Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[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

 

[physicsisphirst]

Return to morality

Here are 3 issues that haven't really been answered at all, so i am listing them again:

What is at issue, it seems to me, is whether the capacity animals have to suffer, and their rudimentary forms of self-consciousness and rationality are sufficient for the possession of rights. Your run-of-the-mill adult cow is by all measure capable of suffering, self-consciousness, and rational thought to an extent which far exceeds that of the newborn infant or the profoundly develpmentally disabled human. If we are disposed to take these latter entities are possessors of rights, then consistency demands we extend rights to the former entities as well. If the reply to this consistency argument is that the psychological capacities mentioned are not criterial of moral considerability, then, praytell, what is? (post #883)

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? (post #901)

Just because humans decide that animals have lesser rights, doesn't make it so. How do you substantiate your position? (post #924)

in friendship,
prad

 

[Dissident Dan]

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?

Hmm, I was going to to ask you if you think anyone's diet is "natural" but you rebutted yourself before I got the chance.

Secondly, why is a "natural" diet necessarily good or desirable?

Thirdly, the changes in the way that we get food have changed what nutrients we get on what types of diets. A vegan jungle ape might get all the B12 it needs from the dirt...but we don't eat dirt-covered food anymore. We sterilize it (at least plant food, anyway!). Today, we live in a situation vastly different from the situation our prehistoric ancestors found themselves in. None of us will come close to replicating their diet, and it hasn't been established that it would be beneficial to do so.

 

[JPD]

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".

Absolutely - what effect would speaking out against it have anyway? It won't stop it happening.

 

[JPD]

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.

There are other possibilities - here your lack of awareness shows itself. You have assumed that I either (a) Buy my meat from a supermarket, or
(b) Go and kill animals.
In actuality, I purchase meat directly from the producers on our local farms.

 

[JPD]

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

You could be right - ultimately telling others what they should and shouldn't do has little or no effect. You will continue to not eat meat and I will continue to eat meat. It probably does come down to the fact that it is so delicious. I need no greater justification than that.

 

[russ_watters]

Hmm, I was going to to ask you if you think anyone's diet is "natural" but you rebutted yourself before I got the chance.

Secondly, why is a "natural" diet necessarily good or desirable?

While I agree it is unimportant, the labeling of food and the existence of the GM food debate suggest a great many people do consider "natural" to be relevant (and in this argument, it has been claimed that a vegitarian diet is more "natural"). I once went into a "Whole Foods" grocery store without realizing what it was...

 

[JPD]

While I agree it is unimportant, the labeling of food and the existence of the GM food debate suggest a great many people do consider "natural" to be relevant (and in this argument, it has been claimed that a vegitarian diet is more "natural"). I once went into a "Whole Foods" grocery store without realizing what it was...

Did the mould inform you?

 

[russ_watters]

Did the mould inform you?

No, but try to find some 1%, Pasteurized, homogenized milk and some processed cheese and Wheat Thins at a Whole Foods...

And since its "all natural" (read: lower quality), it costs twice as much too! I wanted to vomit.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Shumeo, this is an educated forum, you can't expect to be able to cut out what information suits you and not have people check where it originally came from.

The dictionary says "Of, relating to, or concerning nature." Nature is "The material world and its phenomena", and our environment (surroundings) is nature.

Hoarding animals isn't necessarily natural, I was making the point that what is found in nature is not necessarily right or most efficient. I never claimed to know about a vegan diet, and the trick you used to weaken my argument was inappropriate for this debate. This thread is supposed to a logical debate where both sides present multiple views and respect each other. There is no point in trying to solve this problem, it isn't like meat-eating has any chance of winning - a vegetarian is not going to suddenly say, "Yes, I will be cruel to animals once again" and start eating meat. In fact, the opposite happened and I became vegetarian partly because of this thread. People can rationalize meat-eating, but it can never be proven better than vegetarianism.

 

[Be Happy!]

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.

Russ,
I don't really understand why you fight SO hard to understand such simple arguements! Perhaps your desire to eat flesh is getting in the way of at least recognizing some of the sincere and noble reasons why people might want to not eat meat.

It really is simple, so if I may, here are all the reasons we should use our complex brain to CHOOSE (as we have a choice here) a diet that will be better for all life, our health and the planet.

In the US we slaughter 27 billion animals!

1) Whether you want to admit it or not, all farmed animals are capable of suffering. Farmed animals live horrible lives on factory farms and their death is quite painful as well. As I mentioned in a previous post, they live in filthy, crowded, and diseased conditions and are often slaughtered while they are still fully conscious. (pls see www.ChooseVegetarian.com[/url] for more details and if you would like to see these condition [url]www.MeetYourMeat.com[/URL] is a great site)

2) Imagine all the resources and energy it takes to raise animals for food! Over 70% of US land is used to grow crops to make animals fat! Half of all the water used goes to raise livestock...In cities where factory farms reside there are huge environmental catastrophies taking place. The recent book by the World Watch Institute ([url]http://www.worldwatch.org[/url])- The State of the World 2004, goes into much detail as to how animal agriculture is destroying the earth...oh and did I mention that the number one cause of rainforest destruction is cattle grazing to produce hamburgers! Once cattle have grazed, our precious rainforests become deserts forever!

3) No matter what you say, the vast majority of us do not hunt for our meat anymore though many people did thousands of years ago...mind you humans were cannibals too many thousands of years ago- but that's another point. As the China Study by Cornell University (which the New York Times called "The 'Grand Prix'...the most comprehensive large study ever undertaken of the relationship between diet and the risk of developing disease...tantalizing findings" ([PLAIN]http://www.nutrition.cornell.edu/ChinaProject/ )and many leading scientists and prominent doctors are reporting, eating meat (esp in the proportions that we do) is making us sick! (www.PCRM.org) Meat is pumped full of fat and cholesterol (not to mention antibiotics and growth hormones)- is there any wonder why every 40 sec someone falls down with a heart attack! Obesity and so many other diseases are rising in epidemic proportions...if you do a simple comparison of people in rural China for example- these people live on a plant based diet and do not suffer from the same diseases as us, they do have a few diseases yes, but *very* few and they are not as dangerous as ours.

I hope you see that we don't need to get into complicated justifications...and as I said before, vegetarianism is the best environmental, ethical and healthful decision for societal problems. Because ethics are only useful in my mind when we can apply them in our lives...the question (whilst putting all of our egos and desires aside) begs to ask itself- How are we to live to make this world a kinder and healthier place?

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
- Albert Einstein


Sangeeta Kumar

P.S: "...if it is wrong for me to kill a cow, then it is wrong for a lion to kill a cow..."

The "logic" you use (if you want to call it that) in the cow and lion argument is completely meaningless- how does one follow from the other? Please explain.