Science, frugivores, conclusions, and details.

[Guest guest]

Hi Richard,

 

Fauna is animal life within a given area or environment, or of a

stated period of time. Vore is a latin term meaning something like

eat. One can only sensibly conclude that a faunivore is an animal

which mostly eats local animals. The article refers to a faunivore as

this type of eater.

 

Scientific dietary classifications such as carnivore, frugivore, and

herbivore are designations that denote what an animal mostly eats in

its wild, natural, evolved state, as determined by its anatomical,

physiological, psychological, and behavioural traits regarding its

diet. The various foods that make up its regular fare are called its

diet.

 

A faunivore sounds suspiciously like a carnivore. A carnivore eats

predominantly flesh and bodies of animals that are in its local area.

A faunivore eats predominantly flesh and bodies of animals that are

in its local area. Hmmm. Perhaps someone is trying to give another

name to a meat eater, other than carnivore, so it sounds nicer and

can be passed off as an omnivore, while still avoiding the obviously

appropriate frugivore classification. Just guessing

 

An omnivore eats most everything of the basic, natural, wild food

groups. This means a frugivore, a carnivore, and a herbivore are all

omnivores, since they all eat a bit of everything over time. So what

does omnivore mean, exactly? Is it a grouping term?

 

When classifying species, its a bit like Sesame Street. What's the

same, what doesn't belong. If I pointed out all the thousands of

differences between a man and a woman, and ignored most of what was

the same, I could logically, but deceptively, conclude they were born

on different planets. Maybe Venus and Mars. Personally, I think they

were born on earth, and even are of the same species. But I only

believe that, so don't take my word for it. I really don't know, and

nobody can know for sure

 

Fruit is not breast milk. Grass is not cow's milk. The point is that

fruit is sweet and a baby that is accustomed to sweet breast milk

will automatically like fruit, which makes weaning happen naturally

and easily once the teeth start growing, without having to try and

airplane mashed peas down a throat. A calf that is accustomed to

cow's milk, the taste of which is not sweet and is more oriented

towards the taste of grass, will gravitate towards grass when weaned.

 

Anatomical, physiological, and psychological traits of humans can be

used to show humans are frugivores. Other sciences can be used to

explain how it all works. The gravitation of babies towards fruit

instead of grass in the field due to the sugar in the fruit that is

not in grass is part of explaining things so it all makes sense in

the end. That's all. It's only more evidence to fit in the logical

analysis after initial observations have been made that show humans

to be a frugivore.

 

The BV article is very misleading and not scientific at all. It uses

a lot of big words, but it loses itself in confusion, just as so many

of the fruitarian/vegetarian/vegan promoters do. The article lacks

any definitions of its terms. Any credible practical science report

that makes conclusions must have its important terms defined, so that

confusion does not reign and easy understanding can be had. Poorly

defined words are mixed and crossed while " appraisals " are made, all

bolstered with assumptions, beliefs, misleading language, mis-

association, dis-association, false labling, and more. It's an

extremely biased and confusing article(s). Whoever wrote the article

is obviously a meat eater promoting carnivorism as the natural diet

of the human species.

 

I'm glad to hear that you are getting tired of studies too, like me.

I could write fifty books on how mixed up the BV site is, including

that article you pointed out. It's a shame that people are mislead

into thinking that an article like that has much to do with

legitimate scientific investigation and revelation. It presents

overdone legitimate scientific evidence and material backed by

an agenda wrapped in conventional misinterpretations, twisted logic,

and lost-in-the-details analysis.

 

An important part of a return to health is to learn to follow one's

senses again, while carefully using the intellect at times, learning

from those who are ahead, and persevering.

 

It's takes years for anyone to sort out what is fully appropriate

food and really tastes good when the human body has been abused for

so long. The civilized body is the broken down engine trying to fix

itself using signals that are erred in themselves because the engine

is broken down and can only give out erred signals, even as it gets

better. The engine will slowly repair itself, but it always gives out

erred signals, to varying extents, until it is finally repaired

completely, when it will give out only true error signals who's

meanings are exactly known and dependable. The human body takes more

than a decade to repair the damage of previous decades. Civilized

bodies are grieviously harmed physically, emotionally, and mentally,

and are surrounded by a unceasing harmful civilized environment that

relentlessly pulls them backwards.

 

........................

 

I'm not into beliefs. I don't support religion, medicine,

fruitarianism, veganism, vegetarianism, democracy, communism,

spirituality, nor any of the other uncountable faddish belief systems

of civilization. I know how these systems work and that without

belief, they'd never naturally exist.What naturally exists requires

no belief for its existence.

 

All things that exist are expressions of that which expresses the

thing. Ie, they are self-evident. Love is an expression, and doesn't

require belief. Love requires expression to exist. A rock expresses

itself by the parts of itself that make it up, which in themselves

are expression of other expression before them. A rock is dependent

on that which expresses it, just as love is dependent on that which

expresses love.

 

My approach to the frugivorous nature of humans is the same approach

I take for gravity's existence. I don't believe in gravity. I just

observe how things fall all the time when they lose their support.

How it actually works requires a lot of explaining, but the

explaining doesn't make gravity work, no matter how much a person

likes/dislikes the explanation. Gravity is self-evident. I can only

try to explain how it works (and take advantage of how it works),

after obvious evidence shows it exists.

 

As an example, to say that my approach to showing gravity exists only

makes sense if I believe in gravity, is to say that gravity is

dependent on belief for its existence. Belief is a human brain

invention. Does that mean that there is no gravity for other animals

and life forms? Does that mean there is no gravity on the moon? By

that logic, the entire universe's existence depends on whether humans

believe in it or not.

 

So all I have to do is believe/not believe in something and it

exists/doesn't exist. I'll be right back, I have to go to Las Vegas

quickly.

 

Okay, I'm back...... lost it all, dang.

 

My point above is that what exists is self evident and needs only to

be pointed out using the evidence that is clearly there, and how/why

it works are just explanatory details which are not needed for the

things existence.

 

As an opposite example, let's pretend Santa exists. I accept he is

true, and so I leave milk and cookies out for him. I explain to

people how Santa exists. Somebody tells me my approach (how I reveal

Santa exists) only makes sense if I believe in Santa. They're right,

in this case, because Santa doesn't exist and requires belief, but

how do they know Santa doesn't exist? The answer is that it's up to

the claimant to prove their claims, using evidence.

 

I say humans are frugivores, just as I say gravity exists. Gravity is

that force which cause two opposing bodies to attract each other and

fall towards each other, an observation and definition. Gravity is

self-evident. I drop a ball, and I thereby prove its existence. There

are many other ways to make gravity evident (revealed).

 

The laws of gravity are just explanations of how gravity works, and

come after the fact. They don't make gravity or prove gravity.

Gravity already proves itself by its self-evident nature.

 

By observation and definition, a frugivore is that natural behaving

animal that is best designed to and that eats a diet predominating in

fruit with lower amounts of other foods that include plant, animal,

and insect matter.

 

A bit of study reveals that humans have all the tools that are ideal

for fruit eating. Their anatomy, physiology, and psychology best

suits fruit eating. The same study reveals that humans are less well

suited to digest plant life, and even less suited to digest grains,

insects, and other animals.

 

Study reveals that some animals (that have long sharp teeth, claws,

short, strong digestion, etc) are very well suited for raw flesh and

animal-part eating, and do a lot of it, and love it, gore and all.

They also eat small amounts of other foods, like plants, insects, and

humans , etc.

 

More study reveals that some other animals are suited to eat a whole

lot of grasses and plant parts, with small amounts of other foods,

including insects and grains, but rarely animal flesh, if at all.

These animals have anatomies suited for vegetation digestion. They

often have hooves and horns, they secrete strong digestive juices for

cellulose digestion and have hardware/software for breaking down

plant matter easily.

 

Using the above observations and making simple definitions, I state

that a frugivore eats mostly fruit. A carnivore eats mostly flesh. A

herbivore eats mostly plant life. They all eat variable amounts of

the other foods, to much lesser degree than their main foods.

 

Where does a human fall? Perhaps the human is a gravitivore, and none

of the above

 

A human has taste buds that favour sweet the most. Grass and plants

are not sweet. Flesh is not sweet. Fruit is sweet. Humans have

digestive gear suited best for fruit eating. They have fingers for

picking, teeth for mashing and no fangs, weak digestive juices and

actions that are consistent with fruits pre-digested qualities, no

claws for catchin' and scratchin', no hooves for digging, slow

reflexes, long agile limbs for climbing/reaching/walking/supporting,

they delight in subtle sweet fragrances and tastes, they like ease of

chewing, civilized humans generally cook their foods to break them

down into smaller moleculed nutrients for easier digestion, except

for fruit which can be eaten raw easily because the nutrients are

already broken down and easily digested (we don't eat a potato or

steak raw, while eating a cooked orange). Humans are always trying to

sweeten up their cooked foods with sauces, added sugar, and such. A

human is attracted to flashy colours (red and yellow are big hits, as

McDonalds was quick to take advantage of).

 

Don't feed kids fruit, they hate it more than peas, spinach, brussel

sprouts, and broccoli all put together You'll never get them to

choke a fruit down, unless it's got beans or lettuce on it. Most

vegetation is green and earthy coloured, nice for laying on but not

eating, like lawns - at least for humans... Hey! Kids, get Bessie out

of the garden! And who can keep a horse from " mowing " the pasture, or

lawn? Internal body parts of animals are usually reddish, but gory.

Fruit is of all colours, textures, and subtle tastes.

 

I don't want to rush to any conclusions, but I " believe " humans fit

fruit a whole lot more than plants or animal flesh, or even insects

and grains. I will go out on a shaky tree limb, and call them a

frugivore. I know its a stab in the dark going with an observation

and a definition, but a frugivore loves fruit, eats mostly fruit, and

it doesn't eat only fruit. It eats a bit of flesh, bugs, grain,

grasses, plants, mushrooms, and legumes sometimes. A bit like

civilized humans, in a way, sort of, kind of like, perhaps, maybe,

possibly, I think so,......oh, who can really know for sure I'll

just believe it, like I believe in gravity That'll make it real

for sure, and I know that without a doubt. Look what belief did for

Santa.

 

Every time I see a turtle sprint by the farm tractor with an armed

wabbit in slow pursuit, I find myself chasing after the wascal wabbit

so I can gently take its fur off with my teeth and rounded nails and

swallow it in gulps. If only once the darn barn cat would pounce by

the fruit bowl in the cow shed without clawing the bananas, playing

with and peeling them with its paws, flicking them in the air and

crunching them in front of the school of cows, while licking its

banana split chops and fangs. Me and the vegetarian chickens are

getting tired of eating all the mice ourselves without any help from

the hunting ducks, and the cows are getting sick of just apples and

oranges. If the sheep dogs would stop chewing down the pasture grass,

the hunter/gatherer horses would have somewhere to hide, stalk, and

chase down the noisy crows, eagles, and other tweety-birds herding

over their heads. The bat-eyed mice really like the flies and

mosquitos, so it's no wonder there are so many of them around the

corrals and stalls for me and the purring chickens to peck at and

gobble down whole, except for the heads which I don't like, but which

fortunately the tree-swinging pigs do. They'll eat anything, those

porkers. Even frog legs, fish eggs, sour milk, fermented fruit,

smoked out beef, dried and ground weeds, snails, live monkey brains,

shark cartilage, fried grasshoppers, smelly anchovies, slimy clams,

bird wings, and engine fuel - alcohol. They're the perfect garbage

can for on the farm here. Too bad they're not good for eatin, with

those split hooves they got. Otherwise I'd feed 'em to baby Mary

Ellen too. I think she's about to start weaning herself off the saved

bones her mother's been digging up all year.

 

Jest flappin' a lot of nonsense peculiar to a faunivore, late at

morning in the night, like an blurry-eyed owl searching for

cauliflower.

 

Beeing well, not stinging, Robert

[Guest guest]

A good post Robert, with far too many points for me to comment about. I'll pick

two, near the top, about which I have been " rumenating " lately, so to speak.

 

>

> Scientific dietary classifications such as carnivore, frugivore, and

> herbivore are designations that denote what an animal mostly eats in

> its wild, natural, evolved state, as determined by its anatomical,

> physiological, psychological, and behavioural traits regarding its

> diet. The various foods that make up its regular fare are called its

> diet.

Then why the reliance on looking at human anatomy and physiology, comparing it

to related species, and making conclusions about what diet humans " should " eat?

We don't analyse the physiology of chimpanzees, compare them to great apes, and

conclude anything about an ideal diet for them. We look at what they eat.

Now if we were to apply this to humans, which makes sense to me, at what stage

of human development do we look. Pre-civililized, apparently, since " wild " was

used in your criteria. Post-civilized, we find the vast plethora of world

cusines that humans chose to eat, particular to the region in which they chose

to live. Meat, cooked grains, the whole gamut. How pre-civilized do we go...back

to Australopithecus? The human diet changed over time, what time we pick to look

at determines the " natural " diet of humans. Perhaps the earliest humans or their

ancestors ate mostly fruit, later they ate other things. At which point are they

at their natural diet state? Only in pre-civilized time? It seem that

civilization is natural for humans, it's the way we ended up organizing

ourselves, just as other animals organize in their own way.

If we go purely by health, we find a range of individual health values for every

dietary choice, this doesn't seem to lead to a particular choice as ideal or

natural either. Despite claims that we are all biochemically the same, some

people appear to fare rather poorly on certain diet -isms that seem quite

healthy for others, althought they are often blamed for not doing it a

particular way.

>

> It's takes years for anyone to sort out what is fully appropriate

> food and really tastes good when the human body has been abused for

> so long. The civilized body is the broken down engine trying to fix

> itself using signals that are erred in themselves because the engine

> is broken down and can only give out erred signals, even as it gets

> better. The engine will slowly repair itself, but it always gives out

> erred signals, to varying extents, until it is finally repaired

> completely, when it will give out only true error signals who's

> meanings are exactly known and dependable. The human body takes more

> than a decade to repair the damage of previous decades. Civilized

> bodies are grieviously harmed physically, emotionally, and mentally,

> and are surrounded by a unceasing harmful civilized environment that

> relentlessly pulls them backwards.

>

> .......................

>

> I'm not into beliefs.

What you say above " sounds " suspiciously like a belief

Everyone has beliefs and we then filter reality according to our beliefs. For

whatever beliefs you have, you will find evidence to support your beliefs. The

key is to remember that they are only beliefs, not THE TRUTH (except to you).

Perhaps if you believed differenly, your body would not take so long to respond

or would not feel " Broken-down " at all.

At least, that is my belief...and just some thoughts that have been circulating

in my brain as of late...

 

Richard