Veggies vs Meat
VegesaurusRex
Posts: 1,018
I believe studies have shown the vegetarian diet to be the proper diet for humans, consistent with our evolution. I also believe it is the only ethical diet for modern civilization. Does anybody disagree?
0
Replies
-
I suppose, since I am the moderator, that I should define what I consider "extremely bad taste." Generally, racial, ethnic or religious slurs are not in good taste, alghough serious topics involving race, ethnicity or religion are certainly welcome. Gratuitous vulgar language, or even non-gratuitous vulgar language is likely to be looked at. No need for that. But as revolting as I find photos of steaks, I will not censor them. Dirty jokes are not welcome, unless they are funny. Name-calling is discouraged, and as much as I would discourage ad hominem attacks, I think they are a natural result of human discourse, and unless they get vicious I will leave them alone. I guess what I am saying, if you get censored on this board you really have to deserve it.0
-
Okay...I am cutting and pasting my last contribution to the locked thread. Here it is:
QUOTE FROM 'I FORGET WHO':
Ten pages and we're still actually debating the original topic? SMH .... If my friends were here, this thread would actually be full of "fun and games".
Agreed. Let's go get some meat. Polish or Italian sausage for you, dear?
RESPONSE FROM FTEAL: fnarr fnarr
VERGINGONVEGAN: No fears, fteale. The day is drawing nearer when animal husbandry--a most inefficient way to feed our population--will be unsustainable. The crops we now feed farm animals will go to feed people directly. In the process of this, meat will increase in price to such an extent that most people will find it unaffordable. Right now, in the US, government subsidies make meat and dairy possible for the average person to buy. Without those subsidies, the cost of these animal products would make them treats, not mainstays. Sorry, sausage eaters...you will need to find new amusements.0 -
Since meat and dairy subsidies may go the way of the dinosaur in the future, I think getting used to eating plants is an excellent idea. Mark Bittman (food writer for the NYT) is a part-time vegan. He's also a great cook. Here's a recent article for people who want to eat vegan at least some of the time:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/mark-bittman-going-semi-vegan.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=meat&st=cse0 -
Good morning all - thanks for the invite. I am just logging in to log food this am but will gladly debate the topic come Monday... I stay away from the PC on weekends for the most part since I am in front of one M-F. Tonight we'll be enjoying a nice meal @ Ruth Chris and yes, I will be eating meat but I won't post pictures of it:) Just saying hello - enjoy your weekend.0
-
Hi, Kimmie, welcome aboard! Post any time you like.
I thought I would post this comment that I just read in a recent Scientific American article:
“If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million,” reports ecologist David Pimentel of Cornell University’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. He adds that the seven billion livestock in the U.S. consume five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire U.S. population.
That article bytheway is at: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=meat-and-environment0 -
Hi, thanks for the invitation. I wonder if any meat eaters turn up!?0
-
I don't know. I invited everyone on the old board to come here. I have no intention of censoring anyone's comments, if they do come, and as long as they avoid vulgar language, and inappropriate remarks against a class of people or what amounts to harassment of an individual. They can say what they want. In fact, I welcome them. I truly cannot understand why in this day and age anyone eats meat, and I would welcome an explanation.0
-
Yes, other than taste and convenience, I can't think of a single reason to eat meat. I'd like to know meat-eater's motivations which might relate to: nutrition, health, sustainability and compassionate-lifestyle.0
-
Since meat and dairy subsidies may go the way of the dinosaur in the future, I think getting used to eating plants is an excellent idea. Mark Bittman (food writer for the NYT) is a part-time vegan. He's also a great cook. Here's a recent article for people who want to eat vegan at least some of the time:
Isn't calling yourself a part-time vegan kind of impossible? A part-time vegan is merely a carnivore/omnivore who can not commit to sticking to a vegan diet full time. Like when you break a crumb in half you don't have 2 half crumbs; you have 2 crumbs.0 -
I believe the human diet has evolved to be omnivorous. We have more "choice" as to what will go on the dinner plate because of how we've evolved... meaning, we can eat a wider variety of foods compared with other species and thrive. I believe it is not ethical to buy industrialized meats and meat products. Organic, farm raised (biodiverse, sustainable farms) and wild caught is ethical.0
-
I believe that if I wasn't part of the kill, process, or raising of an animal then I have no business eating one. I'm sure if people had to do it themselves there would be a lot more vegans and vegetarians. I also buy as many local foods as I can before I make a trip to the grocery store. Think about how far your food travels and the many pathogens that it may come across. No thanks. That's how a pandemic is started. I'm in the process of expanding a garden and getting 2 more hens this spring. I can't say that I'm vegan all the time, because I do eat eggs - sometimes fish whenever my husband goes fishing (which is rare). & you think the industrialized foods would cost more because they take spray the chemicals on the plants, pump animals full of hormones and antibiotics (I could never understand that!) & the science it takes to get GMO seeds... -farmers CANNOT save the seeds (or Monsanto will come after them) and an animal's lifespan is slashed 3/4 due to the corn, conditions, and whatever other inhumane crap they do to the animals... organic should be cheaper, I don't understand why it isn't!0
-
Since meat and dairy subsidies may go the way of the dinosaur in the future, I think getting used to eating plants is an excellent idea. Mark Bittman (food writer for the NYT) is a part-time vegan. He's also a great cook. Here's a recent article for people who want to eat vegan at least some of the time:
Isn't calling yourself a part-time vegan kind of impossible? A part-time vegan is merely a carnivore/omnivore who can not commit to sticking to a vegan diet full time. Like when you break a crumb in half you don't have 2 half crumbs; you have 2 crumbs.
First let me say that my name--VergingOnVegan--means I'm imperfect and mess up. Maybe in the same way a Christian may try to live without sin, but still mess up. I truly don't know what to call myself as an always vegetarian and 95% vegan. I tend to agree with you that Mark Bittman's personal rule of eating vegan all day until 6 pm, and then eating some animal products in the evening hours, confuses the term 'vegan.' Maybe he should call it plant-based before sunset, and avoid the term 'vegan' altogether.0 -
Isn't calling yourself a part-time vegan kind of impossible? A part-time vegan is merely a carnivore/omnivore who can not commit to sticking to a vegan diet full time. Like when you break a crumb in half you don't have 2 half crumbs; you have 2 crumbs.
Technically you can have 2 half crumbs, because you broke it in half
0 -
I believe the human diet has evolved to be omnivorous. We have more "choice" as to what will go on the dinner plate because of how we've evolved... meaning, we can eat a wider variety of foods compared with other species and thrive. I believe it is not ethical to buy industrialized meats and meat products. Organic, farm raised (biodiverse, sustainable farms) and wild caught is ethical.
I would like to look at part of what you say here, because it raises an area of interest of mine, paleoanthropology. You talk about "the way we evolved." Indeed there is some evidence that eating meat was an important part of our evolution. Our more remote ancestors, the Australopithecines were undoubtedly primarily vegetarian. Stone age hunting tools date back, I believe, to about 2.4 M years ago. but these were poor quality In any event, the Australopithecine's brain size varied from about 430 cm3 to about 540 cm3 (A. robustus). A chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes - modern) has a brain about 390 cm3. Anatomically Modern Humans have brains about 1,350 cm3 in size. Early Homo brain size was larger than the Australopithecines (e.g. H. erectus brain size was about 900 cm3 to about 1,000 cm3.) Based on discoveries in Olduvai, it is speculated that hunting became signfiicant in human pre history about 200,000 years ago, when better sharper more efficient tools were made. H. erectus appeared about 1.5 MYA (Million Years Ago - MYA), but the better Olduvai tools were not nearly that old. Perhaps due to the change in diet, H. erectus back teeth became smaller, as did their jaw size. The argument is that large teeth for grinding were no longer necessary. So far, this evidence suggests that hunting resulted in a change of diet about 200,000 YA, changing the human genome and by inference, increasing human brain size.
Okay, let's look at the flies in the ointment. One of the biggest in my opinion is H. sapiens neanderthalensis, the Neanderthals. Contrary to modern depiction, Neanterthals actually had LARGER brains than humans, about 1,430 cm3. Neanderthals were unquestionably hunters. Nonetheless, with hunting skills, larger brains, etc, Neanderthals went extinct about 28,000 YA. Neanderthals were an evolutionary dead end. (I will leave aside the arguement that Neanderthals disappeared because they interbred with H sapiens. There is no clear evidence that occurred, although the idea is becoming more popular.) Assuming Neanderthals did not survive, which I feel is the far more logical conclusion, based on the evidence, and not on speculation, hunting and brains larger than Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH) confer no survival advantage, or did not do so 28,000 YA. As you said we are a species that has evolved to be capable of eating both plants and animals. However, we have several million years of evolution as primarily plant eaters, and only a few hundred thousand years as primarily meat eaters. And the sub species of humans that relied primarily on hunting became extinct.
Now also, it is speculation that eating meat increases brain size. As my friend, Mutt would say, "correlation, but is there causation?" Our jaws, back teeth, dentition, intestine size, and other characteristics STRONGLY suggest that AMH is a vegetarian species. I submit we are. But vegetarian species, even mice, can eat meat if available. The problem is that meat can kill you. No carnivore in the wild ever gets occluded arteries, or heart disease. Humans certainly do.
What do you think?0 -
Now also, it is speculation that eating meat increases brain size. As my friend, Mutt would say, "correlation, but is there causation?" Our jaws, back teeth, dentition, intestine size, and other characteristics STRONGLY suggest that AMH is a vegetarian species. I submit we are. But vegetarian species, even mice, can eat meat if available. The problem is that meat can kill you. No carnivore in the wild ever gets occluded arteries, or heart disease. Humans certainly do.
Too much fancy talk for me. If modern humans are so adversely affected by meat, fat, white flour and simple sugars why do we seem so predisposed to seek out and enjoy these kinds of foods? Why do vegans and raw foodists make meals that emulate meat dishes like burgers, mock meat loaf and mock turkey? The only people who can even talk about being vegan are those who have enough food that they can have the luxury to pick, choose and refuse what meals are available to them. Did cows become sacred for Hindi in India because that is how the religion developed or because cattle were scarce and it was smarter to keep the cattle alive providing milk for years instead of a few weeks of steak dinners?
Our species seems to be hot wired to enjoy these foods that are bad for us; and it seems to me that our genetic code is written to seek out these foods because our bodies are predisposed to prepare for times where food is scarce. Lions, most bears and snakes may be carnivores, giraffe and elephants might be vegans- but humans can adapt themselves to even the most harsh climates of this world because we can subsist on meat or vegetation or a combination of the two. When we have a choice over what we can eat our bodies and our 'dinosaur brains' can't shake the primitive need for concentrated protein or simple carbs that provide easy nutrition for us to live on. That is how whether it is desert, mountain, plain or plateau modern humans can live and thrive there- and while we can debate how to maximize our potential through diet I do not feel that questioning whether humans are inherently vegan, omnivore or carnivore is up for discussion since our species has gotten where it is today being predisposed to seek out meat and sweets. The rise in obesity in countries where the standard of living is increasing consistently shows me that when given a choice people will instinctively reach for foods with the greatest concentration of macro-nutrients we need to survive, not foods that optimize our body's functions.0 -
You make some excellent points, Rico.
Speaking as a vegetarian who DOES enjoy meat analogues at times, I think we are hardwired to enjoy the 'umami', or savory, taste associated with meat, roasted vegetables, etc. I also grew up eating meat, and we all have a tendency to enjoy comfort foods from our youth at times--me included. I used to love hamburgers and hotdogs on the grill, and while I enjoy grilled veggies now too, sometimes it's nice to have the faux foods. I try to avoid it though, in favor of whole plant foods most of the time.
Our evolution and habitation all over the planet, under various climate conditions, probably necessitated the eating of meat for some of our ancestors. We are wired for survival, and I agree we are wired to snarf up those concentrated calories when they are available. These are adaptations which work in a world of scarcity, and unfortunately don't shut off for most of us in a world of plenty. I do think that manufacturers work very hard to exploit this. 'Sixty Minutes' did a piece a few weeks ago on people who develop flavors for processed foods and drinks. They admitted that their goals are often to stimulate our taste buds in enticing ways, but without lingering enjoyment. In other words: they go for a burst of flavor, but you end up wanting more because there's no lasting satisfaction. I think food should be a pleasure, as well as meet nutritional needs, but this is simple exploitation of a biological remnant which hurts us in our world with abundant, cheap food.
That's why I personally try to train my palate to like simpler foods without added sugar, salt, fat, etc. Oh yes, and meat--I try to get that nice roasted flavor in my vegetables.0 -
[/quote]
Too much fancy talk for me. If modern humans are so adversely affected by meat, fat, white flour and simple sugars why do we seem so predisposed to seek out and enjoy these kinds of foods? Why do vegans and raw foodists make meals that emulate meat dishes like burgers, mock meat loaf and mock turkey? The only people who can even talk about being vegan are those who have enough food that they can have the luxury to pick, choose and refuse what meals are available to them. Did cows become sacred for Hindi in India because that is how the religion developed or because cattle were scarce and it was smarter to keep the cattle alive providing milk for years instead of a few weeks of steak dinners?
Our species seems to be hot wired to enjoy these foods that are bad for us; and it seems to me that our genetic code is written to seek out these foods because our bodies are predisposed to prepare for times where food is scarce. Lions, most bears and snakes may be carnivores, giraffe and elephants might be vegans- but humans can adapt themselves to even the most harsh climates of this world because we can subsist on meat or vegetation or a combination of the two. When we have a choice over what we can eat our bodies and our 'dinosaur brains' can't shake the primitive need for concentrated protein or simple carbs that provide easy nutrition for us to live on. That is how whether it is desert, mountain, plain or plateau modern humans can live and thrive there- and while we can debate how to maximize our potential through diet I do not feel that questioning whether humans are inherently vegan, omnivore or carnivore is up for discussion since our species has gotten where it is today being predisposed to seek out meat and sweets. The rise in obesity in countries where the standard of living is increasing consistently shows me that when given a choice people will instinctively reach for foods with the greatest concentration of macro-nutrients we need to survive, not foods that optimize our body's functions.
[/quote]
Rico,
We seek out calorie dense foods because throughout our evolution, the primary goal we have had was getting enough food to stay alive, and beyond that to reproduce. Both those processes require calories, and in prehistoric times, ample food was not always available. Thus, our species ingests as many calories as possible when they are available to save up for when they are not. The problem with our industrial world is that food is abundant, and our instincts as to calories haven't changed.
A further insidious problem in this country is that our government subsidizes the meat and dairy industry. Their goal seems to be to provide plenty artery clogging fatty greasy foods to the lower classes so that all segments of society can "enjoy" the meat centered diet in the good ole US of A.
http://www.dbc.uci.edu/sustain/global/sensem/MeatIndustry.html
The result is that for poor people, $1 McD burgers are readily available but healthy good veggies are too expensive. Stop the subsidies and let the market take care of pricing and you will see what meat really costs.0 -
Some people are vegetarian/vegan because they truly don't enjoy meats, poultry, etc. My sister in law is one - but it's not due to ethical concerns, she will tell you as much. Just like tofu for me is a stomach turning experience, she has a adverse reaction to meat.
I'm curious for those who live this way for ethical reasons... do you abstain from medications and other products that were tested on animals? Most vaccines, antibiotics, cancer treatments, etc have involved animal testing... do you or would you use them if sick or do you only use medicines that were not ever tested on animals? Do you abstain from Tylenol because it was initially tested on animals? or is it ok because it no longer needs testing? Or is it just that you don't eat animals?
I only ask because I know plenty of vegetarians (not necessarily vegans) who pop animal tested medications left and right and sport leather bags/shoes/belts etc. while claiming eating meat is so cruel (not like my sis in law who just doesn't like it). I find it hypocritical... so I am wondering how many are actually living fully what they say they believe? Some draw the line at different places, where is yours? Just curious...0 -
Some people are vegetarian/vegan because they truly don't enjoy meats, poultry, etc. My sister in law is one - but it's not due to ethical concerns, she will tell you as much. Just like tofu for me is a stomach turning experience, she has a adverse reaction to meat.
I'm curious for those who live this way for ethical reasons... do you abstain from medications and other products that were tested on animals? Most vaccines, antibiotics, cancer treatments, etc have involved animal testing... do you or would you use them if sick or do you only use medicines that were not ever tested on animals? Do you abstain from Tylenol because it was initially tested on animals? or is it ok because it no longer needs testing? Or is it just that you don't eat animals?
I only ask because I know plenty of vegetarians (not necessarily vegans) who pop animal tested medications left and right and sport leather bags/shoes/belts etc. while claiming eating meat is so cruel (not like my sis in law who just doesn't like it). I find it hypocritical... so I am wondering how many are actually living fully what they say they believe? Some draw the line at different places, where is yours? Just curious...
My 95%vegan lifestyle practice goes like the bumper sticker: 'Vegan means I'm trying to suck less.' For me, it's an ethic, but I'm human, so I mess up. I do the best I can, but our world isn't set up where vegan lifestyle is the norm. If if were, I would probably be able to be a whole lot more consistent.
Vegan coats, shoes and belts used to look like cheap plastic junk. Now there's a whole range of products, including high-end stuff, which can be truly worth the extra $$$. For everyday, I use a handbag that is made of cloth. Same with shoes. No one will mistake them for leather. But, for special occasions, I haul out my Matt & Nat handbag, and wear my British Vegetarian Shoes with breathable synthetic material and good construction. My point is that unless you put a vegan on the spot about their leather, wool and silk substitutes, you may not know whether or not they are being consistent with their ethic.
Now, for the matter of pharmaceuticals, I wish they used more animal-free drug modeling, and bring the drugs to clinical trials earlier. Maybe even test on vegans, and watch their hair turn green ;^) For many reasons, I prefer that my doctor consider prescribing older, rather than, cutting-edge drugs. Whenever possible, I try to manage health problems through natural means, but there are those times when only pharm can come through.
Basically, anyone who claims an ethically-motivated lifestyle is going to be a hypocrite sometimes. I think the overall intent, and day-to-day practice counts for something though. What do you think? Is only total perfection worthy?0 -
I believe the human diet has evolved to be omnivorous. We have more "choice" as to what will go on the dinner plate because of how we've evolved... meaning, we can eat a wider variety of foods compared with other species and thrive. I believe it is not ethical to buy industrialized meats and meat products. Organic, farm raised (biodiverse, sustainable farms) and wild caught is ethical.
I would like to look at part of what you say here, because it raises an area of interest of mine, paleoanthropology. You talk about "the way we evolved." Indeed there is some evidence that eating meat was an important part of our evolution. Our more remote ancestors, the Australopithecines were undoubtedly primarily vegetarian. Stone age hunting tools date back, I believe, to about 2.4 M years ago. but these were poor quality In any event, the Australopithecine's brain size varied from about 430 cm3 to about 540 cm3 (A. robustus). A chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes - modern) has a brain about 390 cm3. Anatomically Modern Humans have brains about 1,350 cm3 in size. Early Homo brain size was larger than the Australopithecines (e.g. H. erectus brain size was about 900 cm3 to about 1,000 cm3.) Based on discoveries in Olduvai, it is speculated that hunting became signfiicant in human pre history about 200,000 years ago, when better sharper more efficient tools were made. H. erectus appeared about 1.5 MYA (Million Years Ago - MYA), but the better Olduvai tools were not nearly that old. Perhaps due to the change in diet, H. erectus back teeth became smaller, as did their jaw size. The argument is that large teeth for grinding were no longer necessary. So far, this evidence suggests that hunting resulted in a change of diet about 200,000 YA, changing the human genome and by inference, increasing human brain size.
Okay, let's look at the flies in the ointment. One of the biggest in my opinion is H. sapiens neanderthalensis, the Neanderthals. Contrary to modern depiction, Neanterthals actually had LARGER brains than humans, about 1,430 cm3. Neanderthals were unquestionably hunters. Nonetheless, with hunting skills, larger brains, etc, Neanderthals went extinct about 28,000 YA. Neanderthals were an evolutionary dead end. (I will leave aside the arguement that Neanderthals disappeared because they interbred with H sapiens. There is no clear evidence that occurred, although the idea is becoming more popular.) Assuming Neanderthals did not survive, which I feel is the far more logical conclusion, based on the evidence, and not on speculation, hunting and brains larger than Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH) confer no survival advantage, or did not do so 28,000 YA. As you said we are a species that has evolved to be capable of eating both plants and animals. However, we have several million years of evolution as primarily plant eaters, and only a few hundred thousand years as primarily meat eaters. And the sub species of humans that relied primarily on hunting became extinct.
Now also, it is speculation that eating meat increases brain size. As my friend, Mutt would say, "correlation, but is there causation?" Our jaws, back teeth, dentition, intestine size, and other characteristics STRONGLY suggest that AMH is a vegetarian species. I submit we are. But vegetarian species, even mice, can eat meat if available. The problem is that meat can kill you. No carnivore in the wild ever gets occluded arteries, or heart disease. Humans certainly do.
What do you think?
I'm super busy this weekend and don't have time to respond in detail. What I would like to say though is that I'd appreciate a few references to published research as i did in the other thread. I know it's a pain but without that it just turns into each person claiming the other is wrong.0 -
[/quote]
I'm super busy this weekend and don't have time to respond in detail. What I would like to say though is that I'd appreciate a few references to published research as i did in the other thread. I know it's a pain but without that it just turns into each person claiming the other is wrong.
[/quote]
Mutt, I would be happy to give you citations if you could be more specific. What facts are you looking to have cited. The anthropological stuff is generally accepted basic paleoanthropology, and can be found in any recent textbook on Anthropology. As for the dates of the various subspecies of humans, that would be in the textbook, or, I assume, if you don't want to get a textbook check a source like Wiki. did provide at least one source for the cost of meat without subsidy, If you want a concise summary of anthropology in 25 pages or less try Window on Humanity, by C.P. Kottak. There are many more complete and exhaustive studies as well.
For interbreeding of humans and Neanderthals see:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/07/neanderthal-dna-found-in-_n_567177.html
If you can believe anything the Huffington Post says. Remember I do NOT beleive this, or at any rate I do not think there is enough evidence to convince.
On meat increasing brain size, again, speculation, I think I got that from a lecture at some time in my life. However, here is a fairly respectible source:
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2008/04/eating-meat-led-to-smaller-stomachs-bigger-brains/
Other than these, as I said, virtually everything is in an Anthro textbook, or is summarized in Window on Humanity.0 -
Now also, it is speculation that eating meat increases brain size. As my friend, Mutt would say, "correlation, but is there causation?" Our jaws, back teeth, dentition, intestine size, and other characteristics STRONGLY suggest that AMH is a vegetarian species. I submit we are. But vegetarian species, even mice, can eat meat if available. The problem is that meat can kill you. No carnivore in the wild ever gets occluded arteries, or heart disease. Humans certainly do.
Too much fancy talk for me. If modern humans are so adversely affected by meat, fat, white flour and simple sugars why do we seem so predisposed to seek out and enjoy these kinds of foods? Why do vegans and raw foodists make meals that emulate meat dishes like burgers, mock meat loaf and mock turkey? The only people who can even talk about being vegan are those who have enough food that they can have the luxury to pick, choose and refuse what meals are available to them. Did cows become sacred for Hindi in India because that is how the religion developed or because cattle were scarce and it was smarter to keep the cattle alive providing milk for years instead of a few weeks of steak dinners?
Our species seems to be hot wired to enjoy these foods that are bad for us; and it seems to me that our genetic code is written to seek out these foods because our bodies are predisposed to prepare for times where food is scarce. Lions, most bears and snakes may be carnivores, giraffe and elephants might be vegans- but humans can adapt themselves to even the most harsh climates of this world because we can subsist on meat or vegetation or a combination of the two. When we have a choice over what we can eat our bodies and our 'dinosaur brains' can't shake the primitive need for concentrated protein or simple carbs that provide easy nutrition for us to live on. That is how whether it is desert, mountain, plain or plateau modern humans can live and thrive there- and while we can debate how to maximize our potential through diet I do not feel that questioning whether humans are inherently vegan, omnivore or carnivore is up for discussion since our species has gotten where it is today being predisposed to seek out meat and sweets. The rise in obesity in countries where the standard of living is increasing consistently shows me that when given a choice people will instinctively reach for foods with the greatest concentration of macro-nutrients we need to survive, not foods that optimize our body's functions.
That's simple. We seek out those foods because they provide far more concentrated energy than vegetables, and we are programmed to seek out as many calories as possible. It's a great survival mechanism in lean times as a nomad. Its a really crappy survival trait in a species with food on tap in supermarkets and motorised transport.0 -
I can't remember who is arguing what, but the reason Neanderthals had bigger brains than us is to do with head shape. They had better eyesight, and better co-ordination, but the reasoning and self awareness areas were tiny comparatively. Bigger brains don't mean more intelligent. Lots of animals have bigger brains than us, the brain isn't only there to reason, it also controls the autonomic nervous system, sight, etc. Neanderthals were also bigger as organisms than modern humans so bigger brains are not unexpected.0
-
Some people are vegetarian/vegan because they truly don't enjoy meats, poultry, etc. My sister in law is one - but it's not due to ethical concerns, she will tell you as much. Just like tofu for me is a stomach turning experience, she has a adverse reaction to meat.
I'm curious for those who live this way for ethical reasons... do you abstain from medications and other products that were tested on animals? Most vaccines, antibiotics, cancer treatments, etc have involved animal testing... do you or would you use them if sick or do you only use medicines that were not ever tested on animals? Do you abstain from Tylenol because it was initially tested on animals? or is it ok because it no longer needs testing? Or is it just that you don't eat animals?
I only ask because I know plenty of vegetarians (not necessarily vegans) who pop animal tested medications left and right and sport leather bags/shoes/belts etc. while claiming eating meat is so cruel (not like my sis in law who just doesn't like it). I find it hypocritical... so I am wondering how many are actually living fully what they say they believe? Some draw the line at different places, where is yours? Just curious...
All my clothing, and majority of my accessories are 2nd hand, or made in the US or places that have ethical standards to not only animals, but employees included. I try to buy as little as possible that has been made in a sweat shop basically... I don't take tylenol, I take herbs and other natural supplements. I actually don't need anymore medications from my previous chronic illnesses because I found out that certain foods have been causing me pain & suffering.0 -
Some people are vegetarian/vegan because they truly don't enjoy meats, poultry, etc. My sister in law is one - but it's not due to ethical concerns, she will tell you as much. Just like tofu for me is a stomach turning experience, she has a adverse reaction to meat.
I'm curious for those who live this way for ethical reasons... do you abstain from medications and other products that were tested on animals? Most vaccines, antibiotics, cancer treatments, etc have involved animal testing... do you or would you use them if sick or do you only use medicines that were not ever tested on animals? Do you abstain from Tylenol because it was initially tested on animals? or is it ok because it no longer needs testing? Or is it just that you don't eat animals?
I only ask because I know plenty of vegetarians (not necessarily vegans) who pop animal tested medications left and right and sport leather bags/shoes/belts etc. while claiming eating meat is so cruel (not like my sis in law who just doesn't like it). I find it hypocritical... so I am wondering how many are actually living fully what they say they believe? Some draw the line at different places, where is yours? Just curious...
I agree with VonV (I'd better, she's my wife) you do the best you can. A purist would not use any automobile or public transportation since animal products are involved in the production of automobiles, wouldn't wear leather (which I don't), wool (I do but only items I purchased before I became vegetarian about 32 years ago, eat honey (I do), or do just about any activity other than walking, biking, canoeing, or running. We would be like Jains, who walk with brooms brushing in front of them to avoid stepping on an insect. I am not criticizing purists, but I don't think I could be one.0 -
I believe studies have shown the vegetarian diet to be the proper diet for humans, consistent with our evolution. I also believe it is the only ethical diet for modern civilization. Does anybody disagree?
I disagree.
As far as evolution goes, it depends on which group of people you look at, and which time period. The only real conclusion you can come to is that humans ate what was available. Different people thrived on many different types of diets, from almost all meat, to almost all fruit, to almost all vegetables, to everything in between. This leads me to believe that the human body can handle most of what you throw at it.
Not only that, why should we seek to eat the same diet as our prehistoric ancestors anyhow? Even if we could pin it down, what evidence is there that we would have found the "optimal" human diet?
As far as ethics go, I don't believe that it is wrong to kill another living being in order to eat. Should animals be treated more humanely? Yes. But this is a big enough concern for me to go out of my way to spend a premium to buy meat from animals that have been treated better. We all make choices in terms of what ethical issues we care enough to personally do something about, and those we don't. This issue is not one that would cause me to change my behavior.
I eat meat because:
1. I like it
2. Meat can be part of a healthy diet
3. It helps me to reach my fitness goals.0 -
I believe studies have shown the vegetarian diet to be the proper diet for humans, consistent with our evolution. I also believe it is the only ethical diet for modern civilization. Does anybody disagree?
I disagree.
As far as evolution goes, it depends on which group of people you look at, and which time period. The only real conclusion you can come to is that humans ate what was available. Different people thrived on many different types of diets, from almost all meat, to almost all fruit, to almost all vegetables, to everything in between. This leads me to believe that the human body can handle most of what you throw at it.
Not only that, why should we seek to eat the same diet as our prehistoric ancestors anyhow? Even if we could pin it down, what evidence is there that we would have found the "optimal" human diet?
As far as ethics go, I don't believe that it is wrong to kill another living being in order to eat. Should animals be treated more humanely? Yes. But this is a big enough concern for me to go out of my way to spend a premium to buy meat from animals that have been treated better. We all make choices in terms of what ethical issues we care enough to personally do something about, and those we don't. This issue is not one that would cause me to change my behavior.
I eat meat because:
1. I like it
2. Meat can be part of a healthy diet
3. It helps me to reach my fitness goals.
Rocky,
Just about everything you say here is true, but there are qualifications you left out.
Starting with your last point first, I have a good friend, Bill Manetti, who I am mentioning by name because he was the Connecticut weight-lifting champeon several years ago. He was, is and has been a Vegan, and had been a vegan for years before winning the title. What you left out here is that you do not need meat to develop muscle.
Point two, meat can be part of a healthy diet, but unfortunately, science doesn't know where the threshhold is. One lab believes that eating more than 500 grams per week can cause bowel cancer:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1360609/Red-meat-DOES-increase-risk-bowel-cancer-If-eat-3-ham-slices-day.html
Other sources give even lower amounts.
Point three, if you say you like it, I won't dispute that. Taste is acquired. I used to like meat , but no longer do. I haven't eaten meat for over 30 years, and, by the way, I have run marathons as a vegan.
As for treating animals more humanely, I agree with you. As for killing another sentient being to eat, I would ask why. You could have a perfectly healthy diet not doing that.
As for your comments on evolution, you are right. What evidence we have is mostly anecdotal, and truly it is very difficult to put together the "average diet" at any given point in time. However, our dentition and mandibular structure, as well as our long intestines make us much more similar to vegetarian species than to carnivores. As I said before, we truly can eat everything, just as a mouse can eat meat, but a true carnivore like a lion will never get occluded arteries or heart disease in the wild. The mouse and us will.0 -
Starting with your last point first, I have a good friend, Bill Manetti, who I am mentioning by name because he was the Connecticut weight-lifting champeon several years ago. He was, is and has been a Vegan, and had been a vegan for years before winning the title. What you left out here is that you do not need meat to develop muscle.
All I said about meat was that it helps me to reach my fitness goals. It does this in 2 ways:
-Helps me meet my daily protein requirements.
-Keeps me full for a longer period of time, making it easier to control calories.
Could I get 225g of protein a day without meat? Yeah, I could, but it would be too expensive and a pain in the *kitten*.Point two, meat can be part of a healthy diet, but unfortunately, science doesn't know where the threshhold is. One lab believes that eating more than 500 grams per week can cause bowel cancer:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1360609/Red-meat-DOES-increase-risk-bowel-cancer-If-eat-3-ham-slices-day.html
Other sources give even lower amounts.
That's a correctional study, which is incapable of showing a cause-effect relationship. Secondly, it's talking about processed meats, which I eat maybe 1-2x per week.As for treating animals more humanely, I agree with you. As for killing another sentient being to eat, I would ask why. You could have a perfectly healthy diet not doing that.
I simply don't see a moral problem with killing something else in order to eat. Other animals do it all the time. Plants also alive before people eat them. Pesticides kill bugs. Mechanized farming kills small rodents. Something has to die for you to eat, it's just a matter of where you chose to draw the line.As for your comments on evolution, you are right. What evidence we have is mostly anecdotal, and truly it is very difficult to put together the "average diet" at any given point in time. However, our dentition and mandibular structure, as well as our long intestines make us much more similar to vegetarian species than to carnivores. As I said before, we truly can eat everything, just as a mouse can eat meat, but a true carnivore like a lion will never get occluded arteries or heart disease in the wild. The mouse and us will.
So is it impossible for a vegan to get blocked arteries or hear disease?0 -
All I said about meat was that it helps me to reach my fitness goals. It does this in 2 ways:
-Helps me meet my daily protein requirements.
-Keeps me full for a longer period of time, making it easier to control calories.
Could I get 225g of protein a day without meat? Yeah, I could, but it would be too expensive and a pain in the *kitten*.
All I said was that there are other ways, some of which do not involve colon cancer
That's a correctional study, which is incapable of showing a cause-effect relationship. Secondly, it's talking about processed meats, which I eat maybe 1-2x per week.
You mean a correlational study? We just had a superb statistician on who explained causality in correlational studies. I don't want to go through what she said again, because no one, except me, seemed to be interested in statistics. Check it out on the old board,.
I simply don't see a moral problem with killing something else in order to eat. Other animals do it all the time. Plants also alive before people eat them. Pesticides kill bugs. Mechanized farming kills small rodents. Something has to die for you to eat, it's just a matter of where you chose to draw the line.
I think the moral issue really comes in when you kill when you do not have to.
So is it impossible for a vegan to get blocked arteries or hear disease?
Vegans aren't immortal, but if you refer to the German study I cited on the old board, you can see proof that they sure live a Hell of a lot longer and healthier on average.0 -
All I said was that there are other ways, some of which do not involve colon cancer
If you want me to believe that meat causes colon cancer, you're going to need more than correlational studies as evidence.You mean a correlational study? We just had a superb statistician on who explained causality in correlational studies. I don't want to go through what she said again, because no one, except me, seemed to be interested in statistics. Check it out on the old board,.
I understand full well how correlational studies work. Until you have some randomized control studies, you've got little more than some interesting food for thought. You certainly don't have the basis to make proclamations like "meat causes colon cancer."
I think the moral issue really comes in when you kill when you do not have to.
Again, vegetarians and vegans also kill to eat, it's simply a question of degree.So is it impossible for a vegan to get blocked arteries or hear disease?
Vegans aren't immortal, but if you refer to the German study I cited on the old board, you can see proof that they sure live a Hell of a lot longer and healthier on average.
You avoided my question.
And if vegans live longer, it's because they are, on average, more health conscious than the average meat-eater. But that doesn't mean that it's impossible to include meat in a healthy diet.0
This discussion has been closed.