Quote: "You have a perception of fantasy as the general population was fed with meat basead in which you lived as a child, when you true any old civilization had meat ocasionaly for the masses. It's you that have that has to go back to study."

*scratches head* Just because you saw an opinion on the matter from some PETA member does not make it true.

Quote: "You are trying reforging meat consumption with argument about man as hunter gatherers, it's true they eat meat, but their bulk of their diet was made by gathering vegetables and meat as occasional"

Maybe certain tribes in certain tropical areas. To try and make that case, you really have to cherry-pick to find those who were more gatherers.


Quote: "Any great civilization knew how much more efficient is to produce grains that to produce meat to feed the bulk of their population, and as a resource wise they did that. But of course King,nobles and their elite didn't feed that way."

You are wayy over generalizing. I already pointed out the case where that was in fact true in European society at certain points, and as I said earlier - it was a means of control. Weak, starving peasants were no match for armored warrior classes who were raised on meat and a generally better diet, and grew larger and stronger. In the era prior to effective missile weapons that could penetrate armor, it was a big deal. One six foot 200 pound knight or armsman in armor was the match of a large number of starving 120 pound unarmored serfs. Things started changing with better yew longbows and more effective crossbows, because the common peasant obtained a degree of military power.

You are right that people ate less meat in many societies than modern people.. but that doesnt make your case regarding "no" meat in the slightest. In the cases where the lowest classes were chronically starved of meat, you typically will find that they also had some of the poorest health and least political rights. Of course you can find extreme micro examples in either direction, but as a general rule of thumb:

1. Early great societies were by water, and ate a lot of fish.

2. Inland societies farmed a lot of meat, the type determined by the geography. Hilly areas favored things like goats and sheep, less steep areas in cooler climes favored cows, where water was plentiful fish etc. Animals in pre-industrialized society were efficient means of food in large part because they would feed themselves, and many animals could eat byproducts of farmed staple food production.

3. Less oppressed people tended to have more meat. More oppressed people had less meat.

Quote: "In sum lets go back to whats matter, meat was occasional, and their detrimental effect on people were greatly reduced by the natural exercise of old life style, not this modern world of feast every day."

I think you have it backward, people plain need more exercise. With the lack of exercise it is easy to overeat. The same effects you talk about on cell behavior from protein work the same regardless of whether it is meat, plant, or synthesized protein. The source is irrelevent. Just with meat, since it is an efficient source it is easy to overeat if you spend most of your life sitting at a desk and not doing physical work.

In the end analysis it does not matter if you overeat plants or anything else. There are plenty of warnings from doctors to avoid overeating carbs as well for example because too many sugars are also bad for you. Carbs = staple foods you talk about so much. Since many people overeat carbs and get health problems and die from it, maybe the govt should ban them as well?

Try looking at the larger picture, and putting things in context instead of just reading activist literature.

Last edited by Derid; 07/24/12 07:28 AM.
For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)