Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[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

 

[rgoudie]

Hows about freedom of choice - you seem to be attempting to dictate to the world how it should live. How dare you?

Hows about freedom of choice, indeed! How dare you hold an entire species hostage just so you can have the convenience of driving to your local supermarket to purchase the processed flesh of these hostage species? What freedom do these species possess? Is this not arrogant of humans to be dictating how other species should live?

-Ray.

 

[rgoudie]

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

Probably the same presumptions that give you the right to tell other species how to live and die.

-Ray.

 

[rgoudie]

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 ...

Imagine, then, if veggies collected the entire lot of you meat-eaters and held you all hostage in pens. Would that be taking it an insane step too far? Well, this is what arrogant humans have done, and are doing, with a number of species. This is not really a question of beliefs, such as I love Pepsi and you love Coke, or I belief in this religion and you believe in that religion, or not. Humans are in the process of abusing life forms that possesses the inherit right to life their lives as they see fit. Who are you to decide that it is just to hold every single chicken hostage?

-Ray.

 

[rgoudie]

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

So, you must admit that you could not care less about the plight of the life forms that often suffer so that you can have quick access to your favourite carcass?

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

Again, going too far is relative, since I believe that humans have gone five orders overboard with their current practice of holding species hostage for the sake of convenience.

-Ray.

 

[russ_watters]

Humans are in the process of abusing life forms that possesses the inherit right to life their lives as they see fit.

Old ground, I know, but you'll need to substantiate that assertion. Just because you say animals have rights doesn't make it so.

 

[russ_watters]

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?

No, I think that including his profession in your post was a misguided attempt at argument from authority.

do you think that all evolutionary biologists would disagree with Roberts?

"all"? I don't know - the question is apparently under some debate.

Most doggies (though placed in the order carnivora) are generally considered to be omnivorous...

Considered by whom? Vegitarians and people who make dog food?

http://www.thepetcenter.com/imtop/speaker5.html

It is only in recent years, since commercial dog food has become a multi-billion dollar business, that we refer to our domestic
carnivores as omnivores. Why? What changed their status? They still have teeth like a wolf, long sharp canines for tearing
flesh, and solid molars and strong jaws for crushing bones. They still have the same simple mono-gastric digestive system
of a wolf; not suited, as an omnivore or herbivore, for breaking down and digesting plant proteins.

http://www.thepetcenter.com/imtop/catsaredif.html is a site you may (or may not) like:

To begin with we must get a good grip on two terms . . . carnivore and omnivore. The cat is considered by scientists to be a strict carnivore and the dog is considered to be an omnivore. Both species are in the Class Mammalia and the Order Carnivora, but here’s the difference: The cat cannot sustain its life unless it consumes meat in some form. Dogs, however, are able to survive on plant material alone; they do not have to consume meat. But always keep in mind that dogs do best and by nature are primarily meat-eaters. Just because by definition they are omnivores (can digest and utilize plant and animal food sources) does not mean that plant material alone makes a good source of nutrition for the dog. Far too many dogs have been undernourished by those cheap grain-based dog foods. And grain-based cat foods are even worse!

So a good way to think of it is that cats are carnivores, dogs are omnivores, but they both have evolved as hunters of other animals in keeping with their nature as meat-eaters.

The trouble with this site is it slices the definition of "omnivore" a little thin (a lot of sites do this). Basically, you may, if you wish, call a dog an "omnivore," but that doesn't change the fact that it is still primarily a meat-eater.

So I've learned something here: the definition of "omnivore" is broader than I realized. But that's ok because it doesn't change the fact that dogs do and should eat meat. It also doesn't change the flaw in your use of dogs as an example to prove humans were meant to be vegitarians. Humans, like dogs, have many characteristics that are designed for catching and eating meat.

 

[physicsisphirst]

No, I think that including his profession in your post was a misguided attempt at argument from authority.

i also included mcardle's profession. frankly, i don't see how being a cardiologist gives Roberts a position of authority - but you jump to the conclusion that i do.

Considered by whom? Vegitarians and people who make dog food?

well i did quote the merck vet manual. the idea that dogs are omnivores does appear in many other places. however, debating whether they are or aren't is hardly the issue here especially considering that Mills uses the bear as his 'classic' omnivore.

So I've learned something here: the definition of "omnivore" is broader than I realized. But that's ok because it doesn't change the fact that dogs do and should eat meat.

well that's fine except that many dogs certainly don't eat meat and since their health and lifespans are not adversely affected (quite the contrary in fact), it doesn't necessarily follow that they should eat meat. (again, that's not what's on the table here though).

It also doesn't change the flaw in your use of dogs as an example to prove humans were meant to be vegitarians.

well it's not really a flaw since doggies have by your own research been found to be omnivorous. however, the example used in Mills article isn't a dog but a bear:

This is exactly the situation we find in the Bear, Raccoon and certain members of the Canine families. (This discussion will be limited to bears because they are, in general, representative of the anatomical omnivores.) Bears are classified as carnivores but are classic anatomical omnivores.
http://www.vegsource.com/veg_faq/comparative.htm

Humans, like dogs, have many characteristics that are designed for catching and eating meat.

like what russ? their claws and their teeth? their ability to run after game with a shopping cart in a supermarket?

in friendship,
prad

 

[russ_watters]

like what russ? their claws and their teeth? the ability to run after game with a shopping cart in a supermarket?

From a vegitarian: http://www.purifymind.com/HumansOmnivores.htm

Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet. For that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain ecological, ethical, and health concerns.

Among the traits:

-Teeth (yes, teeth) - 'gee, they look different' isn't good enough: in fact humans have among the widest varieties of teeth of any animal -a clear indication of an evolution toward eating a variety of foods: including meat.
-Eyes: in front like carnivores.
-Brains: catching grass does not require complex problem solving.
-lack of many of the highly specialized traits typical of vegitarians (stomachs, teeth, etc.).
-Archeological record -we've always eaten meat.
-Evolution: chimps, our closest relatives, eat meat.

But even this is a diversion - this has nothing to do with previous claims that we shouldn't eat meat. I'm guessing that's because of the difficulty in dealing with the contradictions and unanswered questions regarding the morality of it.

 

[Kingofthedamned]

if the world all suddenly turned to not eating meat low iron levels would be the next anorexia. many people that do eat meat still have low iron levels...humans are animals and we have eaten meat for so long that we are connsidered part of the food cycle...it's the same as forcing all of the lions to become "vegie's" it would completely ruin the eco system opf the area. those of you in australia would have heared about the pair of 5 meter sharks in SA...and the argument about if they should be killed or not...and the main concern is that once these "heads" of the eco system are wiped out that the rest of the cycle will fall apart...nature is about balance..i'm not saying that humans don't unbalance it because they do what I'm saying is that humans need to find the balance between all meat and all vegies...buy all of us turning to vegies we would be going from one extreme to an other...personally i think that humans as a race are arrogent and refuse to look at our selves as part of the eco system around us...all we need is balance.

 

[JPD]

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?


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.


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


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

Pathetic ramblings and a pathetic attempt at a joke Prad.
I am stating that no-one has the right to tell anyone what to do. Listen please - switch to receive rather than transmit. I don't tell vegetarians what to do, I'm saying DON'T TELL ME WHAT I SHOULD AND SHOULD NOT EAT.
Pretty simple - understand?

 

[JPD]

Hows about freedom of choice, indeed! How dare you hold an entire species hostage just so you can have the convenience of driving to your local supermarket to purchase the processed flesh of these hostage species? What freedom do these species possess? Is this not arrogant of humans to be dictating how other species should live?

-Ray.

How do you know how I source the meat I eat?
How dare you presume?
You are showing your lack of awareness very clearly.

 

[JPD]

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?

No, assuming that you know better then everyone else, and think you know how to tell others what they should and shouldn't eat is - it is none of your business.

 

[JPD]

if the world all suddenly turned to not eating meat low iron levels would be the next anorexia. many people that do eat meat still have low iron levels...humans are animals and we have eaten meat for so long that we are connsidered part of the food cycle...it's the same as forcing all of the lions to become "vegie's" it would completely ruin the eco system opf the area. those of you in australia would have heared about the pair of 5 meter sharks in SA...and the argument about if they should be killed or not...and the main concern is that once these "heads" of the eco system are wiped out that the rest of the cycle will fall apart...nature is about balance..i'm not saying that humans don't unbalance it because they do what I'm saying is that humans need to find the balance between all meat and all vegies...buy all of us turning to vegies we would be going from one extreme to an other...personally i think that humans as a race are arrogent and refuse to look at our selves as part of the eco system around us...all we need is balance.

Indeed, the gaps become filled through time.

 

[rgoudie]

Old ground, I know, but you'll need to substantiate that assertion. Just because you say animals have rights doesn't make it so.

Russ, you seem to be setting me up for the obvious reply.

Just because humans decide that animals have lesser rights, doesn't make it so. How do you substantiate your position?

-Ray.

 

[rgoudie]

nature is about balance...

personally i think that humans as a race are arrogent and refuse to look at our selves as part of the eco system around us...all we need is balance.

Your message was well received. I agree with you 100% that balance is what is missing. Do you believe that it is balanced to hoard entire species of animals for the sake of profit and convenience?

-Ray.

 

[rgoudie]

How do you know how I source the meat I eat?
How dare you presume?
You are showing your lack of awareness very clearly.

I don't believe for one second that you are going out into the woods and shooting one individual and bringing it home. You buy your meat from your local supermarket just like most other meat-eaters. If you actually did go out and hunt your own food, then you would have appended such to your response.
Please, dispense with the insincere indignation.

Could you explain how clear is my lack of awareness?

-Ray.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I would disagree with the ecosystem comment. I would assume evolution and adaptation would eliminate that problem. If our ecosystem requires death, should we not manipulate our ecosystem so it doesn't? We have innumerable amounts of ways to kill things, with that kind of intelligence I'm sure we could adjust our environment to minimize killing.

Concerning the freedom arguement, governments founded on ideologies of freedom have restrictions. Freedom is considered inappropriate when it infringes upon the freedoms of another being.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Pathetic ramblings and a pathetic attempt at a joke Prad.
I am stating that no-one has the right to tell anyone what to do. Listen please - switch to receive rather than transmit. I don't tell vegetarians what to do, I'm saying DON'T TELL ME WHAT I SHOULD AND SHOULD NOT EAT.
Pretty simple - understand?

but jpd people are always telling other people what they should and shouldn't do - you have just done it again by saying "DON'T TELL ME ..."

i'm not making a joke here - I'm saying that your concept of "don't tell me ..." seems to contain a rather large droplet of (unintended, I'm sure) hypocrisy.

i don't see what the big deal is anyway? laws and regulations tell people what they should and shouldn't do all the time. it's hardly something worth complaining about in the fashion you chose.

in friendship,
prad

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, you seem to be setting me up for the obvious reply.

Just because humans decide that animals have lesser rights, doesn't make it so. How do you substantiate your position?

-Ray.

Rights were created by humans, for humans, and since the default position is never to assume something exists without evidence, your attempt at burden-of-proof shifting doesn't fly. As I'm sure you are aware, the concept of animal rights is a relatively new thing, so it is you who needs to substantiate why we should change the existing paradigm.

Since I don't feel like going through the entire argument, though, I'll just say that the theory of rights that is in use today comes mostly from Locke and it makes no mention of animal rights.

I wasn't setting you up - are you playing a game here or are you going to try to defend your position?

edit: and I missed this before:

Again, going too far is relative, since I believe that humans have gone five orders overboard with their current practice of holding species hostage for the sake of convenience.

How new, precisely, is this practice? 15,000 years?

 

[physicsisphirst]

From a vegitarian: http://www.purifymind.com/HumansOmnivores.htm

i'm glad you did look up mcardle's stuff. he presents a reasonable argument for some things in that article. however, it isn't nearly as thorough as Mills. i already established that mcardle is a vegetarian in post #900 - do you feel that you are adding some sort of credibility by saying "from a vegitarian" here?

let's look at the traits you have dug up and the interpretations you apply to them:

-Teeth (yes, teeth) - 'gee, they look different' isn't good enough: in fact humans have among the widest varieties of teeth of any animal -a clear indication of an evolution toward eating a variety of foods: including meat.

the teeth are designed for a wide variety of foods - but exactly which of the teeth are designed to eat meat? surely you are not suggesting that it be the dimunitive canines which find their ability tested to the limit ripping open the cellophane which wraps the meat hunted down at the supermarket? can it be the molars? i think not since the jagged canivore molars tend to slice rather than grind like ours.
so just which teeth are so well designed to help us eat meat?

-Eyes: in front like carnivores.

carnivorous fish have eyes that are not in front.
whales have eyes that are not in front.
reptiles have eyes that are not in front.
some birds have eyes that are not in front.
now are there any veg creatures that have eyes in the front? how about a woodchuck? or a gorilla? are there others?

-Brains: catching grass does not require complex problem solving.

i don't see too many folk using their brains to catch prey. in fact, it takes more brains to grow crops than to chase after live animals in the wild or dead ones in the supermarket.

-lack of many of the highly specialized traits typical of vegitarians (stomachs, teeth, etc.).

i see you haven't paid much attention to the Mills article. here again is the link: http://www.vegsource.com/veg_faq/comparative.htm
i guess it might be a good idea for me to actually pull some stuff from it for presentation here.

-Archeological record -we've always eaten meat.

that is not a contribution to comparative anatomy. it has no validity here and tries for justification via the "we do" therefore "we are" fallacy.

-Evolution: chimps, our closest relatives, eat meat.

only as a delicacy.

But even this is a diversion - this has nothing to do with previous claims that we shouldn't eat meat.

it is not a diversion at all. you are all hung up on this morality thing. the topic is "should we eat meat?" not "is it moral to eat meat?". what is happening here is that you are being shown that humans are not really designed to do too good a job with meat. this is being done via comparative anatomy (and this of course explains why several diseases result from these practices - and this will be covered, again, later).
why do you want to crawl into that morality-argument shell for apparent protection - rather than dealing with things on a physiological (and eventually medical) level?

I'm guessing that's because of the difficulty in dealing with the contradictions and unanswered questions regarding the morality of it.

then you have not seen posts #765 & #769 where it was shown that oneeye's creation (which you lauded) didn't create a contradiction.
you may also want to look at cogito's post #883 and try dealing with the predicament he has revealed 'your' position has.
everyone of your questions have been answered and by various people - you may have just overlooked the posts. however, ask again by all means!

in friendship,
prad

 

[russ_watters]

but jpd people are always telling other people what they should and shouldn't do - you have just done it again by saying "DON'T TELL ME ..."

i'm not making a joke here - I'm saying that your concept of "don't tell me ..." seems to contain a rather large droplet of hypocrisy.

i don't see what the big deal is anyway? laws and regulations tell people what they should and shouldn't do all the time. it's hardly something worth complaining about in the fashion you chose.

Again, you're making a big deal out of a complete irrelevancy: before you can impose your view on someone else, you must first show that your view is right. Then after you have shown it, you can argue about whether or not it is ok to impose it. Otherwise, your argument reduces to arbitrary lawmaking. The government doesn't oultlaw murder because it can and feels like it, it outlaws murder because it is right to do so.

In addition, you're turning it into a circular argument:

can not
can too
can not
can too
can not

Its a pretty weak, and frankly childish, debate tactic.

 

[russ_watters]

that is not a contribution to comparative anatomy. it has no validity here and tries for justification via the "we do" therefore "we are" fallacy.

That's not a fallacy at all - in fact, its the most important point on the list. Heck, you're living proof: the reason you call yourself a vegitarian has nothing to do with anatomy, but it has to do with the fact that you do, in actuality, not eat meat. Similarly, if you feed a dog only corn, you have made it a vegitarian (by force).

And again, this is all a smokescreen since now it appears you are trying to prove that humans shouldn't eat meat because they weren't designed to eat meat. Physiology isn't at all relevant to the conversation: we're back to the logical fallacy and utter absurdity of "if humans were meant to fly, they'd have wings!"

edit: now, perhaps this has relevance to the question of how far we can push our beliefs on to other animals, but as we have already discussed, morality and ethics have nothing to do with physiology: if it is wrong for me to kill a cow, then it is wrong for a lion to kill a cow. Either the cow has a right to life or it doesn't.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Its a pretty weak, and frankly childish, debate tactic.

i think you are missing my point.
how is it ok for jpd to tell others not to tell him what to do when he is telling them what not to do himself?
i'm not debating this - i don't even mind if he or you keep singing "don't tell me what to do" (which does after all provide one of the final refuges).
i'm only saying that it doesn't have a great deal of validity as an argument simply because it negates itself.

in friendship,
prad

 

[physicsisphirst]

And again, this is all a smokescreen since now it appears you are trying to prove that humans shouldn't eat meat because they weren't designed to eat meat.

but russ, that is exactly what i am trying to show. I'm not presenting 'moral' arguments - I'm arguing we shouldn't eat meat because it is unhealthy to do so. why is that a problem? and what's this smokescreen conspiracy you keep harping on about?
do you have problem discussing this on a non-morality basis? if you do just say so and we can talk about something else.

if it is wrong for me to kill a cow, then it is wrong for a lion to kill a cow. Either the cow has a right to life or it doesn't.

well i don't really know why you keep bringing morality into this - especially considering there are plenty of others who can discuss this with you. however, in your statement "if it is wrong for me to kill a cow, then it is wrong for a lion to kill a cow", the consequent doesn't follow from the antecedent (unless you are a lion or the lion is you).
as far as the right to life thing, be happy! answered you pretty well on that.

in friendship,
prad

 

[learningphysics]

No, assuming that you know better then everyone else, and think you know how to tell others what they should and shouldn't eat is - it is none of your business.

So then, you have no problem with cannibalism? Or at least it seems you think nobody should speak out against it, as that would be "telling people what they should and shouldn't eat"? If a cannibal decides to eat someone you know, you better not say anything as it is "none of your business".

 

[russ_watters]

i think you are missing my point.
how is it ok for jpd to tell others not to tell him what to do when he is telling them what not to do himself?

Omg, please stop. I'm not going to go around in circles on this.

but russ, that is exactly what i am trying to show. I'm not presenting 'moral' arguments - I'm arguing we shouldn't eat meat because it is unhealthy to do so. why is that a problem?

Well, its a problem for quite a number of reasons:

first is the lack of relevance (I eat iced cream and candy, and that's unhealthy, so even if true, being unhealthy isn't necessarily a reason to stop eating something).

Second, arguing about how good a person's teeth are at cutting meat (and mine cut meat just fine, btw) has nothing to do with whether or not it is healthy to do so.

Third, and more importantly, its wrong. It simply isn't true that eating meat is inherrently unhealthy. And even if you want to argue just that its more healthy to not eat meat, that still isn't relevant because of point 1.

4th, what happened to the morality arguments? Too difficult to make so they got dropped?

5th, the broken record/parroting of that youcanttellmewhattodoicantellyounototellmewhattodo lunacy is only relevant to a moral argument.

do you have problem discussing this on a non-morality basis? if you do just say so and we can talk about something else.

Yes. If the issue is a health issue, then it is also a personal choice issue and meat eaters generally don't care about the personal choices of others: you make yours and I'll make mine and each will leave the other alone. The reason I am in this debate at all (and, I would venture to say, most meat eaters) is the implication that if it is morally wrong to eat meat, it should be illegal to eat meat (which is true, btw).

After a year, maybe its a little late to cite the original intent of the thread, but the reason it was posted and the reason I'm here is the morality of eating meat.

 

[physicsisphirst]

The reason I am in this debate at all (and, I would venture to say, most meat eaters) is the implication that if it is morally wrong to eat meat, it should be illegal to eat meat (which is true, btw).

very well then - you and i can simply stick to the morality issue.
i'll keep quiet about it for a bit, because you seem to have your hands full answering rgoudie and learningphysics not to mention be happy! and cogito (even though he directed his posts to oneeye - perhaps in the latter's absence, you would like to deal with it).

i trust that you don't have an objection if i post occasionally and only when relevant on non-morality matters to show the masses of evidence that humans weren't 'designed' to eat meat and that there are serious health consequences resulting from the consumption of animal proteins (regardless of whether it is one's personal choice or not). i simply will not direct the posts as responses to yours.

After a year, maybe its a little late to cite the original intent of the thread, but the reason it was posted and the reason I'm here is the morality of eating meat.

i suppose that since it is in value theory and since the first post does talk mostly about morality matters, you are correct in saying that physicskid did want to talk morality. I'm fine with that and will continue the nutritional and environmental issues elsewhere and at a different time.

in friendship,
prad

 

[shrumeo]

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.

Ok, I oversimplified, but you seem to do a lot of this as well.
If these people are not getting enough vitamin B12, and the only natural source for these things comes from animals,
then what am I missing here?
Did they not go to the doctor enough and get a shot of stuff made in a factory?

the animal proteins are causing serious problems as explained earlier and as shown in the various sites.

I must have missed the convincing argument that supports this.
Please, point the way.

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).

And this has to do with eating meat in what way?

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.

Dogs do not eat the flowers (unless they are one of those stupid dogs, my neighbor had a dog that would eat rocks and lick on dirt.)
They dig for two primary reasons.
The first is to make a 'cool spot' to lie down.
The second is to bury uneaten prey so they can return to it later.
Anyway, dogs are scanvengers and can eat lots of things.
I'm sure if a dog were hungry enough he'd eat just about anything edible.
(Oh, and to escape from a fenced yard.)

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?

I don't give second look to a lot of websites that try to frighten me.
The one look I gave each of these sites convinced me that there is most likely nothing on them that would convince me.

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:

Things are published in prestigious journals that are wrong.
I know, it's incredible.
But, I'd have to read the papers (or one paper) to decide anything for myself.

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

This is talking about a RELAPSE of an existing condition.
Eating meat did not give them this condition.

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.

Showing me that a relapse of a pre-existing condition is brought on by eating certain amino acids does not demonstrate to me "that there are a very large number of 'medical' people who advocate the veg diet."

What does this throng of doctors suggest a vegan do for his RDA of B12?

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.

I hope you weren't using those quotes for me. I never said 'bigoted and narrowminded.'
I'm sure there are people in the meat industry that would have you believing that everyone should constantly be on the Atkins Diet, but that doesn't mean that most "pro-meat" people would suggest that you stop eating vegetables altogether. This is the difference between the 'pro-meat' side and the 'anti-meat' side. One side wants people to give up something they need.

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

There are thousands of people that claim they have seen flying saucers and bigfoot.

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.

B12 B12 B12
I'm sure there are others but you cannot get vitamin B12 from a vegan diet without some form of supplementation, whether it comes from artificially fortified grains or from a shot in the arm.

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.

Yeah, cutting out veggies is BAD.
Cutting out meat is BAD.
You NEED both.

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

Then you'd better start eating some meat. I'd hate for you to become anemic.

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."

Ok, the title implies that all vitamins increase the likelihood of death.
Then it says that injesting antioxidant supplements may increase mortality.
What does this have to do with eating meat?

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.

Those medical doctors, I swear!
They just have no idea what they are talking about.

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.

Sorry for getting so personal here, but what does their stool look like?
If its firm (yum!) but not too firm then supposedly that's good, but if it's runny (mmm mmm!) then that's 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 think it's more like three or four. Surely there are more than a couple people that believe (fools!) that meat is good for you.

i have backed up what i have said with several links (throughout this thread)

which were bunk

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

Ok, evidence in society...
There is evidence in society that we should stop eating meat altogether?
And I would think that we should know the cause of harm before eliminating all correlating events.
Not doing this is called superstition.
But I will admit that the full moon does cause crime and accidents though!

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.

I've been chanting?
If I have, I wasn't chanting 'meat is healthy.'
I was chanting 'not eating any meat whatsoever in unhealthy.'

 

[shrumeo]

a policeman is enforcing a known good...

So everything a cop can arrest you for is a "known" bad?
Everything the cop enforces is a "known good."
Is this true in every country?

Probably the same presumptions that give you the right to tell other species how to live and die.

-Ray.

Nobody told them. They just forced them. Just like a spider forces a fly to die. Just like the venus fly trap forces flies to die. Just like a frog forces flies to die. Man, I'd hate to be a fly.

-Brains: catching grass does not require complex problem solving..

I've heard that we have big brains as a result of eating meat. The richness of the proteins allowed the brain to function at much elevated levels, and we didn't need to use most of our skull to house the large muscles required to eat most wild vegetation (like in a gorilla) so there was "room" for a bigger brain to develop, which led to better cooperation in hunting and gathering, which started a cycle of more protein/bigger brain/more protein/bigger brain.

Your message was well received. I agree with you 100% that balance is what is missing. Do you believe that it is balanced to hoard entire species of animals for the sake of profit and convenience?

-Ray.

Hoarding for profit is only natural.
Is everything in nature balanced or is it supposed to be?
Is it balanced to force a dog to eat only vegetables?
Is it balanced to keep pets at all?
They are prisoners.

I don't believe for one second that you are going out into the woods and shooting one individual and bringing it home.

Is that what you require for an animal to have a good life?
Can we "source our meat" from family farms or places that we know do not practice cruelty?
Is hunting acceptable to you?
We can make hunting easier by walking a domesticated animal into a slaughterhouse.

 

[physicsisphirst]

I've heard that we have big brains as a result of eating meat.

a misconception as Leonard and Robertson 1994 pointed out (see bottom of post #670 for this as well as other big brain theories).

Ok, I oversimplified, but you seem to do a lot of this as well.

not really shrumeo. you often come to your conclusions based on what you want to believe regardless of what i present to you. additionally, you sometimes make 'conclusive' statements without substantiation or validation of any sort. however, you don't always do this so it is still enjoyable discussing things with you.

If these people are not getting enough vitamin B12, and the only natural source for these things comes from animals,
then what am I missing here?
Did they not go to the doctor enough and get a shot of stuff made in a factory?

b12 apparently comes from secretions in soil bacteria. so other possibilities do exist, if one is really concerned. ;)

I must have missed the convincing argument that supports this.

i have presented arguments and some data. whether they are convincing is really going to be up to you. however, russ has pointed out that my nutritional arguments may be out-of-place here considering the intent of the thread which was to discuss the morality of eating meat. therefore, if it is ok with you, i'll start a separate thread (some time after christmas) for the nutritional aspects of the issue - just so people can focus on morality here. i'll personally invite you to it via PM as well if that's ok with you.

I don't give second look to a lot of websites that try to frighten me.
The one look I gave each of these sites convinced me that there is most likely nothing on them that would convince me.

i think what matters isn't so much whether you believe you would be convinced or not, but whether what is said is correct.

Things are published in prestigious journals that are wrong. I know, it's incredible.
But, I'd have to read the papers (or one paper) to decide anything for myself.

i agree - i don't think a lot of medical stuff necessarily is correct.

This is talking about a RELAPSE of an existing condition.
Eating meat did not give them this condition.

that really wasn't the point.

What does this throng of doctors suggest a vegan do for his RDA of B12?

the b12 thing is sort of weird and opinions have changed over the past 14 years that I've seen. early on, some said shots. then some said fortified foods as well as the yeast thing. there was also the eat fresh foods (which is good), but don't wash them too much (which is amusing). what was most curious was how the length of time for the supply to run out kept changing: we were first told it was 7 years. then a bit later it changed to 15 years. recently I've heard 20-30 years. it seems to keep getting longer the longer we wait LOL.

B12 B12 B12
I'm sure there are others but you cannot get vitamin B12 from a vegan diet without some form of supplementation, whether it comes from artificially fortified grains or from a shot in the arm.

but shrumeo, as shown earlier, it seems that meat-eaters aren't safe either. may be the whole thing hasn't really been sorted out conclusively yet.

Cutting out meat is BAD.
You NEED both.

no it's not and no you don't.
i'll be more substantial in the other thread, but surely you can see that your statement doesn't have any validity in light of the large number of extraordinarily healthy veg folk who do exist in flesh and blood.

Then you'd better start eating some meat. I'd hate for you to become anemic.

careful! perhaps you shouldn't tell me what to do!
it seems to upset some people here LOL LOL LOL

Those medical doctors, I swear!
They just have no idea what they are talking about.

well from what i recall the total amount of nutritional education doctors used to receive (1990's and before) was about 4 hrs. don't know if that has changed.

Sorry for getting so personal here, but what does their stool look like?
If its firm (yum!) but not too firm then supposedly that's good, but if it's runny (mmm mmm!) then that's bad.

it's just right and has been for years!

which were bunk

we shall see.

Ok, evidence in society...
There is evidence in society that we should stop eating meat altogether?

societal health seems to be a concern and much of it is attributable to animal protein consumption.

I've been chanting?
If I have, I wasn't chanting 'meat is healthy.'

not quite correct as you can hear from your own posts:

meat, eggs, and milk (3 of the most healthy things for you) post #663
Eat meat. It's healthy. post #682

i hope this much, at least is convincing and look forward to discussing these matters further with you in the future.

in friendship,
prad

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

What is this about vitamin B12 only being found it meat? I have a vegetarian non-meat product in my freezer that contains 72% of the daily recommended B12 per 100g. Even if it is supplemented in, who cares?

 

[physicsisphirst]

What is this about vitamin B12 only being found it meat? I have a vegetarian non-meat product in my freezer that contains 72% of the daily recommended B12 per 100g. Even if it is supplemented in, who cares?

well some of the meaters like to keep thinking, for some inexplicable reason, that a veg diet is somehow deficient and that you have to pop pills to stay healthy (or even alive). it is a strange belief that overlooks all the vitamin supplements that meaters take to stay healthy (or even alive).

they point the finger at b12 deficiency since it tends to be a focal point of attack against veg diets even though 40% of the pop are supposedly b12 deficient (and most of them certainly aren't veg). see post #833 for more.

in friendship,
prad

 

[shrumeo]

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?

You know who else was a cardiologist?
Robert C. Atkins, M.D.

 

[shrumeo]

What is this about vitamin B12 only being found it meat? I have a vegetarian non-meat product in my freezer that contains 72% of the daily recommended B12 per 100g. Even if it is supplemented in, who cares?

The point is that it is natural for us to eat meat.
Unless we eat meat, or at least eat some animal products, we must resort to a diet that is less than natural.


edit: But, really, how "natural" is anything we eat anymore?

 

[shrumeo]

well some of the meaters like to keep thinking, for some inexplicable reason, that a veg diet is somehow deficient and that you have to pop pills to stay healthy (or even alive). it is a strange belief that overlooks all the vitamin supplements that meaters take to stay healthy (or even alive).

If you want to call artificially fortifying foods "popping pills" then that's your prerogative, but you can't be healthy on a vegan diet without resorting to artificial means. This would indicate that a vegan diet is not natural.

they point the finger at b12 deficiency since it tends to be a focal point of attack against veg diets even though 40% of the pop are supposedly b12 deficient (and most of them certainly aren't veg). see post #833 for more.

Do you think that these 40% would get MORE B12 by switching to a vegan diet?

 

[physicsisphirst]

You know who else was a cardiologist?
Robert C. Atkins, M.D.

in proper context, your point being?

The point is that is is natural for us to eat meat.
Unless we eat meat, or at least eat some animal products, we must resort to a diet that is less than natural.

eating meat is not natural physiologically (see post #900) and can produce serious health implications. i see that we have at least moved now from "eat meat" to "at least eat some animal products" - however, that's not necessary or necessarily natural either.

you can't be healthy on a vegan diet without resorting to artificial means. This would indicate that a vegan diet is not natural.

the only item you can even make a case for is b12 - and even then it is not conclusive. veg diets don't need to be supplemented with any other stuff either as some people seem to think - but as dooga says, who really cares (at least for the purposes of this thread)?

Do you think that these 40% would get MORE B12 by switching to a vegan diet?

probably. they'd be so scared about their b12 deficiency that they would rush out and buy a myriad of fortified foods, yeast and have shots to boot! on their meat diet, they are obviously under this illusion that they must be getting enough because they are consuming vast quantities of meat and they are perfectly safe from everyone at tufts. LOL LOL

(ok if it will further the cause of moving this thread back to morality, I'm willing to discuss the nutritional aspects elsewhere as indicated in an earlier post to you - edit: but since you indicate in post #948 that you do not wish to do so that's fine. however, i will restrict myself to the morality issue which i now accept as the intent of the thread.)

in friendship,
prad

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

The point is that it is natural for us to eat meat.
Unless we eat meat, or at least eat some animal products, we must resort to a diet that is less than natural.


edit: But, really, how "natural" is anything we eat anymore?

Natural is defined as something that occurs in the environment, and we are part of the environment. Cheese is not found on top of pasta, but many people choose to put it there. I would call anything we are capable of doing natural.

If you mean natural in terms of what is most efficient, I would advocate a vegetarian diet - a vegan diet - I do not know much about that.

 

[shrumeo]

in proper context, your point being?

My point is that two people may both be cardiologists yet have different opinions about diet. This may mean that cardiology is still a long way from being able to dictate to anyone what is the best diet.

eating meat is not natural physiologically (see post #900) and can produce serious health implications. i see that we have at least moved now from "eat meat" to "at least eat some animal products" - however, that's not necessary or necessarily natural either.

No, I'm sticking with "EAT MEAT."
I just said that to get all your proper nutrients you are going to have to eat something that at the very least came from an animal (unless of course we eat the manufactured stuff.)

It's funny, when I google "humans omnivores gastrointestinal"
I get page after page of anti-meat sites, with a few "neutral" sites mixed in.
http://www.bioscience.org/1999/v4/d/klurfeld/fulltext.htm

Unfortunately, many of the species studied are herbivores and results from those animals may not be applicable to the human situation; the relative size of various parts of the GI tract and microscopic anatomy of herbivores’ GI mucosa differs from those seen in carnivores and omnivores. Fortunately, the majority of experimental studies have been carried out using rats and swine, both of which are omnivores. However, even with these species there are significant differences from humans in gestation periods, developmental patterns, and intestinal anatomy. This does not mean that studies on other species are of no value but one must be aware of the limitations that must be remembered when making cross species comparisons.

So it seems that omnivores have different GI tracts among themselves.

Humans are the only mammalian species that develops sucrase early in gestation and late fetal levels of this enzyme equal those found in adults (2). Most other species express sucrase after birth and adult levels are usually achieved after weaning. Nutrient availability, peptide growth factors, and hormones in amniotic fluid (which is continuously swallowed by the fetus) can alter rates of GI growth in utero.

So humans have something unique here. Using your logic they must not be mammals after all!

http://www.uoguelph.ca/research/publications/Assets/HTML_MAGS/health/page22.html

Pigs are large omnivores, similar to humans in anatomy and physiology, so they're an ideal model for studying human diseases.

http://physrev.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/78/2/393

Digesta retention is aided by a cecum in the hindgut of many omnivores and haustrations of the cecum and varying lengths of the colon in some species. The colon of pigs, humans, a few monkeys, and the chimpanzee is haustrated throughout its entire length.

The human GI tract has features common in omnivores.

Nonhuman primates also have a cecum, which is quite well developed in some lemurs and monkeys, but only a few of these species are predominantly herbivores.

Very few primate herbivores have a feature found in humans.

Gut contents represent a small percentage of the body water of most carnivores and only ~4% of the body water of humans, but the gastrointestinal tract of sheep contains 29% of its total body water, with much of this in the forestomach.

Humans do not share a trait with certain herbivores. (hooves too!)

The hindgut of omnivores with a well-developed large intestine also appears to require a minimal amount of plant fiber for normal function, as evidenced by the higher incidence of cancer and other diseases in the colon of humans on low-fiber diets.

They seem to imply that humans are omnivores.


Just because we have a GI tract capable of digesting vegetables means that we are naturally inclined to eat vegetables.
Just because our GI tract does not look like a bear's or a racoon's doesn't mean that we are not naturally omnivores.

the only item you can even make a case for is b12 - and even then it is not conclusive. veg diets don't need to be supplemented with any other stuff either as some people seem to think - but as dooga says, who really cares (at least for the purposes of this thread)?

Don't forget vitamin A. You only get retinol in plants. You have to make sure you eat other things for retinol to become vitamin A.

But you make B12 yourself in you colon. Most of it is not absorbed, but who knows. Maybe some people don't need to eat it at all.

probably. they'd be so scared about their b12 deficiency that they would rush out and buy a myriad of fortified foods, yeast and have shots to boot! on their meat diet, they are obviously under this illusion that they must be getting enough because they are consuming vast quantities of meat and they are perfectly safe from everyone at tufts. LOL LOL

They would probably get more B12 by eating nothing but veggies? NOT.
If they are eating a well-balanced diet that includes meat, then chances are, they are getting more than enough B12.

Vast quantities? A sea of beef?

(ok if it will further the cause of moving this thread back to morality, I'm willing to discuss the nutritional aspects elsewhere as indicated earlier. shrumeo, you and i can work this out on the other thread once i start it. i'll even go along with the b12 fortification stuff here - though not on the other thread.)

Sorry, I am only responding in this thread.
I honestly don't care enough to chase people around who are dishing out misinformation everywhere.
I'll just stick to this one.

 

[shrumeo]

Natural is defined as something that occurs in the environment, and we are part of the environment.

By whom? You?
That's not how I define natural.

Let's see what a dictionary says.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=natural
Sorry, doesn't say anything about requiring things to come from "the environment."

Anyway, I agree that we are part of nature. Now, am I part of the environment?
That doesn't leave room for much to NOT be the environment, does it?

Cheese is not found on top of pasta, but many people choose to put it there.

Hehe, you are right. When I drive past the waving fields of pasta in Iowa, there is definitely no cheese on top.
You have to drive through Wisconcin for that.

I would call anything we are capable of doing natural.

So hoarding animals into fur farms and torturing them for the entirety of their short lives is only natural.

If you mean natural in terms of what is most efficient, I would advocate a vegetarian diet - a vegan diet - I do not know much about that.

I seem to agree with you on all points here!

 

[physicsisphirst]

My point is that two people may both be cardiologists yet have different opinions about diet. This may mean that cardiology is still a long way from being able to dictate to anyone what is the best diet.

the issue didn't have anything to do with cardiology. russ simply thought i put the title in so that it sounded authoritative which wasn't so. as explained, i supplied his opponents credentials too (as well as the fact the latter was a veg).

So it seems that omnivores have different GI tracts among themselves ...

omnivore is a large group - but not really large enough to include humans (see post #900) unless you really stretch things a lot and introduce hoove arguments which is really quite a feet.

Sorry, I am only responding in this thread.

that's fine, we'll just stick to the moral issues here then.

in friendship,
prad