Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1866-03-07
ANIMAL FOOD.

Tho question OF the time when man
kind first began to eat the flesh of ami
mails, has been agitated with considerable
keenness /; but more, we believe, as q part
Of biblical criticism than of dietetics. We
are told by one set Of commentators that
the first permission by the Deity for man
to cat animal food was that given to Noah
in the words Of Scripture: EVERY NOV
ing thing that liveth shall be meat for
you /; even as the green herb have I given
you all things" On the other hand, it is
commended that the dominion given to
Adam ovdr the brute creation implies q
permission to kill animals for food and
that the skins Of which goats were made
for our first parents shows that q proper
use was made Of such permission. 1t is
alleged, that the wild and inordinate in
diligence of their appeti.es and passions by
the a~ntediluvians was kept up by flesh
meats and strong liquors, and that in this
way they were melted to the commission
Of those crimes which provoked God to
their destruction. Corroborative aralo-
gies have been adduced in the fact Of car
niverous animals being the most ferocious
and untamable, and Of the greater pro-
pensity to hunt and kill animals, for food,
manifested by savage over civilized men.
But in both these instances, it should be
remembered that the propensity was
anterior to q search after the means
for procuring its qualification, although
the former is no doubt strength
ened and made fercer by indul-
gence. Be this as it may, Of one thing
we are assured, that the fsh-eaters and
people who cat much flesh meat, and in
greater proportion than vegetable food,
are less civilized, in every sense OF the
word, than they who derive the greater
part from the vegetable kingdom. 4
broader contrast can hardly be furnished,
in this respect, than between the Exqui-
maux and The Laplander-the first eaters
of seal and walrus meat, and the second
of reindeer-and the Chinese and the Hin
docs, so many millions Of whom subsist
almost entirely on rice. To the same
purpose, and perhaps more to the point,
is the difference between tho agricultural
and plant-eating South American and
Mexican Indians and the hunting md
carniverous North American Indians, who
are caters OF buffalo and deer. In making
these comparisons, we must take into con-
sideration other operative causes, and
especially climate. besides the nature of
the food, in modifying both the physical
and moral character OF man. 1t appears
to be clear enough that, for growth and
strength, and endurance of fatigue, vegeta-
bic diet is proved, in many situations, to
be amply sufficient; but although this 10
the fact, we are not prepared to say with
Rousseau, that great eaters Of meat are
more ferocious and cruel than other men"
In this assertion Rousseau was seconded
BY Byron. alleged that he felt an increase
of sa~ysgeness in himself when he ate meat
for any length of time. This eccentric
genius had, we must remember, q great
deal of innate savageness in his compost
ton, which required small exciting cause
for its manifestations. But our argument
is meant to res. on the practice Of large
bodies of men, and not on the opinions or
the idiosyncracies Of individuals.