History. Donner party got stranded in the mountains (1800s I believe) heading to either California or Oregon (not exactly sure). Survived by cannibalism.
Are you a vegetarian?
- Thread starter dazle
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Dtaine
Contributor
I knew someone would say that about survival - but I'm talking about evolution. The process of evolving one's species is by reproducing, which isn't all too difficult in and of itself. For example, there's an interesting trend in humans that goes along with birth rates.
The smarter, more well developed our society is the fewer children we have (our population grows, but the birth rate declines). Less developed cultures with more natural pressures tend to have higher birth rates (also higher mortality rates) but less stable population levels. So in which country is it easier to evolve?
If we look at evolution as the gradual progression of genetic changes over time, then the faster generations progress the faster evolution will occur. Since poorer nations have more children, hence more genetic variation, one could argue that evolution occurs faster and is easier in those areas. Since richer nations have fewer children and often more social stigmas against very large families (and teen births are discouraged, remember, in an evolutionary sense reproducing once one is capable is a good thing) one could argue that it is actually harder for the species to evolve in this environment (the fewer pressures on a species the less need for it to adapt to specific changes).
So, it might be easier to survive, but that doesn't make it easy to evolve. Likewise it might be harder to survive, but easy to evolve.
Many of the popular examples of evolution in the natural world come from species under environmental stresses/pressures.
Nice try, but this scenario fails under examination. Survival depends on making decisions that keep oneself and one's species alive. To purposefully put oneself in a position incapable of survival (or at the fringe of survival) is counter to basic instincts and common sense, therefore a poor example of how tough survival can/cannot be. Each species has optimal conditions for survival and the mass numbers of that species populations will live in those areas and seek out those conditions. As a species becomes more adaptive and resourceful the boundaries within which it can survive are widened and the difficulty of survival is changed. As these boundaries widen, members of the same species accustomed to one environment are more likely to suffer/die in environments other members of the same species are accustomed to.
You can make the argument that survival is tough and I don't disagree, but that's not what my first post was referencing. It's a matter of perspective and semantics (things that easily cause disagreement and confusion, especially on the internet).
I could easily discuss with you many matters concerning human evolution, population dynamics, etc; but I doubt this is the proper place for such a discussion.
OP
dazle
Contributor
O.K., I'll admit. I wasn't sure how to vote in this poll. Maybe I'm an idiot. (Please no need to reply to THAT!) It seems to me that it would have been easier to simply have the choices:
When I read this, I was wondering, "How do I answer?" The' I believe I should put animal guts on my paint brush palette'." Didn't fit. I thought that it was some kind of religious cult that only ate and painted with liver!
I prefer the MEAT of an animal not its guts! That is how I read, "What's IN an animal."
Good point. Sounds like feedback I would get off my dissertation supervisor!
If I knew how great a response this topic would evoke then I would have exploited my research methods to a greater extent. As it happens, I started this thread after a bottle of wine and a curiosity on how many shared my view!
BTW - to try to reduce the amount of moaning about the poll options I've requested a mod
Dtaine
Contributor
NudeDiver
Contributor
Oh, I see. Thanks
Well - see there? They didn't survive by being vegetarians.
Doubt it was Kosher either!
Eggs happen with or without a rooster. No conception without the rooster.
NudeDiver
Contributor
But they don't happen without the eggs. Where do typically they get the eggs? From massive amounts of chickens, pumped full of drugs and kept in dramatically inhumane conditions. From animal rights standpoint, it's not much different than eating chickens.
Now - if you want to tell me you only eat eggs from "organic" free-range chickens who are humanely "farmed" - then why not eat the chickens themselves, who are also kept in such conditions?
These are the only types of eggs I do eat, as a matter of fact. Why don't I eat the chickens? It's a long story, but now it basically comes down to just not liking the taste, especially the nasty aftertaste I remember chicken meat leaving behind. You don't get that with veggie chicken.
Similar threads
