Milk Subsidy? Pro and Cons

[Boreas]

Good nutrition is set, fixed by our biology. Culture isn't.

Culture is related to, and advances by consensus. Biology isn't and doesn't.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

The animals I'm referring to (beneficiaries and victims) are humans, although I may have missed something in biology class, cuz Dave says we're not animals.

To clarify;

Of course we're all human biologocally. I was referring to ideology and behaviour.

Again; If you want to behave like a baboon, simply abandoning the weak to their peril, move to the jungle. It's your ideology I was comparing to baboon-like behaviour. As humans we're supposed to rise above it, not give in to it.

Regards,
Dave

[Wasillaguy]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Good nutrition is set, fixed by our biology. Culture isn't.

Culture is related to, and advances by consensus. Biology isn't and doesn't.

So you're a creationist?

[Wasillaguy]

Light reading for the ill-informed:

http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/scitech/...ArticleID=1376

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

So you're a creationist?

I might be if my only frame of reference was Teabaggers. Pretty unevolved bunch.

John

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

Light reading for the ill-informed:

http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/scitech/...ArticleID=1376

Harumph, now you're a Darwinist?

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope Light reading for the argumentatively inclined.

[Boreas]

The ability of some of us to digest milk is not news. Neither is the phenomenon of different mutations occurring for similar reasons and achieving similar results. Moreover, a genetic ability to tolerate milk products is not the same as an ability to do so without negative biological consequences.

John

[Wasillaguy]

Originally Posted by Boreas

The ability of some of us to digest milk is not news. Neither is the phenomenon of different mutations occurring for similar reasons and achieving similar results. Moreover, a genetic ability to tolerate milk products is not the same as an ability to do so without negative biological consequences.

John

The fact remains- we evolved (or mutated) to milk consumers thousands of years ago. The change happened relatively quickly, and was due to the overwhelming health benefits of dairy consumption versus the former non-dairy diet.

We also have cannabinoid receptors in our brains. Do you think God put them there, or did we evolve for the overwhelming benefits of weed?

[Dondilion]

I believe milk is essential for the young and therefore should not be expensive.

I view questions regarding subsidy in that light.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

The fact remains- we evolved (or mutated) to milk consumers thousands of years ago. The change happened relatively quickly, and was due to the overwhelming health benefits of dairy consumption versus the former non-dairy diet.

We also have cannabinoid receptors in our brains. Do you think God put them there, or did we evolve for the overwhelming benefits of weed?

Where's your evidence for this? Adapt we did, some of us, but what evidence do you have to support your assertion that it was a response to "overwhelming benefits" and not simply to take advantage of a food source we found it easy to obtain in abundance?

As for the cannabinoid receptors, I don't think God put anything anywhere. Nor do I know at what point in our evolution they first appeared or why they did. Do you?

John