The Natural Food of Man: Being an attempt to prove from comparative anatomy, physiology, chemistry and hygiene, that the original, best and natural diet of man is fruit and nuts — John Shaqi
The Natural Food of Man: Being an attempt to prove from comparative anatomy, physiology, chemistry and hygiene, that the original, best and natural diet of man is fruit and nutsCarrington, Hereward
Science
The Natural Food of Man: Being an attempt to prove from comparative anatomy, physiology, chemistry and hygiene, that the original, best and natural diet of man is fruit and nuts
Carrington, Hereward
Food; Vegetarianism
I am convinced that no animals were created to eat flesh, but that
so-called carnivorous animals were originally nut-eating animals (see
p. 55). The squirrel eats birds as well as nuts, which closely resemble
meat in composition. This view readily explains the close resemblance
in many particulars existing between the human digestive apparatus
and that of the so-called carnivorous animals. It is reasonable to
suppose that these nut-eating animals were at some remote time forced
by starvation to slay, and eat, by the failure of their ordinary food
supply—just as the horses of the Norwegian coast have been known to
plunge into the sea and catch fish, when driven to this extremity by
starvation. Suppose the carnivorous animal’s natural diet to be nuts,
in the absence of his normal food he would find nothing else so closely
resembling his ordinary food as the flesh of animals, since the two
have about the same proteid percentages.
Dr Kellogg, in his excellent little book, entitled “Shall We Slay to
Eat?” (pp. 30-32), sums up a number of remarkable facts in favour of a
fruitarian diet, or at least in favour of a non-flesh diet, as follows:—
“In carnivorous, herbivorous and omnivorous animals, the mammary
glands are located upon the abdomen, while in the higher apes and man
they are located on the chest. This is an interesting anatomical fact
to which there is no exception.
“In carnivorous animals the colon is smooth and non-sacculated. In
the higher apes and man the colon is sacculated. In herbivorous
animals the colon is sacculated, as in man.” (The great importance and
significance of this fact will be apparent presently, when we come to
consider the physiological arguments against flesh-eating.)
“In carnivorous animals the tongue is very rough, producing a rasping
sensation when coming in contact with the flesh. In the higher apes
and man the tongue is smooth.
“In carnivorous animals the skin is not provided with perspiratory
ducts—hence the skin does not perspire in the dog, the cat, and allied
animals. In the ape, the skin is provided with millions of these
glands, and in man they are so numerous that if spread out, their
walls would cover a surface of eleven thousand square feet. In the
pig, an omnivorous animal, only the snout sweats. In horses, cows and
other vegetable-eating animals, the whole skin sweats, as it does in
man.” (The great importance of this fact will be apparent when we come
to consider the physiological arguments against a flesh-diet: see p.
55.)
“Carnivorous, herbivorous and omnivorous animals are all supplied with
an extension of the backbone—a tail. In the higher apes, as well as in
man, the tail is wanting.
“Carnivorous, herbivorous and omnivorous animals go on all fours,
and their eyes look on either side, while many of the higher apes
walk nearly or entirely upright, as does man, and their eyes look
forward.[9]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account