging to our species..

    For your information, I do not live in a city, or even large town, I have spent a good deal of time in natural settings, including jungles, and I am quite aware of how things are out there, does that in your eyes now give me a right to voice my opinion?

    • Asclepius on March 11, 2011 at 13:16

      Hi Mango, I am no anthropologist but I suspect that cannibalism has its roots in tribal rituals rather than in ‘basic sustenance’. The reason it has stopped is probably to do with education and the dying out of a belief that eating an enemy combatants heart will give you his strength. Nothing to do with morals. I’d say it is a gross mistake to confuse tribal cannibalism with (typically western) examples of cannibalism where it was a matter of life and death to eat the flesh of another human.

      On the other hand it would appear that chimpanzees practice cannibalism because they sense meat is nutritionally superior to their usual plant-based diet.

      • Tracy on March 12, 2011 at 14:55

        I’d also wager that as we began settling into larger social groups, we realized it was not in our best interest to let people kill each other for food. If nothing else, it would make dinner parties very awkward.



      • Richard Nikoley on March 12, 2011 at 16:45

        Unless you happen to be a skilled cook like Hannibal.



    • Jorge from Venezuela on March 11, 2011 at 15:08

      Mango said:”I mean, vegans would surely be fair game considering our clearly nutritionally superior content from plant eating”.

      Your words. I am sure under scarcity and lacking of resources, the vegans and vegetarians would we the best choice.

      Mango said: “For your information, I do not live in a city, or even large town, I have spent a good deal of time in natural settings, including jungles, and I am quite aware of how things are out there, does that in your eyes now give me a right to voice my opinion?”

      Are you really aware? I wonder how many time did you spend in the wild? and where? under what circumstances? did you experienced famine and scarcity?

      Because I can only speak from my own experience here, those 6 months deep in the Amazonian jungle, in Amazonas State at South of Venezuela was enough to realize how things are in the wild. The lack of resources and the hability from the natives to find and colect food from the most unimagined places was an eye opener for me.
      When I was with several hours or days without eating and moving, looking for sources or tracking preys and have no more choice that eating what we could gather or hunt, I found myself thriving in snake’s or monkey’s meat or insects or worns or extrange fruits or roots or whatever the natives teached me was good to eat.
      From my experience I can only say to people to appreciate the beauty of the skills of aborigens and respect tribes that can live in those hards places.
      This video shows that beauty. After watching this I would love to also learn from the Maasai Tribe, hope they don’t dissapear before I gather the resources.

      I am pretty sure that if things keep going the way they are heading, (just watched japan’s earthquake in the news) the best bet of survival is in the aboriginal and native tribes that still exist.

      Also Mango is easy to speak shit and make moral standpoints and vegetarianism arguments when you can get your food and supplements easy in the supermarket or even without leaving the comfort of your home with online shopping.

      Just a clue mate, in the wild there is nothing like supermarkets or online shops or supplements. Give me a logical answer to this: In the Amazonian Jungle or African savanna, without access to supplements, how would a vegetarian or vegan get his vitamin b-12 injection or pills?
      Also with few vegetables and only availables in seasons, how would a vegetarian or vegan gather enough vegetables to reach the minimun calories to survive? Take in consideration that everything you gather must be shared in the tribe. (Aboriginals have a deep understanding of community and share everything).

      I can only said as conclusion “The man and his circumstances”

      • J. Stanton - gnolls.org on March 11, 2011 at 15:13

        Well spoken, Jorge. Thanks for sharing.



      • Jorge from Venezuela on March 14, 2011 at 11:27


      • Zach on March 11, 2011 at 16:18

        Richard actually covered getting B12 in the wild in a previous blog post. Just do what gorillas do and eat your own shit.

        I would love to see some vegans be given the choice of surviving by either eating shit or meat.



      • el-bo on March 11, 2011 at 16:29

        “In the Amazonian Jungle or African savanna, without access to supplements, how would a vegetarian or vegan get his vitamin b-12 injection or pills?”

        just like the meat-eaters. they would inadvertently, likely, come into contact with their own fecal matter…in a natural environment, food foraged by a frugivore, unsprayed by chemicals and bleached for supermarket salad bags, would have available b12 through contact with dirt and soil…that’s before mentioning inadvertently eating bugs etc through eating produce

        also, without living the first xxx years of their lives in a modern western society, they wouldn’t have come into contact with frankenfoods, drugs etc that cause many problems with b12 absorbtion etc



      • Richard Nikoley on March 11, 2011 at 22:35

        el-bo:

        Thought you were going already. Animals in the wild don’t casually come in contact with thier b12 rich shit. they eat it up, willingly. Fucking Google.

        Some humans seem to like their own sit too.

        Now, I know nothing of that, but i do know that humans do weird shit (pun eh?) in response to various deficiencies, like eating ice, dirt, etc.

        Clue: we are animals.



      • el-bo on March 13, 2011 at 17:57

        “Animals in the wild don’t casually come in contact with thier b12 rich shit. they eat it up, willingly. ”

        of course, they do…and we’re animals….so, we ate shit…or didn’t…either way, without antibacterial soaps and other sanitary measures b12 would have been abundant whether intentionally or not

        “Fucking Google.”

        is tha ‘google’ for tourettes sufferers ??

        “Clue: we are animals.”

        oh, please….say it aint so



      • John on March 11, 2011 at 16:35

        It’s a trick question…there aren’t any vegans in the Amazonian Jungle or African Savanna. Gotcha!



      • el-bo on March 11, 2011 at 16:38

        didn’t realise on account of my being proper stupid, like 🙂



      • Mango on March 11, 2011 at 16:53

        Hi Jorge, I will concede, if you have genuinely spent the 6 months in the amazon you claim to have, then you will surely know the jungle far better than I. my experiences range from spending 6 months living in Sumatra on the edge of the jungle, and several months next to the Australian Daintree rain forest.(I’ve also visited the Masai in the 1980s) I am not ashamed to say that I find the jungle a very inhospitable place to live, and have no desire to repeat your experiment.

        I will also concede that circumstances for people living in such remote places is very different to that which I have no doubt every reader present here has. That is more my point really.. People will do what they wish regardless of what my opinion is or isn’t, and I am not a fool that think otherwise, I am not a threat to anyone here, or there way of being, I am just one man giving an opinion which i fully accept can and is and likely will continue to be rejected. Have I experienced famine and scarcity? I fail to see why that should make my opinion any more or less valid as I am admitting to not really making a point about those that are in such dire straights. (sure, I just answered the comment about “respect” but that was because the question was asked directly to me).

        As to all the comments about how vegans would survive in the wilderness, I guess we would fair just as well or better than most city dwelling omnivores, many of us have a fair recognition of what’s edible out there, and it wont run away from us should we approach it with ill intent.

        Why do you say I speak “shit”, doing so really just shows a weakness in your standpoint. Sure, I get some of my food from supermarkets, some of it I grow myself, and some of it from local markets.. so what? That is what is available, why do you try and make out like it is in someway a bad thing to do. For the record also, I do not take supplements. I have never said that I do, so why jump illogically to such a conclusion?

        I don’t think you are talking shit. You are giving me your viewpoint, I am responding, there is no need for insults. Please don’t belittle yourself by doing so.



      • Zach on March 11, 2011 at 18:48

        This is complete crap, as is your view on respect for animals. It is easy for you to sit behind your computer in the modern world and say you (vegans) could survive in the wild while maintaining your vegan ideals. But put yourself in that situation and it would be an impossibility for you to survive. Have you ever seen that documentary on discovery of the man who tried to survive in the wilderness by himself for 60 days? He was a skilled hunter, forager and survivalist but he could not shoot game that was not in season and in the end he couldnt eat enough calories to survive and was forced to give up. It was not for lack of vegetation, it was for lack for calorie dense meat and especially fat.

        There is a reason why there has never been a ancient civilization that has lived without consuming animal products, its because it simply cant be sustained long term. Go ahead and skirt the main points in this post and pick out something insignificant to twist. Its all vegans can do when they have no real support by science to back up their claims.

        As for saying ancient cultures don’t respect their food because they kill to survive, that just shows how ignorant and self righteous you and other vegans really are. These are our ancestors who worked and lived harder then we could ever imagine to pass on our genes. You sir are de-evolving, you are moving away from the class of human to some sort of pussified sub human who would rather turn your back on your fellow man then give up your superior sense of self worth to face facts.

        Be vegan because you genuinely love animals but do not pretend vegan is anything more then a sub optimal diet to serve people too pussy to eat meat.

        In the end there is no reason to argue this. But im sure you will until you are either so sick and malnurished that you finally give in or you die or both.



      • el-bo on March 11, 2011 at 19:02

        “It is easy for you to sit behind your computer in the modern world”

        a luxury we all, on this site, happen to share…..it IS a modern world and we DO have choices



      • Zach on March 11, 2011 at 19:30

        So choose to eat vegan because you love animals. Dont choose to eat nothing but fruit because of a false belief that it is superior. I cannot stand the vegan and especially these frugivors false sense of superiority, truly believing complete bullshit.

        They are the trolls of the nutritional world.



      • Mango on March 11, 2011 at 20:52

        thanks. very true.



      • Mango on March 11, 2011 at 20:53

        this was clearly in reply to El-Bo, not Zach..



      • Mango on March 11, 2011 at 20:56

        Zach, I have no belief of being superior. Of course, I believe my dietary stance to be superior, but then so do you, so we are on equal footing. Of course I could be wrong, of course I don’t believe I am, but then so could you, and neither do. What is your point really, do you feel threatened by the fact that I have a different viewpoint to you, because from your irrational responses, it would seem that way.



      • Mango on March 11, 2011 at 20:51

        Complete crap? Once more you prove that in want of a better argument, you must resort to insults. I never said anything about anyone not respecting their food. In fact I made if clear I was talking about respect for the animal. You say I twist words, but it really seems like that is what you are doing, you also say I skirt around issues, and yet that is clearly also what you have done. I made a valid point about respecting animals, and instead of answering it in a sane manner, you just dismiss it as “complete crap”. In fact, the main question I asked on coming here, has not been answered, but has been “skirted around” as you say. I feel I have been quite straightforward here, and have answered everything as directly as I have been able, if you feel there is a point I have skirted around, then please let me know, and I would be happy to address it.

        You twisted my words and said that I said “we vegans could survive in the wild and maintain our vegan ideals”, where did I say that? please don’t make things up, if you are going to discuss, do so orderly, and quote me for what I say, not for what you would liked for me to have said.

        I reiterate, I am not really talking about ancient or primitive cultures, I am fully aware I sit behind a computer right now, as do you, this is the environment I live in, and it is the issues present within this environment I attempt to address. You are probably right, that there has been no ancient civilization that has gone without flesh foods. I’m not even contending otherwise. I am not turning my back on anyone, what gives you that idea? if you were here now, and needed help, I would offer help. Please don’t jump to illogical conclusions about me or my personality. I do not believe I have really addressed veganism as in any way a superior diet. In fact, I have deliberately avoided the whole nutritional aspect of the diet, but then, nobody here has offered a shred of evidence to suppose omnivorism is superior either, all I see is “meat is superior”. That’s not an argument. It tells me nothing. “People have always eaten meat”. This tells me nothing of value either. People often hand down mistaken knowledge from generation to generation, many traditions in this world have no basis in any kind of sense.

        I have answered all your points, and skirted none of them. That I am aware, now please do me the courtesy to do likewise in a civilized manner, or what is the point of the debate?



      • zach on March 12, 2011 at 08:03

        There is no point in debating with you but here is what i see. You choosing words very carefully so you say nothing at all. Hundreds of posts giving you answers, just none that you want to hear and you false calm demeaner with every response so your real agenda of passive agressive argmentitive responses can really get under the skin of us “meat eaters” who can give you no better answers then “meat is superior.” Its all a bullshit facade you and your vegan pals put up to put out a sense of superiority. I see right through it. Also there is no need to give sceintific support that an omnivore diet is superior to fruit or a vegan diet, its a fact, supported by actual science. You know science, that thing you have none of to back up anything you believe.

        Again i say, frugivors are the trolls of the nutritional world.



      • Jorge from Venezuela on March 12, 2011 at 13:44

        Death is neccesary to life



      • Jorge from Venezuela on March 12, 2011 at 13:53

        or Life needs Death (I am still learning english, sorry for that)



    • TJ on March 12, 2011 at 11:43

      Vegans being fair game has nothing to do with their diet and everything to do with their being the easiest…

    • bee on March 13, 2011 at 16:14

      “I mean, vegans would surely be fair game considering our clearly nutritionally superior content from plant eating..”

      i was vegan until very recently – for ten years. this for of reasoning infuriates me ‘cos it is not true. i wasn’t a muffin vegan either. i was a “health-nut” vegan and it gave me joint pain, sensitive gums and a host of other problems. i cut out the grains and introduced some good saturated animal fats ad i feel so much better.

      claiming that a vegan diet is optimal is delusional. it’s much better than the standard american diet, but tofu, whole wheat flour and a cup of agave nectar in every recipe doesn’t make it nutritional superior.

  31. Treespeed on March 11, 2011 at 13:33

    So much sad moralizing and anthropomorphizing (stealing from animals and human cannibalism, LOL) over what is simply a clear example of the evolutionary benefit of eating meat. If there wasn’t some clear nutritional payoff a hunter wouldn’t take such an obvious reproductive risk (humans that hang out with lions run the risk of leaving no offspring.) This video reminds me of societies where people free dive tens of meters to hunt/fish at great risk. Only those who know where there next meal is coming from would engage in such ridiculous hand wringing.

    • Mango on March 11, 2011 at 16:57

      Anthropomorphizing, now there’s a weak argument if ever I heard one.. There is nothing wrong with putting oneself in the situation of another, and hypothesizing how that situation might feel. I am sure that this is ultimately why hunters might feign “respect” for animals, if they did not do so, and enjoyed hunting and killing so much (as some here have claimed), then they could just kill and keep killing.. so who is guilty of anthropomorphizing? There is no guilt. It is a perfectly natural thing to do.

      • Al Ciampa on March 11, 2011 at 23:00

        Mango,

        Don’t look at it as enjoying killing (some of these folks don’t get this either) but look at it as conquest, progress, and sustenance. Making a kill on hunt makes you feel good, not because you took a life, but because you scored – you’re gonna eat; you gonna progress further. It’s not about the others life (or lack of it), it’s about your evolved sense of sustenance.

        Those who claim they like killing because they snuffed a life are pathological. It’s about you, and your people… not the death of the other.

        Maybe this is clearer?

        -Al



      • Melissa McEwen on March 12, 2011 at 09:52

        The problem is it leads to false unscientific conclusions.



      • Melissa McEwen on March 12, 2011 at 14:14

        “The deeper problem, as Mr. Peterson more frankly acknowledges, is that it is the height of anthropomorphic absurdity to project human values and behaviors onto other species—and then to judge them by their similarity to us: “It’s like dressing elephants in tutus,” he writes. Nor is Mr. Peterson so enamored of the natural world that he is blind to the very disturbing things that animals can do. Along with a lot of too-familiar accounts of sexy bonobos, empathetic elephants and cooperative hyenas, he offers less often heard tales of the ugly truths that reign in the animal world. These include brutal infanticide in lions and horrific violence and cannibalism among chimpanzees. In one famous case, observed by Jane Goodall, a chimpanzee named Passion repeatedly kidnapped the babies of other mothers and, with the help of her own children, consumed them.”

        http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703580004576180823900101578.html?mod=googlenews_wsj



    • Richard Nikoley on March 11, 2011 at 21:56

      “Only those who know where there next meal is coming from would engage in such ridiculous hand wringing.”

      Word.

      That should have been via smoke signal, but i still have over 60 unread emails…

  32. Jorge from Venezuela on March 11, 2011 at 15:57

    I can also assure from my past experience that native people have a great respect and understanding for animals, and for nature as a whole.
    I would asume a lot lot more respect and understanding than any vegetarian moralist or citizen would ever have.

    They respect all natures resources because they know how dependable they are to Nature. Even the water that we in the cities usually squander is hard to get in the wild, I mean good water to drink, so natives use water respectfully.

    That is why you don’t see in this video the Maasai killing any Lion, even they can easily kill one, they don’t do it because there is no need, they don’t kill just for fun, as we “civilized” people do. When Natives do kill they do it for a pourpose. Native people kill animals to eat or to protect himself and his tribe, nothing else. When they kill they do it with such a skill an accuracy that you will no see any suffering.

    • el-bo on March 11, 2011 at 16:06

      i do appreciate this post, and your other…there is definitely something quite magical about this exchange

      but even the narrator talks of the “bluff”, so with regard to your point that they don’t try and take down a lion or two, they clearly know that to be suicide…nothing “fun” about it

      this is a dance that both sides seem to know the moves…the massai take what is ‘allowed’ them, and then leave

      “When they kill they do it with such a skill an accuracy that you will no see any suffering.”

      not 3 against 15, though

      • Jorge from Venezuela on March 11, 2011 at 16:38

        I still haven’t lived with the Maasai so I haven’t still the chance to have a close encounter with a manade of 15 lions.
        And my most close encounter with a feline in the jungle was with “cunaguaros” I think it translate to Ocelot but not pretty sure about it.
        Ocelots are small wild cats, mostly solitarian hunters and they fear humans.

        Just guessing by my limited knowing of natives aboriginal and limited knowledge of the wild, that under an intention of lions to attack the Maasai will go for the attacker and the alpha female and male lion of the manade and the rest of lions will run away. By the way, you can know wich is alpha by the order they place to eat the prey. Also don’t know about Maasai but native Americans are pretty skilled with a bow and an arrow.
        Anyway just guessing.

        I like this statement you made:

        el-bo said:
        “This is a dance that both sides seem to know the moves…the massai take what is ‘allowed’ them, and then leave”

        I am pretty sure this dance has happened several times before.



    • Mango on March 11, 2011 at 17:04

      Jorge, as I have just said, I do not believe there is true respect, true respect would involve living and let living. You take my life prematurely, whether I’m conscious of it or not, whether you use me all up or not, if I have objected through my actions, or not hitherto given my permission, you are fully disrespecting my desires and wishes. I’m not saying that those people have a clear immediate choice to do otherwise, that is not the question here, but it’s pointless trying to muddy the debate by feigning respect. Also, much as they may be skilled marksmen, one can never guarantee a straight kill.

      • VelaCreations on March 12, 2011 at 06:20

        not really. true respect is assuming your role, not avoiding it.



      • Joseph on March 12, 2011 at 07:05

        The problem with “live and let live” is that it is actually impossible: you kill all kinds of creatures, tiny and otherwise, every moment that you live and breathe and take up resources that they would be using if you did not exist.

        Every single human being who has ever existed (including Jains) has violated the “live and let live” principle in the extreme form we are discussing it here. The question is not, “How can we avoid killing?” but “How can we kill as responsibly as possibly?” The tiny creatures you kill inadvertently have (and can have) no warning that you are going to step on them; the starving grizzly that eats you the next time you go up into the mountains won’t be begging you pardon, either. The mosquito that transmits a deadly virus won’t ask before drinking your blood. The virus has no qualms using its DNA to commandeer yours, no warnings given. That is life. You didn’t ask to be born, and you don’t get to determine how or when you die. All you control is your reaction thereto. (You and the animals are really equal in this respect, and nothing can take away that equality.)

        If you want to react by choosing to avoid killing certain things in certain situations, good for you: I wish you joy of your choice, but you should recognize that it is just one of many viable choices, not the one true choice that all must adopt.



      • Melissa Fritcher on March 12, 2011 at 12:58

        Nothing and no one is guaranteed life. No matter how you try to get around it, we’re all just trying to scrabble it out as long as possible. Since you can’t convert the planet to global 100% vegan-centric live-and-let-live, your argument is invalid. Giving up our biologically-attained status as big-brain Numero Uno ensures our eventual demise at the hands of the rest of the planet that will continue to operate on survival of the fittest despite our wishing it could all be different and fair and can’t we all just get along. It won’t ever be that way and you are just shooting yourself in the foot to think it can be otherwise. I say keep doing what you’re doing. Pray that life doesn’t happen to you, because if it does, you’re fucked.



      • Jorge from Venezuela on March 12, 2011 at 13:50

        You can’t see the true respect in hunting an killing animals, because you don’t respect yourself.
        First respect yourself, then respect your human specie, then you will realize the true respect for animals, nature and all the cicle of life.
        Accept yourself as an animal of the human specie and part of this world.



      • Tracy on March 12, 2011 at 15:11

        I cannot even begin to imagine what the desires and wishes of, say, a scallop are. In fact I couldn’t as they have no brain to have desires and wishes with. (Hey… does that mean you can eat scallops?)



  33. el-bo on March 11, 2011 at 16:46

    “don’t know about Maasai but native Americans are pretty skilled with a bow and an arrow.”

    f’sure…but i’d still bet on the lions..even the massai at the end, talk of being able to relax because they have stolen the kill without getting hurt

  34. 03/12/11 – Saturday Running on March 11, 2011 at 19:02

    […] The Elephant in the Evolutionary Room – Free The Animal Eric completing a sumo deadlift high pull Mike H doing the same […]

  35. Ciaran on March 11, 2011 at 20:47

    Just to say, this was my favourite part of Human Planet. The whole series was amazing really though, it was a good glimpse of humans surviving in many habitats, in most ways eating a largely paleo diet, but it obviously varied from place-to-place. These men aren’t Maasai, they were called Dorobo. The clip doesn’t show you them in a fire-lit cave, thoroughly enjoying their meat.

  36. Człowek – drapieżca szczytowy 3 ludzi kontra 15 lwów | Pracownia Permakultury on March 12, 2011 at 11:04

    […] na Free the Animal. Podobne wpisy:Zwycięstwo ekologów! Monsanto rezygnuje z produkcji kukurydzy MON810!Woda po […]

  37. EdwinB on March 12, 2011 at 12:24

    An ironic thought occurs to me. Most if not 90% of fruitarians appear to be Caucasian and European. The only places where you can reasonably hope to be a frutarian are tropical and subtropical climates where Caucasians aren’t indigenous. Sure you can be a supermarket frutarian at great expense and environmental cost (mono cropping and petroleum usage to transport the tons of sweet juicy fruit a year your diet will require).

    The only reason you can occupy the tropical regions and be a frugivore is because your meat-eating ancestors violently displaced the indigenous populations. How do you reconcile displacing the original inhabitants, so you can entertain your own selfish desires 🙂 Frutarianism and veganism for that matter, seems replete with ethical contradictions.

  38. Mango on March 12, 2011 at 14:18

    OK.. I’m done here, I am a little tired of facing irrational and illogical questioning and argumnts, and what point is there really being here, I am clearly wasting my time, people like Jorge who fully don’t understand english and try to redefine the term respect to suit his argument, and all the teenager anger and inability to defend ones point of view without resorting to name calling, threats or insults. I have seen enough.

    • Zach on March 12, 2011 at 14:41

      Waaah waah.

      Your life is a waste of time.

      • Jorge from Venezuela on March 14, 2011 at 11:20

        Mango said: “I am clearly wasting my time”

        I say:
        Thanks Zach for pointing toward it, hahaha! I share your same opinion.

        And Mango you feel it is a waste of time, because you are following an empty pourpose here, trying to convert people to vegan in this blog seems like a crazy-funny mission.

        I can speak for myself that I get lot of fun from Richard’s writings and expand my knowledge about things that matters to me (and as a bonus point I practice English, I am native spanish speaker if you wonder). I also enjoy reading comments from free animals with free minds.
        So unlike you, I think I am investing my time pretty well around here.

        By the way I just read this old post from Richard’s:

        https://freetheanimal.com/2009/09/the-moral-vegetarians.html

        Read it Mango, but be careful, maybe you will feel it is directed towards you and feel too sensitive about it or perhaps you will get enlightened!, eat meat again, growth some balls and become a MAN! <=== in that specific order.
        Them maybe you will feel your life isn't a waste of time anymore.



      • Richard Nikoley on March 14, 2011 at 11:47

        Thanks for pointing that out, Jorge. I had forgotten that it pretty much lays out my position on morality and rights as concerns human vs non-human animals. But I doubt anyone will take it up specifically, any more than they did the Edwin Locke essay I posted.

        ~~~

        So then, what if your moral code is anthropocentric, i.e., one that essentially regards humans (whether by design or evolution) as being qualitatively different in an essential way from the rest of the animals, such that we possess a certain natural dominion? Does that make Keith’s arguments invalid? I don’t think so.

        Keith does try to convince the reader that animals are as morally important as we are with a number of examples of animal and even plant “behavior” that certainly looks like human behavior, including self-sacrifice for offspring, a herd, or even a grove of trees.

        But I had this nagging essential question: could any of these animal or plant entities unilaterally, willfully opt out of behaving in accordance with their designed or evolved natures? See, humans can choose to live by their natures; they can choose to strive to live above their natures; they can sink far, far below their natures; they can blow their own brains out.

        Humans, unlike other animals, have to willfully determine what values are necessary for survival and prosperity, and then they have to decide whether or not they are going to pursue them. They have a choice by nature. Other animals seem to simply “know” what values they require and automatically set about to acquire them. If their environment is sufficient, they thrive, and if not, they perish. They have no willful choice in the matter.

        And since a prerequisite for morality is to have a choice in matters, I have to conclude that morality applies only to human beings, and that we are naturally moral beings, since it is our very nature that demands we chose. Moreover, that choice, by nature, implies the right to choose, by nature, and so I cannot accept the notion that animals have natural rights in the sense humans do.

        ~~~



    • Al Ciampa on March 12, 2011 at 14:56

      Mango,

      I’ve read somewhere throughout this mess two things you’d mentioned and I’d like to comment here before you go:

      Re: why am I eating like I do.

      For me it started when I was 6 years old. My gut gets ripped up by anything other than animal food, and plants used as a garnish. I’m 40 now and know my body well. It started in my gut, and grew into my current thinking, so for me, I might entertain the idea that this is all religion. Like minded folks with similar health experiences keep me sane.

      Re: hunters’ respect for animals.

      I think you have a loose interpretation as to what this means, in no small part due to some folks getting emotional and not communicating properly. For me, respect for the animal means two things: a quick, clean kill that does not cause unnecessary suffering (but this is nature – and so random); and the understanding that it is feeding you.

      It’s not a moral type of respect. This also leads to the “respect” of the species he belongs to: take the old and the sick, ensure the herd survives to feed your herd another day.

      The term is getting thrown around so as to not mean much. You can respect the teeth of the shark; you can respect your elders; you can respect the flag; you can respect your supervisor’s position (though not the person); and of course, you can respect the person.

      It was good to chat with you. Take care.

      -Al

    • Jorge from Venezuela on March 14, 2011 at 09:11

      Mango said:
      “OK.. I’m done here, I am growing a little tired of facing irrational and illogical questioning and arguments, and understand there is really little point in me being here, I am clearly wasting my time, people like Jorge who fully don’t understand english and try to redefine the term respect to suit his argument”

      I say:
      Your arguments are childish, at most.

      I understand pretty well your language but writing it, is more complicated, specially the grammar. Understanding English isn’t the same as writing it.

      About making terms suit our arguments that is something we all do in a Debate, is a good tool in any Debate, I did it and you did it, so is a fair game.

      I shared my experience in an approach to make you understand how things works in nature, in the wild! and how unrealistic is your pro-vegetarian position in that context.
      I tried to defend my arguments based in my own experience, if you dislike it then that is a shame for you. I have no problems with you, nor I know you, so I simple don’t care if you feel offended.

      And also I considered that you don’t respect yourself, based on what you wrote here.
      I concluded from your writings, that you can’t understand that you are Human. I want to point you that you are not part of another specie, don’t you get it?. How can you respect yourself? if you state that human morality apply to animals, make I guess, for all you wrote, that you feel ashamed of being Human?.
      That is why I consider that you don’t respect yourself, because basically you don’t accept yourself as an Human.
      Read the Edwin Locke’s short essay that Richard posted in a reply, about animal’s rights and try to understand it, maybe you will get the idea.

      Take in consideration that I read this blog because I am Paleo and Libertarian and I like the “no bullshit, I don’t care and go fuck yourself if you don’t like me” writing style used by Richard here. As I can guess most people here share the same liking.

      So if you come to FreeTheAnimal <===hello!! Freeeee The Aaaniiimaaall, get the clue?) and make a comment with an argument against the approach of the blog, then you should be ready to take the HEAT!,
      If you can't, then good riddance and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out!

      • Sonagi on March 14, 2011 at 15:27

        Jorge, your written English is fine. Mango was taking an asshole cheap shot at you because he couldn’t respond directly to anything you wrote.



      • Mango on March 14, 2011 at 16:15

        Jorge, me disculpo por no haber escrito claramente antes. Me refería a ninguna falta de respeto por tu Inglés, estoy de acuerdo que escribes bien la idioma Inglés. Seguramente mejor que yo español. De hecho había olvidado que no eres un hablante nativo de Inglés, me refería exclusivamente a tu falsa interpretación de “respeto”. Entiendo que todavía no estamos de acuerdo en eso. Entiendo perfectamente el desafío de escribir en un idioma que no es tuyo, y te respeto por hacerlo tan bien.



  39. rob on March 12, 2011 at 15:59

    I don’t have much respect for the cow that the pieces of meat I buy at the supermarket came from … respect for it is not required, all that is required is that I pay for the pieces I intend to consume.

    At the same time I don’t disrespect cows, either … as I am driving west on State Road 60 tomorrow morning and passing the herds of black angus, I will not be hurling insults at them out the window.

    I can’t imagine why I would show either respect or disrespect for a cow … it’s a fucking cow.

    • John on March 12, 2011 at 20:27

      I can’t imagine why I would show either respect or disrespect for a cow … it’s a fucking cow.

      Well, they’re funny when they fall down.

      Especially if they’ve been pushed. 🙂

      • Ken on March 13, 2011 at 01:52

        Just remember rule #2

        run away!!!



  40. Monte Diaz on March 13, 2011 at 09:11

    Life is life simple as that. The self-righteousness here, on both sides of the argument, is alarming. A true measure of equality is having to follow the same rules. If a bear can kill its prey, if a lion can kill its prey then why is it wrong for me to do so? Are we not equals? So vegans use your own logic here. You say meat eaters kill because we feel other animals are less sentient and yet your guilty of the same reasoning. Plants react to hunters as well, developing complex defense systems. We don’t notice because the time scales are much slower, but that’s hardly enough reason to ignore it. We kill plants, cows kill plants. Everything that is alive is sentient. We all kill, we all create.

    And for all this morality crap…give it a rest. To you, your superior. To you, your more important than the cow your eating or the lion your killing. It’s basic survival. To the cow and the lion however, they are more important. Your morals are your own and we cannot subject another animal to them just as they cannot subject us to thiers. Why? Because WE’RE EQUAL.

    Equality of course can mean many things. I’ve only highlighted one. Nature does not create absolute equality. That would be true equalibrium and nothing would evolve. Inequality (which exist whithin a lower “plane” than the equality listed above) is the very essence of life and progression. And right now the concentration of information in our being gives us the power to dominate. To not dominate would go against nature as every other animal that CAN dominate DOES dominate. This will eventualy allow us to leave the planet and spread a great deal of information througout the cosmos just like seeds. Information as we can see in ourselves is the dominate force in nature. We didn’t ask for this task, it was given to us and we have no choice but to abide by it. When you try to break the rules you become useless to the process of progression and we know what nature does to useless things…

  41. Christ on March 13, 2011 at 10:15

    some embarrassingly juvenile comments here… anyway.

    I think vegans who think it’s the ideal human diet and that they are the next higher evolution of humanity should only marry and procreate with other vegans and their offspring the same.

    Let us know how that works out for you guys.

    • J. Stanton - gnolls.org on March 13, 2011 at 13:22

      It doesn’t work.

      “A 12-YEAR-OLD girl in Scotland brought up by her parents on a strict vegan diet has been admitted to hospital with a degenerative bone condition said to have left her with the spine of an 80-year-old woman.

      Doctors are under pressure to report the couple to police and social workers amid concerns that her health and welfare may have been neglected in pursuit of their dietary beliefs.”

      Crippling yourself as an adult is stupid, but it’s your right. Crippling a child for life is evil.

      • el-bo on March 13, 2011 at 13:38

        “Crippling yourself as an adult is stupid, but it’s your right. Crippling a child for life is evil.”

        i know, right…and julianne is charging people for the pleasure…that’s ’cause vitD deficiency is only found in vegans

        in fact, given the general pastiness of most scots (it aint the sunniest of places), i’d suspect vitD deficiency to be a very common thing…



      • EdwinB on March 13, 2011 at 13:47

        Are you implying Julliane is harming people?



      • el-bo on March 13, 2011 at 13:51

        “Are you implying Julliane is harming people?”

        nice turn around…do you think that’s what i’m implying ??

        read this again

        “Crippling yourself as an adult is stupid, but it’s your right. Crippling a child for life is evil.”

        if a vegan diet is inherently ‘crippling’, then………??? you do the math(s)



      • EdwinB on March 13, 2011 at 13:55

        “Crippling yourself as an adult is stupid, but it’s your right. Crippling a child for life is evil.”

        i know, right…and julianne is charging people for the pleasure…that’s ’cause vitD deficiency is only found in vegans

        Maybe I’m not reading as intended but that is the conotation I drew from it.



      • el-bo on March 13, 2011 at 14:02

        the connotation need not be taken from my sarcastic reaction….

        i asked you to go back to the original statement which (more than) implies that a vegan diet is inherently crippling….if that’s the case and julianne (just used for the sake of argument) is guiding some of her in veganism, then does she not have blood on her hands ??

        of course, you needn’t think about it, at all, as the initial premise is false



      • julianne on March 13, 2011 at 15:27

        What the?!

        What crazy conclusions.
        If a client is vegan I do the best I can to make sure they are not fatty acid / omega 3 deficient, amino acid / protein, B12, Vit D etc deficient.

        Just like I do with every client.



      • Richard Nikoley on March 13, 2011 at 15:30

        You just don’t get it, Julianne. It can’t be the Vegan diet. It’s the most nutritious and healthful diet on the face of the planet. Campbel said so. Your clients are just doing it wrong.

        There is no other explanation.



      • el-bo on March 13, 2011 at 15:52

        “What the?!

        What crazy conclusions.”

        shit; does no one understand sarcasm, ’round here ??…y’all take care to demonise my response (tongue in cheek) but let the bullshit sensationalist propaganda fly….

        “If a client is vegan I do the best I can to make sure they are not fatty acid / omega 3 deficient, amino acid / protein, B12, Vit D etc deficient.”

        EXACTLY….something i’m betting these parents didn’t do for themselves OR their daughter….

        i might believe that your inherent lack of faith in veganism as, even a possible healthy option, doesn’t make you the BEST choice for a vegan to visit, BUT if you are making sure to check on the things you have listed (while monitoring), there’s no reason why things shouldn’t work out fine….

        in fact, maybe your lack of faith, to your client’s good fortune, will mean you take even better care of them than someone operating on faith alone

        i thought we’d already understood i had nothing against you..

        julianme ?? is it possible to eat a vegan diet and not be deficient ??



      • el-bo on March 13, 2011 at 16:02

        “It can’t be the Vegan diet”

        i didn’t say that….there is no such thing as a “vegan diet”….just a commonality of avoiding animal products….each individual’s “vegan diet” can only be judged on what they DO include, not what they DON’T

        “It’s the most nutritious and healthful diet on the face of the planet.”

        no quotation marks ??? ’cause i know you aint quoting me….have i said that in any of my poats ??

        “Your clients are just doing it wrong.”

        if her clients have come to her with deficiencies, that have shown up through testing AND have now started to be corrected with julianne’s help, then i’d say that statement is quite accurate

        “Campbel said so”

        the only reason that i wouldn’t be happy to see, once and for all, campbell proven to be a scientifically manipulative, cantankerous old git is that people would ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater’



      • Richard Nikoley on March 13, 2011 at 16:57

        El-Bo, that comment wasn’t in response to you, but sarcasm to Julianne.

        Defensive, much?

        Wonder why.



      • julianne on March 13, 2011 at 17:08

        julianne ?? is it possible to eat a vegan diet and not be deficient ??

        I haven’t see evidence for it. Please show me a clinical study that does show it is possible. (Not anecdotes, real clinical studies)



      • julianne on March 13, 2011 at 17:13

        Like not eating dirt on plants, etc (I’m too polite to mention other reasons)



      • el-bo on March 13, 2011 at 17:13

        “El-Bo, that comment wasn’t in response to you, but sarcasm to Julianne.”

        doesn’t really make much sense without context, though, does it…..the context/impetus being my “crazy conclusions”

        “Defensive, much?”

        make of it, what you like…..if you weren’t attacking, then i had nothing to defend….i still think it was worth giving some context to your statements, whatever their motivation



      • el-bo on March 13, 2011 at 17:15

        “Just like I do with every client.”

        you mean, even a meat eaters diet can be deficient ?????



      • Richard Nikoley on March 13, 2011 at 17:34

        Well let’s see if on spite of lack of context everyone gets what I mean.

        You’ve said you’re outta here about a half dozen times already.

        It’s an interesting study to contemplate what you keep coming back.



      • el-bo on March 13, 2011 at 17:34

        “julianne ?? is it possible to eat a vegan diet and not be deficient ??

        I haven’t see evidence for it. Please show me a clinical study that does show it is possible. (Not anecdotes, real clinical studies)”

        why do you need a study ?? you are a nutritionist….just break our needs into components and find the foods to match….use supplementation, if need be…don’t get all pure on us; you’ve already told us that no one diet will work for everybody



      • julianne on March 13, 2011 at 17:43

        B 12 ?, Long chain fatty acid EPA? (Remember not everyone converts ALA well) Exactly where would a vegan get these in today’s food?

        What is your B12 level? and what source do you use?



      • el-bo on March 13, 2011 at 17:45

        “Well let’s see if on spite of lack of context everyone gets what I mean.”

        it’s clear what you mean….but even though you’ve had a couple of ‘the opposition’ on here, the last few days, who aren’t bible bashing, being judgmental, trying to convert etc and you choose to drag nonsense fucking vegan arguments outta the sky (which you haven’t heard from either myself or mango)

        “You’ve said you’re outta here about a half dozen times already.

        It’s an interesting study to contemplate what you keep coming back.”

        well i’ve got notifications on my email…..most of them are just nonsense, and you gotta just let that shit go….

        but that bullshit j.stanton post just needed comment



      • el-bo on March 13, 2011 at 17:50

        “B 12 ?, Long chain fatty acid EPA? (Remember not everyone converts ALA well) Exactly where would a vegan get these in today’s food?”

        we’ve done b12, julianne…are you giving supp’s to your clients ??

        i dunno, julianne…what are you advising your clients ??



      • julianne on March 13, 2011 at 17:59

        El-bo you seemed to be making at point that a vegan can get everything one needs from their diet. Show me a vegan that has sufficient levels from dietary B12. If so how did they accomplish this – I would be sure to pass this info on.

        My question was “what is your B12 and what source do you get yours from?” You haven’t answered that.

        Of course I would advise a client to supplement B12, although most do already as it is a well know vegan deficiency.



      • EdwinB on March 13, 2011 at 18:01

        I think without very careful consideration a vegan diet is more likely to go wrong , than a paleo “style” diet primarily based on whole meats , animal fats and some fruits and vegetables.

        Remember you can essentially very easily eat a vegan version of the SAD. I looked up some of the vegan strength athletes mentioned by DR. One of the young men referenced keeps a bit of a food log with his training log and eats absolute crap – he’s vegan but its still soy based and processed carb crap. He seems to have suffered some injuries this past year – though in powerlifting I would be very relunctant to attribute them to diet – sometimes we just train or push our bodies beyond their limits and injuries happen.



      • EdwinB on March 13, 2011 at 18:06

        El-bo julianne has been a vegitarian in the past, again it sounds like she’s willing to help her client within the context of what they will actually do. If anything you should be a bit more reasonsable with her given that she seems to be more open minded and tolerant, than some of us other knuckle draggers.

        In that vein do you have some sort of fucked up hormonal profile, that you see a woman as someone you need to bash it out with and hound?



      • el-bo on March 13, 2011 at 18:14

        “El-bo you seemed to be making at point that a vegan can get everything one needs from their diet.”

        if you can point to where you’ve seen me say this, i will apologise, ’cause that aint my position…i think that under different circumstances, as i HAVE tried to suggest, foraging for fruit and greens would have provided many opportunities for b12

        “Show me a vegan that has sufficient levels from dietary B12.”

        there were a couple of others on 30bad that had b12 show fine without supplementation….that may not always be the case, of course…i can’t really track them down, as i’m no longer on the site

        i haven’t had any tests done…can’t afford to….will look into it, at some point and do anything necessary…

        “Of course I would advise a client to supplement B12, although most do already as it is a well know vegan deficiency.”

        i’m glad….but meat eaters have b12 issues too, right



      • el-bo on March 13, 2011 at 18:22

        “I think without very careful consideration a vegan diet is more likely to go wrong , than a paleo “style” diet primarily based on whole meats , animal fats and some fruits and vegetables.”

        it would be unfair to ask you to prove it, as you did say “i think”…if anyone is interested in their health, they need to be careful and considerate…vegans aren’t the only ones to suffer deficiencies…there are so many contributing, and interdependent elements to nutrition (itself, a small part of the bigger picture of health), than the inclusion of meat could be expected to cover

        “Remember you can essentially very easily eat a vegan version of the SAD”

        absolutely…..a deficient vegan is a deficient vegan diet….i might have said that before



      • el-bo on March 13, 2011 at 18:25

        “In that vein do you have some sort of fucked up hormonal profile, that you see a woman as someone you need to bash it out with and hound?”

        aah, the balance of yin and yang – just when you’re making some sense, you gotta balance it out with some bullshit…

        maybe in your version of the world, the knuckle-dragger has to defend the weak female…i happen to credit her with more than you do, it seems (even if i do disagree)…we are just conversing…i aint bashing or hounding



      • EdwinB on March 13, 2011 at 18:31

        I am a unrepentant knuckle-dragger, a neo-hillbilly replete with barely tamed unibrow.

        Just saying you seem to have some sort of fixiation with assaulting the lady’s livelyhood there.



      • el-bo on March 13, 2011 at 18:42

        “Just saying you seem to have some sort of fixiation with assaulting the lady’s livelyhood there.”

        you see her ‘livelyhood’, i see the health of her clients…if the two things coincide, then all is good…

        it seems that julianne knows what to look out for, and supplement if necessary….



  42. Jeanne Bourdeaux on March 13, 2011 at 14:00

    Nice video, if not too explicit in content. 🙂

    In another way to look about it, antropologists Hart & Sussman wrote an amazing book “Man the Hunted” (2005) which made a pretty good case for that hominids and similar edge species have been hunted for and eaten a LOT for a long time and the amount of dangerous animals has been formidable for the most of the human evolution. A great deal of so called humanly physical and psychological traits can be explained pretty well with adaptations following of being a prey for a great deal of hungry cats, dogs and even giant eagles, most in times ten compared to nowadays.

    http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/4582.aspx

    Humans obviously are not frugivores judging by simple look at our enamel, but most other adaptations are subject to various criticism.

    • J. Stanton - gnolls.org on March 13, 2011 at 18:53

      News flash for the author of that book:

      -When anything dies, its remains get eaten. Adult hippos have no significant natural predators, but their bones still get chewed on by lions and hyenas.
      -Just because you’re an apex predator doesn’t mean you’re invulnerable. Lions are apex predators, but lionesses regularly fall to hyenas (though the hyenas usually get the worst of it).
      -Sharp rocks > teeth.

      There’s a lot more BS in there I could debunk, but that’ll get you started.

  43. Jim Arkus on March 13, 2011 at 15:05

    Looks like I saw this a little after everyone else. But I’m pretty sure the guy in the red is the same one from the persistence hunt video that’s been floating around for a few years now. He’s a busy man!

  44. Ze on March 13, 2011 at 18:24

    Wow such studly bodies! 🙂

  45. Tomasz R on March 21, 2011 at 14:16

    There’s also another nice lion vs. man video

  46. Marten on April 3, 2011 at 13:40

    If you want to learn about people living wild, then I cannot recomend this series highly enough. seriously. Especially the vegans. you will find;

    A trio of men stealing part of a lion kill.
    A teenage African boy, leading his herd of cattle to find water, living of nothing but raw milk from his cows for the duration of the trip.
    Inuit people hunting whales to get their vitamin C as they have no plant produce…. and eating the blubber raw.
    People catching little birds, Auks i believe they were called. 500 of them. stuffing them into a seal skin, sewing the skin up and leaving the little birds that are inside, to ferment outdoors. Then when ready.. they would eat them raw.
    Children in the jungles of South America, no more than 7 or 8 years of age. Hunting, cooking and eating damn tarantulas!!!
    People harvesting wild turtle eggs to eat when they hatched.
    Women breast feeding baby monkeys.
    African man climbing epic trees with nothing but the use of stripped bark tied around his feet. one mistake would be certain death. All just to get soome honey in order to “give his kids a treat and to keep his wife sweet”

    Health & Safety would have a field day!! haha

    These people have been eating like this forever! They have no people within their tribes obsessing over consuming too many calories, reading labels, asking for “low fat” or “light” versions of their food. There are no obesity, or anorexic cases.They have no governments setting out dietary guidelines or authorities telling them what to eat. Everyone seems to be fit and healthy, they live active lifestyles and they dont spend hours in the gym. They are also not bulky either, a look which alot of fitness enthusiasts go for, they are lean and strong. You just cant help but notice how these people glow with health. They have glowing skin, rosy cheeks and bright, welcoming smiles. Truly healthy, beautiful people indeed. A rare thing.

    Richard, you should maybe do a post on the series. showing your opinions and views of life outside the “zoo”. And it would be a place for like minded individuals to also share comments and discussions aswell.

    Here is the link

    Enjoy.

    • Richard Nikoley on April 3, 2011 at 15:33

      Thanks Marten.

      That looks fantastic and I have loved the other productions those folks have put together. Turns out this premiers on 4/10 on Discovery Channel here, so I’ll be setting the DVR.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

YouTube1k
YouTube
Pinterest118k
Pinterest
fb-share-icon
40
45
Follow by Email8k
RSS780