Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[Rader]

Originally posted by David Mayes
Excellent post Sir.
I believe that science supports fruit as the best food group, it best matches our anatomy and physiology.

Fruit and vegetables 70 perecent but also cereals, milk, meat and fish 30 perecent

What I'm curious about is if we accept that fruit is the best{but not exclusive food group}, does the concept of food combining make sense?

Experiment, your body will tell you the answer. Nature will automatically give you the answer, to what is best, listen to your body and be aware of it.

In essence it says eat fruit on an empty stomach so as it can be quickly digested, and don't dump fruit on top of other foods as the stomach will have to secrete both acid and alkaline to digest differing chemical natures, thus neutralizing the stomach juices and forcing increasing amounts of secreted digestive juices which cost the body energy from it's limited daily energy budget and also prolonging the time taken to digest the stomach contents allowing for putrefaction of the protein and fermentation of any carbohydrates.

For digestion several glasses of water should be taken before eating and also after eating but not until real thirst sets in. It was a common fallicy that water hurts digestion. Wrong, for every beer and coca cola you need to drink another one, which means that you are dehydrated yourself. Water is necessary and 2=4 liters a day. Digestion needs water and lots of it. Fruit should be eaten after meals.

Equilibrium in mind and body leaves the mind and body healthy. Sickness comes from acces=body and defect=mind. pysco=somo efect mind=body. Problems of mind effect how you eat. Resolve your conflicts of mind and your body will eat well.

Good health to all.

 

[David Mayes]

Fruit and vegetables 70 perecent but also cereals, milk, meat and fish 30 perecent
Experiment, your body will tell you the answer. Nature will automatically give you the answer, to what is best, listen to your body and be aware of it.

Good point and I agree that experiment will determine the "optimal" dietary needs of each individual.
I don't think we need any milk except our mothers milk, cow milk is for cows, human milk for humans...humans less likley to accept the conditions cows accept as farm animals.

For digestion several glasses of water should be taken before eating and also after eating but not until real thirst sets in. It was a common fallicy that water hurts digestion. Wrong, for every beer and coca cola you need to drink another one, which means that you are dehydrated yourself. Water is necessary and 2=4 liters a day. Digestion needs water and lots of it. Fruit should be eaten after meals.

I think this is incorrect,...the digestive juices are mainly water, but if you add more later, then you further dilute the acid/alkaline digestive juices, if the stomach contents are alkaline, the the body will secrete acid to help break down the food stuff, but if you add water, then the PH of the acid in the digestive juices will lose potency as basic chemistry confirms.

And by listening to one's body, you'll discover fruit is removed from the stomach inside of 30 mins, so if you eat it afterwards, you'll be dumping it on top of a mix match of food stuffs and digestive juices...inhibiting fruits natural passage to the intesines.

Equilibrium in mind and body leaves the mind and body healthy. Sickness comes from acces=body and defect=mind. pysco=somo efect mind=body. Problems of mind effect how you eat. Resolve your conflicts of mind and your body will eat well.

I'm think that the undisputed{not absolute} dietary laws of humans can be determined by experiment, the goal is maximum metabolic efficiency leading to maximum health.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by David Mayes
Good point and I agree that experiment will determine the "optimal" dietary needs of each individual.
I don't think we need any milk except our mothers milk, cow milk is for cows, human milk for humans...humans less likley to accept the conditions cows accept as farm animals.

We have been talking in generalities about water in take and how much fruits and vegetable to meat milk fish and cereals. Cow milk causes antigens that is flem in most humans when they drink it. Although the major cause is the milk itself, the chemcials and antibiotics are a cause also. Read eat right for your diet by Dr. Peter J. D'Adamo.

I think this is incorrect,...the digestive juices are mainly water, but if you add more later, then you further dilute the acid/alkaline digestive juices, if the stomach contents are alkaline, the the body will secrete acid to help break down the food stuff, but if you add water, then the PH of the acid in the digestive juices will lose potency as basic chemistry confirms.

By not having enough water in your system upon during and after digestion the body has to get it from somewhere. It then takes it from the large and small intestine and this water is putrified. The body rots slowly. You do not drink large amounts of water while eating but before and after. Observe yourself when you eat your next main meal.

And by listening to one's body, you'll discover fruit is removed from the stomach inside of 30 mins, so if you eat it afterwards, you'll be dumping it on top of a mix match of food stuffs and digestive juices...inhibiting fruits natural passage to the intesines.

Fruits can be eaten alone and they would have the most benifical value.

I'm think that the undisputed{not absolute} dietary laws of humans can be determined by experiment, the goal is maximum metabolic efficiency leading to maximum health.

This is true, but the same experimental data will not hold for all, as there are many factors what is the right diet. The body is the best tester.
There is the blood type to consider what is best to eat and the combinations of foods also, for the individual.

The Mediterranean diet is renowned as the best in the world and fruit instead of carbohydrate sweets is most often used. I have used it for 25 years.

 

[Galatea]

Meat is, in most cases, unecessary. I voted no.

 

[Monique]

Let's look at that from a different view: would the Earth be able to support our current population all going vegetarian?

I guess it might even be better, since less energy is wasted by skipping the middle man, right?

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Esperanto
No one is safe. I turned vegetarian for a few weeks and during that time I was turning purple. look at this from http://www.thyroid-info.com/articles/soydoerge.htm I am outraged and I'm going to take it out on the farm animals. Anyways, I don't know how anyone can possibly know if vegetarians are healthy. I was pretty sick eating those toxic pellet raisins and soy products all those weeks. from http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art14546.asp

If you read the article, it says:
"These findings have led Dr. Doerge to conclude that additional factors appear necessary for soy to cause overt thyroid toxicity. These factors include:

iodine deficiency
consumption of other soy components
other goitrogens in the diet
other physiological problems in synthesizing thyroid hormones. "

Many people have eaten lots of soy for many years without problems. Asians eat it all the time.

Some people do have allergies to soy, but I think that they are in the minority by far, and you do not necessarily need to consume soy to be a vegetarian.

If you want to compare the toxicity of soy to meat, meat is way more toxic, with all the free radicals, and the growth hormones and antibiotics that people feed the animals, and the fact that animal flesh decomposes more quickly than plant food, meaning that it rots in your intestines, which can lead to cancer.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by wasteofo2
Interesting study showing that eating beef results in less killing of animals than eating vegan.

http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com/animalrights/leastharm.htm

This study uses flawed logic and comes from an non-credible source that loads itself with keywords. It is a web page about getting rid of "pest" animals, so obiviously it is slanted:
"Wildlife Damage Control information on the control of raccoons, squirrels, skunks and other wildlife causing property damage"

Firstly it assumes numbers regarding how many animals per amount of land are killed each year.

Secondly, it assumes that the same amount of food will be produced from land whether used for grazing or growing plant food, which is not at all true. Firstly, as Monique mentioned, there is an efficiency problem (a huge one) with the introduction of the "middle man". By using animals that grow and repair and stop growing and continue to repair, you are wasting food. Secondly, much less food is going to be grown in the form of grass than in wheat, corn, etc.

Thirdly, it assumes that ruminant food actually comes from grazing animals. The fact is that most comes from intensive confinement farms that require grown crops to be fed to the animals. The intensive confinement has its own effects on wildlife, as well.

 

[Dissident Dan]

We should not eat meat. It is not necessary for survival or proper health. Animals raised for food, at least in the USA, live in horrible conditions--crowded, confined, not cared for, abused, made to grow in ways that their bodies can't handle, etc. (check out www.factoryfarming.org).

There are environmental problems: fecal lagoons spills, contamination of water supply, overuse of antibiotics leading to antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

It's really a very simple issue. It's just a matter of overcoming one's prejudices and/or greed.

 

[Kerrie]

i think the reality of this situation is that humans will continue to eat meat regardless of the treatment of the animals...if the treatment of the animals was greatly improved would it then be okay? what do you think the starving person in a third world country would do? eat, or care more for the treatment of the animal? although i can see a sense of compassion towards the treatment of the animals, in a sense, it's taking for granted a source of life giving energy that a great portion of the world's population does not have...

instead of arguing about "should we eat meat?", we should be arguing, should stupid people continue to breed?

 

[Dissident Dan]

Well, people in third world countries are in different conditions than we are in. That has no bearing on us.

"Should we eat meat?" is a perfectly valid extremely important question.

 

[Galatea]

Originally posted by Kerrie
i think the reality of this situation is that humans will continue to eat meat regardless of the treatment of the animals...if the treatment of the animals was greatly improved would it then be okay? what do you think the starving person in a third world country would do? eat, or care more for the treatment of the animal? although i can see a sense of compassion towards the treatment of the animals, in a sense, it's taking for granted a source of life giving energy that a great portion of the world's population does not have...

instead of arguing about "should we eat meat?", we should be arguing, should stupid people continue to breed?

Not all humans will continue to eat meat. Someone converts to vegetarianism every day, I'm sure (if not more.) In the end, arguing about anything is probably pretty pointless on a discussion board since, very rarely, does it change anyone's mind.

Many vegetarians view meat eating (and animal killing) as entirely unnecessary and, in fact, quite gluttonous. It is inflicting pain for no reason since there are suitable alternatives already out there. At the very least, people who choose to consume meat should get it in the least cruel way possible.

 

[Kerrie]

Gal, I can agree with your point, however, people will stop eating meat more for health reasons (such as the recent mad cow discovery in Washington State) then for the treatment of animals...

 

[Robert Zaleski]

I'm for eating Vegans. There docile and dim-witted, so they'll be easy to capture and butcher. Just think of it, all your vitamins, minerals and proteins in one tasty morsel.

 

[Kerrie]

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/1073135194312870.xml

face it...in some form or another, we utilize the cow in our daily consumer products...this link will be accessible for just a few weeks...

 

[Dissident Dan]

Are you trying to say that we are stuck on cows and can't do without?


The materials made with cow by-products, except maybe a few, like Jello, can and have been made without them. Sugar can be made without bones. Glue can be made without cows, etc. It's not like we will go without our consumer and industrial products if cows are no longer eaten. They will just get the materials in different ways. The link says that most of these uses weren't around until the latter half of the 20th century. These uses just evolved to do something with all the waste.
--------------------------

Robert, why are you so hostile towards vegans?

 

[Kerrie]

dan, yes, i am trying to say that the average consumer uses products made from cows, thus there will always be a demand for animals (cows in this instance) to be slaughtered...trying to convince a mass of people will take a huge effort in education and knowledge...this newspaper article took a step in that effort, as it was on the front page of The Sunday Oregonian-Oregon's biggest newspaper...because Oregon is affected by the potential threat of mad cow disease, this article is huge in our local news...the point i was trying to drive however is people will not stop eating meat for the animal's well being, but more likely for their own...

 

[Dissident Dan]

The question that I was trying to address was: "Should we eat meat?", not "Will people stop eating meat?".

 

[Kerrie]

the question is unrealistic...the question could be rephrased to say:

should we cut back on how much meat we consume? i think that is much more possible for the masses of people to attain, especially if the health of these people is at stake...through education and awareness of the treatment of animals prior to being slaughtered, this could happen...

 

[Dissident Dan]

The question is perfectly realistic? Its assumptions that there is meat, people eat meat, and there may be a "should" are all perfectly valid. What you consider unrealistic is people following reason if the answer should turn out to be "no".

But that should in no way hinder the discussion. The question is not one of what people will do, but what people should do.
Anyway, trying to end the argument in this way would be a great disservice to knowledge and one's own discussing abilities.
What if, when people asked, "Should people own slaves?", all discussion of the subject was ended by saying that people giving up their slaves is not going to happen?

 

[Kerrie]

i would temporarily stop for health reasons (especially since the mad cow disease in washington was found 3 hours from where i live), but i have low iron in my blood making me at risk for anemia...my doctor recommended me to eat more red meat at one point to improve my iron...no, i don't need red meat on a daily basis, once a week or a couple times a month is adequate...

my answer to this question is, yes, people should eat meat especially if it helps people who are the same condition i am, but in moderation...

as for the conditions that the animals are raised in, yes, i can imagine how horrid it is...perhaps if these farms were to raise them humanely (which would mean grains that are more costly) and incorporate the costs of doing this, meat would be more of a delicay rather then a daily food source...

 

[selfAdjoint]

Detailed research on the mad cow/CJD outbreaks in Britain suggest that the risk of contracting CJD by eating beef is very low, even if, as in Britain, there are a lot of infected cattle. Indeed the epidemiology is so random it's difficult to sustain the statistical connection betweeen CJD and mad cow at all.

 

[Kerrie]

yes, i have read that too, however, because of the ugliness of the actual disease, a lot of people won't even take the chance of eating meat...also, it's the ground meat that has a higer chance of containing it then the muscle cuts..

 

[Rader]

physosomatic

After burning 100¨s of thousands of animals in England there are so few cases if any, that they do not publisize it. Anyway the chances of getting mad cow disease were as high as going down in a jet liner at the height of the disease in those animals. Does anyone ever wonder why when virtually everyone is exposed to a disease only a few fall ill?

 

[pace]

Originally posted by Kerrie
The question is: should we cut back on how much meat we consume?

I think most people understand by today what animals really is, maybe mostly thanks to Darwin's evolution principle?

I find this topic question rather dated, and that we need to move on: I think most people today know deep inside 'animals are like us', or something similiar. The question is: How should we cut back on how much meat we consume. How can we make things better. One thing we could do is to offer more 'tasty vegan food'. I find in norwegian stores today there's way too little of those quick-food packets.
We know we can't go from A to B in an instant, but we can always try, we can always take one step at a time.

Imagine one day we can successfully make meat chemicly, and we'll think back 'on these terrible times when we ate out brothers' :)

 

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by pace
Imagine one day we can successfully make meat chemicly[/B]

we already have that, it's found at McDonalds...

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Kerrie
we already have that, it's found at McDonalds...

Jokes aside...

http://l2.espacenet.com/espacenet/viewer?PN=WO9931222&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat

Process and patent
In 2001, dermatologist Wiete Westerhof from the University of Amsterdam and businessmen Willem van Eelen and Willem van Kooten announced that they had filed for a worldwide patent on a process to produce in vitro meat (patent number WO9931222). A matrix of collagen is seeded with muscle cells, which are then bathed in a nutritious solution and induced to divide.

NASA's efforts:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993208
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992066

 

[Galatea]

Originally posted by pace
I think most people understand by today what animals really is, maybe mostly thanks to Darwin's evolution principle?

I wish..

I find this topic question rather dated, and that we need to move on: I think most people today know deep inside 'animals are like us', or something similiar. The question is: How should we cut back on how much meat we consume. How can we make things better. One thing we could do is to offer more 'tasty vegan food'. I find in norwegian stores today there's way too little of those quick-food packets.
We know we can't go from A to B in an instant, but we can always try, we can always take one step at a time.

This much is true. I've always been curious what vegan food availability is like in other countries. Here in the US, depending on where you live, there are quite a few yummy vegan convenience foods for sale. Where I live (in Jacksonville, FL), most of the major grocery chains carry a wide selection of vegan/vegetarian food stuffs and there is also a very nice health food store which has every product you could dream of. Convenience foods include: microwaveable meals, mac'n'(fake)cheese, lots of fake cheese in general (some of which are rather bleh), meat analogues in the form of burgers/hot dogs/sausages/riblets/turkey/cold cuts, vegan sour cream, cream cheese, ice cream. All kinds of stuff that's actually really good. Then there are all of the normal foods that even a lot of non-vegans eat (hummus, vegetables, you get the idea.) But without more vegans/vegetarians, there is not much of a market for these kinds of foods and it's difficult to promote the research/testing involved to make better products..

 

[Galatea]

Originally posted by Kerrie
i would temporarily stop for health reasons (especially since the mad cow disease in washington was found 3 hours from where i live), but i have low iron in my blood making me at risk for anemia...my doctor recommended me to eat more red meat at one point to improve my iron...no, i don't need red meat on a daily basis, once a week or a couple times a month is adequate...

I definitely understand where you're coming from with this. Most menstruating women have to worry about their iron intake quite a bit; I have no idea how close I am to anemia but when it's almost time for my period, I sometimes have what I call "iron crashes". I've actually gotten a good handle on this as I've learned what foods are high in iron (blackstrap molasses, bok choy, spinach, cream of wheat, raisins, peanuts, almonds, broccoli..) If you make them staples in your diet, there isn't too much to worry about. Either way, I don't know how low your iron levels have gotten. Eating red meat is a quick and easy way to boost your levels but it's not the only way to keep them up. Even if you weren't eating meat, I'm fairly sure eggs have a bit of iron in them though I'd have to look into it. For more vegan iron info, here is a link:
http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/iron.htm

 

[MudBuddha]

I think an issue that has been only lightly touched on thus far is the lack of difference between animals and humans. That is to say, animals are not sufficiently different and therefore discrimination is not justified. For example you could say that any reason you have for discriminating against an animal could equally be said about a mentally retarded human. Hence if we were to discriminate against animals we would raise a severe double standard.

Yes, meat is an easier meal, but does that justify the torture animals are put through to prepare it? Society at large has become so distant from the origins of their food that non-human animals are still animals like us. As for the often-posed question "Will people stop eating meat" in my opinion it is a resounding no. The market makes lots of money and too much is at stake in a businessmans world.

As for the person who originally posted, discrimination between an endangered species and a chicken is arbitrary. In fact, I would say that the chicken is more worthy of saving on the basis that it quite possibly endures more than the endangered species ever would.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Really, it's a very simple issue; it just takes overcoming your prejudices (everyone has prejudices) and desires. It's really very obvious, when you think about it from a "blank slate" perspective that other species of animals have feelings just like we humans do. If there is any basis at all for ethics, it is the existence of feelings.

Then, it just comes down to taking the old cop-out or not. Many people say, "But I like my steak!", or, "I don't know how you do it." The truth is that most of it is just in how you approach it mentally. If you are contantly anticipating and thinking that it will be hard, then you will probably falter in your will-power and give up. However, if you don't have such a "half empty" perspective, it is much easier. Anyway, if you try it, it's not that important whether you falter momentarily, as long as you keep trying.

Considering the gravity of the situation, saying that it's yummy is no excuse. Some self-restraint is required. What I find incredibly ironic about this all is that conservatives or right-wingers are the ones that tend to act like they have the moral high-ground and emphasive personal responsibility, yet most of them don't have the gumption to exercise any restraint when it comes to this highly serious situation. Anyone who takes "personal responsibility" as a political mantra is shown to be a hypocrite of the gravest sort if not even attempting to become vegetarian.