Oh yes, Americans are free all right. They all work in jobs they hate, have no free time to do anything but watch wretched, depraved television shows produced by a handful of companies dedicated to exploiting human vulnerabilies. American men too, are hardly free to ever support a family a reasonable size, or raise their daughters to be something other than whores, or even find a loyal wife (50% of all marriages end in divorce, the vast majority of which are initiated by the female). Americans are free to choose whatever government leaders they wish, so long as they belong to two specific parties that believe the same things and are supported by the handful of media companies. Americans are free to do whatever they want in their homes in the cities, and are encouraged to do so because crime is so rampant on the streets.
Yeah, Americans are free alright. They are free to do exactly what they are told. They proclaim their nihilistic values to the world, relishing in their freedom of speech but no one hears them; they can do nothing but whimper.
Americans live in fear constantly. Fear of crime, fear of how to raise or maintain their family, fear of losing their jobs, fear of what soul sucking television show they will miss next. Its a wretched existence
The truth of the matter is the average Iranian is disgusted by American culture. You can walk the streets of Tehran at any hour of the day or night without fear of being attacked, robbed, or worse. Life isn't always easy in that resource poor country, but children are happy when they play in the streets. Families are strong and husbands and wives do more together than the weekly fuck and television watching marathons. More importantly, what the people of Iran believe and say has actual meaning... Far from the whimper of Americans, their creed is heard the world over as your post exemplifies.
This endless muttering of freedom is becoming quite tiresome. Please, stop using it.
You apparently don't know what an incendiary bomb is. It is intended specifically to create a firestorm. They were not the first choice of the British, since they really were not particularly effective against anything other than civilian targets such as wood framed houses.
These weapons were also never utilized by Germany.
The problem with Walmart is they are governed by the law of supply and demand. There is huge demand for having a job at Walmart, but only because there are few jobs now for the huge numbers of intellectually inferior people who now exist. We once had factories and a limited social safety net to give these people something useful to do with their lives, as well as prevent excessive reproduction of such persons.
Walmart simply fills a void, where the inverse relationship between reproductive rate and intelligence has created a society where humans are de-evolving into barbaric beasts incapable of a civilized existence.
This has to be the most pointless and idiotic reply I have ever read in my life. The poster you responded to gave an extremely detailed description of why a small sample size is sufficient. All you have done is repeat the original statement to which he was replying: Oh, its totally random.
ITS NOT FUCKING RANDOM.
If statisticians can statistically determine who the next president of the United States is by polling 1000 people, I think making 3 calls to a tech support line is more than accurate.
There is absolutely NO reason why a reasonably intelligent individual can't solve the problems presented. If they fail on all three tries, that is the entire system of problem solving fails, then there is a problem.
But as I said in my earlier post, most people, like you, will just look at the results and not at the methodology,
The methadology here is quite simple: Companies have standardized THEIR methodology of providing customer service. Randomness should play little role in deciding the outcome. Difficult questions were selected that the average idiot on the phone can't answer right away. The questions are designed to test the interaction of the entire team. This is not Trivial Pursuit or Jeopardy. The entire system in many cases failed, not just an individual telephone flunky.
You claim the logic is broken, but do you have ANY idea how to judge sample size? How many would be enough for you? 50? 100? 10,000?
Of course, it is this same inversion of the will to power that is at the root of christianity. If you can't affect the world, strive to control your own human desires, become a master of yourself.
People who have extensive body modifications are not merely abuse survivors, but they are the very slave strata who simply are ineffective in the world. Another group amongst which body modifications are popular are the decadent art classes of today, particularly those who believe in postmodern aesthetics.
I dunno, I have an old Celeron 600 laptop with 128 megs of ram. Office 2003 works just fine on it. I don't have any complaints. I run XP on that laptop too.
Intelligence really is a trait related to genetic breeding? Some people in fact really are more stupid than others and that genetics is the reason why?
Its fascinating this story didn't become public until it pointed to the supposed superiority of Jewish intellectual abilities.
If this same study had come out saying White Europeans are smarter than Black Africans because of some genetic reason the authors would be shot.
None of the battles you described used incendiary bombs. In fact, I challenge you to name one bombing campaign where the Germans used incendiary bombs on a civilian target.
The deathtoll in Frampol was trivial (3,000 lived in the town, not DIED in the town). It was common for the Germans to bomb town centers out to make room for Panzer formations. This was done in Frampol and Rotterdamn with minimal loss of life. It also allowed for quick capture of cities. Rotterdamn fell in days, Frampol in one day, for instance. How many would have died if the fighting had continued?
500 people died in Coventry, and 1500 people died in Guernica. 35,000 died in Dresden. 50,000 died in Hamburg. Both of those numbers are from single bombing campaigns, independent of regular harassment.
The British killed more than that combined in Germany on a typical day of bombing in 1944. A good day produced deaths in the 10's of thousands. These were bombing campaigns that occurred EVERY DAY, without relent.
Comparing Coventry to Dresden simply speaks of British arrogance on this matter, and the desperation of the British people in justifying their participation in a war for which there was no just cause (at the time, holocaustomania didn't begin until AFTER the war).
Incendiary bombs were never dropped on Berlin. There was too much to capture and for the Russians; too many young girls to rape. The Russians wanted their prize, and they got it.
I mean, farmers only get PAID at harvest time! Why do you think its such a time of celebration?
Part of the great enslavement of modern man has been putting him on a regular cash flow. Being a farmer required discipline, that made it more difficult to corrupt him with false promises of happiness through useless crap and fast food.
You had to make that cash LAST all year long, and through the winter.
If Hitler was a spiteful bastard he would have firebomed London into the ground in 1941 and never bothered to actually occupy Russian cities. Why do that when you could kill everyone inside of them from a distance.
I think you have it the otherway around. It was the British who had no problems slaughtering their own kind by the millions in Germany, and the beastial Russians who took great pleasure in raping young girls by the thousands left undefended as their brothers and fathers died at the front. One need only take trip to Russian conquered lands to see the results of THEIR victory. That is a spite unknown in history.
This kind of statement is a prime example how a communist sympathizer such as this can capitalize on one simple piece of thoroughly ingenius but dishonest propaganda: the statement that Hitler supposedly blamed the Germans for defeat in the final days of WWII. The fact is there is not a shred of evidence he ever said such a thing and all evidence points to the contrary.
Yes, yes.. no doubt some reader will tell me what a monster Hitler is. Lets not change the topic. Who gains from these lies, ie that Hitler blamed the German people for defeat? The war has been over for 60 years.
Now, dismantling German industry is a different story... If you are confusing those two ideas, punishing the people versus limiting allied booty... Then you have made a critical error in synthesizing a real, common military policy and a fiction created by allied propagandists.
I think "moving" is a bit of a strong word. Previously, these organizations were highly independent. Yes, they were all under the authority of the President but they did not regularly communicate with each other. The DHS is simply a bureaucratic system by which a presidential advisor directly coordinates their activities.
Political liberalism necessarily involves laws and more laws in the United States and Canada. In Europe, liberalism is a different story.
That said, fascism really has little to do with the quantity or type of laws. It is nothing more than anti-democracy. Not everyone believes that the future of a given country should be decided by a popularity contest.
Given how most people in my office are more concerned with who is going to win American Idol than the next election, there might be some truth to the fascit political argument.
Its not just scraps its the pork shoulder which is normally very tough and would be thrown out. They essentially boil it in salt water until its tender and package it in the can. They probably do add some fat to it as well.
There are no natural rights. Rights are bestowed upon by a governmental authority. The people who are subject to that authority collectively agree to respect such rights, and usually some body exists to enforce such respect (i.e. the police).
All the legal fictions you have spouted today are just that, fictions. The government can and does make whatever law suits it. the constitution is irrelevant. If there is one thing that history has shown us, it is that legalism is a dismal failure. The more people attempt to improve and define their society by laws that more it stagnates and decays. This, more than anything is why representative forms of government, as well as outright democracies always fail. They lack the decisive and dynamic leadership of a select few.
That said, there is no right to pursuit of happiness in the constitution. That is in the declaration of independence.
The constitution grants the federal government the explicit power to regulate copyrights. That is what this is all about.
A visit to Cuba would quickly show you many of those statistics are inaccurate. Most Cubans will tell you the free health care is a joke and infant mortality is low simply because the birthrate itself is low and infanticide is not counted as "low infant mortality".
Either the system's not working as it should, or most people are just too retarded for the system to work properly.
Its called democracy, and its never worked. The majority of people simply want bread and games, as has been known for thousands of years. We're talking about games in this thread.
Democracy is advocated only by the highly cynical, who believe leaders inherently exploit the people they lead. Yet, as you emphasize, the majority of people need to be lead as their priorities in life are at best trivial and at worst dangerous. Surely, our civilization would collapse if the nihilistic masses who crave nothing but diversion were actually in charge.
A 82kg man running for 45 minutes at a respectable pace would expend approximately 900-1000 calories. Thats about 40 pounds of cabbage, or 25 pounds of cauliflower, or 50 pounds of asparagus. Now, lets say you didn't heed my warning in another post that vegetables do not include fruit. So in fact, you weren't eating vegetables all this time but were in fact eating fruit. 1000 calories would be about 17 apples, 12 bananas, or 3 avocados.
Now, this is all in addition to the 2000 calories a man of your size requires simply to maintain your body temperature. Can you see where this is going?
The truth is you are speaking to someone who is 190cm and 90kg. To keep up the lifestyle and weight you describe I couldn't do it without consuming liters of olive oil every week, and eating 3-4 avocados a day. I'd dump raw sugar into orange juice, mix sugar with a half dozen egg yolks to make a curd... These are the tricks you pick up.
Vegetables in the grocery store are technically the stems, roots, leaves, and flowers of plants. Fruits are not vegetables. Nuts are not vegetables. Legumes are inedible unless highly processed (soaked for for days) and their high fiber content is bad. No one will ever be able to get more than a few hundred calories a day from seeds. They are very difficult for your body to break down. Sprouted grains also have virtually no energy in them, and equally difficult to break down. People eat them because they cause rapid bowel movements as your intestines work overtime to expel damaging plant fiber (which causes microscopic tears in the intestinal wall, weakening intestinal muscles over time).
Wheat grass is also popular, but only due to the high concentration of gluten which is decomposed into opioid peptides. Wheat grass really does make you high momentarily, thus its popularity.
As for meat, to eat it raw there are many options available. Fish of course is what most people eat raw. If you live in a major city, finding sashimi quality fish isn't hard. There are organic farms where you can get high quality Wagyu beef which can really only be served raw.
A man could never live on potatoes only, but a man could easily live on beef only. Humans are predators, as all intelligent mammals are. We cannot change who we are. Perhaps the problem is there are too many people on this planet to feed. The solution is not to serve a substandard diet but instead reduce the overall population.
For most raw foodists I know, and based on my own experience, you cannot succeed on the diet without avocados and cold pressed olive oil. That is what makes all the difference.
What percentage of your caloric intake came from those vegetables? Very few.
Sit down and eat a pound of carrots, one of the few vegetables with a relatively high sugar content you CAN eat raw. You will not feel very good and you will have consumed hardly enough to live on.
If you think about it carefully, you weren't eating a vegetarian diet like a cow. You likely used olive oil, and did consume a larger quantity of cooked grains(like bread) than you care to admit. Especially since you claim to eat once a day, I tend to thik that is the case. Even three avocados at that meal will hardly provide the minimum caloric intake an adult male requires to survive.
By natural, I am referring to a diet that doesn't require technology, either the knowledge of fire, a cooking implement, or an olive press.
Now, it is possible that you are a small person and physically inactive. If that is the case, you could conceiveably get by with 1200 calories a day. That is also unnatural as that level of inactivity is only possible due to technology making physical work largely unnecessary.
The evolution of life actually began with the primordial sea being filled with glucose. The first animals had all the energy they needed until their numbers exceeded energy. It was then they started to eat each other. Millions of years went by and the oceans were filled with lifeforms. Eventually plants evolved the ability to utilize solar energy and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to produce ATP and NADPH, which mostly is then converted to glucose.
A biproduct of this reaction is oxygen which filled the atmosphere. Prior to the evolution of plants, the Earth's atmosphere had virtually no oxygen.
In time, animals from the sea moved onto the land to feed on plants, and new predators evolved to hunt them.
Yeah, I meant to say cooking cheaply. The standard staples of man's diet, ie grains can't be consumed unless cooked. If you are physically active such that you need 3000 calories a day, vegetables will not provide you with any energy. You would have to eat dozens of kilos a day and it would be extremely uncomfortable. Vegetables have never served as a source of energy in the human diet, it has always been a source of vitamins and minerals.
If you eat a raw diet, you can really only eat fruit, juice, nuts, eggs and meat.
Considering the cost of fruit, the cost of raw nuts (most are heat treated to preserve freshness) and the cost of sashimi quality fish or other high end organic meat you trust... Its simply not practical.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh yes, Americans are free all right. They all work in jobs they hate, have no free time to do anything but watch wretched, depraved television shows produced by a handful of companies dedicated to exploiting human vulnerabilies. American men too, are hardly free to ever support a family a reasonable size, or raise their daughters to be something other than whores, or even find a loyal wife (50% of all marriages end in divorce, the vast majority of which are initiated by the female). Americans are free to choose whatever government leaders they wish, so long as they belong to two specific parties that believe the same things and are supported by the handful of media companies. Americans are free to do whatever they want in their homes in the cities, and are encouraged to do so because crime is so rampant on the streets.
Yeah, Americans are free alright. They are free to do exactly what they are told. They proclaim their nihilistic values to the world, relishing in their freedom of speech but no one hears them; they can do nothing but whimper.
Americans live in fear constantly. Fear of crime, fear of how to raise or maintain their family, fear of losing their jobs, fear of what soul sucking television show they will miss next. Its a wretched existence
The truth of the matter is the average Iranian is disgusted by American culture. You can walk the streets of Tehran at any hour of the day or night without fear of being attacked, robbed, or worse. Life isn't always easy in that resource poor country, but children are happy when they play in the streets. Families are strong and husbands and wives do more together than the weekly fuck and television watching marathons. More importantly, what the people of Iran believe and say has actual meaning... Far from the whimper of Americans, their creed is heard the world over as your post exemplifies.
This endless muttering of freedom is becoming quite tiresome. Please, stop using it.
You apparently don't know what an incendiary bomb is. It is intended specifically to create a firestorm. They were not the first choice of the British, since they really were not particularly effective against anything other than civilian targets such as wood framed houses.
These weapons were also never utilized by Germany.
The problem with Walmart is they are governed by the law of supply and demand. There is huge demand for having a job at Walmart, but only because there are few jobs now for the huge numbers of intellectually inferior people who now exist. We once had factories and a limited social safety net to give these people something useful to do with their lives, as well as prevent excessive reproduction of such persons.
Walmart simply fills a void, where the inverse relationship between reproductive rate and intelligence has created a society where humans are de-evolving into barbaric beasts incapable of a civilized existence.
Your logic is broken.
This has to be the most pointless and idiotic reply I have ever read in my life. The poster you responded to gave an extremely detailed description of why a small sample size is sufficient. All you have done is repeat the original statement to which he was replying: Oh, its totally random.
ITS NOT FUCKING RANDOM.
If statisticians can statistically determine who the next president of the United States is by polling 1000 people, I think making 3 calls to a tech support line is more than accurate.
There is absolutely NO reason why a reasonably intelligent individual can't solve the problems presented. If they fail on all three tries, that is the entire system of problem solving fails, then there is a problem.
But as I said in my earlier post, most people, like you, will just look at the results and not at the methodology,
The methadology here is quite simple: Companies have standardized THEIR methodology of providing customer service. Randomness should play little role in deciding the outcome. Difficult questions were selected that the average idiot on the phone can't answer right away. The questions are designed to test the interaction of the entire team. This is not Trivial Pursuit or Jeopardy. The entire system in many cases failed, not just an individual telephone flunky.
You claim the logic is broken, but do you have ANY idea how to judge sample size? How many would be enough for you? 50? 100? 10,000?
I think you need to go back to statistics 101.
I just mean that the Ainu are relatively unknown to the vast majority of slashdot readers, that's all. Maybe suggest a slashdot poll???
An obscure response!
Nahh, it was a half hearted attempt at a pseudo-intellectual troll.. I tried, but apparently failed.
Oh well.
Of course, it is this same inversion of the will to power that is at the root of christianity. If you can't affect the world, strive to control your own human desires, become a master of yourself.
People who have extensive body modifications are not merely abuse survivors, but they are the very slave strata who simply are ineffective in the world. Another group amongst which body modifications are popular are the decadent art classes of today, particularly those who believe in postmodern aesthetics.
I dunno, I have an old Celeron 600 laptop with 128 megs of ram. Office 2003 works just fine on it. I don't have any complaints. I run XP on that laptop too.
Intelligence really is a trait related to genetic breeding? Some people in fact really are more stupid than others and that genetics is the reason why?
Its fascinating this story didn't become public until it pointed to the supposed superiority of Jewish intellectual abilities.
If this same study had come out saying White Europeans are smarter than Black Africans because of some genetic reason the authors would be shot.
The hypocrisy!
A fascinating inquiry, I do hope somone investigates further. I'm going to have to ponder this one a bit further.
None of the battles you described used incendiary bombs. In fact, I challenge you to name one bombing campaign where the Germans used incendiary bombs on a civilian target.
The deathtoll in Frampol was trivial (3,000 lived in the town, not DIED in the town). It was common for the Germans to bomb town centers out to make room for Panzer formations. This was done in Frampol and Rotterdamn with minimal loss of life. It also allowed for quick capture of cities. Rotterdamn fell in days, Frampol in one day, for instance. How many would have died if the fighting had continued?
500 people died in Coventry, and 1500 people died in Guernica. 35,000 died in Dresden. 50,000 died in Hamburg. Both of those numbers are from single bombing campaigns, independent of regular harassment.
The British killed more than that combined in Germany on a typical day of bombing in 1944. A good day produced deaths in the 10's of thousands. These were bombing campaigns that occurred EVERY DAY, without relent.
Comparing Coventry to Dresden simply speaks of British arrogance on this matter, and the desperation of the British people in justifying their participation in a war for which there was no just cause (at the time, holocaustomania didn't begin until AFTER the war).
Incendiary bombs were never dropped on Berlin. There was too much to capture and for the Russians; too many young girls to rape. The Russians wanted their prize, and they got it.
Then why did they use incendiary bombs?
Duhh.
I mean, farmers only get PAID at harvest time! Why do you think its such a time of celebration?
Part of the great enslavement of modern man has been putting him on a regular cash flow. Being a farmer required discipline, that made it more difficult to corrupt him with false promises of happiness through useless crap and fast food.
You had to make that cash LAST all year long, and through the winter.
If Hitler was a spiteful bastard he would have firebomed London into the ground in 1941 and never bothered to actually occupy Russian cities. Why do that when you could kill everyone inside of them from a distance.
I think you have it the otherway around. It was the British who had no problems slaughtering their own kind by the millions in Germany, and the beastial Russians who took great pleasure in raping young girls by the thousands left undefended as their brothers and fathers died at the front. One need only take trip to Russian conquered lands to see the results of THEIR victory. That is a spite unknown in history.
This kind of statement is a prime example how a communist sympathizer such as this can capitalize on one simple piece of thoroughly ingenius but dishonest propaganda: the statement that Hitler supposedly blamed the Germans for defeat in the final days of WWII. The fact is there is not a shred of evidence he ever said such a thing and all evidence points to the contrary.
Yes, yes.. no doubt some reader will tell me what a monster Hitler is. Lets not change the topic. Who gains from these lies, ie that Hitler blamed the German people for defeat? The war has been over for 60 years.
Now, dismantling German industry is a different story... If you are confusing those two ideas, punishing the people versus limiting allied booty... Then you have made a critical error in synthesizing a real, common military policy and a fiction created by allied propagandists.
I think "moving" is a bit of a strong word. Previously, these organizations were highly independent. Yes, they were all under the authority of the President but they did not regularly communicate with each other. The DHS is simply a bureaucratic system by which a presidential advisor directly coordinates their activities.
Political liberalism necessarily involves laws and more laws in the United States and Canada. In Europe, liberalism is a different story.
That said, fascism really has little to do with the quantity or type of laws. It is nothing more than anti-democracy. Not everyone believes that the future of a given country should be decided by a popularity contest.
Given how most people in my office are more concerned with who is going to win American Idol than the next election, there might be some truth to the fascit political argument.
Its not just scraps its the pork shoulder which is normally very tough and would be thrown out. They essentially boil it in salt water until its tender and package it in the can. They probably do add some fat to it as well.
There are no natural rights. Rights are bestowed upon by a governmental authority. The people who are subject to that authority collectively agree to respect such rights, and usually some body exists to enforce such respect (i.e. the police).
All the legal fictions you have spouted today are just that, fictions. The government can and does make whatever law suits it. the constitution is irrelevant. If there is one thing that history has shown us, it is that legalism is a dismal failure. The more people attempt to improve and define their society by laws that more it stagnates and decays. This, more than anything is why representative forms of government, as well as outright democracies always fail. They lack the decisive and dynamic leadership of a select few.
That said, there is no right to pursuit of happiness in the constitution. That is in the declaration of independence.
The constitution grants the federal government the explicit power to regulate copyrights. That is what this is all about.
A visit to Cuba would quickly show you many of those statistics are inaccurate. Most Cubans will tell you the free health care is a joke and infant mortality is low simply because the birthrate itself is low and infanticide is not counted as "low infant mortality".
Either the system's not working as it should, or most people are just too retarded for the system to work properly.
Its called democracy, and its never worked. The majority of people simply want bread and games, as has been known for thousands of years. We're talking about games in this thread.
Democracy is advocated only by the highly cynical, who believe leaders inherently exploit the people they lead. Yet, as you emphasize, the majority of people need to be lead as their priorities in life are at best trivial and at worst dangerous. Surely, our civilization would collapse if the nihilistic masses who crave nothing but diversion were actually in charge.
I think more likely you are simply a liar.
A 82kg man running for 45 minutes at a respectable pace would expend approximately 900-1000 calories. Thats about 40 pounds of cabbage, or 25 pounds of cauliflower, or 50 pounds of asparagus. Now, lets say you didn't heed my warning in another post that vegetables do not include fruit. So in fact, you weren't eating vegetables all this time but were in fact eating fruit. 1000 calories would be about 17 apples, 12 bananas, or 3 avocados.
Now, this is all in addition to the 2000 calories a man of your size requires simply to maintain your body temperature. Can you see where this is going?
The truth is you are speaking to someone who is 190cm and 90kg. To keep up the lifestyle and weight you describe I couldn't do it without consuming liters of olive oil every week, and eating 3-4 avocados a day. I'd dump raw sugar into orange juice, mix sugar with a half dozen egg yolks to make a curd... These are the tricks you pick up.
Vegetables in the grocery store are technically the stems, roots, leaves, and flowers of plants. Fruits are not vegetables. Nuts are not vegetables. Legumes are inedible unless highly processed (soaked for for days) and their high fiber content is bad. No one will ever be able to get more than a few hundred calories a day from seeds. They are very difficult for your body to break down. Sprouted grains also have virtually no energy in them, and equally difficult to break down. People eat them because they cause rapid bowel movements as your intestines work overtime to expel damaging plant fiber (which causes microscopic tears in the intestinal wall, weakening intestinal muscles over time).
Wheat grass is also popular, but only due to the high concentration of gluten which is decomposed into opioid peptides. Wheat grass really does make you high momentarily, thus its popularity.
As for meat, to eat it raw there are many options available. Fish of course is what most people eat raw. If you live in a major city, finding sashimi quality fish isn't hard. There are organic farms where you can get high quality Wagyu beef which can really only be served raw.
A man could never live on potatoes only, but a man could easily live on beef only. Humans are predators, as all intelligent mammals are. We cannot change who we are. Perhaps the problem is there are too many people on this planet to feed. The solution is not to serve a substandard diet but instead reduce the overall population.
For most raw foodists I know, and based on my own experience, you cannot succeed on the diet without avocados and cold pressed olive oil. That is what makes all the difference.
What percentage of your caloric intake came from those vegetables? Very few.
Sit down and eat a pound of carrots, one of the few vegetables with a relatively high sugar content you CAN eat raw. You will not feel very good and you will have consumed hardly enough to live on.
If you think about it carefully, you weren't eating a vegetarian diet like a cow. You likely used olive oil, and did consume a larger quantity of cooked grains(like bread) than you care to admit. Especially since you claim to eat once a day, I tend to thik that is the case. Even three avocados at that meal will hardly provide the minimum caloric intake an adult male requires to survive.
By natural, I am referring to a diet that doesn't require technology, either the knowledge of fire, a cooking implement, or an olive press.
Now, it is possible that you are a small person and physically inactive. If that is the case, you could conceiveably get by with 1200 calories a day. That is also unnatural as that level of inactivity is only possible due to technology making physical work largely unnecessary.
The evolution of life actually began with the primordial sea being filled with glucose. The first animals had all the energy they needed until their numbers exceeded energy. It was then they started to eat each other. Millions of years went by and the oceans were filled with lifeforms. Eventually plants evolved the ability to utilize solar energy and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to produce ATP and NADPH, which mostly is then converted to glucose.
A biproduct of this reaction is oxygen which filled the atmosphere. Prior to the evolution of plants, the Earth's atmosphere had virtually no oxygen.
In time, animals from the sea moved onto the land to feed on plants, and new predators evolved to hunt them.
That's the basic theory anyway.
Yeah, I meant to say cooking cheaply. The standard staples of man's diet, ie grains can't be consumed unless cooked. If you are physically active such that you need 3000 calories a day, vegetables will not provide you with any energy. You would have to eat dozens of kilos a day and it would be extremely uncomfortable. Vegetables have never served as a source of energy in the human diet, it has always been a source of vitamins and minerals.
If you eat a raw diet, you can really only eat fruit, juice, nuts, eggs and meat.
Considering the cost of fruit, the cost of raw nuts (most are heat treated to preserve freshness) and the cost of sashimi quality fish or other high end organic meat you trust... Its simply not practical.