Home Basics of Nutrition Vegetarian Recipes
Vegetarian cafes
Vegetarians ' stories About animals are different
About the site Site Map Friends and partners Forum
Vegetarian.en > Nutrition basics
> Why long term raw food is harmful, and veganism and vegetarianism are acceptable for a person Yandex.
Direct Launch of the weight loss process!POLYSORB helps to lose the hated kilograms!polisorb.
somAdres and phone Open the ad Thank you.
The ad is hidden.
Why is a long term raw food diet harmful, and veganism and vegetarianism are acceptable for a person
January 22, 2014 Margarita
Among vegetarians, there is often talk about human nature.
Who are we more — predators or herbivores?
Which type of vegetarianism is closer to us omnivorous vegetarianism (ovo lacto), veganism or raw food?
What is more useful?
Is 100% raw food harmful?
Today we will try to answer these questions according to tradition, objectively, focusing on the facts.
Why not idealize nature and look up to the Bible in matters of nutrition
For a better understanding of the rest…
Many vegetarians almost deify nature.
They believe that there are no flaws in it, that it is perfect, that you need to eat and live exclusively "from the sources".
And they make a mistake.
Because in fact, the primary sources of nature are far from perfect, sometimes they are very cruel.
We get sick and die in nature.
In countries where the lifestyle is most close to the natural (i.e., where people live naturally, without the benefits of civilization), life expectancy remains very low (Africa, etc.), in high tech countries like Japan, on the contrary, it is high.
What is known about the changes in life expectancy in different epochs of human existence?
Paleolithic (2.6 million 10,000 BC) -33.3 and 28.7 (men and women, respectively)
Neolithic (9500-4000 BC) -20
Bronze and Iron Ages (4000-100 BC) - 35+
Classical Greece (V IV century BC) -28
Ancient Rome (750-450 BC) -28
Pre Columbian North America (before the XV century) - 25-30
Medieval Islamic Caliphate (632-1258)-35+
Medieval England (V XVI century) -30
England (XVI XVIII)-40+
The beginning of the XX century 30-45
The current time is 67.2
Predators tear apart herbivores, cause them wild pain and suffering in nature.
Planets and stars crumble to dust in nature.
Nature is merciless, although it is no less beautiful and complex.
And it does not cease to be our parent, the place from which we take absolutely everything for life.
In matters of nutrition, we do not recommend that you look up to the Bible, religion, or divine concepts.
We will not go into assumptions about the existence of God.
Its presence or absence will not shed light on what a person should eat better.
Even if there is someone who started the mechanism of constant birth and death (which is quite possible), he gave only an initial "push".
And then life was left to itself.
Then laws began to operate in nature that we must learn to understand, including the laws of evolution, adaptation.
The Bible book is extremely contradictory and is based on myths, and not on information about the world, confirmed by facts.
It may be useful to historians who study ancient manuscripts and the movement of human thought, but not in our question of studying the nature of man and his nutrition.
In addition, most religions are against vegetarianism in principle, although many people refer to the Bible, the Koran, etc. as authoritative sources, without recognizing otherwise, as in the case below:
How was the nutrition of modern man formed in nature
The planet Earth has not been suitable for life since its inception.
It has experienced terrible times when it was impossible to exist on it.
Naturally, there was no person on it at that time.
But cataclysms, lavas, tsunamis were present in abundance.
A wonderful popular science film will tell about the history of the Earth in more detail:
Gradually, favorable conditions were formed: elements came to Earth from space, in the presence of which life could be formed.
This life was constantly adapting and changing.
She struggled for existence and died, another life came to replace her.
Man, who evolved from the lowest forms of life into intelligent and now civilized beings, is no exception.
It passed through the stage of Neanderthals, Pithecanthropus, Australopithecus and other hominids (which appeared about 6 million years ago) before it transformed into the current Homo sapiens (Homo sapiens).
The same reasonable person, whose history has an average of about 100 thousand years.
Omnivores or herbivores?
What did our ancestors eat?
In these scientific studies confirm that the early hominids (the same australopithecus) ate mainly fruits, tree foliage, grass, like many modern primates.
Our ancestors then mainly lived on the territory of Africa, in a hot climate, where there was expanse in terms of vegetation.
Then, during the Pliocene period, the cold came.
Vegetation in large quantities has become inaccessible.
Our ancestors were forced to start killing to survive They had to eat something due to the lack of habitual food.
They were forced to skin the animals to keep warm.
The transition from one diet to another occurred repeatedly.
Fruit – eating hominids focused on a vegetarian type of diet lived in more comfortable warm conditions, while omnivores lived in more severe ones.
Eventually, by the time the hominids transformed into a reasonable person (about 100 thousand years ago), their clearly defined (by traces on the tooth enamel) omnivorous diet (about 90% of plant food and 10% of animal food) was revealed.
Thus, nature contributed to the formation of an omnivorous person.
Why?
1. Because omnivore increased the chance of survival in the changing unstable conditions of the ecosystem.
The ability to hunt, get meat and other animal products and eat them was necessary when there were no vegetable sources of food on the horizon.
Yandex.
Yandex.
Direct Delicious food for health!
A balanced healthy diet!
Snacks from the manufacturer!
Fast deliveringbrainfoods.
Address and phone number to open the ad Thank you.
The ad is hidden.
In addition, hunting was a very difficult occupation for hominids who were not adapted for this The development of hunting skills had a beneficial effect on the development of the brain of ancient people.
Because animal food (despite the fact that it was not a species, was extremely heavy, provoked diseases) supplied the human brain with more necessary calories, which was beneficial in terms of saving energy resources.
What conclusions can be drawn from this?
1. We were raw vegetarians at an early stage of the development of our ancestors.
2. For many millions of years, an omnivorous diet was predominant among people and their ancestors.
Raw or heat treated?
If we talk about vegetarianism, then, as we found out, the most natural, natural for a person is omnivorous vegetarianism (ovo lacto).
If we talk about veganism and raw food, then veganism is still closer to a modern person.
First, our digestive system has long "moved away" from a vegetable raw food diet, adapting to omnivore.
Secondly, the benefits of such a diet as the main one for a modern person are quite controversial.
Yes, some people on a raw food diet feel good, they manage to lose weight and improve their health (we emphasize, not all, but only some).
Raw food gives good results in a limited period.
Just like fasting can cure diseases.
However, the longer the period of raw food, the more problems there are.
Some of them are associated with poor absorption of nutrients from raw food, the other — with a lack of vitamin B12.
There are theories that this and other vitamins are produced in the intestines, that people are able to survive on one raw plant food like ancient primates.
However, the lifestyle of ancient primates was significantly different from the lifestyle of modern humans.
They ate fruits, including with insects, with various caterpillars, ate them dirty, getting B12 from dirt, from their own feces and from eaten insects.
And given the multi million evolutionary changes, a 100% comparison with primates seems incorrect.
Third, a person needs calories from heat treated food.
Despite the lower concentration of vitamins and other useful substances in cooked food (compared to fresh vegetable food), heat treated products are no less important for us.
According to the hypothesis of R. Wrangham (from Harvard University, USA), it was the transition to eating heat treated food that contributed to the accelerated growth of the brain of hominids – our ancestors.
Cooking food on FIRE (clear evidence about 300-400 thousand years ago finds in Beeches Pit in England and Schoeningen in Germany) is exactly what made it easier to digest and contributed to the release of energy so necessary for feeding a larger brain.
Heat treatment has made the food more caloric.
These calories were a treasure trove for our brain.
A modern person, if he eats various raw vegetable products, may not die on a raw food diet, may even lose weight, improve his health due to the low calorie diet, but only if he adheres to such a diet for a short time.
It can be assumed that a raw food diet can be useful as a short term diet.
2. However, 100% raw food as the main and only food system is unrealistic.
According to surveys, only 1% of 100% of raw food eaters manage to live normally on a 100% raw vegetable diet for more than 5 years.
These are mainly people living in a hot climate.
Others like Izyum, his wife, Butenko's family, Dobrozdravin or Pavel Sebastianovich, who once inspired, refuse this food system in its original 100% sense because of serious health threats.
They felt the harm of raw food for themselves.
But the "retired" are replaced by new ones, full of enthusiasm, and the short cycle continues again.
3. Despite the fact that the main goal of most raw foodists is to force all vitamins, amino acids, etc. to produce their microflora on any raw plants, the overwhelming number of them consume additionally either honey, or some percentage of cooked food, or eggs (like Ohanyan), or stale, spoiled, pesticide vegetables and fruits from supermarkets, etc.
In this scenario, the possibility of the formation of a self reproducing microflora seems unrealistic even in theory.
Therefore, raw foodists often lack nutrients (after all, they deprive themselves of many products that are suitable for use in heat treated form), as well as vitamins.
Some raw food eaters find a way out of the situation — for example, they eat vegetable raw food in large quantities or supplement it with cooked products, use additives as Denis and his family do.
Such a raw food diet on the principle of veganism is the most realistic.
Otherwise, people have to go off the raw food diet because of health problems.
Conclusion: a long term 100% raw food diet is a rollback, although it is quite extreme, and without a reasonable approach it is also dangerous.
And this is always an EXPERIMENT, since scientific studies of groups of raw food eaters have not been conducted.
It is more rational to combine a raw food diet with a vegan one, observing the balance of raw and heat treated food and using human synthesized vitamin B12 and other necessary additives in the correct proportions.
Veganism – the diet of our time
Now we are mostly omnivores (here we emphasize that omnivorous vegetarianism is not much different from the usual "meat" omnivore, except perhaps that it is a much more ethical diet).
But the man has changed.
Our developed brain allowed us to be humane, to comprehend all the inhumanity of torture, slavery, violence against our own kind, natural earlier.
It allows us to comprehend the same thing in relation to even less protected, but no less acutely sensitive creatures – animals.
The living conditions have also changed.
We began to invent technologies – a convenient Internet, medicines that can cure many ailments that were incurable earlier.
We have established food supplies all over the world, and now even a resident of the Far North can eat fresh plants if desired.
Yes, human activity also brings destruction.
But right now, more than anyone else, a person can minimize these destructions by creating biotechnologies, treatment facilities, etc.
A man has figured out how to synthesize vitamin B12, which previously could only be obtained from animal products.
This has allowed many people to become vegans.
That is, to completely switch to plant based nutrition, but not following the example of our distant raw food ancestors, but to modern nutrition, including the inclusion of the usual heat treated food.
If you make a vegan diet correctly with the inclusion of additional synthetic vitamins and supplements, then it will be balanced, providing the body with everything necessary.
As a result, there is no need for global animal exploitation.
But, alas, it does not suit everyone.
For example, those who are unable to think through the diet and eat in a balanced way, whose body reacts poorly to supplements.
In this case, it is more reasonable to adhere to omnivorous vegetarianism( ovo lacto), in which it is much easier to balance the diet, but a certain dependence on animals still remains.
Apparently, as long as products similar to animals synthesized by humans do not appear on the free market.
Let's summarize the article:
1. Omnivorous vegetarianism (ovo lacto or ovo) can be attributed to the natural natural human diet, but more ethical compared to meat eating.
The omnivorous vegetarian diet (ovo lacto) is recognized as a full fledged American Association of Dietitians and other dietetic associations of the world.
2. The raw food diet, although it is natural, belongs to the diet of antiquity, and its advantages as the only one that should be followed are very doubtful.
3. The vegan diet is not natural, but it is humane, meeting modern concepts of reasonableness.
If it is compiled correctly, taking into account the synthesized vitamin B12 and some other food additives – then according to experts of the world dietetic associations, it can be absolutely complete.
Author: Margarita
If you liked the article and found it useful for you, then share it with others:
Related articles:
Vegetarianism and veganism: what is the difference?
Vegetarianism and sex: men's health
How to switch to vegetarianism?
Where to start?
The role of the intestinal microflora
How to increase the level of hemoglobin in the blood of a vegetarian child?
Published in the category Nutrition Basics
"How to get fur for fur coats from mink, fox and arctic fox
Vegetarian national cuisine of the peoples of the world "
You can skip reading the entry and leave a comment.
The placement of links is prohibited.
76 comments on the entry “Why is a long term raw food diet harmful, and veganism and vegetarianism are acceptable for a person”
Alexey:
January 22, 2014 at 11:19 am
You mentioned here that hunting is a complex occupation and, accordingly, contributes to the development of the hunter in the process of evolution.
And why didnot other animals, which are natural hunters, develop like humans?
What do you think?
After all, they also ate high calorie meat for food, and the need to hunt should have affected the development of their brain?
12 6
To answer
Margarita:
January 22, 2014 at 12:03 pm
Precisely because animal predators are natural hunters.
Hunting is their main occupation, and hunting skills are laid down by instincts from birth.
They hunt not forced, but, so to speak, at the call of nature, having everything with them for this — fangs, claws, the appropriate digestive tract for processing flesh, etc.
They do not need to make any titanic efforts for this, they do not need to invent tools, nets, tools for cutting, etc.
Man has always hunted involuntarily, since he was not a hunter by nature.
If there was a lot of vegetation in the vicinity, he would not risk his life to get slaughter food.
After all, in the diet of ancient people there was only about 20-10% of animal food, and not 90-100% as in predators.
In addition, if you read the scientific article to which I gave a link, you should have become familiar with the fact that, according to the main hypothesis, the decisive role in the evolution of the brain was played not by raw meat, but by heat — treated food in general plants and animal products cooked on fire.
This is a popular comment 29 8
To answer
Irina:
January 23, 2014 at 18: 31
I really want to read a material where the author would highlight the presented material based on his experience.
Most scientists are meat eaters and are ready to present a bunch of beautifully formed opinions based on their worldview, not to mention the fact that pharmacists and butchers are often behind the research and their "results".
The materials that the author can evaluate and highlight are invaluable, not only referring to hypotheses, conjectures and experiments (no one can guarantee readers that they were, and if they were, it was with such results as reported), but also to his personal experiment.
The topic is serious, it directly concerns the life and health of people.
Everything else is reflections on the topic and reprinting from one place to another.
If the author has experienced all three types of nutrition and provides his opinion, this is one thing, it is really valuable.
If this was not the case, then we must admit that there is a misleading of readers.
This is a popular comment 28 10
To answer
Margarita:
January 23, 2014 at 18: 57
One person's experience (if you are going to follow it) it is just less valuable than the experience of generations or a group of people.
You donot need to be a raw food eater for 20 years to know what you can expect from a raw food diet.
There is enough experience of many real volunteers, which they generously shared — Butenko, Dobrozdravin, Pavel Sebastianovich, Izyum and his wife, Denis Tuvia and many others.
It is enough knowledge that scientists have been extracting for years, putting their lives on, for example, so that humanity understands what the essence of the mechanism of natural selection is.
But for some reason, people are used to believing the Bible and a lot of other mythical literature, the neighbor baba Klava, the results of experiments with the health of their relatives (not taking into account that the positive experience of relatives does not guarantee the same effect to them), but they are not used to focusing on the facts that science gives.
We are not used to analyzing the experience of many different people, not only positive, but also negative.
Probably, because it is much more difficult to know, to understand the subject, to distinguish science from pseudoscience, than to read beautiful fairy tales and listen to everyday stories.
PS do you know what the main value of this article is?
The fact that it collects, systematizes information from DIFFERENT sources, provides the experience of DIFFERENT people, which allows you to draw YOUR OWN conclusions.
If I described only MY experience — would it be more valuable for you personally?
Think about it.
26 21
To answer
Margarita:
January 23, 2014 at 21: 14
I also ask you to pay attention to the words "Wrangham's hypothesis", "Academician Ugolev's theory", etc.
Theory and hypothesis are not facts, but only assumptions based on certain data, which are not yet enough to be facts.
But these are precisely scientific assumptions for which there are good reasons, and not idle speculation taken from the ceiling, so they are definitely worth taking into account.
13 9
To answer
Igor:
March 7, 2016 at 16: 00
Everything is easier!
Remember your childhood!
What would you like more for lunch pork with fat, or a juicy apple?
That's all.
If you want a banana, eat it, if you want bread with lard, eat it.
The body itself will "ask" what is needed.
Rate the comment: 1 0
To answer
Roma:
January 23, 2014 at 20: 52
Interesting....
Rate the comment: 1 1
To answer
Irina:
January 23, 2014 at 23: 43
Margarita, if it's not a secret — are you personally a vegan, vegetarian or do you consider yourself an omnivore?
Rate the comment: 2 0
To answer
Margarita:
January 24, 2014 at 00: 03
For a long time I was an omnivore, then a lacto ovovegetarian (what I call omnivorous vegetarianism), then I switched to veganism.
This is a popular comment 15 0
To answer
Margarita:
January 24, 2014 at 00: 24
Actually, what confuses you in the article?
Where do you see the inconsistencies?
The fact that the ancient people ate meat?
So any schoolboy knows this, and they did not do it from a good life.
Or the fact that veganism is an unnatural diet?
Well, this does not prevent it from being a healthy diet and humane.
The concept of" naturalness " is generally relative.
What was natural millions of years ago is no longer so today.
And what is natural now can be absolutely non natural in a few generations.
Rate the comment: 4 1
To answer
Alexey:
January 24, 2014 at 11:27 am
That's for sure.
The evolution continues.
Rate the comment: 5 0
To answer
Irina:
January 24, 2014 at 13: 57
I will not say that I am confused, but rather sad that such articles appear on the veteran site.
And the fact that ancient people ate meat, in my opinion, does not give grounds to conclude that man is an omnivore.
A person can stuff anything into himself, but you canot say that this is the norm just because he does it.
Scientists are not mistaken in their conclusions about the usefulness of meat for the human body, about trace elements and calories — everything is correct.
But a person is not only what our eye registers as a device, there is also a thin body, just on which meat does not act in the best way.
When people refuse meat, they feel that there are changes for the better in the psyche, this just speaks about the purification of the subtle body from the coarse vibrations of aggression, fear, etc., which meat carries with it if it is eaten.
This is a popular comment 24 13
To answer
Alexey:
January 24, 2014 at 14: 06
What do you mean by "thin body"?
A soul?
Rate the comment: 4 5
To answer
Margarita:
January 24, 2014 at 17: 11
You see, I try to write objective, truthful articles in isolation from my own preferences.
So that everyone can draw conclusions for themselves.
I donot know about you, but I am disgusted by articles on the Internet that multiply like mushrooms after rain about almost divine vegetarian food, devoid of any shortcomings.
In them, mysticism is often intertwined with one's own dreams and fantasies.
These articles sometimes misinform people to such an extent that they are ready to give up food altogether.
Therefore, there is no subjectivism.
More precisely, each author can indicate in the article that he thinks so and so, but there is his opinion, and there are facts.
Also in this article there are facts that I refer to and there are my conclusions based on these facts.
You can make your own.
And man is omnivorous not because ancient people ate meat, but because for millions of years they ate animal products on a par with plant products in principle.
And here we do not mean exactly meat.
These were eggs, dairy products, and honey.
Even if the ancient people ate only bezuboyn if there were animal products (at least 1%) together with plant products, they would still be called omnivores.
And I didnot write anywhere that eating meat is the norm.
The concept of norm is generally relative.
I just wrote that a person in nature has been eating animal products for many years, this is his natural food, but it does not mean that it is healthy food.
Do you catch the difference?
Some people do not digest dairy products, others are allergic to eggs, and others have meat that causes constipation and indigestion and a lot of other problems.
Therefore, everything is individual.
And about the benefits and harms, this is a completely different conversation.
And a raw food diet can be useful, and even meat (yes yes) in small quantities.
But this is all a completely different topic.
In this article, I outlined only the general points, gave guidelines for further study of the material.
The article was about the natural and the non natural, about humanity and awareness, about the fact that a person is changing.
And to follow the primordial natural raw food sources, to continue to provoke a predator in yourself or to switch to a humane modern diet is a personal matter for everyone.
This is a popular comment 39 2
To answer
Denis:
November 28, 2014 at 12: 45
Irina, not everything in life is joyful, and the bitter truth must also be able to respect and even love, and be able to live with it.
Rate the comment: 6 0
To answer
Irina:
January 24, 2014 at 14: 08
I'm sorry, "vegetarian"
Rate the comment: 0 0
To answer
Irina:
January 24, 2014 at 14: 45
Soul, mind, mind.
Rate the comment: 1 1
To answer
Margarita:
January 24, 2014 at 17: 17
And all these subtle bodies — I would not write about them so confidently in your place, because it is impossible to check all this.
Well, you feel that way, and I feel something, I believe in something, well, that's fine.
But these are not facts, but only some subjective sensations, it is quite likely a game of our imagination and a joke of the senses.
However, it may be the opposite.
But that's not the point.
Vegetarians in this world are full of aggressive and embittered people, as well as meat eaters.
I didnot notice any higher spirituality in vegetarians.
Many people refuse to eat meat at all for health reasons, and not for moral reasons.
Everyone is different.
So here's the deal.
This is a popular comment 25 5
To answer
Svetlana:
April 27, 2014 at 18: 42
I agree with Margarita.
Hitler , by the way, was a vegetarian, but not for ideological and lofty reasons.
He had problems on a physiological level: a problem with digesting heavy animal food.
Rate the comment: 3 1
To answer
Arjun:
November 20, 2014 at 09: 07
Hitler was NOT a vegetarian... he was a hypochondriac about his own health and, according to the doctor's instructions, ate liver, sausages and fish...
He disdained meat and crayfish.
In addition, in 1936, one of the oldest German Vegetarian Union in Europe was liquidated, its members were sent to camps…
Rate the comment: 5 2
Margarita:
November 20, 2014 at 22: 17
Arjun, hello.
If there is, please share a link to the source of this information about Hitler.
Rate the comment: 1 0
Arjun:
November 21, 2014 at 05: 22
The most popular source is the website of "Vita", the topic is easily found by the query "the myth of vegetarianism of the Fuhrer of fascist Germany".
True, there are also inaccuracies of a propaganda nature in the article, but they do not reject this fact.
More significant sources are the memoirs of survivors from Hitler's entourage.
But you need to dig there…
Rate the comment: 2 2
Denis:
November 28, 2014 at 12: 46 pm
this is not true, Hitler was not a vegetarian, this rumor was not confirmed.
You can read about this in historical sources.
Rate the comment: 3 2
Irina:
January 24, 2014 at 21: 52
Hidden due to low comment rating.
Click here to see.
I'm sorry, Margarita, that my opinion and knowledge did not coincide with yours.
In my life, I prefer to be guided by knowledge that has been tested by other time intervals, and not by hypotheses and theories that have existed for several decades at best.
When a person knows what needs to be done not only by himself, but also by others, I see no point in further discussion of the proposed topic.
Good luck to you!
5 10
To answer
Margarita:
January 24, 2014 at 22: 05
Of course, I know what I should do myself.
But I suggested others to draw conclusions on their own, if you paid attention.
And good luck to you.
This is a popular comment 11 3
To answer
Denis:
November 28, 2014 at 12: 49 pm
Knowledge is a theory tested on many years of experience, in different conditions and preferably not only not for yourself, but also on many close people(children, husband, wife, close relatives).
Rate the comment: 5 0
To answer
Elena Volodina:
January 25, 2014 at 11:46 am
Hidden due to low comment rating.
Click here to see.
I read it.
Everything inside is protesting.
I'd rather trust Mother Nature.
It is smarter than science))) there is only love and care in it.
You just need to open up and stretch out the handle.
and there are many discrepancies with science in the article..
nothing specific is said about the microflora and biochemical processes.
And from a historical point of view, it is not convincing.
9 14
To answer
Margarita:
January 25, 2014 at 11:52 am
There is nothing surprising that he protests.
There are a lot of unpleasant things there that I donot want to admit:
— the fact that nature is far from being as kind and caring as we want to see it and even spiritualize it;
— the fact that a person has been saved by meat for millions of years in difficult moments for him;
— the fact that man evolved from unpleasant ape like creatures;
— the fact that forced hunting helped a person to develop his brain and much more.
However, it is generally often unpleasant.
It is also unpleasant for me to realize that many drugs that now save millions of lives were once tested by the Nazis on people.
And it was thanks to the Nazis that a huge breakthrough in medicine was made.
It's terrible, but there's no getting away from it.
There are a lot of unpleasant things in life, alas, so it is often easier to go into mysticism, into something that is outwardly more pleasant and beautiful, even if it is far from the truth.
In addition, after reading all the materials to which I have given links, thoughts may creep in: what if there is nothing beyond the line, what if I live in an illusory world?
This is also scary.
I understand all this perfectly well.
BUT everyone has a choice — to accept this information, to think about it, or to go back into the world of their own thoughts, in which it is not scary.
This is a popular comment 25 2
To answer
Denis:
November 28, 2014 at 12:53 pm
if you want to stretch out your hands to the mutashka nature, then take into account the fact that you are born naked, and therefore continue to walk naked.
Well, if you are shy, then just go in light clothes in winter and barefoot in the snow.
That's when you will understand that nature has given a person a brain for him to use, and that nature is not going to make a weakling out of a person, giving him everything on a silver platter, and expects a person to use his brains to develop, both spiritually and physically.
I'm not talking about clothes made of pesticide cotton, made of synthetic materials, about transport, factories, urban life, electricity and other benefits of civilization, which you can not completely abandon, and having abandoned them, as can be seen from the experience of history, life expectancy is significantly reduced.
This is a popular comment 11 0
To answer
Elena Volodina:
January 25, 2014 at 15: 41
I wonot even argue on such topics))) Some write that we are descended from the ape people, others that our race is not related to the archanthropes and there is no wild admixture in the genes of the Rus.
Also, it does not fit in my head how hunting can develop the brain.
We are unlikely to have descended from a monkey, although we can descend to its level.
As for the possible origin from a black Neanderthal, well, it also does not fit in my head.
Try to settle Negroes in the north.
I am sure that their skin will not turn white from this, and if they do not mix with the white race, then black children will be born to them in the north.
About nature.
If you look closely, everything on this earth is created exclusively with love.
There is no evil in nature.
And in general, every person sees the same things differently.
There are solid theorists around and everyone has their own truth.
I'm one of them.
13 13
To answer
Margarita:
January 25, 2014 at 15: 46
Ordinary people can write anything they want, as well as all sorts of scoundrels who earn money from fairy tales.
You read specialists who have devoted their lives to studying the question of the origin of people, and everything will fall into place.
And another important skill is the ability to distinguish theories from facts.
You need to understand that theories are theories, and facts are facts.
Although theories also have different weights.
For example, if I now put forward my theory about the origin of the world from elven powder,then my theory is worthless.
And if a person who has been collecting factual material all his life puts forward some theory and he lacks only a grain of information to turn the theory into a fact, then this is completely different.
Such a theory is weighty, it is definitely worth taking into account.
(By the way, Darwin's theory was previously called a theory because Darwin lacked some factual material to bring it to the fact.
After his death, supporting information was found.
Now Darwin's theory has lost the status of a theory.
Now evolution is an officially recognized fact).
And about "there is no evil in nature" - this is strong.
Predators eat other animals, probably very kindly.
This is a popular comment 27 4
To answer
Samad:
May 27, 2014 at 07: 27
Margarita, you are finally literate .
I just fell in love .
I also trust more science ho cha and personal fantasies are enough like pranaedenie
Rate the comment: 3 0
To answer
Margarita:
May 27, 2014 at 10: 00
Thanks).
Literacy is also one of the tools of natural selection, by the way, if you donot turn on your head in time, you risk being...well, in general, it's clear.
Getting to the truth, bypassing the yellow newspaper stories, is now almost the main way of adapting to life
Well, and fantasies — why not?
The main thing is to leave such an extreme only in the category of fantasies))
Rate the comment: 5 0
Dmitry:
September 25, 2015 at 08: 28
It's a pity that you always confuse the concepts of "theory" and "hypothesis", theory is a model based on facts.
And in general, you write well.
Rate the comment: 1 0
To answer
Vegeginenko:
January 26, 2014 at 17: 41
Elena, read books on evolution, then everything will start to fit in your head 8)
Rate the comment: 8 3
To answer
Denis:
November 28, 2014 at 12: 56
there is evil in nature, and we see it every day in the animal world(even if we forget about predators, there is plenty of evil in other aspects of the animal world), and in general there is a balance of good and evil in the world.
Not recognizing evil as an integral part of our life is like hiding your head in the sand like an ostrich.
This is a popular comment 9 0
To answer
Marcus:
September 7, 2015 at 14: 13
I agree!
Nature is not as good as it seems to many people who are inclined to idealization.
The kindness of nature is another of your illusions.
In the world, absolutely everything has a downside.
The good is balanced by the same amount of evil.
Rate the comment: 4 0
To answer
Ivan:
January 25, 2014 at 21: 30
Hidden due to low comment rating.
Click here to see.
G but your article, sorry for my French.
What kind of humanism, why is it?
Moreover, physiologically, a person is an omnivore, and this is your vegetarianism that goes against nature.
Killing a pig, for example, is as natural as picking an apple.
Another thing is that someone doesnot have the guts (I wonder what Grandpa Freud would say about this?).
2 13
To answer
Rita:
February 3, 2014 at 18: 24
Margarita,your article is very interesting,I like how you respond to your interlocutors.
Indeed, there are enough aggressive people among both vegans and meat eaters.
I will only stand up for the primitives,they were hunters, but we became ordinary scavengers.
This is even being voiced to children in schools now.
This is a popular comment 17 0
To answer
Margarita:
February 3, 2014 at 18: 26
Thanks!
Agree.
Rate the comment: 3 0
To answer
Ludmila:
September 24, 2015 at 10:45 am
Carrion dies of its own death and decomposes in the natural environment. )
In stores they sell slaughter meat, fresh, frozen, but not carrion.
Rate the comment: 2 1
To answer
Elena:
February 23, 2014 at 18: 48
Our brain has grown thanks to high calorie processed food?))
That is, we can assume that the fatter a person is, the smarter he is?
And if you start feeding, for example, a rabbit, nuts and rolls — then there is a chance that the process of evolution will start and after what time will a generation of such rabbits invent a digging stick?)))
I wonot say about fat people, I donot know, but I know for sure about the rabbit — he will die prematurely from diabetes and intestinal obstruction.
Tested on myself, that is, on my deceased rabbit, a lover of fat and sweet, God forgive me…I'm not against IT, and I'm not for it, we donot know anything, you canot look at your hominid ancestors, because modern man has a completely different life, we donot need a lot of vitamins and energy, because most people's ass has begun to take the form of a chair, everyone understands what it's about?
I am against corpse eating from an ethical, economic and physiological point of view.
And the boiled me
