Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[shrumeo]

I think that you're right - it is a matter of sadness when a permanent loss occurs. And I don't mean to dispute your altogether human sensibilities - especially since I share these same sensibilities. But three questions might be asked:

1) Given that sad losses occur all the time, they seem to be the way of nature. So, while we might find (say) the complete extinction of all life on Earth sad, it does nevertheless seem the altogether natural conclusion.

Oh sure, whatever happens ever forever is the natural conclusion of events.

2) Let's be aware that we are projecting our human sensibilities on nature. This may not be appropriate. (But I think it is, because I think that these sensibilities are more than mere sentiment). However, by projecting human values on nature, and contrary to natural mores, are we acting morally? (This is my chief question at this phase of the discussion, in case you hadn't noticed.)

Nature is what made those human sensibilties. Is nature keeping itself in check by endowing us with these sensibilties and the ability to change things based on them? If it feels wrong to do something, perhaps there is a reason for that and we should act on the feeling. If it doesn't feel wrong to do something then maybe it wasn't so bad. Whatever the consequences, it was the way nature played itself out.

3) Is it moral to ask someone to impair their quest for survival or personal gratification in order to satisfy what is admittedly only an aesthetic preference?

Well, this is almost a question of liberty.
Is it within our natural (god given, if you will) rights to destroy non-human life in order to fulfill our personal happiness?
If that is a requirement for liberty then it must be ok.
If it's not, then that gets more complicated and I'm too tired to go into all the possibilities how humans would want to try to limit themselves (each other, more accurately).

 

[shrumeo]

It looks like we can find "studies" (webpages at least) that can support whatever position we take.

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_1.html

Cholesterol
Because of the propaganda, you can be forgiven for thinking that cholesterol is a harmful alien substance that should be avoided at all costs. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Cholesterol is an essential component in the body. It is found in all the cells of the body, particularly in the brain and nerve cells. Body cells are continually dying and new ones being made. Cholesterol is a major building block from which cell walls are made. Cholesterol is also used to make a number of other important substances: hormones (including the sex hormones), bile acids and, in conjunction with sunlight on the skin, vitamin D 3 . The body uses large quantities of cholesterol every day and the substance is so important that, with the exception of brain cells, every body cell has the ability to make it.

Cholesterol may be ingested in animal products, but less than twenty percent of your body's cholesterol needs will be supplied in this way. Your body then makes up the difference. If you eat less cholesterol, your body merely compensates by making more. Although the media and food companies still warn against cholesterol in diet, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that the level of cholesterol in your blood is affected very little by the amount of cholesterol you eat.

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_2.html

The anti-cancer fat
Linoleic acid is one of the essential fatty acids that our bodies need but cannot synthesise. We must eat some to survive. Fortunately there is one form of linoleic acid that is beneficial. Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) differs from the normal form of linoleic acid only in the position of two of the bonds that join its atoms. But this small difference has been shown to give it powerful anti-cancer properties. Scientists at the Department of Surgical Oncology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, New York and the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, New Jersey Medical School, showed that even at concentrations of less than one percent, CLA in the diet is protective against several cancers including breast cancer, colorectal cancer and malignant melanoma.

Conjugated linoleic acid has one other difference from the usual form - it is not found in vegetables but in the fat of ruminant animals. The best sources are dairy products and the fat on red meat, principally beef. It is another good reason not to give up eating red meat or to cut the fat off.

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_3.html

Summary
Bran is bad news. While there is not too much harm from fruit fibre, the usual bran that is pushed at us - wheat bran- should be avoided like the plague it is.

Yeah, but you need fiber to help you poo. They must have something against bran.

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_4.html

Low cholesterol means more strokes
Published at about the same time was a very large study in Japan, covering two decades, which concluded that low levels of blood cholesterol also increase the incidence of stroke.

Investigators have shown that this change to Western and urban eating patterns, departing as it does from centuries old traditions, has been accompanied by a general lowering of blood pressure and a large decline in the incidence of stroke deaths and cerebral haemorrhage between the 1960s and the 1980s. They attribute this decline to an increase in blood cholesterol levels over the period.

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_5.html
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_6.html
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_7.html
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_8.html
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_9.html

 

[chound]

I think u should eat exactly what ur cultures says if and only if ur culture is ancient enough to have tried and tested all kinds of food. It is never wrong to eat meat. The chickens are going to die anyway so why do u care if they are given 5 star treatement.

 

[OneEye]

Nature is what made those human sensibilties.

I disagree, but that is the subject of another thread - which I hope to launch soon.

Is nature keeping itself in check by endowing us with these sensibilties and the ability to change things based on them?

You are personifying nature. Nature is, by definition, purposeless - does not care whether the Earth is alive or dead. This does not necessarily mean that you are wrong, but you would basically have to adopt a neopagan theology for this statement to be true in any meaningful sense.

 

[OneEye]

You admit there's no contradiction here:
1. Policeman and civilian have equal rights.
2. Policeman exerts moral authority over civilian.

It appeared to me you were saying there is a contradiction here:
1. physicsphirst and dog have equal rights.
2. physicsphirst exerts moral authority over the dog.

Now it seems you're saying there's no contradiction??

Another set of statements for comparison:

You admit there's no contradiction here:
1. Parent and child have equal rights.
2. Parent controls child's diet.

It appeared to me you were saying there is a contradiction here:

The policeman is authorized to do his work because he is the agent of a superior moral authority - the law. A parent is a superior moral authority over a child. If I pretend to be a policeman, I may be arrested and punished for it. If I abrogate a parent's rights over their own children, I am likewise subject to the actions of justice.

Is physicsisphirst a superior moral authority over his dog?

Up to the end of the nineteenth century, European culture used a Biblically-based concept of the human-animal rerationship: Man had dominion over the animals, because he was the moral superior of the animals. Most cultures would agree with this (with the notable exception of the Hindu culture).

In the twentieth century, the naturalisic/evolutionistic philosophy became the basis of the human-animal relationship. This philosophy rejects the moral superiority of man over animal on the grounds that there is no moral distinction between man and animal: only a matter of degrees separate them. This philosophy is still in its build-out stage, championed by news articles which show how smart birds are, how teachable dogs are, and how birds and chimps make and use tools.

The ethical vegetarian (and I'm not naming names, mind you) who believes that no animal may morally eat meat (a distinctly human ethical position) however, believes that they have the right to force their pets into an involuntary vegetarian diet because they are the pet's moral superior, or the agent of a superior moral authority.

Ahh! Now, here we have the contradiction laid bare!

Thank you, learningphysics, for your insightful pursuit of this discussion. You have certainly advanced the clarity of the issue through your incisive questioning.

 

[Dissident Dan]

The ethical vegetarian (and I'm not naming names, mind you) who believes that no animal may morally eat meat (a distinctly human ethical position) however, believes that they have the right to force their pets into an involuntary vegetarian diet because they are the pet's moral superior, or the agent of a superior moral authority.

Ahh! Now, here we have the contradiction laid bare!

You are really reaching for a contradiction here. Apply the same reasoning to human-human interactions and see if you come up with the same "contradiction".

 

[OneEye]

You are really reaching for a contradiction here. Apply the same reasoning to human-human interactions and see if you come up with the same "contradiction".

I already have, above. My conclusion has been that, in proper human-human relations, peers may not force their moral constraints on each other - but a superior may force his (its) moral constraints on an inferior. This is exactly what we see in human-human interactions: The superior (the law) forces its moral constraints on the inferior (the individual).

Trouble develops when we attempt to lay this template over the relationship between an ethical vegetarian and her cat: In order for the ethical vegetarian to enforce a vegetarian diet on the cat, she must assume the status of being the cat's moral superior.

I don't think that this is all that complicated - but I welcome reflections from those who are willing to think it through.

 

[cogito]

You have, indeed, remarked on one of the difficulties in this entire thought system. To bring you up to speed: I was not promoting my own thought system, but one which derives naturally from the concept that humans are merely animals.

Someone who holds this view (that humans are merely animals) might break this chain of logic by saying, "It is universally rejected in nature that a creature might eat its own kind." This argument would be wrong, of course, since many animals (including members of class Mammalia) eat their own young.

I break this logic chain by rejecting premiss 2, that humans are merely animals. I say that humans are fundamentally different from other animals, and that it may well therefore be moral for humans to eat other animals.

Those who conclude man as a moral equal with all other animals have a harder time with this - and much of the logic-chopping which is currently going on in this thread consists of a variety of attempts to affirm the premisses of my argument while denying the conclusion.

At present, we have all agreed that man is fundamentally different from all other animals, especially insofar as man has moral responsibilities which other animals do not have, but this is as far as we have gotten. And, given certain political maneuvers which have recently been initiated, I think it unlikely that we will ever get much further.

I hope that this helps.

Thanks for the update. Why is it relevant that animals do not have moral responsibilities? Presumably, the debate over whether it is morally permissible to eat meat involves determining whether it makes sense to say that a human being can owe an obligation to an animal, not over whether a non-human animal can be morally obligated (i.e., have a moral obligation). If all you have established is that humans are rational and autonomous enough to act in accord with moral principles, while the rest of the animal world is not, then (pardon the pun) it seems you've been barking up the wrong tree. What is at issue, it seems to me, is whether the capacity animals have to suffer, and their rudimentary forms of self-consciousness and rationality are sufficient for the possession of rights. Your run-of-the-mill adult cow is by all measure capable of suffering, self-consciousness, and rational thought to an extent which far exceeds that of the newborn infant or the profoundly develpmentally disabled human. If we are disposed to take these latter entities are possessors of rights, then consistency demands we extend rights to the former entities as well. If the reply to this consistency argument is that the psychological capacities mentioned are not criterial of moral considerability, then, praytell, what is?

Cheers!

 

[OneEye]

Hey, all! I've decided to take a hiatus for the holidays. I'll be off, starting today, through next week, and maybe for a week after that.

I realize that this may seem a bit unfair - seems to give me the last word - but just think how much hamburger you can make my most recent posts into until I return!

I wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Enjoy a TVP turkey leg on me!

 

[physicsisphirst]

If you insist on my doing this, I will.

But I would rather not.

Frankly, my time could be put to better use than to prove to you what you already know (and everyone else does, too).

I made the claim, and if you insist, I will make good on it. But you are certainly imposing on me to require such a thing, when you can make the issue quite clear without requiring any such work from me. And, frankly, it will be hard for me not to resent it. The whole thing smells very cat-and-mouse to me.

i think if you make claims you should make good on it - especially when questioned as to its validity.
you have the habit of making claims and assuming that that is how it is because you have made the claim.
now that is a claim by me, so i'll make good on it (regardless of whether you question it):

post #727 by oneeye
Collations of elephant tears usually overlook facts like this - are, in fact, writings which uniformly take one side of the question. They look more like propaganda than anything else.
what makes you say that? have you read the book? have you checked masson's credentials? does seeming to support AR automatically make someone a propagandist?

post #749
And here, you again make the disagreeable assumption of awareness in animals.
i can draw upon 3 decades of 'recent' research (Goodall, Savage-Rumbaugh, Bekoff for instance) or even go back into the 'past' (eg Darwin). you start with your claim that animals don't have awareness and maintain it without the slightest validation.

post #749
All I am observing is that the animal rights position is a self-contradicting one on this question. By now, this fact should be completely obvious to everyone.
you create the position, you attribute it to AR, you say that there is a contradiction (which didn't exist - this was your 4pt syllogism, btw) and then you expect us to just accept all this because you say it is 'completely obvious'.

post #760
I have, several times, presented syllogisms to you which show the inherent contradiction in the animal rights position.
you again make a claim that your syllogism (this was the 4 pointer) is the AR position and that there is a contradiction without researching honestly whether you have accurately represented 'the animal rights' position or whether there was a contradiction (which doesn't exist posts #765, #769 - and you admitted that in the form you wrote it your syllogism was "useless for the discussion" post #771)

post #784
Everyone finds the three-point syllogism to be cogent
again you speak for 'everyone'. your 3pt sillygism was neither cogent or demonstrative (as shown in post #779). later you admitted that your use of the word "an" when you really meant "any" caused confusion post #779)

and your latest effort:

post #842
On what grounds do you enforce your moral vegetarianism on your dog and
post #851
It would be quite easy to distill your previous posts and show that you, yourself, are an ethical vegetarian - and that you think it wrong that any animal should eat meat.
well if it is really is that easy, then why when asked to demonstrate your statement, do you complain

But I would rather not. (post #863)

immediately followed by another one of those miraculous claims:

Frankly, my time could be put to better use than to prove to you what you already know (and everyone else does, too). (post #863)

is it a wonder that i keep asking you for clarification and validation?

i have claimed that you are a pleasant and polite individual (post #792). i still maintain this and can even validate it if you wish. however, it is my feeling that in forum discussions, if you are going to say things like 'everyone knows or sees or believes', you should make a bit more effort to be sure of your claim - rather than just make it and hurriedly try to move along.

i hope you get to read and at least consider what i have written in this post (you did say you welcome correction in post #760). however, i see that you have decided to take a holiday - so i hope you have a good time and wish you the best.

in friendship,
prad

 

[learningphysics]

This philosophy rejects the moral superiority of man over animal on the grounds that there is no moral distinction between man and animal: only a matter of degrees separate them.

You are attributing a position to physicsphirst that he does not take... The above also implies that man cannot be morally superior to an animal if "only a matter of degrees separate them". Why is this? With regards to intelligence only a matter of degrees separates man from the apes... yet man is definitely superior... Why can't the same be said for moral awareness.

Anyway... please read cogito's post. I must agree with him. I don't see the relevance of whether or not animals are moral agents or not to the animal rights position. As seen in this thread, nobody is disputing man's position as a moral authority over animals (a good man/woman anyway...).

I personally see some animals as moral agents. I see moral awareness on a continuum in the animal kingdom as intelligence is on a continuum. Yet, I still see humans as having superior moral awareness (not necessarily more moral, but having more moral awareness). But how does that fit into animal rights? I don't know. As cogito said, it's animals capacity to feel pain and suffer, that has relevance to the animal rights issue, not their moral agency.

Thank you, learningphysics, for your insightful pursuit of this discussion. You have certainly advanced the clarity of the issue through your incisive questioning.

Thanks. The discussion has been interesting. I hope I've lent some clarity to the issue.

 

[physicsisphirst]

You can LOL all you want, but you don't know what you are talking about.

i was LOLing because you thought that 40% of americans had b12 deficiencies because they didn't eat enough meat. as far as not knowing what I'm talking about, i would like to disagree with you, but you'll probably say i don't know what I'm talking about.

Please show me some evidence of disease linked to a healthy diet that includes a proper amount of animal protein.

those sites show some of this. even the meat side has admitted there are some problems - for instance, back in the 80s there was a conscious movement to provide 'leaner' meat because of the problems with heart-disease, cancer etc. the fact that the heaviest meat-eating population (in north america) also have the highest occurrences of the diseases mentioned in the earlier post can also suffice as a link. finally, studies like the china study (that sangeeta may talk about later), show fairly conclusively that this isn't fiction.

you're right a carrot doesn't run.

i hope this is some sort of acknowledgment that at least on some matters, i do know what I'm talking about.

This is all careful wording. They are saying that people with bad diets have more health problems. It's because they went to McD's and they weren't "doing south beach" or the "mediterranean diet."

not too many people die from eating a little meat, but the fact still remains that the human body doesn't process the stuff too well. sometimes, that little bit can trigger things like protein antigenity which result in inflammatory conditions like asthma, excema, arthritis.

So they advertised on the web to find people that would answer specific questions about their diet and that it caused them specific health problems. They made a registry of these people, and from that they get their data that they then project onto the rest of the world.

from what you quoted, i think they are researching the link between animal protein diet and diseases that have been linked to them. i don't think brocolli and tofu have been linked to heart disease, cancer, osteoporosis and stuff like that.

And then finally:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Findings

As of December 15, 2003, 429 individuals reported experiencing problems with high-protein, high-fat, carbohydrate-restricted diets via the online registry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total crap.

you seem to be very fond of that expression. what exactly is the problem here. all that has happened is that 429 individuals reported they were experiencing problems. no big deal.

Anyway, then at the end they start talking about all the problems with doing the Atkins Diet as if they discovered it themselves.

from what i recall, the atkins diet has raised concerned eyebrows in places other than the veg community.

See, when you go for a diet that restricts a certain type of nutrient too much it causes problems. Like when you cut out certain vitamins by eating totally vegan.

you don't cut out anything by being totally veg.

and you've bought it all.

not all, but enough fortunately.

But seriously, the whole natural vs. artificial thing falls through anyway because domesticated dogs are a human product anyway. What's natural for them is to eat what we feed them. If we truly care for them, we should feed them what is most healthy for them.

i agree! and that's why i don't feed them meat. you believe meat is healthy for your dog and so you do. i do not doubt your sincerity here, but i have found after researching this, talking to other veg dog folk, and seeing the results for several years with my own dogs - that the veg diet is best.

If the dog honestly likes and prefers the veggie life and it causes him no harm, then great for him. But, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of dogs wouldn't be able to nor would they want to get by on nothing but vegetables.

they wouldn't want to live on iceberg lettuce that's for sure - but the evolution petfood, the hoana, and homemade stuff is considered quite desirable for dogs (and by many vets - who would of course also back large commercial veg foods by nature's recipe and natural life).

in friendship,
prad

 

[physicsisphirst]

You are attributing a position to physicsphirst that he does not take...

a specialized talent oneeye exercises as I've tried to show in post #885.
digging up posts by number seems to have become one of my specialized talents.

Anyway... please read cogito's post. I must agree with him. I don't see the relevance of whether or not animals are moral agents or not to the animal rights position. As seen in this thread, nobody is disputing man's position as a moral authority over animals (a good man/woman anyway...).

i agree! i find cogito's excellent post #883 to be lucid, penetrating and definitely worth quoting from (and so i do in italics):

the debate over whether it is morally permissible to eat meat involves determining whether it makes sense to say that a human being can owe an obligation to an animal, not over whether a non-human animal can be morally obligated (i.e., have a moral obligation)
this clarifies the parameters for the discussion (rather than allowing us to be transported into other arenas).

If all you have established is that humans are rational and autonomous enough to act in accord with moral principles, while the rest of the animal world is not, then (pardon the pun) it seems you've been barking up the wrong tree.
(is it treesonable to assume that your delightful pun lays bare an act of treeson? LOL) if it is established that humans are moral agents, then it matters little whether animals are or aren't (at least for the discussion).

What is at issue, it seems to me, is whether the capacity animals have to suffer, and their rudimentary forms of self-consciousness and rationality are sufficient for the possession of rights.
and therefore to be free of inflicted sufferings. it is not necessary for animals to be as 'smart' or as 'moral' as humans. philosopher jeremy bentham emphasized this point when he wrote: The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but rather, "Can they suffer?"

I personally see some animals as moral agents. I see moral awareness on a continuum in the animal kingdom as intelligence is on a continuum.

i think this is a very good point. too often we forget that all nature isn't quite 'quantized' everywhere. we forget that animals are not all the same just because we categorize them as animals. in fact, humans themselves demonstrate a wide continuum as far as morality goes.

Yet, I still see humans as having superior moral awareness (not necessarily more moral, but having more moral awareness).

i find this an excellent way to express it.

I hope I've lent some clarity to the issue.

you most certainly have.
btw, if you have the time and inclination, i would appreciate hearing more of your views regarding Schopenhauer as it relates here.

in friendship,
prad

 

[Be Happy!]

I personally see some animals as moral agents. I see moral awareness on a continuum in the animal kingdom as intelligence is on a continuum. Yet, I still see humans as having superior moral awareness (not necessarily more moral, but having more moral awareness).

I really like what you have written...i've never thought of it as you have expressed it. I think you've nailed it though...thanks for the insight!

 

[sheepdog]

experiment

I came to this forum for the physics. As such I expected to find reasoned arguments reflecting reality. That is, after all, the beauty of physics -- that it models reality. It is a mental construct that is sharable between us by virtue of the fact that there is a close correspondence with experiment.

Then I read this thread and see all of this nonsense about morality and moral agents and so on. Shame on you!

If the question posed has an answer then there should be an experiment to demonstrate that answer. Otherwise it's just in your head and why should anybody be interested in anything that only is in your head? How moral are we? The answer to that question is in your head, nowhere else. It is what you think it to be. Nothing more.

Should we eat meat? I say usually not. Why not? Because we are free to choose not to and that particular choice is one among a series of such choices all of which combine to define what we are. So the real question becomes, "What do we choose to be?" And therein lies the experiment. Because what we choose to be causes what the future will become. Choose the future wisely. This experiment cannot be revised.

 

[JaeSun]

if people choose to not eat meat, that is there choice...but once they start trying to preach to me, then that's it ...

i eat meat and I am proud of it (i like my steaks bloody rare)

and quite personally, i think PETA goes way to far with its tactics ...

 

[JPD]

if people choose to not eat meat, that is there choice...but once they start trying to preach to me, then that's it ...

i eat meat and I am proud of it (i like my steaks bloody rare)

and quite personally, i think PETA goes way to far with its tactics ...

You see, this is where we arrive at every time - there is no other possibility.
If I go to eat at a vegetarian's house I would not expect to eat meat and will be forced to eat vegetables (which I quite like but some of those nut cutlets and other muck is more suitable for aiding in construction) so, by the same token, if a vegetarian comes to eat at my house, they should eat meat.
It's only fair - if I have to suffer then so should you!

 

[shrumeo]

i was LOLing because you thought that 40% of americans had b12 deficiencies because they didn't eat enough meat. as far as not knowing what I'm talking about, i would like to disagree with you, but you'll probably say i don't know what I'm talking about.

Where else are they going to get B12?
It either comes from an animal source, or a manufactured one.
If someone is deficient, that means they either aren't getting shots at the doctor, eating artificially fortified grains, or eating animal products (the only natural source).

Don't just "like to disagree" with me. Show me where I'm wrong.

those sites show some of this. even the meat side has admitted there are some problems- for instance, back in the 80s there was a conscious movement to provide 'leaner' meat because of the problems with heart-disease, cancer etc. the fact that the heaviest meat-eating population (in north america) also have the highest occurrences of the diseases mentioned in the earlier post can also suffice as a link. finally, studies like the china study (that sangeeta may talk about later), show fairly conclusively that this isn't fiction.

Because they were wrong. It's not the '80s anymore. And correlation does not always mean causation. Just because Americans eat a lot of meat (actually I'd say they eat less meat and more sugar and flour than anyone else) doesn't mean that it's the meat that caused the problems. You have to look at the whole picture. Actually, I think it's all the sugar and flour and less exercise that leads to health problems.

A few years ago there was a renewal of the Atkins craze. I think it's still going. You eat mostly meat and fat for your calories.
http://www.thedietchannel.com/atkins.htm

The findings were indeed surprising, in that several heart disease indicators actually improved in the participants following the Atkins diet. They saw a much larger decrease in serum triglyceride levels as compared to the low fat group, and a greater increase in serum HDL (which is "good" or beneficial cholesterol to the heart) than the low-fat group. Both groups saw similar reductions in LDL cholesterol (the "bad" cholesterol for the heart) and total cholesterol levels. In addition, at the end of one year, both groups had achieved similar levels of weight loss.

http://www.annecollins.com/atkins-diet-weight-loss-study.htm

The low-carbohydrate diet was associated with a greater improvement in some risk factors for coronary heart disease.

You know what people with high LDLs might not be getting enough of in their diet? Regular old niacin.
http://www.allvita.net/niacin.htm

i hope this is some sort of acknowledgment that at least on some matters, i do know what I'm talking about.

Sorry to disappoint you.
The reason dogs chase things is because they are moving. Unless a human is there to move it, the things that usually go moving on their own are called animals. Actually, because they moved on their own is why they were called animals. I hope I'm not being too condescending. Now, why would a dog chase small animals? Maybe there is some instinct that they follow that has something to do with keeping them alive.

Funny there is no instinct to dig up carrots and eat them.

not too many people die from eating a little meat, but the fact still remains that the human body doesn't process the stuff too well.

How is this a fact? It's rubbish, as they say over there. Nobody dies from "eating a little meat" unless it's poisoned, of course.

sometimes, that little bit can trigger things like protein antigenity which result in inflammatory conditions like asthma, excema, arthritis.

This happens in how many people? 1 in 100,000,000?
(Not these conditions, obviously, but these conditions being caused by meat?)

from what you quoted, i think they are researching the link between animal protein diet and diseases that have been linked to them. i don't think brocolli and tofu have been linked to heart disease, cancer, osteoporosis and stuff like that.

Yeah, they may be "researching" but how are they doing it (web surveys)?
People that don't want to think about things like animals dying are going to use whatever tactic available to make you think that eating meat is bad for you.

you seem to be very fond of that expression. what exactly is the problem here. all that has happened is that 429 individuals reported they were experiencing problems. no big deal.

I seem to have to use it in this thread full of so much misinformation. They are using this pool of 429 supposed people to try and say something that is most likely not true (or at least to give that impression.)

They put out an "ad" on a website asking people to sign up and tell them that they had problems with an "Atkins" diet. Did they make sure they were doing the diet right? What else were they eating? What were their prior conditions? Did they ever meet these people or their doctors? And above all else in this "research" what were the controls?

from what i recall, the atkins diet has raised concerned eyebrows in places other than the veg community.

rasing eyebrows? oK AND?
Yeah, my aunt keeps telling my uncle "do you know how many people have DIED on the atkins diet?? HUH?" I hate to tell her it's none.
(disclaimer again: the Atkins diet (initial phase) isn't something that people should do their whole lives, just if they are in a bad carb/insulin cycle that could lead to diabetes or heart disease, or are really fat.)

you don't cut out anything by being totally veg.

Only if you supplement with artificial vitamins, especially things like B12.
There may be some products out there that are fortified with it, but it still came from an artificial source. It's sort of like saying "Eating nothing doesn't cut out anything as long as I eat these artificial nutrients in a pill or shake." (There are diets like this. As long as they are getting enough calories and are getting their nutrients the way they need, what's the problem? I don't see any problem with an artificial diet, or even one that is partially artificial, like a vegan diet.)

not all, but enough fortunately.

So you are saying that there is some information on these websites that you don't agree with? I'm curious what that is and why you chose to believe some things that they say and not others.

i agree! and that's why i don't feed them meat. you believe meat is healthy for your dog and so you do. i do not doubt your sincerity here, but i have found after researching this, talking to other veg dog folk, and seeing the results for several years with my own dogs - that the veg diet is best.

Poor Dogs. They probably did get healthier once you took them off of typical commercial food. But, if you did the same with a meat-based diet, imagine the benefits. I'd give it try, if only for a while. (I won't subject my dog to a veg diet btw).

they wouldn't want to live on iceberg lettuce that's for sure - but the evolution petfood, the hoana, and homemade stuff is considered quite desirable for dogs (and by many vets - who would of course also back large commercial veg foods by nature's recipe and natural life).

They back all the food they sell, even "Science Diet" which isn't the best despite it's high price (and total lack of flavor, my dog hates it)
http://www.iei.net/~ebreeden/kibble.html
Anyway, I take certain advice from my vet very seriously.
Other advice, like what products to buy from them, I take with a grain of salt.

ANYWAY, if you don't want people to eat meat based on moral gorunds and animal rights that's one thing, but to go around saying that eating meat is bad for you is, well, bad.

 

[shrumeo]

I disagree, but that is the subject of another thread - which I hope to launch soon.

Well, it depends on if you believe in God or not, I guess.
Either god gave humans their sensibilities or they arose naturally (nature gave them to us). Whether you can separate nature from god or vice versa is another thing.

You are personifying nature.

Only for convenience.

Nature is, by definition, purposeless - does not care whether the Earth is alive or dead.

Yes, I understand this.

This does not necessarily mean that you are wrong, but you would basically have to adopt a neopagan theology for this statement to be true in any meaningful sense.

Or just adopt a convenient way of talking about things, which is to sometimes personify them. I wasn't saying that Mother Nature consciously endowed us with anything. Only that we have these things naturally.

What were we talking about again?

 

[shrumeo]

I came to this forum for the physics. As such I expected to find reasoned arguments reflecting reality. That is, after all, the beauty of physics -- that it models reality. It is a mental construct that is sharable between us by virtue of the fact that there is a close correspondence with experiment.

Then I read this thread and see all of this nonsense about morality and moral agents and so on. Shame on you!

If the question posed has an answer then there should be an experiment to demonstrate that answer. Otherwise it's just in your head and why should anybody be interested in anything that only is in your head? How moral are we? The answer to that question is in your head, nowhere else. It is what you think it to be. Nothing more.

Should we eat meat? I say usually not. Why not? Because we are free to choose not to and that particular choice is one among a series of such choices all of which combine to define what we are. So the real question becomes, "What do we choose to be?" And therein lies the experiment. Because what we choose to be causes what the future will become. Choose the future wisely. This experiment cannot be revised.

Wow, so you've come up with a way to scientifically test morality?

 

[Seafang]

Should we eat meat?

Nowadays, you can see lots of people trying
to save certain animals from being mistreated, like
protecting the sharks or whales from being
hunted.
But I can't see the diference between
eating a steak and killing a shark.
Anyway, they are all life forms.

In China, people from other countries are
attempting to save bears from being used as
a source of gall bile
by the chinese farmers.
But why not save
the poor chickens in commercial farms
which are kept in very tiny cages which do
not even have enough space for them to turn a
round!

Maybe we should all stop eating meat!
It's not unhealthy or lacking enough essentials
because all the vegetarians around the world
are still perfectly fine and healthy.

Now the main problem is:
- Should we continue eating meat as the world's
population continues to expand rapidly??
- Or should we stop eating meat and everyone changes to
become a vegetarian?
(since it's considered to be
cruel to kill other life forms)

Benefits of becoming a vegetarian:

• Freedom for all farm animals!
• Eating less unhealthy food
• No need to cut any animal bodies or organs=> more convienient & less mess
• Eating more healthy food!
• No more interference with the animals' life and death.
• Increase in animal population!
• More animals to conduct researches on.
• No more artificially caused extinction of any animals!
• and many more!

Well I think the whole argument is pretty silly. For a start, it is well recognised that humans like other primates are omnivorous; even our teeth say that is so. Clearly the survival of our species is improved if we can eat most anything.

There's no evidence that zoo-food is unhealthy; even oxygen is unhealthy if you have too much of it. nor is there any evidence that phyto-food is more healthy.

There are good reasons for omnivores to eat meat. there are plenty of zoo-species that can eat phyto-food that we can't digest, so those plants would not be a food source for us unless we eat the animals that can process those plants.

If we only eat plants, then we need more palnts to eat which leaves less for other species, so animal extinctions will still occur. We are out eating everything else on the planet.

But to take the argument further; why should we eat any other life form, whether animal or plant. We certainly don't need to. We are perfectly capable of making the essentials of food out of plain rocks, just like mother Nature does, so we don't need to eat plants either; and how do we know that plants don't scream when we kill them for food; or even eat them alive for that matter.

Our job is to survive; we should eat whatever makes that possible. Now if you want to talk about conservation of resources, then it is true it takes less resources and energy to live on a phyto-diet than on a zoo-diet. it takes 5000 gallons of water to make one pound of Steak, and that is a wasteful use of water.

 

[learningphysics]

you most certainly have.
btw, if you have the time and inclination, i would appreciate hearing more of your views regarding Schopenhauer as it relates here.

Thanks. I fear my views regarding Schopenhauer could be too depressing. I agree with his view that existence is suffering (buddhism). My moral views are very much along "negative utilitarianism" for which the elimination of pain and suffering, is much more important than the production of pleasure. Although I don't go around preaching the ethics of extinction of all life, I don't see it as a bad thing (depends on how it would happen). However, I tend to believe we continue to exist after death (unfortunately)... So the problem of suffering isn't solved... Schopenhauer believed that resignation from the will, could end suffering (buddhist solution)... But I'm not sure of that. I don't see why, even if we solved our current problem of suffering, how that would help us after being reincarnated (we remember the lessons?).

 

[physicsisphirst]

Where else are they going to get B12?
It either comes from an animal source, or a manufactured one.
If someone is deficient, that means they either aren't getting shots at the doctor, eating artificially fortified grains, or eating animal products (the only natural source).

the point of this was to show you that since 40% americans are deficient in B12 and since 40% of americans don't abstain from animal proteins, it appears that simply eating meat isn't going to save you from a b12 deficiency (at least according to the 'setting' of the deficiency level). yet you came up with the simplistic conclusion that these people should just eat more meat and that will solve their problem.

Because they were wrong. It's not the '80s anymore. And correlation does not always mean causation. Just because Americans eat a lot of meat (actually I'd say they eat less meat and more sugar and flour than anyone else) doesn't mean that it's the meat that caused the problems. You have to look at the whole picture. Actually, I think it's all the sugar and flour and less exercise that leads to health problems.

the animal proteins are causing serious problems as explained earlier and as shown in the various sites. your statement that "correlation does not always mean causation" is a perfectly legitimate one, however, if it is inappropriately applied it can hide a multitude of sins. in fact, the smoking industry used that excuse for years to deny that cigarette smoke causes cancer (they still do i think).

Funny there is no instinct to dig up carrots and eat them.

that's not quite true - dogs often dig things up and if they like it they may eat it - some flowerbeds bear testament to that. they also like to bury things for later consumption.

How is this a fact? It's rubbish, as they say over there. Nobody dies from "eating a little meat" unless it's poisoned, of course.

This happens in how many people? 1 in 100,000,000?
(Not these conditions, obviously, but these conditions being caused by meat?)

i think the problem here is that you treat what is on the websites i have shown you as rubbish. admittedly, you can find whatever you want on the web, but considering the "correlations" to heart disease, cancer, osteoporosis etc etc and animal protein consumption, don't you think it's worth a second look?

you think that all the info is coming from ethical veggies, but it isn't. in the early 90's, even the lancet (one of those prestigious medical journals) acknowledged that decreasing animal protein consumption would also decrease risk of heart disease and cancer. here is an example of current 'medical research' from Gut:

Ulcerative Colitis Relapses with Meat and Beef

Influence of dietary factors on the clinical course of ulcerative colitis: a prospective cohort study by Sarah L. Jowett in the October 2004 issue of the journal Gut found patients with ulcerative colitis had more frequent relapses when they consumed meat, especially red and processed meat, and eggs.

dr mcdougall comments:
The amount of sulfur in the intestine is increased by consuming animal products, which are inherently high in sulfur-containing amino acids, like methionine and cysteine.
you can see more of the details here:
http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall/2004nl/041100pufavorite5.htm

my point in showing you this is that there are a very large number of 'medical' people who advocate the veg diet - and for nutritional reasons. if they do, it may be an idea to at least give some credence to it rather than dismissing it as rubbish.

Yeah, they may be "researching" but how are they doing it (web surveys)?
People that don't want to think about things like animals dying are going to use whatever tactic available to make you think that eating meat is bad for you.

what a strange basis for rejection! it would be similar to my saying that the pro-meat people have brain-washed certain folks into believing eating meat is good for you just so their industry can make more money! actually, i believe that if you look at who does make money, my 'bigoted and narrow-minded' conclusion has more validity than yours.

They are using this pool of 429 supposed people to try and say something that is most likely not true (or at least to give that impression.)

there is a lot more than 429 people to back up the veg position from a health perspective.

Only if you supplement with artificial vitamins

you still have this strange idea that you need to supplement a veg diet. you seem to think that people don't supplement meat diets. now this is a very weird idea considering that even in the 60s and 70s when the veg movement was just beginning to start up, vitamins were being marketed like crazy. they weren't there for veg folk - they were there for your meat folk (not too many veggies back then). what this would suggest is that a meat-based diet is totally inadequate in providing the necessary requirements.

interestingly enough, if you look at the first article in that earlier link, you find that even vitamins aren't enough LOL:

Vitamins Do Not Prevent Cancer and May Increase Likelihood of Death
Antioxidant supplements for prevention of gastrointestinal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis by Goran Bjelakovic reported in the October 2004 issue of the Lancet found no "evidence that antioxidant supplements can prevent cancer; on the contrary, they seem to increase overall mortality."

So you are saying that there is some information on these websites that you don't agree with? I'm curious what that is and why you chose to believe some things that they say and not others.

well i looked at all this back in the early '90s to quite an extent since we didn't want to make the jump to a strict veg diet without researching things - after all, we had to take my infant son into account as well as the ravings of my medical doctor father who kept babbling things like meat is good for you. i found that the veg communities were by no means in complete agreement with what was ideal and what wasn't - depending upon the influence of traditional medical thought. so we opted for a diet based on 'natural hygiene' principles (somewhat a la shelton) as well as mostly rawfoods and have managed rather nicely so far.

But, if you did the same with a meat-based diet, imagine the benefits. I'd give it try, if only for a while. (I won't subject my dog to a veg diet btw).

no one is asking you to subject your dog or yourself to anything.
what a silly idea though to suggest that i take my magnificient, admiration-attracting (and rather mischievous) bowwows (who never suffer from any of those things that the vets want to protect dogs from), and change their diet because you maintain this notion that a meat-based diet is better than what they are fed now.

Anyway, I take certain advice from my vet very seriously. Other advice, like what products to buy from them, I take with a grain of salt.

well that's nice.

ANYWAY, if you don't want people to eat meat based on moral gorunds and animal rights that's one thing, but to go around saying that eating meat is bad for you is, well, bad.

well the 'one thing' hasn't been a thing here at all. the content of my posts have been for the most part that eating meat is bad for you purely on health grounds (despite what a couple of people would like to believe). i have backed up what i have said with several links (throughout this thread) as well as results that are evident in society for anyone to see (regardless of whether you subscibe to 'correlation' or 'causation') ... and i can keep going too LOL

in any case, as i wrote earlier, if you want to eat meat that's up to you. nor should you simply believe the opposite of the slogan that you have been chanting "meat is healthy" - if you are interested in the health benefits of veg, then do some research about veg diet, learn who is saying what, find some correlations (or even causations), then make up your own mind.

in friendship,
prad

 

[physicsisphirst]

Thanks. I fear my views regarding Schopenhauer could be too depressing. I agree with his view that existence is suffering (buddhism). My moral views are very much along "negative utilitarianism" for which the elimination of pain and suffering, is much more important than the production of pleasure. Although I don't go around preaching the ethics of extinction of all life, I don't see it as a bad thing (depends on how it would happen). However, I tend to believe we continue to exist after death (unfortunately)... So the problem of suffering isn't solved...

i don't find your views are depressing at all - quite the opposite. much of what you say makes a lot of sense in a very pragmatic way. the minimization of pain and suffering seems to be a worthy goal regardless of whether we can enforce it or not. all of us may not be able to 'exterminate the eagle population for the benefit of fish' or have the time to 'lie in waiting to shoot a lion for the salvation of deer' as suggested in prior posts, but we can always do our little bit (i think sheepdog made an interesting observation in that our actions determine who we are). additionally, dooga sort of tied the idea of evolution into non-violence and considering that historically humans have thought on a larger scale about ethics, it is possible that our evolution may depend upon our commitment to reducing pain and suffering.

Schopenhauer believed that resignation from the will, could end suffering (buddhist solution)... But I'm not sure of that. I don't see why, even if we solved our current problem of suffering, how that would help us after being reincarnated (we remember the lessons?).

well perhaps or perhaps the lessons are so obvious that they don't really need to be remembered, but require something else to be seen.
as the four faults in buddist philosophy say, the nature of the mind is hard to see because it is

1) too close to be recognized
2) too profound to be fathomed
3) too easy to be believed
4) too wonderful to be accommodated

in friendship,
prad

 

[physicsisphirst]

it is well recognised that humans like other primates are omnivorous; even our teeth say that is so.

i think a lot of people (even veggies) keep saying this, assume it is so and do sincerely try very hard to be good omnivores, but a closer look seems to indicate otherwise. compare a true omnivore's (eg dog) teeth to a human's and one finds that
the dog's canines are considerable larger (for ripping and tearing)
humans molars are considerably more prominent (for crushing and grinding - unlike jagged doggie molars)
the human's jaw flaunts (unlike doggie jaw) side-to-side motion (to work those molars)

additionally,

we do not have the claws or talons necessary to catch and hold animal prey, and we do not have the sharp, shearing teeth necessary to tear, not chew, animal flesh. We are not fast enough to outrun and catch animals. Natural omnivores or carnivores do NOT chew their eaten flesh, they tear it into chunks and swallow them whole. We do not have the "constant tendency for the last upper premolar and the first lower molar to engage and form long longitudinal opposed shearing blades (the carnassials)", which are a common characteristic of natural carnivores and omnivores.

As further evidence, Roberts cites the carnivore?s short intestinal tract, which reaches about three times its body length. An herbivore?s intestines are 12 times its body length, and humans are closer to herbivores, he says. Roberts rattles off other similarities between human beings and herbivores. Both get vitamin C from their diets (carnivores make it internally). Both sip water, not lap it up with their tongues. Both cool their bodies by perspiring (carnivores pant).
http://www.ecologos.org/omni.htm (a delightfully 'biased' article i must say, distinguishing very well between the common misunderstanding between the verbs "to do" and "to be" - eg humans are meat-eaters because they've done meat-eating LOL)


this next article is kind of amusing because in it you have a non-veg (possibly) Cardiologist William C. Roberts arguing that humans aren't designed to eat meat while a veg, anatomist and primatologist John McArdle arguing that humans are omnivores. here is the beginning of the article:

Cardiologist William C. Roberts hails from the famed cattle state of Texas, but he says this without hesitation: Humans aren't physiologically designed to eat meat. "I think the evidence is pretty clear. If you look at various characteristics of carnivores versus herbivores, it doesn't take a genius to see where humans line up," says Roberts, editor in chief of The American Journal of Cardiology and medical director of the Baylor Heart and Vascular Institute at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?143


finally, here is an excellent and thorough article by Milton R. Mills, M.D. that argues humans not being particularly well suited for meat consumption based on comparative anatomy of Oral Cavity, Stomach and Small Intestine, Colon. here is the conclusion from that article (with the link, of course):

we see that human beings have the gastrointestinal tract structure of a 'committed' herbivore. Humankind does not show the mixed structural features one expects and finds in anatomical omnivores such as bears and raccoons. Thus, from comparing the gastrointestinal tract of humans to that of carnivores, herbivores and omnivores we must conclude that humankind's GI tract is designed for a purely plant-food diet.
http://www.vegsource.com/veg_faq/comparative.htm


so all omnivorous wishful thinking aside, the arguments against humans being anatomically suited for meat consumption are really pretty substantial.

in friendship,
prad

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I'd conclude by analyzing the data presented, that a vegetarian diet is healthier and more beneficial to humanity. The only significant reason for eating meat that remains, in my opinion, is the fact that meat tastes good; however, how many people would support placing animals in pits and having them fight to the death? Not many. Even the majority of meat-eaters say cruelty to animals cannot be justified because of human pleasure, and if you don't agree with animal cruelty, how can you support eating meat?

 

[russ_watters]

i think a lot of people (even veggies) keep saying this, assume it is so and do sincerely try very hard to be good omnivores, but a closer look seems to indicate otherwise. compare a true omnivore's (eg dog) teeth to a human's...

Dogs are carnovores, not omnivores. Compare our teeth to dogs and cows and they fall right in the middle. The rest of the post contains similar basic errors. Your info (a cardiologist is an evolutionary biologist?) is wrong.

 

[JPD]

I'd conclude by analyzing the data presented, that a vegetarian diet is healthier and more beneficial to humanity. The only significant reason for eating meat that remains, in my opinion, is the fact that meat tastes good; however, how many people would support placing animals in pits and having them fight to the death? Not many. Even the majority of meat-eaters say cruelty to animals cannot be justified because of human pleasure, and if you don't agree with animal cruelty, how can you support eating meat?

What a weak argument. How about people sourcing meat properly from properly raised livestock that roam the land and have a (as much as possible) stress-free life.
Sorry vegetarians and vegans - the arguments you bring forward might be enough to make you feel great about yourselves (this seems to be important to you - a sense of self-importance) but they don't wash with us meat eaters. Hows about freedom of choice - you seem to be attempting to dictate to the world how it should live. How dare you?

 

[JPD]

The question is: what gives you the right to tell other people how they should live their lives? The average diet of a vegetarian or vegan is not balanced, hence the need to bolster it with tablets, hence the unbalanced minds pronouncing an all-encompassing plan for how everyone should live.
This is where you fall down. If you were really intelligent you would keep quiet and then perhaps - and it is an extremely small chance - people might enquire as to how you live your life.
You say 'I am a vegetarian' or 'I am a vegan' as if it affords you some special status in life, as if people should bow down. Personally speaking, if anyone pronounces either of these two sentences to me I actually want to be sick on them.
In a psychological sense of course.

 

[learningphysics]

The question is: what gives you the right to tell other people how they should live their lives?

What gives a policeman the right to stop a criminal? What are you saying... people should just do whatever they want willy nilly... Stealing, murder, cannibalism... all ok?

So speaking out against something you find immoral is wrong?

 

[JaeSun]

What gives a policeman the right to stop a criminal? What are you saying... people should just do whatever they want willy nilly... Stealing, murder, cannibalism... all ok?

So speaking out against something you find immoral is wrong?

that argument is weak ...

if you have kids, then what gives you the right to tell them what they can and can't do, etc?

its not saying that anyone can and can't do, but its the basic rights of everyone to be able to live and do as they please within a set standard ... a policeman stopping a criminal is different from me telling you what you should eat ... a policeman is enforcing a known good ... as in regards to telling someone your beliefs, that's different ...

if you want to speak out against it, go ahead .. just don't go preaching to everyone and telling them what to do as that is taking a step too far ...

 

[Seafang]

i think a lot of people (even veggies) keep saying this, assume it is so and do sincerely try very hard to be good omnivores, but a closer look seems to indicate otherwise. compare a true omnivore's (eg dog) teeth to a human's and one finds that
the dog's canines are considerable larger (for ripping and tearing)
humans molars are considerably more prominent (for crushing and grinding - unlike jagged doggie molars)
the human's jaw flaunts (unlike doggie jaw) side-to-side motion (to work those molars)

additionally,

we do not have the claws or talons necessary to catch and hold animal prey, and we do not have the sharp, shearing teeth necessary to tear, not chew, animal flesh. We are not fast enough to outrun and catch animals. Natural omnivores or carnivores do NOT chew their eaten flesh, they tear it into chunks and swallow them whole. We do not have the "constant tendency for the last upper premolar and the first lower molar to engage and form long longitudinal opposed shearing blades (the carnassials)", which are a common characteristic of natural carnivores and omnivores.

As further evidence, Roberts cites the carnivore?s short intestinal tract, which reaches about three times its body length. An herbivore?s intestines are 12 times its body length, and humans are closer to herbivores, he says. Roberts rattles off other similarities between human beings and herbivores. Both get vitamin C from their diets (carnivores make it internally). Both sip water, not lap it up with their tongues. Both cool their bodies by perspiring (carnivores pant).
http://www.ecologos.org/omni.htm (a delightfully 'biased' article i must say, distinguishing very well between the common misunderstanding between the verbs "to do" and "to be" - eg humans are meat-eaters because they've done meat-eating LOL)


this next article is kind of amusing because in it you have a non-veg (possibly) Cardiologist William C. Roberts arguing that humans aren't designed to eat meat while a veg, anatomist and primatologist John McArdle arguing that humans are omnivores. here is the beginning of the article:

Cardiologist William C. Roberts hails from the famed cattle state of Texas, but he says this without hesitation: Humans aren't physiologically designed to eat meat. "I think the evidence is pretty clear. If you look at various characteristics of carnivores versus herbivores, it doesn't take a genius to see where humans line up," says Roberts, editor in chief of The American Journal of Cardiology and medical director of the Baylor Heart and Vascular Institute at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?143


finally, here is an excellent and thorough article by Milton R. Mills, M.D. that argues humans not being particularly well suited for meat consumption based on comparative anatomy of Oral Cavity, Stomach and Small Intestine, Colon. here is the conclusion from that article (with the link, of course):

we see that human beings have the gastrointestinal tract structure of a 'committed' herbivore. Humankind does not show the mixed structural features one expects and finds in anatomical omnivores such as bears and raccoons. Thus, from comparing the gastrointestinal tract of humans to that of carnivores, herbivores and omnivores we must conclude that humankind's GI tract is designed for a purely plant-food diet.
http://www.vegsource.com/veg_faq/comparative.htm


so all omnivorous wishful thinking aside, the arguments against humans being anatomically suited for meat consumption are really pretty substantial.

in friendship,
prad

Well I noticed that you didn't bother to address my point that being omnivorous gives us access to the use of plant foods which we would otherwise be unable to digest; but we can certainly digest the meat of ruminants that can process those foods.

You watch pure herbivores eat and you find that they do it pretty much all day long. The food value of what they eat is so poor that they have to eat tons of it. we gain the upper hand by letting them do the hard work and then eating them. Otherwise we would spend all our time eating low level foods too.

The food crops we grow are more nutritious than what ruminants eat, but it costs us hugely in the form of fossil fuel energy to enjoy either those better plant foods or the meat that we produce likewise with energy input.

The six billion people on Earth today could not exist if they had to rely on foods produced from solar energy by mother nature; and that includes both the plant foods and the wild animals.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Well I noticed that you didn't bother to address my point that being omnivorous gives us access to the use of plant foods which we would otherwise be unable to digest; but we can certainly digest the meat of ruminants that can process those foods.

since we are not omnivorous via comparative anatomy (see last link, for instance, in post #900 which refers to the Mills article), we can only claim to be omnivorous via action which is a bit like saying because we can be airborne on a plane, we can fly.

so given that we are not omnivorous as the articles and explanations explain, i probably for that reason didn't bother to address that particular point of yours. however, in certain areas where it is very difficult to access suitable plant foods, humans do eat creatures that can process the existing vegetation (but the anatomy of these humans really doesn't change because of doing so).

The six billion people on Earth today could not exist if they had to rely on foods produced from solar energy by mother nature; and that includes both the plant foods and the wild animals.

considering it takes a lot less energy to grow crops than cattle, it would be far easier to feed the planet on a veg diet. one of the 3 main arguments for vegness is the environmental factor.

in friendship,
prad

 

[physicsisphirst]

Dogs are carnovores, not omnivores. Compare our teeth to dogs and cows and they fall right in the middle. The rest of the post contains similar basic errors. Your info (a cardiologist is an evolutionary biologist?) is wrong.

so are you saying that because Roberts is a cardiologist that he is incapable of making correct statements about human anatomy or even evolutionary biology? do you think that all evolutionary biologists would disagree with Roberts?

Most doggies (though placed in the order carnivora) are generally considered to be omnivorous (because they are considerably different from true carnivores like cats - see merck veterinary manual for instance http://www.merckvetmanual.com/mvm/index.jsp?cfile=htm/bc/182800.htm) although bears provide a more classic example of this group (see mills' comparative anatomy article).

Comparing our teeth to a dogs and a cows and then saying that "they fall right in the middle" (whatever that means), hardly provides an argumentative basis for concluding that humans are omnivorous (it is through this sort of selectively qualitative, emotive and handwaving pseudo-conclusive statement-making that the rumour about humans being omnivores still persists).

in fact, if you actually do compare as Mills does on the criteria of Oral Cavity, Stomach and Small Intestine, Colon as well as facial muscles, jaw type, jaw joint location, jaw motion, jaw muscles, mouth opening vs headsize, teeth (incisors, canines, molars), chewing, saliva, stomach type, stomach acidity, stomach capacity, length of intestine, liver, kidney, nails - it becomes pretty obvious that the human anatomy lines up with that of the herbivores. here is the Mills link again:
http://www.vegsource.com/veg_faq/comparative.htm

if you want to dispute any of the analyses presented by Mills, then by all means try to do so (you may find some ammunition if you look at McArdle's stuff). however, simply saying "your info is wrong" isn't a particularly substantial contribution.

in friendship,
prad

 

[physicsisphirst]

The question is: what gives you the right to tell other people how they should live their lives?

but jpd, why in that case, are you telling dooga and learningphysics what they should or should not do? why do you attempt to violate their right to post what they want to?

The average diet of a vegetarian or vegan is not balanced, hence the need to bolster it with tablets, hence the unbalanced minds pronouncing an all-encompassing plan for how everyone should live.

if you would look at the nutritional info provided throughout the thread and beyond, you would see that veg diets are not imbalanced at all.

This is where you fall down. If you were really intelligent you would keep quiet and then perhaps - and it is an extremely small chance - people might enquire as to how you live your life.

are you telling them what to do again or are you providing them with valuable advice on how to conduct their affairs?

You say 'I am a vegetarian' or 'I am a vegan' as if it affords you some special status in life, as if people should bow down. Personally speaking, if anyone pronounces either of these two sentences to me I actually want to be sick on them.
In a psychological sense of course.

it seems you've had some bad experiences with a veg or two. unfortunately, since you get sick in a psychological sense, you may have difficulty in hearing what they actually say.

for instance, look at what dooga wrote:
if you don't agree with animal cruelty, how can you support eating meat?
he hasn't said that meat eaters are cruel people.
what his question suggests is that anyone who doesn't support cruelty probably wouldn't support the practises that go into producing meat and it seems to be based on unaccusatory logic. in fact, we've had several pro-meaters throughout this thread indicate that they do not support the cruelty that is inherent to the meat industry.

in friendship,
prad