Are we meat eaters or vegetarians?

FutureisNow said:

Fred, I think you're missing the point that natural selection is still operating. (...)

Am I? Maybe, but where is the environmental pressure?

What I observe is that:

- Everyone gets kids and social benefits with it.

- Kids mortality is at historic lows.

- Survival till mating age at historic highs.

Income? Level of development?

- I do not think there is a positive correlation between income and progeny. (if there is a correlation, it could well be negative)

- There is a negative correlation between electricity consumption (level of development) and the number of kids.

Time frame?

A genetic advantage needs time to spread... Say 60 generations ago (that takes us back to year 1 of our accounting system), you and your wife have a genetic advantage and are perfectly adapted to your food and environment... You ride a donkey, eat gruel, have good teeth and are resistant to the Flu, Plague, smallpox, athlete's foot and tetanos!

What good does that do your descendants who drive Ferraris, visit the dentist, eat pizza, are vaccinated, powder their feet and use antibiotics?

Without even looking at the environment (food, etc...) that has probably changed once per century (every 3 generations) since, every advantage you may have had 2000 years ago, is flattened out.

Very possibly I am missing something, but I don't know what it could be... maybe you can help me see what you see?

Right, income and family size are largely inversely related, except where religion dictates. That alone suggests that high meat diet does not produce larger population. In fact, a high meat diet requires more food resources taking them away from potential human consumption.

My understanding is that early man was largely vegetarian, tuber vegetables and fruit, and we are accomodative of those.

Grains are more recent, and people have varying degrees of accomodation of these. Know yourself.

I don't really know what you're worried or concerned about...

The genetic dilution of the human species? Too many unworthy people surviving? Ovepopulation?

In any event, survival is now longer the goal. Thrivival is. We have eliminated basic survival as an issue and established conditions where people can thrive in artifical environments. Business, scientific, acedemic and athletic competition are now the

environmental pressures that select the more worthy candidates. Those that thrive get to live the "good life" defined

in artifical terms. Those that don't have fewer opportuntiies, and perhaps get to mate with less "desirable" partners.

The fact is though that it's largely an artifical construct, yes.

FutureisNow said:

(...) I don't really know what you're worried or concerned about...

The genetic dilution of the human species? Too many unworthy people surviving? Ovepopulation?

In any event, survival is now longer the goal. Thrivival is. We have eliminated basic survival as an issue and established conditions where people can thrive in artifical environments. (...)

hehehe, I am not really sure either...

I am not worried, I am observing and trying to understand what is going on. Although overpopulation is a concern (remember, I am living in China), that will be resolved one way or another; if we do not take this in our own hands, nature will find a way... 8)

For two generations, survival has not been a real concern... this is only true in the first world, and a very short time span to draw conclusions or project the future with any degree of confidence.

Maybe we are as dumb as turkeys a week before thanksgiving? In our our living memory, the farmer has always showed up to feed us each & every morning, without exception; he is our best friend, always serving us first, we have no reasons to worry, confidence is at an all time high.............................. :roll:

There are unknowns and unknowables. It's impossible to figure it out completely.

You'll drive yourself crazy. Go practice handstands.

FutureisNow said:

(...) Go practice handstands.

Planned recovery...