# Ancient Vegan Types?



## Laurence (May 26, 2015)

I'd like to create an ancient race of humans who try to avoid damaging plants and animals. Do you guys think an ancient (we'll say 3000BC Egyptian level of technology) could realistically survive in, say, a forest with this attitude through scavenging/gathering? Assuming that picking berries and agriculture isn't harmful to plants/animals...

Do you know any examples?


----------



## X Equestris (May 26, 2015)

I find it really unlikely that such a society would be able to survive at that level, much less arise in the first place.


----------



## cupiscent (May 26, 2015)

It's possible, but two factors immediately spring to mind: 1) a strong reason to avoid animals, say religious or philosophical and 2) a very friendly environment.

Regarding point 1: humans are pretty clever and efficient (and lazy) creatures, who will generally find the easiest way to get the most pay-off. Meat gives a lot of energy for less effort, so you'll need a reason why the society has eschewed the path of least resistance there. But you flagged that already with the "try to avoid", so you've probably got that covered.

Regarding point 2: a tropical setting - like a rainforest - will offer a lot more support than a less clement setting. It's warmer, for a start, so there's no need for animal skins for clothing, or blankets, or even necessarily any need for walls in shelters. And because it's warmer, wetter and easier for things to grow, nature is a lot more fecund, grows very quickly and delivers a lot more bounty.

For instance: Vanuatu is a group of tropical Pacific islands, covered in lush rainforest. Though it sadly got flattened by an extreme storm this year, in general, no one goes hungry, because you can just wander through the rainforest picking fruits of all kinds. Their "farms" look identical to the rest of the jungle. On the other hand, they aren't very "advanced" (in terms of what a Western/capitalist society might consider advanced; they're the happiest country on earth, so I'm not sure we're measuring right, but anyway...) possibly partly because they don't need to be. They have food and shelter and company and time to enjoy themselves. Why do they need machines? Wheels aren't even very helpful when you're in tangled rainforest, and fire can be too troublesome when everything's wet and you're warm enough anyway.

A third consideration might be that a people who live off the land like that, and especially who don't eat meat, probably won't be very large or physically beefy/strong people.


----------



## Caged Maiden (May 26, 2015)

I'd consider allowing said culture to eat insects because they pack more protein punch than vertebrates anyways.  The problem exists when protein deficiency becomes prevalent in the young people.  In many parts of the world, protein deficiency is a very real and life-threatening problem.  Kwashiorkor: Causes, Symptoms & Diagnosis

Basically, young children have a protein need they cannot readily get (because of their immature digestive systems) and when they are weaned too young (because mothers have another baby), children can become malnourished very quickly.  

In primitive societies, foraging is not as prevalent as subsistence farming.  In rain forests of Southeast Asia, farmers grow root vegetables for starch and raise small crops of legumes for protein, but meat is an important part of the diet because it's essential for endurance to have regular protein.  Insects can sustain villages that don't have the resources to raise bigger livestock, but things like goat milk and eggs are still important.  I'd say if you have a reason to not hunt and kill animals, you can pull it off.  But it won't likely be foragers because foraging only works in addition to procuring a regular food source.  Here's my thoughts on what might work:

If you have plowing and damming, you could have flooded plains to raise rice, and you could have irrigated fields that produce barley, rye (or other protein and nutrient-rich grains).  Animals can be kept for milk, but not killed for meat.  Goats are a good choice because they don't eat a lot of feed, but camels (which can haul goods and be ridden) or cows (that pull plows and carts) might be better.  I don't know how advanced Egyptian agriculture was in regard to farm implements.

For protein, you may want beans, lentils, chick-peas, etc. because they can be dried and stored for lean times.  Also, yams, melons and squash are typical of primitive cultures because they're loaded with vitamins.  

If your reasoning is that you want a culture to have no-kill food sources, they can have a multitude of birds that lay unfertilized eggs, or maybe even no ethical feeling about eating an unhatched egg of any kind, opening up the possibility of eating turtle eggs, alligator eggs, snake eggs, etc.

Most insects are detrimental to crops, so why not feed them to animals and humans alike?  You can find insects as street food in Asian cities today...so it isn't even a food specifically eaten by primitive people, but in developed places as well.


----------



## MineOwnKing (May 27, 2015)

With some crude foraging or basic gardening they could possibly exist from roots.

In Brazil they eat Farofa. It's basically a flour made of cassava.

Something like that might work.

Granted, they do eat meat with it.

Cannibals?


----------



## Artemis (Jun 17, 2015)

I believe many ancient peoples were vegan and enjoyed advanced technology - not a popular view because people generally believe that we descended from apes.


----------



## skip.knox (Jun 18, 2015)

Janists.

Vegan is one thing. Living entirely by foraging (but not hunting) is quite another.

I recommend inventing your way out of it. Magic berries that are fully nutritious. Purple ones. Been eating them for six or seven weeks now. Haven't got sick once.


----------



## Miskatonic (Jun 18, 2015)

cupiscent said:


> It's possible, but two factors immediately spring to mind: 1) a strong reason to avoid animals, say religious or philosophical and 2) a very friendly environment.



Or they were just too dangerous to hunt. There was not a good trade off between likelihood of being killed and the food provided from a successful hunt.


----------



## Terry Greer (Jun 20, 2015)

Most beliefs are pragmatic when it comes to food. E.g. Medieval monks redefined ducks and geese as 'fish' - mainly so they could still eat them on friday. There are many more similar examples.

But interestingly where do you draw the line in meat eating? 
Masai farm cattle - they don't kill the cattle, but occasionally open a neck vein and draw off gourd full of blood.  Protein without killing the donor - I've heard of similar things with iguana tails in S.America.


----------



## X Equestris (Jun 20, 2015)

Terry Greer said:


> Most beliefs are pragmatic when it comes to food. E.g. Medieval monks redefined ducks and geese as 'fish' - mainly so they could still eat them on friday. There are many more similar examples.
> 
> But interestingly where do you draw the line in meat eating?
> Masai farm cattle - they don't kill the cattle, but occasionally open a neck vein and draw off gourd full of blood.  Protein without killing the donor - I've heard of similar things with iguana tails in S.America.



It's more than just meat eating, though.  Vegans don't want to use any animal products at all.


----------



## Terry Greer (Jun 21, 2015)

X Equestris said:


> It's more than just meat eating, though.  Vegans don't want to use any animal products at all.



The original question never mentioned vegan - only to try avoid harming animals and plants.

That really depends what you mean by 'harm'. Does clearing ground for a dwelling harm the creatures that already live there? Taking berries and nuts could be taken as harming the creatures that would normally feed on them - they could starve as a result. 
It depends by how broad the term 'harm' is defined.
I can't see how eating unfertalized eggs harms anything (we have a few chickens and keep them loose in a large garden)- and what about keeping a cow producing milk after it would normally have stopped (not factory farming)? 

Its always where you draw the line. A lot of modern vegan thought has taken a particular stance on all this (which is fine) - but there's no reason why that stance should be identical in a society that had similar thoughts but wasn't 'vegan' in the sense that vegans define it.


----------



## The_Murky_Night (Jun 24, 2015)

I think looking at India might do you some good. There are populations of Jains, for example, that do go to extreme limits to try and not harm animals (even microorganisms). For hundreds and hundreds of years, Brahmans have had purely vegetarian diets. Dairy however, especially ghee (a type of clarified butter), plays a role quite bit in certain rituals and things of that nature. But dairy animals are also treated completely differently in India. 

You might want to include plants (fictional or real) that provide necessary protein. Lentils, chick peas, nuts, spinach- all protein rich foods (all coincidentally available in India).


----------



## Cambra (Aug 18, 2015)

What a useful thread...  So scavanging in a  well-stocked Mediterranean forest wouldn't cut it then?


----------



## X Equestris (Aug 18, 2015)

Cambra said:


> What a useful thread...  So scavanging in a  well-stocked Mediterranean forest wouldn't cut it then?



In the modern sense of the word "vegan"? No, probably not.  Dropping all animal products from your diet in that environment would likely leave you short on certain nutrients.  Only dropping meat would work better, I think.


----------

