Hi Mislu, what do you mean by a latent period? I'd just like to understand, cause children continue to develop both physically and in cognition.
Rgds,
Geo

[en.wikipedia.org]

Mislu,

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying the the longer average life span of the individuals in a species may better assure the survival of a species. I guess I don't understand why under natural selection the survival of a species is better assured by the average or maximum life span of all individuals as long as they survive long enough to procreate, pass on their genes and ensure the survival of their offspring.

I wonder if it wouldn't a liability to a group to have an older average age cohort with a loss of function that accompanies aging. The weak and infirm would provide something of a liability to the group in the event of natural stressors and pressures (e.g. predation, natural disasters,etc). Humans are K species (fewer offspring, higher probability of survival per offspring) and so this study has limited applicability but in the 120 year diet by the late Roy Walford, Dr. Walford points out the "parable of Ross's rats" (an r species, more offspring, lower survival) in which rats in a state of nature freely selected higher protein foodstocks which ensured greater survivability of the species through faster maturation but at the expense of the long term survival of the individual, i.e. faster maturation meant earlier procreation and greater numbers of offspring but faster metabolism and aging and shorter lifespan as a result.

I have a healthy skepticism that what is "natural" is always healthful or optimal for healthy aging in human.

Paul

Pborst,
The elderly do provide something valueable, perspective. In taking care of my partners parents, I find it interesting what kinds of things they comment on, and what they value. Sometimes its not so great, as they want things as they used to be, and for no other reason than that. But if its for something practical then I think 'wow, she is right about something!"

Humans are a bit different than other creatures, we have machines, heated homes, indoor plumbing etc. Its certainly easier for us to take care of people who are burdens. In the wild, I guess those that are strong just get eaten or starve. There might be some examples of care for weaker individuals in the wild, so I must not judge animals yet.

Other portions of the population which might pose a liability might be the disabled, those with metabolic disorders, mental disorders, criminals, those with philosophies which don't easily fit into the mainstream consciousness. I would rather see these things as a variability in perspective and consciousness, and not a liability, although it might be viewed in that light.

More directly to the topic, I read an article about 'hunter-gatherers' and the role of aged women in those societies. Shes past the age of childbearing, so in theory she might be a liability. But she is not, she provided extra maternal care, provided wisdom through story telling. Also an extra pair of hands to make clothes, pick berries, gather nuts, roots and seeds. Her contribution for calories and nutrition actually was greater than the average hunter. So, its always a matter of perspective.

The other part is that I generally believe that the longer lived a species, it generally has an increase of its 'usefulness' as its overall age increases. That isn't static.

Mislu,

No question that you are correct about the value of the elderly and the differences between humans and other animals (more the point about why what is natural may not always be optimal). Also true that it is easier for us to care as for the elderly than other types of animals.

I'm not sure that this was true for our ancestors living in a state of nature subject to the pressures and stresses while evolving from the forest to the savanah and later to temperate climates. I imagine lifeboat ethics must have affected these communities at some point and that natural selection would favor those communities most able to procreate and ensure the survival of their offspring. To the extent that ensuring the survival of the elderly improves the ability for a community to procreate and ensure survival of its young, then I would agree. I just wonder though, in a zero-sum situation, it would seem to me to be the opposite, with limited resources care for older individuals in nature would detract from a parent's ability to care for the young.

pborst,
Whats with the emphasis on procreation?

The original purpose of the thread is whether or not veganism is a lifestyle natural for humans. And without considering that question, my point is that veganism is perfectly wonderful choice, natural or otherwise if it is healthy and help my individual survival (as well as help the planet and improve treatment of animals).

I'm emphasizing procreation because many people assume that if a diet has been naturally selected through evolution that best assures survival of species that it follows that this same diet also must be the healthiest for us and is the one we should follow. That assumption seems to be implicit not just for this board, but for the paleo diet followers and anyone who is pursuing sort of an evolution-based or anthropological basis for diet, rather than a scientific weight of evidence approach that looks at health outcomes in response to diet. Dr. John McDougall, a cooked vegan author who advocates a starch based diet, has followed that assumption implicitly in his materials. He just cuts it off at the Neolithic period rather than looking at the whole evolutionary time line (including our time as frugivores before early hominids moved on to the savanah).

I guess what I'm saying Mislu, is that I don't necessarily know if the assumption is true (what natural is also the best diet in terms of health) or not. I'm speculating that natural selection may, at times, conflict with what might be good for individuals to live a long life. For example, we know young girls are maturing faster while eating a standard American diet than a plant-based diet. Natural selection might make that a survival advantage in a state of nature since it is reduces the time it might take a community to repopulate after a catastrophe. But we also know that early maturation means early death and faster aging. So what is good for the species might not be good for middle aged and elderly people in that species.

This is just my speculation and I stipulate that.

Paul

pborst,
Difficult association between reproduction and food. But for most of human history keeping the population down was actually the problem.

So you are saying for most of human history there has been overpopulation?

There is evidence presented by a few people that humans limited their population in prehistory.

Mislu,

I think we are talking past each other. Before 10,000 years ago, human population was relatively small by today's standards. So for most of human/homonid history the pressures and stressors from natural selection challenged early hominids and humans to maintain a critical population. By the neolithic area, roughly 10,000 years ago they shifted from hunter/gatherer or horticultural to agrarian and that is when population took off. At least that is the way it was always taught.

Do you have different references to the stock explanation? Let me know.

Paul

pborst,
Well, agriculture had a part in the population growth, but there was also a shift in thinking as well. I will try to find the links that I read if you are interested. Some of the information however may not be welcome on this forum, perhaps nowhere.

I welcome all information, I just dont always agree with it,lol id be interested in seeing the links as well, you can feel free to PM me with them if you dont feel the forum can take them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

I had a vasectomy in 2005.

durian,

Congratulations? . . . .

durianrider Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I had a vasectomy in 2005.
You must lay every woman (or man?) you
can get your hands on.....WY
P.S. Does she have to be Vegan? Or do you go for the
Omnivores as well?

Ahem, pretty sure he's in a committed relationship.

I'm scheduled for a tube tie but that's because I don't want any More children. Good population control method? I guess so...

coco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ahem, pretty sure he's in a committed
> relationship.
That can't possibly be true. Have you seen any
of his videos?
I should cleanup my own Act. See you in a couple of weeks.....WY

No WY, I can't say that I have seen any of his videos. I hear some of them are ok but I just can't be bothered to wade through them all .

Theres always been a sort of irony about those that practice variouos birth control methods, they always seem to be the sensitive, intelligent type that I wish had children.

Then there are people like my father's cousin who I wish didn't have any children at all. She had 17, and believes that procreation is her god given power, and that if your having sex without children your aligned with satan. She also expressed the idea that overpopulation is just some atheistic, socialistic garbage that has its foundation with 'the adversary' of mankind. With the human family 6 billion strong and counting, I would say the plot to destroy humanity isn't working. In actual fact we probably face more danger from ourselves and all the resources and competition it takes to support so many people.

*spits his water out all over the computer monitor* 17 children? holy crap...

@durianrider that is some interesting information,lol, never want kids I gather? im on the fence myself, I love kids, but im not sure if I want my own, I think I would rather adopt, but that will have to be discussed with whoever I end up married to someday, if I do ever end up getting married.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

Quote

She had 17, and believes that procreation is her god given power, and that if your having sex without children your aligned with satan.

Here name isn't Michelle Duggar by any chance, is it?

17 children. Feeling queasy all of a sudden.

I think I've mentioned somewhere on here before, but I'm a member of VHEMT, the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. We don't procreate--we adopt. No offense to anyone with biological children--some of my favorite kids are biological --but I just feel not bringing another life onto this planet is the right thing for me. Anyway, Mislu's cousin's kids are already devouring the resources my children would need, so that's that!

I would join but it's too late for me. I was a member before my, er, happy accidents . Can I join again now that I'm done? Sort of like a born again virgin, ha ha.

coco,

Actually, yes. It's a matter of committing to not procreating in future, in the case of someone with children.

Earth is growing. [www.youtube.com]

So, there is always more and more space on it. Current numbers of humans on our planet are exaggerated. The empty spaces are huge, with a lot of opportunities for responsible living. With the correct diet, the resources are almost infinite for humans.
So, we should multiply.

Tam, I'm in. As of March 28th I will be officially unable to procreate again. I'm schooling my children in the responsible consideration of this as well (subtle life long awareness). Shall I make up tshirts?
Rab, seriously. The resources of this planet are not infinite and polution is incredibly high. And those "empty spaces"? Most of the millions of people that live in Canada (the second biggest country in the world BTW) live near the US border. It's not because we love Americans either, it's because the land is completely unusable up North. Ever heard of the Canadian Shield? In the very short span of time that it's warm enough, nothing can grow on that rock anyhow. People should certainly NOT multiply, especially if they don't even know the most basic facts about this planet.

rab,

There is not reason that I can think of, except perhaps that which is based on archaic religious tribal law, to presume that voids on this planet exist for us to fill by procreating exponentially. Arguably, the human serves no biological purpose on this planet, and its growing numbers cannot be indefinitely sustained, any more than massively growing numbers of cattle or whales could be. Now, if you have a religious or cultural motivation for wanting to procreate, or just have a very strong reproductive instinct, that's another story. But to argue that because there is empty space on this planet we still have not overrun we must multiply just doesn't make sense to me.

Humans just won't be satisfied until this planet is completely dead. Billions are being spent on trying to find a new one to mess up as we speak.

Michelle Duggar? No thats not it, but the name sounds very familiar.

" Mislu's cousin's kids are already devouring the resources my children would need, so that's that!"

Yes, and devour they do. They are actually 2nd cousins. I'm not incredibly close. I have been to their place a few times, and have seen them shopping. It was just really weird seeing them shopping. Industrial carts full of bulk food. Like 20 lb cans of peanuts for a back pack outing. The largest bad of m&ms you have ever seen for a special snack. Also, kids in every part of the store you went, each with a list of things to get. The older ones in charge, the middle age children actually doing most of the gathering, and the wee little ones even helping by getting 1 item each time.

One of the older ones liked to go into beauty pagents, and always places and gets miss congeniality. I don't know if she has ever one, but she has done several of them. The eldest was a grad student, tne youngest in diapers. They have 2 or 3 sport utility vans, and I think a small vw rabbit for quick errands. Industrial style kitchen that could be used in a large resturant. Also, each kid gets a laundry bag with a tie on the top. Its all done at once, but the clothes never seperate. Its then all put in this huge industrial washing machine, you could probably do laps in it.

The resource consumption is something to think about, but the last time that I saw them they were watching the girl with her pagent. I was actually wondering about the psychological effects. I would hate to be one of the middle children, probably get left out of some attention. The mother was a good mother, and as loving as can be, but with so many children, how could you really provide adaquate quality time to each?