I'd almost decided to opt out of this discussion because it always seems to
degenerate into name calling and assorted invectives. I did take the time to
find a reference from a non-biologist, who seem to part of an international
conspiracy to promote eating meat, by an MD and an anthropologist. This book
supports, not surprisingly, the majority contention that humans have been
hunter/gatherers throughout 98% of their history and all of our (Homo
sapiens) shared history. This has major implications to diet and nutrition
which the vegans, vegetarians, et al. want to ignore.

The Paleolithic Prescription : A Program of Diet and Exercise and a Design
for Living
by S. Boyd Eaton, Marjorie Shostak, Melvin Konner
(here is a review by someone, not me, who was only interested in nutrition)

"The Paleolithic Prescription provides detailed advice on living well based
on evidence from our evolutionary past. The authors, physicians and
anthropologists from Emory University, have written an eminently readable
work. They deserve great credit for their extensive research.

The book's main theme is that humans today are genetically little different
from our hunting and gathering ancestors. The agricultural revolution some
10,000 years ago and the industrial revolution some 200 years ago radically
changed our relationship with the Earth. The authors marshal evidence that
much degenerative disease can be attributed to our essentially
pre-agricultural bodies being unable to adapt to post-agricultural and
post-industrial conditions.

Both the Zone books by Dr.Barry Sears and Protein Power by the Eades list
The Paleolithic Prescription as a reference. The principal focus of the book
is nutrition but the authors also contrast the relationship between the
sexes that occurred when we forsook our evolutionary heritage.

The book is not based on conjecture. A handful of hunting and gathering
peoples still exist on our planet. Extensive anthropological observations as
well as fossil evidence provide convincing evidence.

The authors do not deny the merits of modern medicene. They feel we can
apply the lessons of past life ways and enjoy optimal health in the best of
both worlds. I would like to ask the authors if the lowering of the infant
mortality rate through the conquest of infectious disease [with its
subsequent deterioration of the gene pool] is in the planet's best interests
in the long run."

Bissell here: I took the time to call or email some of my friends/associates
who still deal in issues of evolution, paleoanthropology, and comparative
anatomy. None of them felt that the idea that humans evolved from herbivore
ancestors had any merit. One, a comparative anatomist who has specialized in
dentition actually thought I was pulling his leg. He accused me of making
the whole thing up. All of these people denied any association with the meat
industry, but of course they also denied any knowledge of the gunman on the
grassy knoll and area 51, so there you go.

So what has this to do with environmental ethics? I think that without an
understanding of our evolutionary/ecological place in nature, it is
difficult to "think straight" about nature. Much of what I see in the Animal
Rights literature takes a very paternalistic approach to wild animals. And,
on this list the issue of "compassion" comes up from time to time. I don't
say that either being responsible in regards treatment of individual animals
or compassion is "wrong" in any way whatsoever, I just say they have little
or nothing to do with the ethical issues of environmental concern. Although
I am *not* an advocate of deep ecology, one the tenets (as I understand it)
is a "gut level" appreciation of one's place in functioning ecosystems. That
place, IMO, is that of a social primate omnivore hunter/gatherer. I don't
know why there is such a strong temptation to only look at the present when
constructing an ethical system. It ignores so much richness and depth of
understanding to focus on immediate issues and deal with what is right in
front of your face. Environmental changes are also evolutionary changes.
What we are doing to the environment today (and yesterdays) will be
reflected in evolutionary changes in the future. So the consideration of
evolution is germane to the construction of an enviornmental ethic.

Steven

http://www.du.edu/~sbissell
 What we lost with that wild, primal existence
was a way of being for which the era of
agriculture and civilization lacks counterpoise.
Human life is the poorer for it.
                             Paul Shepard





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%