Eating meat; did it give us higher intelligence?

. Youre comparing a nutrient load to "maintain" your lady's health v the diet that aided the evolution of humans.

"Fasting" would have probably turned a nascent humanoid into what we call "prey"

It's a fast/feast, and I've made that clear a few times.

Fasting actually makes the mind sharp, and the heart keen.

If you had the hunter's instinct, you'd not need to be told that.

That's arse-about-face, but interesting, none-the-less.

Phytoplankton are the start of the food chain; not the bottom of it.

Without them, all else diminishes to death.

They are also robotic, and without emotion, so their consumption is part of the chain.

seeing as proteins weren't even known till the early 1800', your own discussion needs some modification wrt to the wqy things actually happened.

Meat proteins are more easily assumed as nutrients in our body, the amino acids, carboxyls, qcids and the salt that creates the"zwitterion" of a protein is more available in meat, so the development of humans as a species was based pretty much on the growth of a meat based diet with the discovery of fire and letting meat hang, or mix it with something fermenting to make the proteins ven more available (our ancestors did this without knowing about proteins)

We have become what we ATE. Now, diets bas3ed on certain proteins (more dense and available in mkeats) are also conducive to diet related cancers in todays populations. (Things like liver cancers are more end3mic in Indian population where caseins are a major ingredient.
My own opinion (as a totally ignorant non-dietician) is that a balanced diet makes most sense, diets wherein meat is often used a s mostly a "flavor enhancing ingredient".
With the exception of the paleo diet (or what I understand about its makeup), relying on just animal or just plants is kinda dim.
We are no longer evolving into Hss, were there. So maintaining a diet that is both healthy and satisfying, (it seems to me) is neither meatatarian nor vegetarian.
I happen to enjoy meats but Im not a hog about it. Im somewhat more selective about my choices of plant based foods mostly because of glycemic index issues.

Ive lost a lot of weight in the last yeqr and a half based on issues of glycemic index and PORTION CONTROL. Im planning to eat this way for my remaining life.(I sometimes pig out on seasonal fruits grown locally, or eating wild game as hunting and fishing seasons reach us)
"Fasts" qnd diets that are not intended for carrying out the rest of our lives really don't seem to make any sense to me.

I don't have any dog in the fight about the way you see the present day dietary world. My point has been totally based on the fact that meat Is probably responsible for our species cerebro-cranial attainment , wherein languge, skills specialization, and free time resulted in our societal development.

I've not proposed that anyone change their diet. I proposed a question or two, in the OP, and presented some stats from several sources, is all.
I still eat what I like, when I like.



Without evidence, of any kind.

Like Setanta, you're fond of your own opinion, and consider it sound, and meritorious.

It's still, just an opinion, and no greater, nor lesser, than any other opinion.



Harking back to the OP, the skills required to learn to hunt; to learn to make the tools to kill, and to butcher the kill, were there before the eating of meat protein.

evidence of eating marrow predates tool making. The development of tool making skills can be seen quite nicely in stratigraphic sequence. Plenty of evidence in support , why are you denying the facts??. Certainly you don't have an unyielding adherence to something else do you??

As far as questions to the OP the entire topic was begun IN PAST TENSE (as if the question was asked as to whether meat WAS responsible for our intelligence (OP says higher).

You can easily do a search on the evidence of the diet of early Homo and the ample stratigraphic evidence of how we began to become culturally carnivorous and omnivorous. Id think that this wasn't a new topic to anyone here (except maybe gungasnake who denies pretty much everything scientific )

And yet that's exactly the reasoning you expect me to accept for your idea that no vegetable protein sources provide all the amino acids.

Anyway, Builder did provide you with this: http://www.onegreenplanet.org/natural-health/need-protein-amino-acids-found-abundantly-in-plants/

What's your reasoning now?

Bottom or start? I don't see a significant difference. Also I wrote of zooplankton not phytoplankton, and the significant difference there is that baleen whales consume the former not the latter.

I certainly wasn't dismissing the critical ecological importance of plankton.

You may not have caught that my comments about the differing perception of baleen and toothed whales were somewhat sardonic.

Both types of whales are carnivores, but zooplankton are as you described them and are not furry and cute like baby seals so there is a tendency among a lot of people to view the carnivorous humpback whale as a benign, peaceful and in the case of some New Age savants, even spiritual animal, while the carnivorous Killer Whale is seen in a darker light and more like the average human, an indiscriminate slayer who can take joy in killing.

In terms of body count though, a single humpback will, over the course of its life, extinguish the lives of literally billions of organisms, while the Killer Whale will be responsible for the deaths of an infinitesimal fraction of that number. Which then can be most accurately described as a killing machine?

So to the extent that the Killer Whale is perceived differently, and less favorably, than the Humpback, valuation of the lives of individual organisms is at play. Any animal that is cute and furry receives a very high valuation, while creatures that are little more than organic machines have so little relative value that their daily slaughter in astronomical numbers never generates a tear or karmic debt.

The irony of course is that if zooplankton the world over were to disappear overnight the global eco-system (or at least the global oceanic eco-system) would very quickly collapse, yet while the immediate extinction of all pinnipeds (those cute and not so cute furry creatures a certain sub-group of Killer Whales specializes in hunting) would undoubtedly have a measurable impact on the ocean's ecology, the ripple effects would be nowhere near as catastrophic as the extinction of zooplankton. In fact, it's possible and even likely that the extremely intelligent "Transient" Killer Whale sub-group for whom marine mammals comprise a major part of their diet, would adapt and replace their favored, but absent, prey with other marine creatures. There is also a sub-group of Orcas ("Residents") that reside in the waters off the North Pacific coast of the US, and it's members prey almost entirely on fish, so obviously the animals can thrive on fish and develop effective methods to catch them.

As a side note, it's also interesting that while the fish eating "Residents" tend to be the Killer Whales people can see in captivity (either taken from the wild or bred from those taken), nature shows that film Killer Whale behavior tend to focus on the "Transients" and the reasons are fairly obvious: In the case of the former, it's a lot easier (and more attractive to the human audiences) to feed the captive Killer Whales fish and in the case of the latter, it's far more entertaining to watch Killer Whales hunt and kill seals and other whales than it is to watch them eat fish. Still, the average person who might tune into a Nat Geo Orca special and view with fascination (and perhaps a touch of horror) a Killer Whale flip a baby seal in the air half a dozen times or a pod attack a female Humpback and her calf, would probably not want to see Shamu XII leap up through his pool at Sea World and snatch a baby seal or even a penguin from the hands of a human trainer. TV is not quite as vivid as reality.

The relevance of the matter of people's perceptions of various species of cetaceans to this thread has to do with a recurring theme and/or question in the comments regarding the impact of eating meat not only on the development of the brain, but human culture and even individual personalities.

Whether or not there is any scientific evidence to support it, there is a fairly common belief that eating meat can somehow be associated with aggression and dominance while a vegetarian (or better yet) a vegan diet will lead to a more centered and tranquil state of being. Interwoven with those beliefs are others relative to the morality of eating animals and karmic debt. Life requires death and there's no way of getting around this right now. Plants that obtain their energy from the sun require soil nutrients that come from the decomposition of once living matter. Herbivores who crop rather than kill the plants they subsist on are still "killing" living cells in order to, in effect, absorb their energy through obviously complex biological processes. There is a wide range of life valuations, and I understand some feel it best to limit, as much as possible, the killing they need to do to live, to living organisms with the lowest of valuations: plant cells, plankton etc, but it seems to me that the impetus for this effort has a firm rooting in what I'm calling spirituality, for lack of a better term, because consciousness seems to be a key criteria in their valuations.

Just interested in the thoughts of those who believe a diet consisting of low valuation lives is in anyway (other than nutritional value) of advantage to people.

If I don't eat the flesh of other beings, but I walk on the grass, I could be accused of killing that lifeform because I perceive it to be of less value than a furry animal, and that I also probably killed a number of insects in the process. But I must walk on the grass; I also give it a cutting every so often. However, you have to differentiate between correct function and callous disregard for life. A virus loosed in your bloodstream is attacked and killed by your white blood cells. Again, you have to differentiate between correct function and callous disregard for life.

If I plant a seed and a green pepper appears, I eat it and I am sustained. If I don't eat it, then I go hungry. Also, if I don't eat it, it will end up rotting on the ground and be absorbed by the earth in short time. This is good. If I eat it and then return the unused portion of the vegetables to the earth, that is good. Either way is correct function.

If you want to make a case that such a relationship with the earth is a callous disregard for life, then you would also neccesarily have to acknowledge that not picking the fruit or vegetable at their peak of ripeness would result in the slow and painful death of the vegetable. But that would be silly.

If you want to be an omnivore, that's fine. As for myself, I'm not willing to kill a cow or a pig or a chicken if I don't have to. Nor am I inclined to hire someone to do it for me. It is difficult to express such a position without incurring the ire of those who interpret it as a claim of superiority. But it's just a position.

what about clams? ya don't eat clams either? more for me.

I eat lots of oysters, straight off the rocks.

Take a look at this short video, about plant proteins, and how very little protein is found in human breast milk.

https://www.facebook.com/PBN.Health/videos/710455349142051/

im not going on fb.

breast milks from all animals are mostly fats and sugars, bulk and energy.(colostrum is the first dose of protein and antibodies ) processing proteins has to be gradually "turned on". Its not that breast milk is a nutrient desert. There are simple proteins and amino acids , but the child has to develop a gut flora that can handle normal foods . (not to mention teeth)

Given a choice between having you beef-up or clam-up, I'd prefer that you clam-up.

Fine for him. I don't eat nothing that comes with more than four feet or less than two.

That's a shame, really.

When it comes to B12, and trace minerals, you can't go past shellfish (and wheatgrass juice) as a source.

And as the child matures, the ability to digest milk (of any kind) diminishes and often disappears completely. The enzyme required is no longer produced by the gut.

If this is in response to my post, I think that it may be that you are being unnecessarily defensive.

I have met many a vegan who considers their diet a badge of their superiority, but I'm not trying to make a case that this is the primary reason why people choose to not eat meat, and certainly not specifically in your case.

What I am interested in is how and why those who don't eat meat make life valuations. Why is it more OK to eat an insect or a mollusk than a pig or a cow? Why is it more OK to kill and eat a plant than to kill and eat a chicken?

Why do you believe humans eating meat represents a callous disregard for life?

I should focus this question better. Let's put aside how livestock is generally handled around the globe for the purpose of feeding people. I have serious objections to the ways animals bred and raised for food are treated, and they can easily represent a callous disregard for life, but for the purposes of this discussion I would like to limit the subject.

Let's assume that the process of raising and dispatching livestock is humane. There are a growing number of farmers and ranchers who believe that not only do they have a responsibility to raise and dispatch their livestock humanely, any treatment that causes the animal undue stress (not to mention excessive stress) spoils the quality of the meat. So, let's assume that we are referring to livestock raised and dispatched in this manner. Does this still represent a callous disregard for life?

How about animals that are hunted, killed and eaten? Here again, let's assume that the animals are killed quickly and cleanly with a single shot. No use of traps that could result in long periods of suffering and a requirement that the hunter be skilled and experienced enough to dispatch the animal with a single shot, not a bunch of drunken fools or inexperienced kids who would be likely to simply wound an animal and allow it to suffer for a long period of time before dying. Also, let's stipulate that the entirety of the animal is used for food: Snout to tail. So all the meat, all the offal, the blood; everything that is edible. Would this still represent a callous disregard for life?

Then let's consider true subsistence hunters. Native people of the Amazon rain forest, Papua New Guinea, of the Kalahari. There aren't many left, but there are people who live like our ancestors did thousands of years ago, foraging for vegetables, nuts and fruits and hunting animals for meat. The progression here is obvious, but still, does this represent a callous disregard for life?

Finally what about animals? There are some that have very high levels of intelligence that includes self-awareness. Without getting into the broader topic of animal intelligence, let's simply stipulate than humans have the highest level. Now, I very much doubt you consider a tiger killing a deer to involve a callous disregard for life so I'm not going to lower the level of this discussion by asking you that question, but do you perceive herbivores in any sort of a different light than omnivores or carnivores? Are they all simply components of a natural ecology that are simply playing the roles evolution has designed for them or is there some sort of material difference? Further, do you perceive highly intelligent baleen whales in a materially different way than highly intelligent toothed whales or omnivore chimps differently than herbivore gorillas?

I'm getting into the realm of real speculation here, but let's lastly assume that all humans left earth or went extinct, and non-human animals were allowed the time and conditions to continue to evolve. Do you think that the carnivores or omnivores would be, more, less or about the same as likely as herbivores to evolve along a similar line to that of humans and develop roughly human level intelligence or an even higher level? Do you think it would make a significant difference if herbivores rather than omnivores or carnivores achieved human level intelligence? In other words, how different might the world be if humans and their evolutionary ancestors never developed a taste for meat?

I've tried hard not to be cute with these questions and I'm not trying to trap you into some answer that I can then smugly swoop down on with a preconceived argument. I've done that at times, but not here. I truly am interested in understanding your views on this because I really can't predict them and my sense is that your thinking here doesn't fit a stereotyped package. If you don't care to respond, that's fine, but it could lead to an interesting discussion and I would find it helpful in clarifying my own thoughts on the subject.

If this is in response to my post, I think that it may be that you have read way too much into it. I'm not saying that you are paranoid; just that you've read way to much into it.

This appears to be your way of saying that you don't consider my meatless diet to be based on a desire to appear superior. If that was your intended meaning, then I will validate it for you by telling you that you are correct. However, I made that clear in the last paragraph of my post. You must have missed it, or you read something into it that wasn't there.

I don't know. You'll have to ask someone who eats insects and mollusks.

You must have also missed this: If I plant a seed and a green pepper appears, I eat it and I am sustained. If I don't eat it, then I go hungry. Also, if I don't eat it, it will end up rotting on the ground and be absorbed by the earth in short time. This is good. If I eat it and then return the unused portion of the vegetables to the earth, that is good. Either way is correct function.

The vegetable or apple will die regardless of whether or not I eat it. What do you think would be a more appropriate way for vegetables to die?

Why do you believe that I believe that? My mention of a callous disregard for life was in reference to those who believe that killing a green pepper is a callous disregard for life, and therefore no different from killing a pig. Reread my post.

Not if the destiny of the livestock you are referring to is to be raised and slaughtered for your meal. So, do you believe that the destiny of livestock is to be mass-raised and slaughtered for your meal? There are people who don't believe that? Do you believe that their reasoning is unfair to others?

If killing is necessary to the survival of the human, then there's no arguing that.

If killing is necessary to the survival of the human, then once again, there's no arguing that.

Animals are involved in their own life structures. They all eat what they eat. If a tiger doesn't kill, it doesn't eat. I'm not blind to nature.

Once I was hammered away at by someone who interpreted my admission that I don't eat meat as a slam on him/her, and society in general. I simply reassured them that I don't eat meat because I'm not willing to kill an animal unless I have to, but that I don't mean nothin' by it. That rarely satisfies those who are offended by my abstinence.

Invertebrates, meaning arthropoda in particular, are robotic alien species. They are a survival tool only. Akin to seafarers of our recent history dropping goats and pigs on remote islands, so shipwrecked humans could survive until rescue, the arthropoda arrive on a planet as a basic robotic organism, and evolve rapidly to fill any and all niches possible, thereby enabling the survival of any shipwrecked traveller unfortunate enough to be marooned for a spell, before rescue. In short, if they weren't actively eating eachother, they would have taken over the planet long ago.

Molluscs and bivalves (filter feeders) are concentrators of nourishment from the ocean, and predated by all sorts of other creatures, humanoid and not. They reproduce in massive numbers, as do fish, and are seasonally abundant, and recover quickly from even over-fishing.

Hunting vertabrates, while certainly a step up for humanoids, when it comes to finding an easy source of protein, away from the edge of the continents, is no longer a necessary survival mechanism, for mine.

To say that beasts are killed humanely, is to be completely unaware of the reality of abbattoirs and slaughter rooms. Even breeding processes aren't humane. They don't call it a crush, because it's friendly and humane. It holds the beast so unsavoury tasks like castration, dehorning (have you watched this happen?) and drenching can occur in a business-like fashion.