Native Americans coexisted for over 13,000 years here without guns, they managed to spread from the tip of Alaska to the tip of South America without them.
And yes, I thought you were referring to wars when you said we owed our survival to guns - your statement followed my post regarding gunpowder, bombs and such, and it seemed to be in response to it.
Native Americans were mainly hunter/gatherers with some later turning to agriculture. They also waged a war, though war is usually the result of populations "bouncing" into each other and the pre-Columbian era saw a very sparsely populated Americas. The more densely populated Central America saw more war than the lesser so South and North America. Some of them also believed in human sacrifice for religious purposes.
Definitely not the cauldron of peaceful coexistence and general kumbaya-ness you seem to believe it to have been, later anti-Western propaganda notwithstanding.
@Arcus - I never said they sat around their campfires roasted marshmellows and sang, "Michael Row The Boat Ashore," I simply said they got along just fine without guns.
That depends on the definition of "fine". They got along as well as any pre-gunpowder civilization, utilizing the other weaponry such as bows, edged, and blunt weapons.
On the whole I doubt it matters to the animal or person being killed whether it's by musket or tomahawk. I think the "being killed" part is more important than the tool involved and its effectiveness.
Ever try to negotiate with a grizzly bear or mountain lion? it's not a winning proposition. Just saying, negotiation and compromise only works within our species. outside of our species, if there's a mother griz who thinks she needs to protect her cubs or hungry mountain lion, there are no amount of words or platitudes that will do any amount of good.
Of course, I grew up 25 miles from Glacier Park in Montana, so we had to take these things into consideration every time we went for a walk, especially taking the shortcut through the woods to the mailbox 1.5 miles away. It's by virtue of living where the wild predators still exist that makes me love and appreciate them even more. I'm not afraid of a bear or mountain lion, but I'm deeply respectful of their capacity to do great harm if they feel threatened or are hungry and looking for an easy meal.
Now I live in AZ and even in the "wilds" of Scottsdale, I find 4-legged predators. Now I just shoot them with my camera.
IMO, meat is overrated. I think there is far too much animal death than is necessary to support us (at least in America, where the country on the whole probably needs to lose 20 pounds/person). I stopped eating meat ~2-3 years ago - there are so many alternatives and meat substitutes now, it is not that difficult to have a meatless diet and still enjoy nice meals.
I'm glad that's what you "think," but it doesn't change anything, nor does it make such excess of eating wrong. My dog has food consistently in front of him, but if he were to see a squirrel, he would kill and eat it. Killing to have excess isn't just in humans. People consistently try to speak of how horrible humans are, but ultimately we are animals, so we have the same instincts. If we completely get away from that, we may easily loose our place at the top of the food chain.
There are tons of meat substitutes, but explain to me why I want substitutes when I can have the real thing? How about you eat what you want, and I'll eat what I want? That's not good enough for you though is it? If you had it your way, everyone would be a vegan/vegetarian. That's what pisses me off so much! It's one thing to eat what you want, but it's another thing entirely to force others to eat what you want them to eat. That's the sickest thing I've ever heard, not killing animals.
<moderator's note: comment removed as a violation of forum policy -- no personal attacks>
that's a cheap shot don't u think?
Admittedly, and beneath me, but I didn't see him take issue, it was more like, "Hey, when he's right, he's right!"