What did our creator thought of our teeth?

1. 62

   Mishaposted 16 years ago

   This question puzzles me for the last several years. As we were meant by our creator, how we were supposed to take care of our teeth? I don't believe the toothbrush was created at the same time we were. And I don't believe we were meant to lose our teeth by the age of 30-35 either.
   
   All animals happily live without toothbrushes - how come we can't? Do we eat something we were not designed for? Does anybody have any idea about this?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      mohitmisraposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Misha -what a wicked sense of humor.
      We have very small canines and so should be basically vegetarian or plant eaters.
      Apart from this God knows.
      Poet Mohit.K.Misra

      replyreport
2. 75

   Kenny Wordsmithposted 16 years ago

   Yes, Brother Misha, you hit upon it, actually. Our teeth would be just as good as other animals if we avoided artificially condensed sugar and oils. Animals eat naturally, we don't.
   
   What you said reminded me of  an idiom in the Tamil language: Do elephants brush their teeth?
   This is usually asked by lazy people when somebody asks them to brush their teeth.

   replyreport
3. 62

   Mishaposted 16 years ago

   Love your elephant idiom, Brother Kenny
   
   My wife actually laughs at me saying I'm too lazy to brush my teeth, so I go to the dentist often for him to do the job for me
   
   Let's me get this straight, though - do you think I don't have to brush my teeth if I stop eating processed food and switch to, say, sushi diet? Do you think it will benefit the rest of the body, too?

   replyreport
   1. 73

      djtphn1posted 16 years agoin reply to this

      I think you will get more kisses if you just brush your teeth!!!!!LOL!  You are so funny Misha....

      replyreport
4. 0

   helenathegreatposted 16 years ago

   I think a diet found naturally in the environment would do wonders for your teeth AND your body, Misha!  While your teeth would not be in prime condition, they wouldn't rot and fall out for many years.
   
   I'd point out, though, that with all of modern medicine we are living FAR longer than we are "supposed" to.  Not too long ago, the average life-span for a human being was not much more than 30-35 years anyway!

   replyreport
   1. 75

      Kenny Wordsmithposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, that's right, Helena, I forgot that. We wouldn't live this long if we lived like animals. Though whether it's a good thing or a bad thing is a different argument.

      replyreport
   2. 62

      Mishaposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      I would dare to argue here, Helena
      
      If you look at the Old Testament, many characters there lived for hundreds of years - and I think this is how we were meant "by design".

      replyreport
      1. 0

         helenathegreatposted 16 years agoin reply to this

         Wow, you're right!  I didn't even think of that.  I hate to think of those guys' teeth when they finally kicked the buckett!

         replyreport
5. 75

   Kenny Wordsmithposted 16 years ago

   I really don't know for sure.
   
   Once I tried living on uncooked food, but then a doctor told me that boiling helps kill bacteria, and I would have to be very careful. And the skin of fruits and vegetables could contain traces of pesticide.
   
   But, you can increase your healthiness a bit by avoiding all sweet stuff, and appreciate the natural flavour of fruit, and milk or anything you would normally add sugar to. Unless, of course, once in a while, when you are depressed or tired.
   
   I think just increasing the input of natural food, especially fruit, can contribute.
   
   I don't know when I became a dietician, but I sound like one, sorry!

   replyreport
   1. 62

      Mishaposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Kenny, for how long did you manage to do this? And how did you feel while doing this?
      
      Also, India is more "natural" country than US or even Russia for that matter. Yogins  - you are much closer to them than me from here - what do they eat? And how are their teeth doing?

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Kenny Wordsmithposted 16 years agoin reply to this

         India is fast becoming America. Good in some matters, bad in others.
         
         Misha, I felt lighter and hungrier, but soon became accustomed to that. Only because of what teh doctor said that I changed over again. That diet survived for a week only.
         Now I'm into a lot of fruit, and have cut down on sugar drastically.
         The secret of that is to be armed at all points. If I get a sugar problem in later years, I won't miss sugar. And since I'm reducing it, I don't think I'll get that problem! Clever, ain't I?
         
         But I haven't got the opportunity to be close to yogins, Misha. But from what I see, their teeth look great!

         replyreport
6. 75

   Kenny Wordsmithposted 16 years ago

   This discussion has a place in this religion forum because I wanted to eat natural then due to strong religious beliefs! In case anybody objects.

   replyreport
   1. 62

      Mishaposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      LOL Kenny, thanks for giving me a hand!
      But I honestly think it belongs here, cause it talks about how we were created by our creator - and this is pure religion IMO

      replyreport
7. 75

   Kenny Wordsmithposted 16 years ago

   Their teeth would have been okay. They hadn't invented chocolate or Coke then!

   replyreport
   1. 60

      lea rachealposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      How does one live without chocolate? yes I'm a chocolate lover. But then I am one who takes her teeth in and out do to illness. Not that thats a  good thing either.

      replyreport
8. 62

   Mishaposted 16 years ago

   Thanks, Kenny, this is something to think about
   
   I don't eat much sugar and I don't drink cola. Chocolate and other sweeties is not a regular meal for me either. But this does not seem to help, cause I immediately start getting lots of plaque if I stop brushing the teeth
   
   And how did you go with meat/fish/poultry when you tried to eat naturally? Did you eat them at all? Or raw?

   replyreport
   1. 75

      Kenny Wordsmithposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_plaque
      
      Now, I don't know how you get the bacteria in. Do you atleast drink a lot of water? And gargle after meals? That could help.

      replyreport
      1. 62

         Mishaposted 16 years agoin reply to this

         This is a nice explanation of how plaque happens, thanks. Better than I ever heard from any dentists. But they don't point out any way of caring for teeth other than "traditional" toothbrush, do they?
         
         Yeah, sure, I drink lots of water - and this is mostly all what I drink, if you don't count occasional cup of tea (without sugar), morning cup of coffee (with sugar) and evening glass of red wine... And I did not stop using traditional methods just yet LOL, I'm just trying to understand how this could be done...

         replyreport
9. 75

   Kenny Wordsmithposted 16 years ago

   No, I was a vegetarian then. Hindus don't eat meat or eggs on auspicious days normally, and when we get really religious or spiritual, we are vegetarians every day.
   
   I'll become that in a few years again, I think.

   replyreport
10. 0

    helenathegreatposted 16 years ago

    Misha, I'm not sure if this will help (or if it's even relevant), but the Creator's plan for canines seems to be within their natural diet.  Dogs who are fed what a dog in the wild would eat (raw bones whose meat they tear off) have incredibly healthy teeth naturally, because the ripping and tearing of meat off the bone (and then the chewing on the bone) cleans their teeth.
    
    This would probably apply to humans if we ate raw meat (or even cooked meat on the bone, I guess) and marrow, but we have lost much of our immunity to salmonella, E. coli, and other similar bacterias that are on raw meat (to which dogs are much more immune).

    replyreport
    1. 75

       Kenny Wordsmithposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       That's the clue, right. We could have lost the immunity after generations of eating cooked food. Thanks.

       replyreport
    2. 62

       Mishaposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       It makes perfect sense Helena! I'm really thinking along those lines, too. Problem is - I can hardly imagine myself catching a rabbit in the backyard and tearing it apart with my teeth right there
       
       And I know I am not a vegetarian - I tried to be a vegetarian for several months, and this did not work for me. I'm a predator-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r, I'm pretty much sure after this test
       
       I'm not that sure about our immunity, though. How about half-cooked or even raw meat that many (myself included) like to eat? How about sushi and sashimi?
       
       And in general I'm not that sure that bacteria is the cause of our illnesses. In fact, I'm sure it is not.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          helenathegreatposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          I'm right there with you on that one, Misha.  My brother is a vegetarian, and many of my close friends are, as well, but...  Not for me.
          
          
          
          Well, not ALL raw meat has bacteria on it, which is why restaurants (sushi especially) often have a warning that uncooked meat and fish MAY cause illness.  But with sushi restaurants, they're very careful not to contaminate their fish; if everyone got sick from their raw fish, they wouldn't have many customers, would they??
          
          I think that you could probably work yourself up to a stronger stomach by eating food that was cooked less and less over time.  In parts of the world, there are humans who are immune to the bacteria in the water, but if an outsider drinks that same water he would get sick.
          
          Then again, have you ever eaten cookie batter that has raw egg in it (I do this... well, a lot)?  If you eat more than a dab, your stomach usually starts to hurt.  You don't get sick, per se, but it definitely doesn't feel good.  I don't know if you could build up an "immunity" to that or what.
          
          We definitely mess with the natural order of things with our intelligent advances, so it's hard to say how our creator intended that we be.  Because if s/he didn't want us to have these advances, would s/he have given us this intelligence?

          replyreport
          1. 62

             Mishaposted 16 years agoin reply to this

             That sounds more promising
             To tell you the truth, I love raw eggs. I can't say I eat them regularly, but I definitely do time to time, and never had any problem with that. More, there was a short period in my life when for several weeks I ate raw salmon. Not like sushi, just a good chunk of raw fish on the plate. I stopped this not because there were problems, I just did not feel like that any more...
             
             As for messing with the natural order of things - we don't have to. It's a personal choice at the end, you know

             replyreport
11. 62

    Mishaposted 16 years ago

    Thanks guys,
    
    I'm heading to bed with something to muse about before I fall asleep

    replyreport
12. 75

    Kenny Wordsmithposted 16 years ago

    Good night, brother!

    replyreport
13. 87

    Paragliderposted 16 years ago

    This, from the Bhagavad Gita, Krsna talking to Arjuna the archer:
    
    There are three kinds of food as well;
    and worship, control, and charity
    also divide into three kinds.
    Here are the distinctions among them:
    
    Foods that the sattvic are drawn to
    promote vitality, health.,
    pleasure, strength and long life,
    and are fresh, firm, succulent, and tasty.
    
    Foods that please the rajisic -
    bitter or salty or sour,
    hot or harsh or pungent -
    cause pain, disease and discomfort.
    
    The preferred foods of the tamasic
    are stale, overcooked, tasteles,
    contaminated, impure,
    filthy, putrid and rotten.
    
    And that's from a lo-o-ong time ago!

    replyreport
14. 62

    Mishaposted 16 years ago

    Paraglider,
    
    I was actually re-reading Bhagavad Gita last week, but that part did not catch my attention, thanks. Thinking about it now - do you think that description of sattvic food matches only uncooked food?

    replyreport
    1. 87

       Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       Well, the same passage from a more academic Indian edition wouldn't seem to suggest that:
       
       "Foods in the mode of goodness increase the duration of life, purify existence, give strength, and increase health, happiness and satisfaction. Such foods are juicy and fatty. They are very conducive to the healthy condition of the body.
       
       "Food that is too bitter, too sour, too salty, too pungent, too dry or too hot causes distress, misery and disease. Such food is very dear to those in the mode of passion.
       
       "Foods prepared more than three hours before being eaten, which are tasteless, juiceless and decomposed, which have a bad smell, and which consist of remnants and untouchable things are very dear to those in the mode of darkness."
       
       The explanatory notes with this passage say that 'fatty' in the first group refers to dairy products, not to slaughtered animal fats, and specifically rules out all meat.
       
       Note - I am not a vegetarian, and much of what I most enjoy eating would seem to fall into category 2. I'm very fond of my lamb jalfrezi! (But there could be some hope for me, because dhal (though perhaps not tarka dhal?) falls into category 1 (!)

       replyreport
       1. 62

          Mishaposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          Those are comments made by people who supposedly know what they are talking about, right?
          
          There is no f***g way to get fatty diary in US They are crazy about low-fat and even non-fat... Can you imagine non-fat sour cream? yikes...
          
          I'm with you on that Looks like we both are driven by emotions, right? But I doubt dhal fits the description, though. It all depends on the exact translation of fresh I guess - should this be understood as recently collected/killed raw or as recently cooked or both?

          replyreport
15. 75

    StefanMDPposted 16 years ago

    It is not my intention to open a discucion about beliefs and biblical writings.
    I try to base on facts that don't demand scientific demonstrations.
    
    The following is only my opinion, I don't try to prove anything.
    
    1-) The dental structure is specialized according to the alimentary habit:
    
    Herbivores-
    Incisors : Sharp border. To biting the fruit.
    Canines : Pointed peak. (eyeteeth). To ripping fibrous root.
    Molars   : Flat surface. To chewing food.
    
    Carnivorous-
    Sharp teeth and directed toward the interior of the mouth : to hold the prey and pull up pieces.
    
    2 -) As already said helenathegreat, the expectation of the human being's life it has been prolonged in the last years thanks to modern medicine,
    but until not a long time ago (and still today in many places of the world) the expectation of life was of 35-40 years (surely there have been exceptions).
    
    3 -) The human's denture is typical of the herbivores, he began to eat meat after traveling a long road in its evolution.
    The human's metabolism is prepared to be hervibore (Let us say, vegetarian). Any other feeding type alters its balance.
    
    4 -) Bones and teeth have a limited lifespan. Not yet they evolved enough to reach the expectation of current life.
    
    5 -)...I must go, my beef is ready.

    replyreport
    1. 62

       Mishaposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       Since we are in Religions forum, we can consult sacred books about the length of our life "by design". Many characters in the Old Testament reportedly lived for several hundred years. While I don't remember where exactly, but I seen similar account in Buddhism. So, my working assumption is that we were designed to live several hundred years. And our bones and teeth, too

       replyreport
       1. 0

          helenathegreatposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          Maybe those last couple hundred years, though, they were eating Jell-O.  I know when I got my wisdom teeth out and didn't have much jaw movement available (and therefore no use for the rest of my teeth), I ate a lot of Jell-O, and it sustained me quite well.  Perhaps our ancient ancestors did the same. 

          replyreport
          1. 62

             Mishaposted 16 years agoin reply to this

             Did they know how to do jells back then? Not sure, but they definitely could   However, they did not remove wisdom teeth - this is a modern American - ummm - habit

             replyreport
16. 62

    Mishaposted 16 years ago

    Stephan,
    
    Interesting observation about teeth functionality you have. But aren't we omnivores?
    
    Like bears, pigs, etc.
    

    replyreport
    1. 75

       StefanMDPposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       Omnivorous: Those organisms whose digestive system is able to digest meats and/or plants.
       
       
       
       I agree, You are right. Nowadays humans are omnivorous due to their physiological adaptations.
       
       I wanted to express the idea that "the design" of the human teeth is to eat vegetable, not to break raw meat.
       (IMHO)

       replyreport
17. 77

    Guru-Cposted 16 years ago

    I think food can be Satvic and have been cooked.  Steamed rice comes to mind...

    replyreport
    1. 62

       Mishaposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       Thanks for giving me a hand I think it depends on exact translation of fresh, as I just wrote in the previous post. So far I'm undecided on this...

       replyreport
18. 62

    Mishaposted 16 years ago

    So many interesting ideas you gave guys! I did not abandon the thread, I'm trying to follow your ideas. Right now I'm reading here: http://rawfed.com/myths/rebuttal5.html
    I came there trying to find a comparison of carnivore-omnivore teeth to follow up on Stephen's idea...

    replyreport
19. 62

    Mishaposted 16 years ago

    OK, Stephen, I think I don't agree to you, sorry.
    
    I have two problems with your "teeth research". First, you did not mention pre-molars, which humans have four pairs, and which are the sign of ability to process meat "by design". (Source: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/20 … .Ot.r.html )
    
    I don't believe those pre-molars are the result of human evolution, but to make sure I will try to find archaeological data.
    
    Second, your description of carnivore teeth better fits sharks than mammals. Just look at the dog's teeth in the link from my previous post - they are clearly not "directed toward the interior of the mouth", may be except for canines...

    replyreport
20. 75

    Kenny Wordsmithposted 16 years ago

    And satvic food means no onions!
    Satvic food is anti-passion, anti-violent, peace inducing food. That's why it is recommended for those who want to lead a spiritual life.
    Rajjasic food is for warriors and physical types.
    Tamassic food makes you slow and lazy.
    
    If you haven't decided your lifepath, it's best to balance these qualities.

    replyreport
21. 62

    Mishaposted 16 years ago

    Good morning Kenny!
    
    Why no onions?! They are firm, fresh and juicy! And not really hot...
    
    And sorry my ignorance - what is physical types?

    replyreport
22. 75

    Kenny Wordsmithposted 16 years ago

    Physical types are people of passion, those who make love and war, those who eat, drink, and have fun. Sports people or actors who pay importance to their looks and body, who enjoy physical exercise and travel and dancing...
    
    As opposed to spiritual types and intellectual types. It's basically food recommended for developing the mind, body and soul.
    Maybe I should not have said lazy for tamassic; I should have said intellectual or passionless.
    
    
    Onions probably increase the passions!

    replyreport
23. 62

    Mishaposted 16 years ago

    LOL Kenny, you keep showing me how far I am from understanding of Hinduism
    
    I would never have thought about tamas being linked to intellectual, and intellectual and passionless are not in the same bucket for me either...
    
    Well, time to do some serious reading then

    replyreport
24. 75

    Kenny Wordsmithposted 16 years ago

    I think it's best to balance all three 'gunas.'  That way we have our options open. We can be intellectual, passionate and physical, with out bias.
    Then we can eat anything!

    replyreport
    1. 87

       Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       Except stones
       
       I once had a very vivid dream in which Arjuna made me a tuna salad. I'm not sure why!

       replyreport
25. 62

    Mishaposted 16 years ago

    Hey, you forgot why I started this thread - I don't want to brush my teeth
    
    If I have to become spiritual for this - so be it
    
    Look what I found - quote from the archaeological report on Kennewick Man - this guy lived more than 10000 years ago and died at about 45-50. I bet he did not have a toothbrush! Look what they have to say about his teeth:
    
    

    replyreport
    1. 75

       StefanMDPposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       Certainly, I didn't mention the premolars. Sorry.
       
       
       When I chew a piece of apple or a meat, I don't really have idea if I am using the molars or the premolars. I believe that both.
       
       I believe that molars and premolars make the same task, supplemented each other to crush. Molars and premolars are the same group of teeth in two levels.
       
       I don't agree with the specialization of the premolars.
       
       The hominid always had big molars and premolars, with a very thick enamel (very developed cheekbones) to chew hard vegetables, that were decreasing as it changed the texture of the foods (fruits) and didn't need so much effort to chew.
       
       When he introduced meat to the diet, reduced the cheekbones, molars and premolars (with finer enamel), what gives us the pleasant aspect that we have nowadays.
       
       P.S. I should insist, it is my opiñon, I am not developing a theory.

       replyreport
26. 75

    Kenny Wordsmithposted 16 years ago

    Yes, everything except stones!
    
    Paraglider, we have so many variants of Hindu myths. There are some very interesting tribal versions of the Mahabharata and Ramayana. Over the years, the Brahmin version prevailed and was aggressively made popular.
    In the tribal version, Arjuna would not only make tuna salads but enjoy them as well. The tribal Arjuna is no vegetarian!

    replyreport
27. 62

    Mishaposted 16 years ago

    Stefan,
    
    Sure, we all putting our own opinions here, I don't think you need to re-iterate this. And I appreciate you trying to help me
    
    Since I'm not an expert in dentition in any sense, I have to rely on someone's word and common sense. So far we have a tie - the guy I quoted and you have opposite opinions about the purpose of premolars. I tried to search more, but did not find any conclusive evidence to support either party yet, so this question is still open...
    
    Thanks

    replyreport
28. 62

    Mishaposted 16 years ago

    And I want a tuna salad from Arjuna, too But will prefer hot lamb carry any time

    replyreport
29. 62

    Mishaposted 16 years ago

    Glad to see you here, Debbie
    
    Yep, I do brush my teeth when I'm in the mood to get a kiss or two

    replyreport
    1. 75

       StefanMDPposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       Hi Misha
       
       I'm neither a specialist, only a curious man.
       
       I don't question the truthfulness of the article (I don't have the authority to do it). I don't agree because the article doesn't mention evolution, it analyzes the human of nowadays, and that is not my point.
       
       (pause)
       
       Something interesting in the article about the carnivores:
       
       
       If a carnivore eats raw meat, maintains clean its teeth.
       
       (/pause)
       
       Previously I said more or less this:
       
       --- The human's dental structure suggests that was hervibore, later on change the diet and introduced, among others, meat. ---
       
       I should recognize that I made a mistake, I said hervibore. I should say that he fed of fruits, insects, leaves and seeds. From this point of view, there is not doubt that he was omnivorous.
       
       My point is : the human change his diet and he is adapting, when the adaptation finishes, he will no longer need to brushed his teeth.
       
       ----
       
       I believe that a final idea begins with an opiñon, possibly erroneous, that is refined in the debate. I will be pleased of being in an error (but I would prefer to be right )

       replyreport
30. 62

    Mishaposted 16 years ago

    Hi Stephen,
    
    Yeah, I follow what you said, and I do understand that we are not talking about exact scientific terms here, but rather about whether humans were designed to eat both meat and plants or plants only.
    
    I found one more interesting article (or rather lecture) on this here: http://ijolite.geology.uiuc.edu/02SprgC … ect20.html

    replyreport
31. 62

    Mishaposted 16 years ago

    I have some experimental data, confirmed by my dentist
    
    Since I abandoned this thread, I took a habit of eating one whole apple first thing in the morning. No peeling, no cutting, just take the whole fresh apple, bite, and chew. I did not change any brushing/flossing habits.
    
    On my regular cleaning recently, my dentist told me my teeth are much cleaner than they normally where on previous cleanings...
    
    Something to think about, right?

    replyreport
32. 72

    Inspirepubposted 16 years ago

    There is the traditional saying - "an apple a day keeps the doctor away" ...
    
    Jenny

    replyreport
33. 87

    Marisa Wrightposted 16 years ago

    Apples do clean teeth naturally to some extent - I thought everyone knew that!  However the acid can eat away at the enamel if you don't rinse your mouth out with water afterwards.
    
    You base your claim that man used to live much longer on Biblical texts.  A great many people - even devout Christians - believe that the Bible (and the Old Testament in particular) is not an accurate history but a collection of originally true stories, embellished over time to educate and inspire the faithful.  So personally, I wouldn't be prepared to take life spans mentioned in the Bible as true.
    
    Throughout ancient history, when people still followed a fairly natural, unprocessed diet, life was short.  You had to grow up quickly.  Alexander the Great was still in his teens when he started his great career. 
    
    When I lived in Africa, in an area where many people still lived a traditional, unspoilt life, I was surprised to discover that 45 years old was regarded as positively ancient.
    
    In Africa, tooth decay isn't a problem because most peole don't live long enough to outlive their teeth.

    replyreport
34. 62

    Mishaposted 16 years ago

    Jenny,
    
    Yeah, but we don't have such a saying in Russian, so I had to re-invent the wheel
    
    Marisa,
    
    Yeah, I know both the criticism of biblical records and the facts that in primitive tribes people don't leave too long. Even medieval Europe does not really shine in life expectancy, sure.
    
    Well, currently there are quite a few people living in their 80s and even 90s. I personally have a grandma and a step-grandma (not sure it's a correct term - a sister of my grandma) who both are in their 90s and still are more or less active. Look around, and you'll find quite a few people of this age. And vast majority of them lost all or almost all of their own teeth already. My parents in their 70s have almost no own teeth. I lost a half of them even before my 50s. Bridges, crowns, etc. I don't believe the teeth where designed to be a single point of failure to restrict the length of our lives
    
    As for primitive tribes and other harsh conditions - I am not sure we were meant to live this way. I don't have a strong belief on this, but the hypotheses is initially we did not have to strive for food. Some kind of tropical garden with plenty of everything and nothing to defend from - yeah, Eden, you read it right But them we started to expand to the areas of our planet that were not designed for human living - hence the difficulties.
    
    As for the biblical character's ages - I tend to think they still were much higher than we have now in developed countries, let alone Africa and such. If we assume Bible talks about people, not tribes, as fas as I remember there were several generations interacting, that would have required much longer life than we see in tribes now... May be not 800 or 900 years, but still hundred and up...

    replyreport
    1. 87

       Marisa Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       It has nothing to do with abundance of food, Misha.  One of the reasons (in my opinion) that Africa did not develop like Europe is that people didn't have to work all that hard to get food, so there's no incentive to achieve anything.  Even in the area I lived, which had been over-hunted, if you were hungry all you had to do was pick a banana or a paw-paw off a tree.
       
       People never used to die from starvation in those areas.  They died from illness and accidents.  Because there were no antibiotics, a small cut could kill you.  Or a small lion...

       replyreport
35. 62

    Mishaposted 15 years ago

    God definitely knows And I want to know, too
    
    And no, it is not humor. You'll understand when you reach my age

    replyreport