Help End the Cruel Harp Seal Hunt

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:52:44 -0000, "pearl" <tea.DeleteThis@signguestbook.ie>
wrote:

><10x@teluös.net> wrote in message news:hs58v25csg5buka3gca337btdtom9hqdmk@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 12:13:58 -0000, "pearl" <tea.DeleteThis@signguestbook.ie>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Chom Noamsky" <e.DeleteThis@t.me> wrote in message news:poKIh.62334$Du6.57729@edtnps82...
>> >> "pearl" <tea.DeleteThis@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
>> >> news:esvh94$7h0$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> >> > "Chom Noamsky" <e.DeleteThis@t.me> wrote in message
>> >> > news:_IHIh.62302$Du6.38382@edtnps82...
>> >> >> > "pearl" <tea.DeleteThis@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:esvf0i$6lg$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> >> >
>> >> >> > 'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours
>> >> >> > etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy
>> >> >> > and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be
>> >> >> > painful), and to distract and divert attention away from
>> >> >> > themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is achieved
>> >> >> > through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this,
>> >> >> > every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their
>> >> >> > target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That was a great general description of PETA and its membership.
>> >> >
>> >> > You're still doing it..
>> >>
>> >> I'd have to say the role of bully is being played by PETA. It's really none
>> >> of PETA's business (headquartered in the US) to interfere in the affairs of
>> >> the sovereign nation of Canada. If anyone finds sealing objectionable,
>> >> simply refrain from buying the products. If there wasn't any market for
>> >> seal products there wouldnt be a hunt, except perhaps a cull to help
>> >> Canada's over exploited cod fishery to recover.
>> >
>> >The seals do not belong to you. Put your own house in order.
>>
>> Nor do the seals belong to you or any animal rights group.
>> The seals are there for those that need to eat them. That includes
>> marine predators, and non marine predators. They are part of the food
>> chain. You are claiming that man can not eat them but killer whales,
>> sharks, and polar bears can? You are claiming that these wild
>> predators are some how more mercifull than man?
>
>Stop pretending that this slaughter is about real need and survival.

So if the "slaugter" is stopped how do these folks get enough money to
survive? WHat replaces the seal meat?



take the ö out of 10x@teluös.net to email me
 >> Stay informed about: Help End the Cruel Harp Seal Hunt 

10x@teluös.net wrote in news:0f68v2t2qkt6c96n64ap37uvbrc6ik4brs@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 10:36:49 -0400, William Holt <billholt5 RemoveThis @gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Ian MacLure ibm RemoveThis @svpal.org said:
>>> How dare you try to impose your cultural values on
>>> Kanuckistan. The al-Qanadians have the same right to
>>> their practices that any third world yahoo has.
>>>
>>Spoken like another slobbering Bush worshipper from Moronica where most
>>Americans die of heart attacks before they turn 60 and the average
>>11-year-old tips the scales at 250 Lbs and murdering their fellow
>>Moronicans with hand guns is a popular blood sport.
>
> Sounds like Toronto....

Some of those restaurants in Chinatown by Spadina are more than
your life is worth. I mean ankle on in for a meal and next thing
ya know there's some Kung Fool hosing the place down with a sub-
machine gun.

IBM
 >> Stay informed about: Help End the Cruel Harp Seal Hunt 

"pearl" <tea.RemoveThis@signguestbook.ie> wrote in
news:et0rks$ph2$4@reader01.news.esat.net:

> "Ian MacLure" <ibm.RemoveThis@svpal.org> wrote in message
> news:Xns98EFBF5BD43D7ibmsvpalorg@216.196.97.131...
>> "pearl" <tea.RemoveThis@signguestbook.ie> wrote in
>> news:esuujl$bu$1@reader01.news.esat.net:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > No. It is the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
>>
>> I'm almost sure you're wrong.
>>
>> People Eating Tasty Animals is a real grassroots organization.
>> Well maybe the grassroots have been processed through an animal
>> or two....
>
> We could even say *beneath* grassroots...
>
> 'Deaths per year (US) 6
> -------------------------------------------------------
> heart disease 709,894
> cancer 551,833
> stroke 166,028
> diabetes 68,662
> Chronic Liver Disease/Cirrhosis 26,219
> high blood pressure 17,964
> ------------------------------------------------------
> ..
> Number of Americans Living with Diet- and
> Inactivity-Related Diseases
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Seriously Overweight/Obese9 113,360,000
> High Blood Pressure9 50,000,000
> Diabetes10 15,700,000
> Coronary Heart Disease9 12,600,000
> Osteoporosis7 10,000,000
> Cancer11 8,900,000
> Stroke9 4,600,000]
> -------------------------------------------------------
> ..'
> http://www.cspinet.org/nutritionpolicy/nutrition_policy.html

Silly boghopping twat!

And how do the percentages compare with AIEEEEEEE!
Not well for the AIEEEEErish I'd venture to guess.

May the road rise up to meet you as you fall flat on
your face.

IBM
 >> Stay informed about: Help End the Cruel Harp Seal Hunt 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Help End the Cruel Harp Seal Hunt 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Help End the Cruel Harp Seal Hunt 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Help End the Cruel Harp Seal Hunt 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Help End the Cruel Harp Seal Hunt 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Help End the Cruel Harp Seal Hunt 

<10x@teluös.net> wrote in message news:phlbv29ppf723or9qebur7nvfaf6itc4ug@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:53:36 -0000, "pearl" <tea.TakeThisOut@signguestbook.ie>
> wrote:
>
> ><10x@teluös.net> wrote in message news:rk58v2ph2vkmn7t9b9une3ia7d66638trl@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 12:02:24 -0000, "pearl" <tea.TakeThisOut@signguestbook.ie>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Chom Noamsky" <e.TakeThisOut@t.me> wrote in message news:cNKIh.62340$Du6.1198@edtnps82...
> >> >> "pearl" <tea.TakeThisOut@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> >> >> news:esvdt6$67m$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> >> >> > "Chom Noamsky" <e.TakeThisOut@t.me> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:uwDIh.62113$Du6.116@edtnps82...
> >..
> >> >> >> It's perfectly ethical, legal, humane, moral, and sustainable to harvest
> >> >> >> seals for fur and meat.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It is none of the above.
> >> >>
> >> >> That certainly was a compelling argument.
> >> >
> >> >If there is absolute necessity (for survival), it may be justifiable.
> >> >
> >> >This isn't.
> >>
> >> Could you please show some data to prove your statement.
> >>
> >> If folks stop producing food, then what do they eat?
> >
> >'Most of the meat is wasted and left on the ice. Some if it is
> >sold to fur farms and some is ground up into animal feed. A
> >few thousand seal flippers are sold for human consumption in
> >Newfoundland. There is also a growing black market demand
> >for the seal penis bone in the Far East as some sort of voodoo
> >quack remedy for impotence.
> >...'
> >http://www.harpseals.org/hunt/faqs.html
> >
>
> I'm sorry, that is as somewhat vitriolic and biased website.

Not a valid argument. Show otherwise.
 >> Stay informed about: Help End the Cruel Harp Seal Hunt 

"Chom Noamsky" <e DeleteThis @t.me> wrote in message news:MXgJh.38685$lY6.28347@edtnps90...
> "pearl" <tea DeleteThis @signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:et3pem$v6b$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
>
> > Actually.. Logic dictates that whatever is not required for survival
> > is not absolute necessity. Ethics determines that wanton violence,
> > cruelty and killing is immoral. Justice averts her eyes and weeps.
>
> Ethics are highly subjective, a product of mankind and the societies we live
> in. Killing animals is not unethical, in fact we kill millions upon
> millions of them every day for food, products, medical purposes, etc.
> Sometimes we kill animals for pure sport just to cut off their heads and
> mount them on a wall.

'The adjective unethical has 2 meanings:

Meaning #1: not conforming to approved standards of
social or professional behavior

Meaning #2: not adhering to ethical or moral principles
Synonyms: base, dishonorable, dishonourable, immoral

http://www.answers.com/unethical

'unethical
adjective
Lacking scruples or principles: conscienceless, ruthless,
unconscionable, unprincipled, unscrupulous. ...

unethical
adj
Definition: dishonest, immoral
Antonyms: ethical, good, honest, moral, right, upright
....
http://www.answers.com/unethical

> When society feels strongly about a certain ethic and
> we make a law to enforce it. Canada is democratic nation which means
> society must generally agree on laws. Opinion polls show Canadians support
> the seal hunt.

They show that the majority of Canadians oppose the seal "hunt".

> So you see, your personal definition of logic and ethics only applies to
> YOU. The definition that applies to society is determined collectively by
> society.

'ethical
adjective
In accordance with principles of right or good conduct: moral,
principled, proper, right, righteous, rightful, right-minded, virtuous.
See right/wrong.

ethical
adj
Definition: moral, righteous
Antonyms: corrupt, dishonest, immoral, improper, unethical,
unjust, unrighteous
...
http://www.answers.com/ethical

'hu·mane (hyu-man')
adj.
Characterized by kindness, mercy, or compassion:
...
humane
adj
Definition: kind, compassionate
Antonyms: cruel, fierce, inhumane, merciless, uncivilized,
uncompassionate, unkind, unsympathetic, violent
...
http://www.answers.com/humane&r=67

Work it out. The majority don't need to. We already know.

> > "Tsekung asked, Is there one word that can serve as a principle of
> > conduct for life? Confucius replied, It is the word shu -- reciprocity:
> > Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you."
> > - Confucianism. Analects 15.23
>
> The Golden Rule exists in all major religions, it's a very good rule when
> applied to human relationships. It falls apart when applied to human-animal
> relationships and animal ethics.

For whom? Those wishing to selfishly exploit non-humans.

> > There could be symbiotic, that is, mutually beneficial, association.
>
> Sealing is mutually beneficial. They get less competition for food, we get
> products to sell.

Nonsense.

> > Whatever is not required for survival is not absolute necessity. Logic.
>
> That eliminates just about 99.9% of what we know as civilization. Humans
> are not creatures of pure need, we have wants and desires and the
> intelligence to achieve them. That's what separates us from the animals.
> What you're delving into are theoretical that only exist in the minds of
> naive idealists.

'hu·mane (hyu-man')
adj.
Characterized by kindness, mercy, or compassion:
...
humane
adj
Definition: kind, compassionate
Antonyms: cruel, fierce, inhumane, merciless, uncivilized,
uncompassionate, unkind, unsympathetic, violent
...
http://www.answers.com/humane&r=67

> >> The laws of the land in Canada
> >> make it quite legal to slaughter animals, from meat packing plants that
> >> operate 7/24/365 to the annual slaughter of seals. That's right, as a
> >> sovereign nation we have the power of life and death over our animal
> >> resources, both domestic and wild, as we have from the beginning of our
> >> history.
> >
> > Convenient, eh.
> >
> > 'Argumentum ad Antiquitam.
> >
> > Description: A fallacy of asserting that something is right or good
> > simply because it is old; that is, because "that's the way it's always
> > been."
>
> Something is right or good when society deems it to be. If laws are a
> continuance of tradition that is because society has not seen fit to reform
> them. Therefore, in this case what is old is also current and contemporary;
> it passes the truth test.

'hu·mane (hyu-man')
adj.
Characterized by kindness, mercy, or compassion:
...
humane
adj
Definition: kind, compassionate
Antonyms: cruel, fierce, inhumane, merciless, uncivilized,
uncompassionate, unkind, unsympathetic, violent
...
http://www.answers.com/humane&r=67

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
by the way its animals are treated." - Mohandas Gandhi

> >> I see that PETA also reserves the right to life and death over
> >> animals considering it routinely practices euthanasia.
> >
> > Very wrong, in mine and many other ARAs' view.
>
> This proves the rules of animal ethics are not absolutes, even among the
> ARAs.

PETA hovers between animal welfare and animal rights.

> >> Now, there are REAL authorities that determine what constitutes animal
> >> cruelty. The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association is one such
> >> organization, they report that 98% of seals are slaughtered in manner
> >> consistent with humane practices.
> >
> > When they were there observing the killing - known to the killers?
> >
> > 'Veterinarians have shockingly documented seals being skinned
> > alive. In 2001, an independent team of veterinary experts studied
> > Canada's commercial seal hunt. Their report concluded that in
> > 42% of the cases they examined, the seal did not show enough
> > evidence of cranial injury to even guarantee unconsciousness at
> > the time of skinning. Video footage taken by hunt observers
> > shows that many sealers do not conduct the Blink-reflex Test to
> > ensure each seal is rendered unconscious before skinning,
> > although the test is quick, simple and required by law. The short
> > duration of this hunt as well as the geographic and financial
> > obstacles to monitoring the hunt, makes it impossible to ensure
> > that the seals are killed humanely.
> >
> > http://www.savecanadianseals.org/huntfacts.html
> >
> > 'Clubbing seals & leaving to suffer, possibility hooking alive,
> > possible bleeding alive
> > Shooting seal & leaving to suffer, possible hooking alive
> > Shooting seal & leaving to suffer, clubbing with a boat hook,
> > hooking alive
> > Possible shooting seal & leaving to suffer, possible struck
> > and lost
> > Shooting seal & leaving to suffer, hooking alive
> > Shooting seal & leaving to suffer, possible hooking alive,
> > clubbing with boat hook
> > Shooting seal & leaving to suffer, hooking alive
> > Shooting seal & leaving to suffer
>
> For credibility a claim should be supported by some supporting evidence.
> Which veterinarian experts said this? How come no names of individuals or
> the name of the group?

Surely you can click on the link provided and find out.

> You can corroborate my 98% claim with the Canadian
> Veterinary Medical Association.

I've seen the abstract. It says 98% "at best".

> Now, you do realize theses anti-sealing sites deal more in
> emotionally-charged hype than facts?

Of course not. You've given us no valid reason to.

> > ............
> > http://tinyurl.com/2dmcb
> >
> >> PETA euthanizes up to 85% of the animals
> >> it "rescues", I would hazard a guess that the administration of sodium
> >> pentobarbital to these animals doesn't always go right and there is
> >> suffering involved.
> >
> > 'Tu Quoque - Two Wrongs Make a Right
> >
> > Description: Two wrongs never add up to a right; you cannot right
> > a wrong by applying yet another wrong. Such a fallacy is a misplaced
> > appeal to consistency. It is a fallacy because it makes no attempt to
> > deal with the subject under discussion.
>
> The ARAs can't even agree on whether euthanasia is ethical, thus you'll have
> to save your judgment for future date.

Euthanasia of healthy animals is an animal welfare position, not AR.

> > http://education.gsu.edu/spehar/FOCUS/EdPsy/misc/Fallacies.htm
> >
> >> >> Paleontologists have long since proven (by digging up fire pits, etc)
> >> >> that
> >> >> ancient man were opportunistic eaters that ate both plants and
> >> >> animals.
> >> >> They also know that man manufactured products and utensils from
> >> >> animals,
> >> >> like clothing, weapons, personal decorations, tools, etc.
> >> >
> >> > 'Brown says that pushing the emergence of Homo sapiens from
> >> > about 160,000 years ago back to about 195,000 years ago "is
> >> > significant because the cultural aspects of humanity in most cases
> >> > appear much later in the record - only 50,000 years ago - which
> >> > would mean 150,000 years of Homo sapiens without cultural stuff,
> >> > such as evidence of eating fish, of harpoons, anything to do with
> >> > music (flutes and that sort of thing), needles, even tools. This
> >> > stuff all comes in very late, except for stone knife blades, which
> >> > appeared between 50,000 and 200,000 years ago, depending on
> >> > whom you believe."
> >> >
> >> > Fleagle adds: "There is a huge debate in the archeological literature
> >> > regarding the first appearance of modern aspects of behavior such
> >> > as bone carving for religious reasons, or tools (harpoons and things),
> >> > ornamentation (bead jewelry and such), drawn images, arrowheads.
> >> > They only appear as a coherent package about 50,000 years ago,
> >> > and the first modern humans that left Africa between 50,000 and
> >> > 40,000 years ago seem to have had the full set. As modern human
> >> > anatomy is documented at earlier and earlier sites, it becomes
> >> > evident that there was a great time gap between the appearance of
> >> > the modern skeleton and 'modern behavior.'"
> >>
> >> I can find scientific reports that give evidence of hominids eating flesh
> >> and making tools as far back as 2.5 million years ago. To claim that
> >> humans
> >> just discovered animals were useful 50,000-200,000 years ago is some very
> >> wishful thinking:
> >>
> >> "On present evidence hominids have been manufacturing stone tools for
> >> the processing of animal carcasses, among other activities, for 2.5 Ma
> >> (million years) (Semaw et al., 1997);"
> >>
> >> http://melampus.colorado.edu/class/pdfs/LeeThorpetal03.pdf
> >
> > Can you show us this evidence.
>
> Argumentum ad absurdum.

How so? "On present evidence". Give us some real facts.

> >> Chemistry also shows early hominids were omnivores based on the levels of
> >> strontium/calcium found in fossil bone. Mammal digestion discriminates
> >> between calcium/strontium and preferentially eliminates strontium. When
> >> the
> >> ratios found in fossil bone are compared to various herbivorous and
> >> carnivorous food sources, the Sr/Cr profile of hominids going back
> >> millions
> >> of years is consistent with omnivorous diets.
> >
> > I'd like to see the data. Meanwhile..
>
> Ever heard of Google?

Ever heard that the burden of proof is upon those making claims?

> > '.. disease rates were significantly associated within a range of
> > dietary plant food composition that suggested an absence of a
> > disease prevention threshold. That is, the closer a diet is to an
> > all-plant foods diet, the greater will be the reduction in the rates
> > of these diseases.'
> > http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Nov98/thermogenesis_paper.html
>
> Non-sequitur argumentum ad absurdum.

Evidence that humans are not naturally carnivorous omnivores.

'Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative diseases:
perspectives from China.
Am J Clin Nutr 1994 May;59(5 Suppl):1153S-1161S.

A comprehensive ecologic survey of dietary, life-style, and mortality
characteristics of 65 counties in rural China showed that diets are
substantially richer in foods of plant origin when compared with
diets consumed in the more industrialized, Western societies. Mean
intakes of animal protein (about one-tenth of the mean intake in the
United States as energy percent), total fat (14.5% of energy), and
dietary fiber (33.3 g/d) reflected a substantial preference for foods
of plant origin. Mean plasma cholesterol concentration, at
approximately 3.23-3.49 mmol/L, corresponds to this dietary
life-style. The principal hypothesis under investigation in this paper
is that chronic degenerative diseases are prevented by an aggregate
effect of nutrients and nutrient-intake amounts that are commonly
supplied by foods of plant origin. The breadth and consistency of
evidence for this hypothesis was investigated with multiple intake-
biomarker-disease associations, which were appropriately adjusted.
There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or
minimization of fat intake beyond which further disease prevention
does not occur. These findings suggest that even small intakes of
foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in
plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn,
with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality
rates. '
 >> Stay informed about: Help End the Cruel Harp Seal Hunt 

<10x@teluös.net> wrote in message news:mllbv216b5bqcmbf64nrlci0vlf30poom3@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:53:10 -0000, "pearl" <tea RemoveThis @signguestbook.ie>
> wrote:
>
> ><10x@teluös.net> wrote in message news:im58v21keb9fhg0f0s1334e77kglgu4gev@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 12:07:11 -0000, "pearl" <tea RemoveThis @signguestbook.ie>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >'Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate
> >> >for all stages of the lifecycle, including during pregnancy, lactation,
> >> >infancy, childhood and adolescence. Appropriately planned vegetarian
> >> >diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in
> >> >the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.' These 'certain
> >> >diseases' are the killer epidemics of today - heart disease, strokes,
> >> >cancers, diabetes etc.
> >> >
> >> >This is the view of the world's most prestigious health advisory body,
> >> >the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada, after a
> >> >review of world literature. It is backed up by the British Medical
> >> >Association:
> >> >
> >> >'Vegetarians have lower rates of obesity, coronary heart disease,
> >> >high blood pressure, large bowel disorders, cancers and gall stones.'
> >> >...'
> >> >http://www.vegetarian.org.uk/mediareleases/050221.html
> >>
> >>
> >> You should see the millions of hectares stolen from wildlife habitat
> >> so that farmers can grow food for folks who eat cerial crops and
> >> vegetables. All those animals that used that habitat are now shut out
> >> and starving.
> >> Not to mention all of the fertilizers, herbicides, and pestiticides
> >> farmers use to maximize the crops they grow to sell to vegetarians.
> >> All that stuff is poisoning the earth. Give me pristine wilderness,
> >> grubbing for roots, and eating small (and large) mammals and fish that
> >> I catch my self. I'm really into organic....
> >
> >Non sequitur. As you've mentioned it, though..
> >
> >'Livestock a major threat to environment
> >..
> >Livestock now use 30 percent of the earth's entire land surface, mostly
> >permanent pasture but also including 33 percent of the global arable land
> >used to producing feed for livestock, the report notes. As forests are
> >cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of deforestation,
> >especially in Latin America where, for example, some 70 percent of
> >former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing.
> >
> >Land and water
> >
> >At the same time herds cause wide-scale land degradation, with about
> >20 percent of pastures considered as degraded through overgrazing,
> >compaction and erosion. This figure is even higher in the drylands
> >where inappropriate policies and inadequate livestock management
> >contribute to advancing desertification.
> >
> >The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the
> >earth's increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other
> >things to water pollution, euthropication and the degeneration of coral
> >reefs. The major polluting agents are animal wastes, antibiotics and
> >hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and the pesticides used
> >to spray feed crops. Widespread overgrazing disturbs water cycles,
> >reducing replenishment of above and below ground water resources.
> >Significant amounts of water are withdrawn for the production of feed.
> >
> >Livestock are estimated to be the main inland source of phosphorous
> >and nitrogen contamination of the South China Sea, contributing to
> >biodiversity loss in marine ecosystems.
> >
> >Meat and dairy animals now account for about 20 percent of all
> >terrestrial animal biomass. Livestock's presence in vast tracts of land
> >and its demand for feed crops also contribute to biodiversity loss;
> >15 out of 24 important ecosystem services are assessed as in decline,
> >with livestock identified as a culprit.
> >...
> >http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html
> >
> >Impact of livestock grazing on wildlife and habitat worldwide:
> >http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html
> >
> >"global arable land" = "present cropland"..
> >
> >From Technological Trajectories and the Human Environment.
> >1997. Pp. 56-73. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
> >"How Much Land Can Ten Billion People Spare for Nature?"..
> >
> >'By eating different species of crops and a more or less vegetarian
> >diet people can change the number that a plot can feed. And large
> >numbers of people do change their diets. The calories and protein
> >available from present cropland could provide a vegetarian diet to
> >ten billion people. A diet requiring food and feed totaling 6,000
> >calories daily for ten billion people, however, would overwhelm
> >the capability of present agriculture on present cropland. The
> >global totals of sun, CO2, fertilizer, and even water could produce
> >far more food than what ten billion people need.
> >..'
> >http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4767&page=56
>
>
> And growing crops and vegetables is also a major threat to the
> environment.

'Surveys by the ministry of agriculture and the British Trust
for Ornithology have shown the beneficial effects of organic
farming on wildlife. It's not difficult to see why: the pesticides
used in intensive agriculture kill many soil organisms, insects
and other larger species. They also kill plants considered to
be weeds. That means fewer food sources available for other
animals, birds and beneficial insects and it also destroys many
of their habitats.
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/Farming/benefits.html

'The independent research quoted in this report found substantially
greater levels of both abundance and diversity of species on the
organic farms, as outlined below:
- Plants: Five times as many wild plants in arable fields, 57% more
species, and several rare and declining wild arable species found
only on organic farms.
- Birds: 25% more birds at the field edge, 44% more in-field in
autumn/winter; 2.2 times as many breeding skylarks and higher
skylark breeding rates.
- Invertebrates: 1.6 times as many of the arthropods that comprise
bird food; three times as many non-pest butterflies in the crop areas;
one to five times as many spider numbers and one to two times as
many spider species.
- Crop pests: Significant decrease in aphid numbers; no change in
numbers of pest butterflies.
- Distribution of the biodiversity benefits: Though the field boundaries
had the highest levels of wildlife, the highest increases were found
in the cropped areas of the fields.
- Quality of the habitats: Both the field boundary and crop habitats
were more favourable on the organic farms. The field boundaries
had more trees, larger hedges and no spray drift.
...'
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/pn48/pn48p15b.htm

> Livestock utilize land that can not be used for vegetables and crops.

Don't they just. Arable land too.
 >> Stay informed about: Help End the Cruel Harp Seal Hunt 

"Eric Gisin" <gisin.DeleteThis@uniserve.com> wrote in message news:1173726518.724066@netadmin1.interbaun.net...
> "Chom Noamsky" <e.DeleteThis@t.me> wrote in message news:y0hJh.38687$lY6.20732@edtnps90...
> >> "pearl" <tea.DeleteThis@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:et3pe6$v67$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> >> Omnivores are carnivorous. Where are meat-eating adaptations?
> >
> > The brain.
> Leading to technology, like stone tools 2M years ago and fire over 1M years ago.

What came first.. the "meat/brain/intelligence", or the
means to acquire and actually eat it... ? ...duuuuh... .

'Medical News Today
Main Category: Biology/Biochemistry News
Article Date: 20 Feb 2006 - 0:00am (UK)

Humans Evolved To Be Peaceful, Cooperative And Social
Animals, Not Predators

by Neil Schoenherr
Washington University in St. Louis

You wouldn't know it by current world events, but humans
actually evolved to be peaceful, cooperative and social animals,
not the predators modern mythology would have us believe,
says an anthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis.

Robert W. Sussman, Ph.D., professor anthropology in Arts
& Sciences, spoke at a press briefing, "Early Humans on the
Menu," during the American Association for the Advancement
of the Science's Annual Meeting at 2 p.m. on Feb. 18.

Also scheduled to speak at the briefing were Karen Strier,
University of Wisconsin; Agustin Fuentes, University of Notre
Dame; Douglas Fry, Abo Akademi University in Helsinki and
University of Arizona; and James Rilling, Emory University.

In his latest book, "Man the Hunted: Primates, Predators and
Human Evolution," Sussman goes against the prevailing view
and argues that primates, including early humans, evolved not
as hunters but as prey of many predators, including wild dogs
and cats, hyenas, eagles and crocodiles.

Despite popular theories posed in research papers and popular
literature, early man was not an aggressive killer, Sussman
argues. He poses a new theory, based on the fossil record and
living primate species, that primates have been prey for millions
of years, a fact that greatly influenced the evolution of early man.

"Our intelligence, cooperation and many other features we have
as modern humans developed from our attempts to out-smart
the predator," says Sussman.

Since the 1924 discovery of the first early humans,
australopithicenes, which lived from seven million years ago to
two million years ago, many scientists theorized that those early
human ancestors were hunters and possessed a killer instinct.

The idea of "Man the Hunter" is the generally accepted paradigm
of human evolution, says Sussman, "It developed from a basic
Judeo-Christian ideology of man being inherently evil, aggressive
and a natural killer. In fact, when you really examine the fossil
and living non-human primate evidence, that is just not the case."

Sussman's research is based on studying the fossil evidence
dating back nearly seven million years. "Most theories on
Man the Hunter fail to incorporate this key fossil evidence,"
Sussman says. "We wanted evidence, not just theory.

We thoroughly examined literature available on the skulls,
bones, footprints and on environmental evidence, both of our
hominid ancestors and the predators that coexisted with them."

Since the process of human evolution is so long and varied,
Sussman and his co-author, Donna L. Hart, decided to focus
their research on one specific species, Australopithecus
afarensis, which lived between five million and two and a half
million years ago and is one of the better known early human
species. Most paleontologists agree that Australopithecus
afarensis is the common link between fossils that came before
and those that came after. It shares dental, cranial and skeletal
traits with both. It's also a very well-represented species in the
fossil record.

"Australopithecus afarensis was probably quite strong, like a
small ape," Sussman says. Adults ranged from around 3 to 5
feet and they weighed 60-100 pounds. They were basically
smallish bipedal primates. Their teeth were relatively small, very
much like modern humans, and they were fruit and nut eaters.

But what Sussman and Hart discovered is that Australopithecus
afarensis was not dentally pre-adapted to eat meat.

"It didn't have the sharp shearing blades necessary to retain and
cut such foods," Sussman says. "These early humans simply
couldn't eat meat. If they couldn't eat meat, why would they hunt?"

It was not possible for early humans to consume a large amount
of meat until fire was controlled and cooking was possible.

Sussman points out that the first tools didn't appear until two
million years ago. And there wasn't good evidence of fire until
after 800,000 years ago. "In fact, some archaeologists and
paleontologists don't think we had a modern, systematic method
of hunting until as recently as 60,000 years ago," he says.

"Furthermore, Australopithecus afarensis was an edge species,"
adds Sussman. They could live in the trees and on the ground
and could take advantage of both. "Primates that are edge
species, even today, are basically prey species, not predators,"
Sussman argues.

The predators living at the same time as Australopithecus
afarensis were huge and there were 10 times as many as today.
There were hyenas as big as bears, as well as saber-toothed cats
and many other mega-sized carnivores, reptiles and raptors.
Australopithecus afarensis didn't have tools, didn't have big teeth
and was three feet tall. He was using his brain, his agility and his
social skills to get away from these predators. "He wasn't hunting
them," says Sussman. "He was avoiding them at all costs."

Approximately 6 percent to 10 percent of early humans were
preyed upon according to evidence that includes teeth marks
on bones, talon marks on skulls and holes in a fossil cranium
into which sabertooth cat fangs fit, says Sussman. The predation
rate on savannah antelope and certain ground-living monkeys
today is around 6 percent to 10 percent as well.

Sussman and Hart provide evidence that many of our modern
human traits, including those of cooperation and socialization,
developed as a result of being a prey species and the early
human's ability to out-smart the predators. These traits did not
result from trying to hunt for prey or kill our competitors, says
Sussman.

"One of the main defenses against predators by animals without
physical defenses is living in groups," says Sussman. "In fact,
all diurnal primates (those active during the day) live in
permanent social groups. Most ecologists agree that predation
pressure is one of the major adaptive reasons for this group-living.
In this way there are more eyes and ears to locate the predators
and more individuals to mob them if attacked or to confuse them
by scattering. There are a number of reasons that living in groups
is beneficial for animals that otherwise would be very prone to
being preyed upon."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=38011
 >> Stay informed about: Help End the Cruel Harp Seal Hunt 

"Chom Noamsky" <e.TakeThisOut@t.me> wrote in message news:y0hJh.38687$lY6.20732@edtnps90...
> > "pearl" <tea.TakeThisOut@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> > news:et3pe6$v67$1@reader01.news.esat.net...

> > Omnivores are carnivorous. Where are meat-eating adaptations?
>
> The brain.

'Anthropologies 'Man The Hunter' concept is still used as a
reason for justifying the consumption of animal flesh as food.
This has even extended as far as suggesting that animal foods
have enabled or caused human brain enlargement. Allegedly
this is because of the greater availability of certain kinds of
fats and the sharing behaviour associated with eating raw
animal food. The reality is that through natural selection, the
environmental factors our species have been exposed to
selected for greater brain development, long before raw animal
flesh became a significant part of our ancient ancestors diet.
The elephant has also developed a larger brain than the human
brain, on a diet primarily consisting of fermented foliage and
fruits. It is my hypothesis that it is eating fruits and perhaps
blossoms, that has, if anything, contributed the most in allowing
humans to develop relatively larger brains than other species.
The ability of humans to develop normal brains with a dietary
absence of animal products is also noted.
...
Given a plentiful supply of fruits the mother does not have to
risk expending much of her effort obtaining difficult to get foods
like raw animal flesh, insects, nuts and roots. Furthermore, fruits
contain abundant supplies of sugars which the brain solely uses
for energy. The mother who's genes better dispose her for an
easy life on fruits would have an advantage of those who do not,
and similarly, the fruit species which is the best food for mother
and child nutrition, would tend to be selected for. There is now
little doubt amongst distinguished biologists that fruit has been
the most significant dietary constituent in the evolution of humans.
...
What are the essential biochemical properties of human metabolism
which distinguish us from our non-human primate relatives? One, at
least, is our uniquely low protein requirement as described by Olav
T. Oftedal who says:

"Human milk has the lowest protein concentration (about 7% of
energy) of any primate milk that has been studied. In general, it
appears that primates produce small daily amounts of a relatively
dilute milk (Oftedal 1984). Thus the protein and energy demands
of lactation are probably low for primates by comparison to the
demands experienced by many other mammals." The nutritional
consequences of foraging in primates: the relationship of nutrient
intakes to nutrient requirements, p.161 Philosophical Transactions:
Biological Sciences vol 334, 159-295, No. 1270

One might imagine that given our comparatively 'low protein' milk,
we would not be able to grow very fast. In fact, as the image on the
right shows, human infants show very rapid growth, especially of
the brain, during the first year of life. Human infants are born a full
year earlier than they would be projected to, based on comparisons
with other animals. This is because of the large size their brains
reach. A human infant grows at the rate of 9 kg/year at birth, falling
to 3.5 kg/year a year later. Thereafter its growth rate is about half
that of a chimpanzees at 2 kg/year vs. about 4.5 kg/year. Humans
are relatively half as bulky as the other great apes, thus allowing
nutrients to be directed at brain development and the diet to be less
demanding. The advantages of such an undemanding metabolism
are clear. Humans delay their growth because they 'catch up' later,
during puberty as seen on the graph. Even so, the growth rate never
reaches that of a newborn infant who grows best by only eating
breast milk.
....
According to Exequiel M. Patiño and Juan T. Borda 'Primate milks
contain on the average 13% solids, of which 6.5% is lactose, 3.8%
lipids, 2.4% proteins, and 0.2% ash. Lactose is the largest
component of the solids, and protein is a lesser one'. They also say
that 'milks of humans and Old World monkeys have the highest
percentages of sugar (an average of 6.9%)' and when comparing
human and non human primate milks, they have similar proportions
of solids, but human milks has more sugar and fat whereas the non
human primate milks have much more protein. They continue 'In
fact, human milk has the lowest concentration of proteins (1.0%)
of all the species of primates.' Patiño and Borda present their
research in order to allow other primatologists to construct artificial
milks as a substitute for the real thing for captive primates. It is to
be expected that these will have similar disasterous consequences
as the feeding of artificial bovine, and other false milks, has had on
human infants.

Patiño and Borda also present a table which compares primate
milks. This table is shown below and identifies the distinctive
lower protein requirements of humans. [see link]

Undoubtedly these gross metabolic differences between humans
and other mammals must have system wide implications for our
metabolism. They allow us to feed heavily on fruits, and may
restrict other species from choosing them. Never the less, many
nutritional authorities suggest that adult humans need nearly double
(12% of calorific value) their breast milk levels of protein, although
it is accepted that infant protein requirements for growth are triple
those of adults. The use of calorific values might also confuse the
issue since human milk is highly dilute (1% protein), and clearly
eating foods that might be 25 times this concentration, such as
meat, are massive excesses if constantly ingested. Certainly the
body might manage to deal with this excess without suffering
immediate problems, but this is not proof of any beneficial
adaptation. It also needs to be pointed out that berries, such as
raspberries, may yield up to 21% of their calorific value from
protein, but are not regarded as 'good sources' of protein by
nutritional authorites. There are millions of fruits available to wild
animals, and blanked generalisations about the qualities of certain
food groups, need to be examined carefully, due to some
misconceptions arising from the limited commercial fruits which
we experience in the domestic state.

The weaning of a fruigivorous primate would clearly demand the
supply of a food with nutritional characteristics similar to those
of the mothers milk. We must realise that supportive breast
feeding may continue for up to 9 or 10 years in some 'primitive'
peoples, and this is more likely to be representative of our
evolutionary history than the 6 month limit often found in modern
cultures. This premature weaning should strike any aware
naturalist as being a disasterous activity, inflicting untold damage.
However, what we do know of the consequences is that it
reduces the IQ and disease resistance of the child, and that the
substitute of unnatural substances, like wheat and dairy products,
is pathogenic.

Finally we need to compare some food group compositions with
human milk in order to establish if any statistical similarity exists.
This would demonstrate that modern humans have inherited their
ancient fruigivorous metabolism. This data is examined below in
the final sections of the article.
.....'
http://tinyurl.com/dahps
 >> Stay informed about: Help End the Cruel Harp Seal Hunt