PETA activist group or whacko brainwashing cult?

[TheStatutoryApe]

Do you feel factory farming of pigs is similarly not-cruel as killing a wild boar? If so, then this argument is irrelavant to you. There's a difference between believing that your standpoint is moral and that the notion of morality is not involved. That is the argument at hand, isn't it?

I'll repeat that I'm not making my arguments based off of "morals". I call this "ethics" as opposed to "morals" though I know my definitions aren't necessarily dictionary accurate so I haven't used these words in that context.
As for your example I don't think pig farming is any less "ethical" than hunting. I think either can be practiced both ethically and unethically.

Though regardless of anyone's moral standpoint, I've always felt that going vegetarian for health reasons is usually a more rational reason than for animal welfare.

This I completely agree with though I'm sure you could have figured that out on your own.
Personally I have no problems with vegetarians and I would not say that I have moral/ethical superiority over them, my only problem is when a vegetarian believes that they are morally superior to me. It's similar, in my mind at least, to speaking with a Christian who believes you are going to hell because you are not Christian.

I would respond to your other response, in regards to the fruit, but I'm afraid that it would decend into a long tedious discussion. If your up for it I'll go ahead but it doesn't seem like it's a line of discussion your terribly interested in.

There is a balance to nature. Plants provide food and shelter for animals, produce oxygen for them to breath, and are the food staple for most species. Carnivores in nature kill of the sick weak and injured herbivores to regulate the population, thereby keeping the plant eaters from overgrazing.

So do you believe that this balance is intentional? That it was set up that way on "purpose"? Or do you believe that it just happened that way because it works? By your statements I'm thinking that we may have a difference in opinion on some fundamentals that would keep us from really understanding each other.

Argument for the sake of argument is a waste of my time and yours.

Any argument is useful as long as you mean to listen to what the other person is saying and learn from it regardless of whether or not you agree with them.

 

[Jelfish]

Bears are true omnivores. If they come upon an injured animal they start salivating. When a human comes upon an injured animal, we feel compassion for it.

I have a feeling that such a human response is due to our culture. Of course, that's where many morals come from (which is why I'm glad we don't legislate accordingly).

I have several friends who successfully maintain a healthy vegan diet and I'm willing to believe from knowing them that their good health is at least partially due to their diet.

 

[Jelfish]

Personally I have no problems with vegetarians and I would not say that I have moral/ethical superiority over them, my only problem is when a vegetarian believes that they are morally superior to me. It's similar, in my mind at least, to speaking with a Christian who believes you are going to hell because you are not Christian.

I find these people very annoying as well. Although I do think that it occurs on both sides. Scenario I've experienced:

Omnivore: Why aren't you eating meat? Aren't you hungry?
Vegetarian: No, I'm a vegetarian.
Omnivore: Oh - so you think you're better than me because you don't kill animals? I can't stand people like you. Vegetarians are so arrogant!

Preemptive defensiveness? Whatever - it doesn't bother me. I won't get started on debates I've had with some rather adamant Christians I've disagreed with.

I would respond to your other response, in regards to the fruit, but I'm afraid that it would decend into a long tedious discussion. If your up for it I'll go ahead but it doesn't seem like it's a line of discussion your terribly interested in.

If you have a point you want to share, then I'm up for a discussion since it seems this topic has perhaps diverged too from its original topic for recovery.

 

[Skyhunter]

What is it you are trying to say Penqino?

Because the site has the prefix "veg" that it is somehow suspect?

Do you believe that you will find someone like Dr. Esselstyn sponsered by the beef or dairy industries?

If you are a critical thinker, you must be willing to look at the supporting evidence for an opposing argument.

Otherwise you can not offer intelligent rebuttal?

Here are Dr. Esselstyn's credentials

BIOGRAPHY
Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr., MD

· Yale University, 1956 AB
· Gold Medal, 1956 Olympic Games - 8-oared rowing event
· Western Reserve University, 1961, MD
· Surgical Training - The Cleveland Clinic Foundation
· St. George's Hospital, London, England

Cleveland Clinic:

· President of Medical Staff, 1977-1978
· Member, Board of Governors, 1977-1982
· Past Chairman, Breast Cancer Task Force
· Head, Section of Thyroid and Parathyroid Surgery

Other:

· President, American Association of Endocrine Surgeons 1991
· "Best Doctors in America", 1994-1995
· Scientific Publications - Beyond 150 in Peer Review Journals
· Director and Program Chairman, "1" National Conference on the Elimination & Prevention of Coronary Artery Disease", Tucson, AZ, 1991
· Arresting and Reversing Coronary Artery Disease - A 5-Year Study. The Journal of Family Practice, Vol. 41,No. 6(Dec)1995.
· Director and Program Chairman, "Summit on Cholesterol & Coronary Disease", Orlando, FL, 1997
· Editor, "Proceedings on Summit on Cholesterol & Coronary Disease Supplement The American Journal of cardiology, Vol. 82(1OB),
November 26, 1998
· Updating a 12-Year Experience with Arrest and Reversal Therapy for Coronary Heart Disease, The American Journal of Cardiology, Vol. 84, August 1, 1999.

If we could somehow eliminate all cruelty to animals, thatd be great by itself. But if we have the choice of curing heart disease or stopping cruelty, i think ill choose the heart disease cure.

I responded to your post because I found your words so ironic. If you truly care about ending heart disease you will look at the work that Dr. Esselstyn has done.

If you said it insincerely simply for the sake of argument then you will offer up another immature response.

My response to which will be to ignore any of your further posts.

 

[Skyhunter]

So do you believe that this balance is intentional? That it was set up that way on "purpose"? Or do you believe that it just happened that way because it works? By your statements I'm thinking that we may have a difference in opinion on some fundamentals that would keep us from really understanding each other.

Any argument is useful as long as you mean to listen to what the other person is saying and learn from it regardless of whether or not you agree with them.

Now that is a question that is harder to prove either way.

I believe that if we have eternity in which to do it we might answer that question.

Which begs the next question are we eternal?

Does the consciencness that we identify as uniquely us survive this physical existence?

Only way I know to find out is to die and I am not through living. So I will seek the answer, knowing that it will probably take an eternity to discover it and have faith that "eternal life is the endless quest for infinite value".

When I say "faith", I mean the ability of humans to believe more than they can know. I have belief's based on faith, yet I remain open-minded enough to discard obsolete knowledge, so as to allow for a greater conceptual capacity.

You, me, and all of us exist in a linear space/time cause/effect universe.

What is beyond the end of the universe?
Is there a beyond?
What is beyond that?
Where did it start?
When did it start?
Did it start or has it always been?
What was/is the uncaused cause?

We don't exist outside space and time, yet we can contemplate existence outside of space and time.

I am all the evidence I need for my personal beliefs.

[edited]

I certainly agree with your quote about argument. I was looking for a similar one by Einstien and found this:

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."
Albert Einstien


Here is the one I was looking for:

"I know that it is a hopeless undertaking to debate about fundamental value judgements. For instance, if someone approves, as a goal, the extirpation of the human race from the earth, one cannot refute such a viewpoint on rational grounds. But if there is agreement on certain goals and values, one can argue rationally about the means by which these objectives may be obtained." —Albert Einstein

 

[James R]

TheStatutoryApe:

Most of the condescension I have seen so far in this thread has come from you and your defense of your morally superior posturing.

Most of the condescension you've seen from me in this thread has been in response to Pengwuino's rather puerile arguments. I think it's justified, don't you?

My argument also is not a philisophical one, it is scientific and logical. ... Pain, "consciousness", and the like are just more tools for survival which have evolved. The only difference is familairity. Animals are more similar to people who fall into the "fallacy" of believing that there is something inherantly more "special" about an animal than a plant due to familiarity.

I say that animals are more worthy of moral consideration than plants because they are conscious, sentient beings with some perception of their own existence. I am about as familiar with plants as I am with animals. Do I empathise with plants to the same extent? No, I don't, and I don't think any other human being does either.

Your argument on the other hand is not as logical and obvious as you think. The crux seems to be "consciousness", morality, and sufferage. These subjects are the ones that are largely philosophical and highly debatable.
Surely you can agree that morality is a subjective and debatable point. The others you may not agree with me on. I think we can agree to place sufferage and consciousness together for the sake of argument yes? Now about "consciousness". I have a friend who is a grad student at UCI in the Cognitive Science department. We argue the existence of consciousness all the time. Oddly enough I'm generally the one arguing for it. At any rate, considering what I have gleened from my friend, our discussions, and what I have read personally on the subject it's safe to say that those who study "consciousness" themselves still debate furiously on it's nature and even it's existence.

I've never seen a debate about the existence of consciousness. If there's nothing there to study, then there would be nothing to debate. But this is a discussion for another thread.

I do not generally consider "moral goodness". Like I said morality is subjective and debatable. I hold the same standard for the concepts of good and bad or right and wrong. I prefer to lean on logical analysis. I assume that what is natural is only logical, evolution has been working for millions of years on this and I have only been pondering these things for a couple of decades.

Everybody has moral views. It is part of being human. I'm sorry, but I simply don't believe you when you claim you don't have a moral view.

You say that you have the "same standard" for right and wrong. I can't believe the two things are indistiguishable for you.

Do you consider genocide acceptable?
Do you have no moral view on pedophilia? Do it, or don't do it, it's up to the individual?
I guess you wouldn't even consider it morally wrong for your best friend to kill your sister, would you? It might be a bit of an inconvenience for you. Assuming you have a sister and you like her, you might miss her. But would you really have no moral problem with the act of killing her, by somebody you trust? Would you consider your friend's act as nothing worse than illogical?

Closer to the current topic:

If you could go to the supermarket and buy pre-packaged human flesh to eat, would you buy it? I assume you would, because humans are just one more animal, and if eating a cow is acceptable, so is eating a human being. Or, do you make a distinction between humans beings and food animals. If so, on what "logical" grounds?

I really don't believe you have no moral position on anything.

 

[James R]

Moonbear:

We could continue this debate, but I really don't have enough information at my fingertips or the time to do the research I would require to respond properly to your argument.

I guess at this stage I will end by saying that I don't believe that the decision as to whether or not to eat animals is or should be primarily an economic one based on some notion of "efficiency". For me, the moral aspect is far more important.

I am not convinced that meat eating is a good way to protect the environment. This is the argument which seems to float your boat, and maybe I could be convinced, but I doubt it. Forgive me, but I think you've just latched onto one thing which makes you feel more comfortable, rather than facing up to what I imagine is the actual reality, which is more along the lines Jelfish has talked about. I think you're rationalising. Please forgive my presumption for judging you this way; it is just my impression, and I'm sure you have an equally unflattering perception of my point of view.

 

[James R]

Back to the initial topic for a minute...

What PETA is primarily concerned about is not, of course, that everybody should become vegetarian (although I'm sure they would love it if that happened).

What they are against, as a top priority, is cruel and unnecessary treatment of animals. This includes:

* The killing or harming of animals purely for human entertainment (not for food or anything else).
Examples: Killing animals so we can wear their furs, which we do not need.
Cock and dog fighting, where people bet on animals to kill each other.
Bear baiting.
Bull fighting.

* The inhumane rearing of animals in "factory" farms.
Example: "Battery" chicken farms, where chickens are kept in tiny cages which they can't even more in for their entire lives, under bright, 24 hour light, covered in excrement and fed drugs to fatten them up. Sheds full of hundreds of thousands of these birds, which are cleaned perhaps once a year. Birds which are injured in the cages are left to suffer and die where they sit.

Example: Factory beef farming, in which cows are kept in pens too small for them to move or turn around, again for their entire lives, never seeing the outside world.

* The unnecessary use of animals for "scientific" experimentation.
Example: Testing of human cosmetics on animals, such as rubbing makeup into the eyes of rabbits.

Surely the intelligent people at physicsforums would find these practices deplorable?

 

[Skyhunter]

Moonbear,

Since you are the "biology guru", could you give me a list of the animals with a seminal vesicule that eat meat as a dietary staple?

To my knowledge there is only one. Homo-sapien.

 

[hypatia]

humans are omnivores

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

- To the person asking about a meatless world solving world hunger. I don't remember where I heard that information (on more than one site). I stated some people claim that - it is a claim. I don't think could be substantiated as the economy and population, food growth, ect, are complex.

Humans are cabable of being omnivores and being healthy, yes; however, they can also be healthy through vegetarian or vegan diets. Arguably, a vegan diet is the healthiest diet. It's unfair to generalize all humans as being omnivores. Some humans are omnivores, but they would probably be healthier as vegetarians.

This debate has little to do with the biological nature of humans. It's a simple animal rights debate. If you think torturing animals is wrong, you shouldn't eat meat. I don't mind when people eat meat, but it's ludicrous to claim it is truly moral. The only excuse, in my opinion, that is legitimate is moral objectivity. Basically, you do it because you want to do it. You realize animals aren't going to get up and attack you, you like eating them, and you disregard their pain because morality is arbitrary and insignificant. In short, animals benefit you more dead so you eat them.

This nonsense about humans being natural omnivores, needing meat, or benefiting animals by sustaining the population is just an excuse not to accept the truth. You can continue making irrelevant rationalizations to try and make yourself feel better or make vegetarians seem deplorable or stop eating meat - if you want to consider yourself truly moral. Or, if you want, you can just make the legitimate argument that you should do what is in your own best interests regardless of morals.

I only argue for vegetarianism in debates or when people bring it up. If vegetarians bother you because you think they feel superior to you, then you're insecure. It's never happened to me, but, if someone criticized me for acting haughtily about my diet, I could just find another reason to make myself seem better than them. When it comes down to it, by incorporating the moral standards of modern society, it is hypocritical and immoral to eat meat. In reality, you can argue that nothing matters. However, if two people are identical and one is vegetarian, they have a right to feel morally superior - whether or not they are or not.

I apologize if I offended anyone. However, I haven't been vegetarian long, and I've noticed that vegetarians aren't a widely accepted minority. I think people bother me more about vegetarianism than atheism.

 

[Kenshkrix]

humans are omnivores

There is no taxonomical definition of 'omnivore'. The only definition I could find (that relates to diet) is: omnivore - an animal that feeds on both animal and vegetable substances.

This is far too broad a term, using it as a basis I can't really see anything that isn't an 'omnivore' (almost every living creature may occasionally eat an insect). I would also like to point out that humans (in my understanding) were fruigivores, which means we had a diet mainly consisting of fruit. We have ~1.6% genetic difference with chimps, they are also mainly fruigivorous.

 

[Skyhunter]

humans are omnivores

Here is the taxonomical definition of humans:

Hominids

The family Hominidae includes only one contemporary species, Homo sapiens, which you may recognize as the scientific name for modern humans. It also includes all the fossil forms of distinctly human ancestors and related species that became clearly differentiated from the other hominoids (the various species of apes) and evolved in a distinctly human direction. In general, anthropologists apply the term hominid to all human and human like forms the fall within this taxon.
Hominids characteristic be divided into two types:

primitive, or generalized, characteristics, which are held in common with other species within a more comprehensive group (primates, anthropoids, catarrhines, and hominoids); and
derived, or specialized, characteristics, which are distinct to hominid lines and are not shared with non-human primate species.
The derived characteristics are especially important for charting and understanding what we are as humans and how we came to differ from other primates. One key to understanding the special features of our species is our adaptation to a special habitat, the tropical grasslands of Africa, which represents a departure from the dense forests that support most primate species, including our closest relatives: the gorilla, chimpanzee, and bonobo. A second is the development of technologies and other cultural modes of behaviour that increasingly transformed the environments and contexts in which we survived and developed.
Specialized hominid characteristics

teeth: small front teeth (canines and incisors) and very large molars relative to other primate species;
(The reduced canine size is associated with the absence of a diastema, a gap between the canine and the premolar, which accomadates a large canine in ape and monkey species. The large molars may be an adaptation to a diet based on relatively hard vegetable foods such as nuts, berries, and grains that were abundant in the grasslands.)
posture: bipedalism, involving numerous anatomical adaptations including:
a fully erect stance and gait,
shortening of the arms relative to the legs,
restructuring of the pelvic bones for weight bearing,
restructuring of the foot or weight bearing, involving the loss of toe opposability;
hands: increased manual dexterity involving a lengthening of the thumb;
brain: increase in brain size, especially in the frontal lobes;
face: reduction in the musculature and bone mass of the skull and face involving a flattening of the muzzle area.


I don't see omnivore there any where, in fact note the teeth, adaptation to hard vegetable foods.

You need to distinguish between biological and cultural. We are capable of eating meat, after we prepare it properly. We are not biologically equipped to run it down kill it and eat it raw. If we were we would. We are also capable of flying, but I don't hear anyone claiming humans are avian.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I've never seen a debate about the existence of consciousness. If there's nothing there to study, then there would be nothing to debate. But this is a discussion for another thread.

It definitely does belong on a different thread which is why I only mentioned it in passing. If you would like I'm sure that you can find a number of threads in the Philosophy forums debating consciousness. The only one I saw at a glance was in Metaphysics on the topic of "conscious atoms". There was also a thread here in GD that rather absurdly found its way to the discussion of the consciousness of a baseball due entirely to a joke which was taken way too seriously. So not only are there people who argue it's existence but even those that would argue inanimate objects possesses consciousness aswell. So I'll repeat, this is not as clear cut a subject as you seem to think.

Everybody has moral views. It is part of being human. I'm sorry, but I simply don't believe you when you claim you don't have a moral view.

You may have missed it but I clarified my stance on this a bit more. I consider "morals" and "ethics" to be two different things. The way I look at it "ethics" is the logic based equivilant of "morals". I know this isn't the dictionary definition of these words so I have avoided using them in this manner. Suffice it to say that I do have what I call "ethics" but I do not use "morals". My definition of "morals" being arbitrary or "devine" sets of rules not necessarily based on a logical frame work.
And this again is an argument for another thread so I'll shut up now.

 

[loseyourname]

Perhaps my wording was poor. I did not mean to imply that plants have intentions. However, it is to the plant's interets that the seeds be spread and by creating a fruit that is desirable to animals that can relocate the seeds, the plant's best interest is carried out. It is an interpretion of evolution and that was what I meant to imply.

It it's a horse eating the fruit, fine, but I don't think humans dumping seeds into sewage treatment systems are doing the plants much good.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You need to distinguish between biological and cultural. We are capable of eating meat, after we prepare it properly. We are not biologically equipped to run it down kill it and eat it raw. If we were we would. We are also capable of flying, but I don't hear anyone claiming humans are avian.

Ummm.. you do realize don't you that our ancestors are believed to have been almost single handedly responsable for the extinction of the Wooly Mammoth because we ran them down, killed them, and ate them.
Also we do eat, and have eaten, raw meats.

 

[loseyourname]

All apes eat meat. Chimpanzees even seem to enjoy playing with and killing little monkeys and really savor the meat. Human evolved out of the capability to chase down and kill - with our bare - hands most animals (we can still catch and kill some) because we developed the ability to use tools to do the killing, like spears and traps and later on, guns. Not to mention fences.

 

[loseyourname]

You're forgetting one other thing: the fields used to house the animals and the fields used to grow grain for the animals are not always suitable for growing human crops. Not all land is equal. For instance, where I live it is extremely hilly and fairly rocky, although we do get a lot of rain and the climate is moderate. There is a lot of agriculture, but the hillsides are really only good for two things: cattle pastures and growing grapes for wine production. The land used for cattle pastures offer little to no ecosystem destruction because the plants that the cattle graze on are largely naturally occurring grasses that require no tilling or soil treatment. Two things to consider are these: 1) The rockier land, especially the land on hillsides, could not be used for human crops. That throws the argument that the land would be better used that way right out the window. 2) The richer land in the valleys that can be used for human crops would still require a lot of tilling and soil treatment, as well as the introduction of non-native plant species that would result in a great deal of ecosystem destruction.

By the way, I think I should add for the people making moral arguments that the cattle - at least the ones in my immediate vicinity - are treated well and seem to be happy. I even wander out into the fields and hang out with them every now and then.

Also, in line with the argument that we shouldn't kill animals because they don't want to die, is it okay to kill k-selected species after they've reproduced? Usually they only live long enough to produce a bunch of eggs and then they lose their purpose for living and die. Some species even seem to get depressed and completely stop eating (presumably an adaptation to ensure their offspring have more food), then of course there are those rare species where the female kills the male and uses him to feed her young and mating. Can we eat them?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

By the way, I think I should add for the people making moral arguments that the cattle - at least the ones in my immediate vicinity - are treated well and seem to be happy. I even wander out into the fields and hang out with them every now and then.

There are also the legendary Kobe cattle. Top notch diet(including beer!), exercise programs, and sometimes they even get massages.

 

[hypatia]

We have ~1.6% genetic difference with chimps, they are also mainly fruigivorous.

Chimps eat meat too, often other monkeys. And they eat bugs. Jane Goodall first observed wild chimpanzees hunting and eating meat nearly 40 years ago. From that time until now they have observed eating more then 35 different varities of tastie meats. Hunting by chimpanzees has been well documented (Teleki 1973; Goodall 1986),
The presence of primitive stone tools in fossils tells us that 2.5 million years ago early humans were using stone tools to cut the flesh off the bones of large animals that they had either hunted or whose carcasses they had scavenged.

Dang, Looseyourname beat me to it!

 

[Skyhunter]

Ummm.. you do realize don't you that our ancestors are believed to have been almost single handedly responsable for the extinction of the Wooly Mammoth because we ran them down, killed them, and ate them.
Also we do eat, and have eaten, raw meats.

I do not know your background but you are making a cultural argument not a biological one. Humans that eat a raw diet that they gather without tools leave little or no evidence of their diet other than their fossilized skeletons. from the fossil evidence, the staple diet of humans was plant based.

The evidence you site is human cultural behavior which is irrelevant to biological one.

Go catch a live animal with your bare hands, kill it with your teeth and eat it raw if you are truly biologically equipped to be an omnivore!

 

[Skyhunter]

All apes eat meat. Chimpanzees even seem to enjoy playing with and killing little monkeys and really savor the meat. Human evolved out of the capability to chase down and kill - with our bare - hands most animals (we can still catch and kill some) because we developed the ability to use tools to do the killing, like spears and traps and later on, guns. Not to mention fences.

Once again your argument is cultural not biological.

Chimp hunting and flesh-eating is rare ~1.4% of their diet, and not practiced among all adults, as would be required by a true nutritional need.

Interestingly enough chimpanzees use flesh as an offering to gain sexual favors. Similiar to the mating rituals of humans.

 

[hypatia]

The presence of primitive stone tools in fossils tells us that 2.5 million years ago early humans were using stone tools to cut the flesh off the bones of large animals that they had either hunted or whose carcasses they had scavenged.

Thats long enough ago to say we have been meat eaters for..well..2.5 million years..is biological enough for you?

Did you know not many vegatarians live to be 100? While the people who do are meat eaters.

Interestingly enough chimpanzees use flesh as an offering to gain sexual favors. Similiar to the mating rituals of humans.

You offer meat to people for sex?

from the fossil evidence, the staple diet of humans was plant based.

Also befor the 2.5 million years, {because there is no fossil record of grains inside a human}, there is no way to tell, except to guess, what humans ate.

 

[Skyhunter]

I am ready to end this thread so I will end with this conclusion.

Humans can eat meat and gain nourishment from it. This does not necessarily mean that it is the optimum fuel for our bodies. If you separate the cultural arguments from the biological then the evidence clearly supports the argument that humans are much better suited to eat a plant based diet.

The only reason we eat meat is because it tastes good.

All you have to do is look at all the fat people around you and ask yourself:

Is this the way humans should look?

I ate meat for most of my life and now i don't. I have experiential knowledge that I fear most of you lack.

Eat a balanced vegan diet for 1 year and then tell me you need meat to survive.

 

[Skyhunter]

Thats long enough ago to say we have been meat eaters for..well..2.5 million years..is biological enough for you?

2.5 million years of cultural evidence does not make it biological evidence.
Sorry can't give you that one.

Did you know not many vegatarians live to be 100? While the people who do are meat eaters.

Where is your supporting evidence for this assertion?

Cultures with a high percentage of centarians eat a low calorie plant based diet. Research has shown that calorie restriction is key to longevity.

Note the following;

Laboratory of Biosystems and Cancer, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA. sh63v@nih.gov

Calorie restriction (CR) is the most effective and reproducible intervention for increasing lifespan in a variety of animal species, including mammals. CR is also the most potent, broadly acting cancer-prevention regimen in experimental carcinogenesis models. Translation of the knowledge gained from CR research to human chronic disease prevention and the promotion of healthy aging is critical, especially because obesity, which is an important risk factor for several chronic diseases, including many cancers, is alarmingly increasing in the Western world. This review synthesizes the key biological mechanisms underlying many of the beneficial effects of CR, with a particular focus on the insulin-like growth factor-1 pathway. We also describe some of the opportunities now available for investigations, including gene expression profiling studies, the development of pharmacological mimetics of CR, and the integration of CR regimens with targeted, mechanism-based interventions. These approaches will facilitate the translation of CR research into strategies for effective human chronic disease prevention.

You offer meat to people for sex?

I don't eat or buy meat.

I don't think you are so ignorant as to believe that is what I meant.

Therefore your statement is nothing more than a cheap insult.

Also befor the 2.5 million years, {because there is no fossil record of grains inside a human}, there is no way to tell, except to guess, what humans ate.

The fossil evidence are the teeth.

"teeth: small front teeth (canines and incisors) and very large molars relative to other primate species;
(The reduced canine size is associated with the absence of a diastema, a gap between the canine and the premolar, which accomadates a large canine in ape and monkey species. The large molars may be an adaptation to a diet based on relatively hard vegetable foods such as nuts, berries, and grains that were abundant in the grasslands.) "

 

[hypatia]

molars may be

there using the word "may be"..which means they don't know for sure.

And for most of the world 2.5 million years of biological growth/adaptation..is biological.

Your correct, about the low caloric intake and long life. There is a village {arab} where reaching 100 or so years is common. They work hard, eat a balanced diet of meats, cheeses/yogurts, and grains.

 

[James R]

There are also the legendary Kobe cattle. Top notch diet(including beer!), exercise programs, and sometimes they even get massages.

This is part of the problem PETA are trying to raise awareness about, too.

It's all very comfortable to go around thinking that your meat comes from a happy cow which was raised on rolling grassland for a number of years before it got to your dinner plate, but cows who get massages are NOT the norm. In fact, they are a tiny, tiny percentage.

Chances are, your McDonalds hamburger comes from a factory farm, like the ones I described briefly above. The cows living there never get to see the outside world in their brief lives. They can't see the sun, they don't get to run around, and they aren't even necessarily fed good, healthy grass. Sometimes they're fed ground-up parts of other animals, despite being herbivores.

Before condemning organisations such as PETA, and then going off feeling good about yourself as a meat eater, at least take a few moments to look at their website and see some of the practices they are protesting again. Like it or not, YOU are complicit in these practices, because you do nothing to stop them.

 

[hypatia]

Some of us, like me, buy only free range meat. I buy/get mine from the Amish who use part of my land for oats. And when I go for fast food, its salad or yogurt.
When PETA came to my state{late1980's?}, they screamed, they yelled, tossed bloody animal parts at people with children...thats a sure way to win over a crowd, by making them run in fear.

 

[Skyhunter]

Once again your argument is cultural not biological.

Chimp hunting and flesh-eating is rare ~1.4% of their diet, and not practiced among all adults, as would be required by a true nutritional need.

Interestingly enough chimpanzees use flesh as an offering to gain sexual favors. Similiar to the mating rituals of humans.

Perhaps you did not understand and i was hasty in my judgement.

Let me attempt to make it clearer.

"The way to a man's heart is through his stomach"

Isn't dinner a very popular dating ritual.


I am trying to differentiate the cultural argument from the biological one. My contention is that the only evidence to support meat-eating is cultural not biological. Both humans and chimps eat meat for cultural reasons not biological ones.

The biological ability in both humans and cimpanzees to eat and digest flesh exists. And in an environment of scarcity this ability allows us to adapt to many different conditions and environments, and acquire our nutrition from a multitude of different sources.

Now that we no longer exist in an environment of scarcity there is no biological reason to eat meat. Therefore it is a cultural behavior and I choose not to participate in. The animals we slaughter for food "660,000 per hour" have no such choice.

Can we rationalize away our compassion with economical land use arguments?

It isn't complicated.

Eating meat causes heart disease.

It is not required in our diet.

We can meet the human dietary needs more economically with a plant based diet than with an animal based one.

You can rationalize all you want but the evidence is clear and real.

 

[Townsend]

Now that we no longer exist in an environment of scarcity there is no biological reason to eat meat. Therefore it is a cultural behavior and I choose not to participate in. The animals we slaughter for food "660,000 per hour" have no such choice.

Yeah, that's why I like to hunt and fish and garden for as much of my food as I can. Its kind of hard for me right now because I am in school but as soon as I get a chance to buy some land I will try to get most of my food from it.

Eating fresh fish, venison, and fresh vegetables is very good for you. Not only that but you know that you are not contributing to the commercialized slaughter of animals.

 

[hypatia]

Just one more question, where would all these free animals go? Who would feed them? And where would they get the food for a ever growing population of animals? How would you keep there populations in check?

I come from many generations of meat eaters, who have lived very long and happy lifes, none of us are fat. We eat well balanced diets. When I look in the baskets of fat people at the store, I don't see piles of meat. I see chips,hoho's, prepackaged foods high in fat content, icecream,cookies and pop.

I do honestly understand what you are saying skyhunter, for those who have a history of heart problems, overweight or other illness, loosing red meat, fats from your diet is good. And your right, most of america would benefit.

lol, thanks for clearing up the meat/sex thing

It also occurs to me, that no matter what we eat, will still die, all of us. And one way of dieing is not any healthier then another way of dieing.

 

[Townsend]

one way of dieing is not any healthier then another way of dieing.

Do you think?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

This is part of the problem PETA are trying to raise awareness about, too.

It's all very comfortable to go around thinking that your meat comes from a happy cow which was raised on rolling grassland for a number of years before it got to your dinner plate, but cows who get massages are NOT the norm. In fact, they are a tiny, tiny percentage.

Chances are, your McDonalds hamburger comes from a factory farm, like the ones I described briefly above. The cows living there never get to see the outside world in their brief lives. They can't see the sun, they don't get to run around, and they aren't even necessarily fed good, healthy grass. Sometimes they're fed ground-up parts of other animals, despite being herbivores.

Before condemning organisations such as PETA, and then going off feeling good about yourself as a meat eater, at least take a few moments to look at their website and see some of the practices they are protesting again. Like it or not, YOU are complicit in these practices, because you do nothing to stop them.

Oh serious?! And I thought all cows had a personal masseuse and drank beer after a good work out.

I don't think pig farming is any less "ethical" than hunting. I think either can be practiced both ethically and unethically.

 

[Jelfish]

Oh serious?! And I thought all cows had a personal masseuse and drank beer after a good work out.

There seems to be a discrepancy among what is generally consider ethical. What are some guidelines that you, personally, would require in order for, say, factory pig farming to be 'ethical'? Would you be in favor for reform if there were proof that your guidelines were not met? If you believe that ethics play any role in factory farming (and you seem to have confirmed this yourself) then I imagine you could potentially favor reform.

 

[loseyourname]

Once again your argument is cultural not biological.

Chimp hunting and flesh-eating is rare ~1.4% of their diet, and not practiced among all adults, as would be required by a true nutritional need.

Interestingly enough chimpanzees use flesh as an offering to gain sexual favors. Similiar to the mating rituals of humans.

I didn't make an argument. I just said that Chimpanzees eat meat. You asked for an example of an animal with seminal vesicles other than humans that eat meat, and I noted that all great apes, not just humans, eat meat. I never said it's a biological necessity that we do so. Last time I checked, however, we don't define 'omnivore' or even 'carnivore' by saying it is biologically necessary to eat meat. We define species as 'omnivorous,' 'carnivorous,' or 'herbivorous' based on what they actually eat. My dog eats a mostly vegetarian diet, proving it isn't biologically necessary for a dog to eat meat, yet no one is going to argue that canines are not carnivores.

About the long life thing, I'm actually in a unique position to discuss that. My father's side of the family (the Native American side - my mom is mostly Irish) has had many members live well into their 90s and even into their 100s. I actually had a great-grandmother live to 117 - she was born during the Civil War and still alive when I was born. They basically ate the diet that humans probably evolved eating, the same diet as our closest biological relatives - a lot of fruits, roots, and a moderate, not excessive, amount of meat. Virtually no grains. That's pretty much the same diet I eat and chances are I'll live a very long time, too. The meat I eat is mostly fish and chicken. That includes a lot of shrimp - are they okay to eat, since they don't even have brains (don't try to pass that tiny little cerebral ganglion off as a brain, either)?

 

[James R]

hypatia:

Just one more question, where would all these free animals go? Who would feed them? And where would they get the food for a ever growing population of animals? How would you keep there populations in check?

The great majority of food animals are, at present, neutered. So, they wouldn't cause an "ever growing population". They could be left to live out their lives naturally. There's enough space.

At the moment, the majority of farm animals are bred for no other reason than to be eaten. If we decided to stop that, it would be essentially a one generation "problem", and not a great one at that.

 

[mathwonk]

PETA?

this reminds of the time when i used to live with an indian yogi and i asked him about the hari krishna people. he seemed to pride himself on his practice of answering accurately every question asked no matter how dumb. he gritted his teeth and said: "they are a group of imbeciles, living together."

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

There seems to be a discrepancy among what is generally consider ethical.

Yes there is, and in quite a few areas of interest aside from the question of animal cruelty.

What are some guidelines that you, personally, would require in order for, say, factory pig farming to be 'ethical'? Would you be in favor for reform if there were proof that your guidelines were not met? If you believe that ethics play any role in factory farming (and you seem to have confirmed this yourself) then I imagine you could potentially favor reform.

I am not versed in the practice of animal farming so I couldn't really give you a detailed account of what I think should be done to run such an enterprise in an ethical fashion. I think that the animals should be able to have an at least comfortable if not natural experience while they are alive. I don't think that the animals living life in a way that would be completely natural for them is an utter necessity. Many cats and dogs live in a manner which is not natural for them but are definitely comfortable and well treated. What I have heard about chickens that are breed/genetically engineered lacking beaks and plummage and apearantly with unnatural musculature and the way I have heard they are raised I find rather disgusting.
As I stated earlier I'm not against PETA and I'm sure that they do some good. I would not have a problem with such an organization raising awareness of unethical practices and attempting to do something about it. I have though heard negative things about the organization and it's own practices. Regardless of whether or not I agree with any of the things they do I would support an investigation of their affiliation with the aforementioned eco-terrorist organizations and their own practices which they may be hiding, so long ofcourse as there is evidence enough to warrant such investigations.