PETA: Whatever It Takes (Alternet)

Here is an article posted on Alternet months ago but was just printed in the latest edition. Brilliant. Especially the paragraphs I bolded at the bottom of the page. I know it is probably against the rules to post a PETA thread and then run but I have to go to work soon.


AlterNet
PETA: Whatever It Takes
By Jan Frel, AlterNet
Posted on October 5, 2005, Printed on December 9, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/story/26094/

<excerpt>

For the record, I am neither a vegan nor a vegetarian. Nor am I an honorary
member of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). One of my best
friends is, however, and he works at the PETA headquarters in the decrepit
asphalt Venice of Norfolk, Va.

I started following PETA's activities because of my personal connection to
it, and as I did, I became engrossed with its media tactics, which, to sum
them up would be to say they say and do anything at all to draw attention.
It sounds simple and obvious enough -- anything at all -- but it clearly
isn't, or other groups would be following its lead. Other than the ACLU,
which progressive advocacy group (yes, PETA is progressive) garners a
regular share of news coverage across the country on a daily basis? Not a
single one.

PETA goes after places, people, events and ideas of social meaning and finds
a way to seize the headlines -- or create its own. It will do whatever it
takes to expose people to its point of view. When PETA asks an agricultural
town to change its name from say, Cowtown to Liberated Cowtown, it knows
that a bored reporter in the surrounding region will fall for it and write a
story about it, and that a bunch of readers sick of stories about septic
tanks and cattle prices will fall for the headline. Somewhere in that story
will be the sentence: "A PETA representative told the mayor that killing
animals is wrong."

With that sentence, PETA scores a victory.

So PETA sends vegetarian chefs to Camp Casey; runs semi-nude pictures of
Pamela Anderson with anti-fur captions; and urges the USDA not to rebuild
animal labs at the Katrina-devastated Louisiana State University. And every
time PETA gets mentioned in a story, it's a win for the organization -- and
some real animals might be saved in the process.

Because the truth is, this animal rights thing is a tarpit. The more people
are exposed to it, the less comfortable they are with the concept of animal
suffering. That's the premise, anyway, and I think it's true.

PETA does have an activist bent in addition to its propaganda arm -- real
people doing real things to stop the suffering of specific animals -- and it
has a record of winning in that regard. But because of the fight it's up
against -- the ubiquity of animal consumption across America -- this thing
can only be tackled in degrees by exposure to propaganda about it.

Here's the other thing: PETA doesn't care about its general reputation. PETA
is just a vehicle for the animal rights movement, and the staff is fully
aware of this, so there's no such thing as bad press, and there's absolute
indifference to folks who don't like the group's tactics. Anything at all
that gets PETA in the headlines is a win for the animals.

From that perspective, the pundits and authors who tangle endlessly with
PETA's campaigns end up working as suckers for the cause. Take Kathryn
Jean-Lopez, a writer for the conservative National Review, who was shocked,
appalled by PETA's "Holocaust on Your Plate" campaign. Jean-Lopez fell for
it badly, offering sentences to the animal rights movement on a silver
platter. Perhaps her best was, "I'm not going to deny that a cattle
slaughterhouse isn't disgusting." Her blinders were on so tight she managed
to bump right into the anything at all approach without seeing it: "PETA
issues its own reads of the Koran. It toys with the Book of Mormon. Few
beliefs are spared PETA's offensiveness."

Too true. PETA doesn't care about Joseph Smith and his Book of Moroni. It
cares about animals.

The freakish volume of activity that spills out of PETA is jaw-dropping.
Just follow the goings-on of its website (or any of its dozens of spinoff
sites) -- it unleashes hordes of powerful propaganda, from press releases
and videos to images and investigative reports to photogalleries -- anything
at all, and piles of it. I set up a visit with PETA's headquarters to see
how it works.

Anything for the animals

Norfolk is primarily a shipping and Navy base city laid out over a system of
ports, rivers and canals. It's got a nuked-out downtown typical of most
American cities with a healthy dose of Southern racial segregation and
poverty surrounding it. Thousands of jar-headed Navy boys fill the streets
at night, clogging the bars and restaurants (many of which offer vegan
cuisine as a result of PETA's local influence). The PETA building sticks out
from all this. It sits on a small inlet on the Elizabeth river right by a
small bridge heading into downtown. It's a modern, shiny, blue-green, five-
or six-story glassy blot with a big, fat PETA logo right at the top. Inside
about 180 staffers churn out the cause.

When you're writing a story about an organization, the last person in the
world you want to get your information from is a member of the
communications staff. But in my case that's exactly who I wanted to talk to.
My first interviewee was Colleen O' Brien, PETA's communications manager.

As bluntly as possible, I asked her about PETA's sending vegetarian chefs to
Camp Casey in Crawford, Texas during Bush's August vacation: Do you feel
like you made a good return on that investment? After all, PETA is not
Morgan Stanley; while it's a $25 million a year operation, it still has to
pick its battles.


(cont.)

I'm a vegan who has donated to PETA, by the way.

Sad, but true :(

I'm a vegetarian who's donated to PETA too :hi:

EXACTLY!

Great read, thanks!

Or are legitimate or shall I say more possibly widely accepted points on animal rights harmed by the very extreme positions that PETA takes?

Would PETA be more effective if they didnt do things like tell people to drink beer instead of milk?

I think PETA is far less effective in preventing or limiting cruelty to animals than say the ASPCA.

Nearly everyone eats meat, everyone is going to continue to eat meat, and nearly everyone is going to be somewhat put off by the PETA position that all of those people are cruel to animals by doing so.

Thus why PETA has such a bad reputation even among most of us on the left.

I applaud their passion and conviction, but to say that they are always a "win" for animals? I dunno about that, I think often their hyperbole is counterproductive to what they want to accomplish.

it will be because of personal reasons that I won't foist upon others.

The way much of our meat is raised IS barbaric, but trying to make people feel guilty for eating meat isn't going to solve this problem. Even though I believe we've removed ourselves from the circle of life I also believe that eating meat is natural for human beings. The key is to make the process less cruel, to make the meat safer, etc.

Because of the way my family and friends behaved while "hunting" (poaching, cruelty to animals, cruelty to hunting dogs, etc.), I have decided never to hunt again unless my life depends on it. I am not going to force this view on others who still hunt for meat, although I may have something to say about trophy hunting or hunting for "sport."

Many times, meateaters fel like they are being "forced" to feel the way vegetarians do, but in reality, that rarely is the case.

There are numerous and very significant health, environmental, and ethical reasons not to eat meat. The facts speak for themselves. Often, I think the facts simply back up adopting a vegetarian diet and people who don't want to give up their meat are frustrated that they can't argue with those facts. It is brutal the way animals are harvested for food, it hurts our environment to eaise animals for slaughter, and it is far healthier to eat a vegetarian diet.

I hope someday you'll make the switch, but in the meantime, I for one will try and always be mindful to not preach, but educate as politely as I can :)

As a diabetic, I have to go easy on the carbs. That means eating a lot of meat. Yes, I know I can combine amino acids in vegetable matter to create proteins, but my health has improved since I started eating meat with every meal. My blood glucose is much more stable.

There are valid arguments for being a vegetarian, too. I understand those arguments: the brutal conditions in which meat animals are raised; the hormones and poisons in meats; the fact that plants yield more food per acre than meat animals.

Still, I feel healthier and more full when I eat meat. I've had the devil's own time stabilizing my diabetes and I'm certainly not going to change my diet right now. I have too much on my plate, so to speak. ;) I'm dealing with multiple chronic illnesses. Lately, I've felt better so I'm reluctant to change anything that might be helping.

My father is diabetic, and vegetarian. He had the same experience you did, and says he feels monumentally better since making the switch. Of course, everyone is different and it would always be wise to develop a plan with your doctor to make sure you are getting what you need, but my Dad hasn't found carbs a problem and says his diabetes has been more manageable since switching.

I also wanted to say that when I switched to veg, I had a hard time feeling "full" without the meat, and I think most people do too for a week or two as your body adjusts. But wow...when I did, I felt SO much better. I have fibromyalgia and it has helped SO much with that. I've lost weight, my skin looks better, and my hair and nails do too!

Anyway, I totally understand your reluctance to switch, given the health problems you've got going on. I definitely try hard to be more mindful of not "preaching" to others while still telling my personal experiences. I know I hate it when religious folks push their beliefs on me, so I've had to really try to not do the same with this, too :)

Hope you're feeling better soon, it sounds like you've got a lot going on!

There is such a thing as negative publicity. Proof positive is the national revulsion at the fundy whackjobs who came out of the woodwork during the Schiavo fiasco. Most people feel the same way about PETA.

of other groups with other agendas? Or are they careful not to do that.

I have always had a sneaking admiration for their ballsiness!!!

They do alot of good things that go under the radar...

Another great group that I donate to is the Humane Farming Association...

www.hfa.org

nt

Hmm. Neither do I. Guess we finally agree on something!

BTW, getting kids to "Ditch Milk" is nutritionally irresponsible.

nt

And for my kids, this milk they drink at school is almost certainly the only source of calcium and Vitamin D in their diet.

Unless you're a nutritionist and registered dietician, I'd not press it further.

but they're probably not nutritionists or registered dieticians.

http://www.keepkidshealthy.com/welcome/treatmentguides/veganchildren.html

<edit>

Calcium. Calcium is a mineral that is mostly present in your child's bones. Having a diet with foods that are high in calcium to meet daily requirements is necessary for the development of strong bones. It is also an important way to prevent the development of osteoporosis in adults. Many vegetables contain calcium, especially broccoli, sweet potatoes, great northern and navy beans, and leafy greens. You can also give your child soy milk or orange juice that is fortified with extra calcium.

more...

1. kids dont tend to like broccoli and leafy greens, kinda hard to get them to eat it.

2. milk is cheap, supplements arent, the kids most in danger of nutritional deficiencies tend to be the poorest, and so cost matters

3. even if a vegan diet can be shown to be cost effective, again, most kids in danger of nutritional deficiencies are in one parent families or two parents working their butts off families and careful planning required for a vegan diet just aint happening.

Vegan is a fine alternative for people who want to do it, but it doesnt work in the practical sense for everyone.

A vegan diet doesn't require a ton of planning. It just requires variation, the same as any other diet.

Here's LeftyKid- even if he weren't vegan, he's very allergic to dairy. Looks healthy to me. :shrug:

it requires replacing the things you normally get from dairy and meat, and it requires nutritional substitutes for B-12 and zinc among other things.

It'd be hard for a varied vegan diet not to get enough protien or calcium. Zinc is abundant in whole grains and B-12 is routinely added to vegan foods, created by bacterial action and in most supplements. Also it's in nutritional yeast, which is the backbone of a lot of vegan faux cheeses.

None is hard to incorporate into the diet at all. :)

sponsored by the meat & dairy industries and taught in schools to most of us over age 30, which was based on the supposed superiority of a four-food groups, meat & dairy centered diet, which has been wholly disproven.

The only source for kids from low-income homes is from the National School Lunch Program. Often this is the only meal they get. In this meal, calcium and Vitamin D are provided by the milk.

The government doesn't provide free orange juice or soy milk. Until they do, it's irresponsible for PETA to tell kids drinking milk will give you smelly farts.

not to be crude, but apples give me gas something fierce...which sucks because i really like apples :)

is not just a matter of smelly farts. Kids who can't (or won't) drink cows milk aren't getting the calcium they need. Seems to me a good idea for PETA to attempt to overcome dairy industry propaganda and create more choice for these kids.

And, if I'm not mistaken, schools can provide soy milk and receive reimbursement under USDA regs. For poor kids who can't (or won't) drink cows milk, this is a definite plus. Why don't you want them to have a choice? Why do you want them to suffer by missing out on getting the calcium they need? Why?

For the relatively few who are lactose-intolerant, yes, we can provide soy "milk," but we are reimbursed only at the cost of regular milk, and only if the student comes in with a doctor's recommendation (most of our students have no insurance, so probably never see a doctor outside of an emergency room). I think out of our 6,000 kids last year, we served - maybe 3. We have to pay separate shipping for the soy milk because it comes from another source, so it is even more expensive.

We do offer calcium-enriched juice drinks which are reimburseable, but the kids miss out on the vitamin D. As some other posters pointed out, getting kids to eat broccoli to supplement this loss is difficult at best.

Calcium and vitamin D are naturally-occurring in milk; they are artificially added to soy "milk." That's better?

I don't believe milk is bad for the vast majority of kids. Nor do I believe cows are mistreated by being milked. I reject that premise entirely. So the idea of being pressured to offer this inferior choice is contemptible.

1. So there are kids who can get soy milk and there's reimbursement for the schools, but poor kids have trouble becoming eligible. Too bad the dairy industry and their lackeys in Congress do all they can to make getting this needed source of calcium difficult. Not sure why you're upset at PETA for trying to make it possible for kids who need or want soy milk to get it. Maybe the Dairy Council is a more appropriate target for your displeasure.

2. You claim dairy milk is superior to soy milk. Got link?

3. You reject entirely the premise cows are mistreated when milked. This link (warning-PETA link!) suggests you may be wrong:

http://www.unhappycows.com/dairycows.asp

<edit>

The mother cow will be hooked up several times a day to machines that take the milk intended for her calf. Through genetic manipulation, powerful hormones, and intensive milking, she will produce about three times as much milk as she would naturally. She may be pumped full of bovine growth hormone (BGH), which contributes to painful inflammation of the udder, known as “mastitis.” (BGH is used throughout the U.S. but has been banned in Europe and Canada because of concerns for human health and animal welfare.) According to the industry’s own figures, between 30 and 50 percent of dairy cows suffer from mastitis, which is an extremely painful condition.

A cow’s natural lifespan is 25 years, but a cow used by the dairy industry is killed after only four or five years. By the time they are killed, an industry study reports that nearly 40 percent of dairy cows are lame because of the filth, intensive confinement, and the strain of constantly being pregnant and giving milk. Dairy cows are turned into soup, companion animal food, or low-grade hamburger meat, their bodies too “spent” to be used for anything else.

Veal Calves
Male calves—“byproducts” of the dairy industry—are generally taken away from their mothers when they are less than 1 day old. The calves are then placed in dark, tiny crates, where they are kept almost completely immobilized so that their flesh stays tender. The calves are fed a liquid diet that is low in iron and has little nutritive value in order to make their flesh white. This heinous treatment makes the calves ill, and they frequently suffer from anemia, diarrhea and pneumonia. Frightened, sick, and alone, these calves are killed after only a few months of life. “Veal” is the flesh of a tortured, sick baby cow and a byproduct of the milk industry.

All adult and baby cows, whether raised for their flesh or their milk, are eventually shipped to a slaughterhouse and killed.

the government does provide free orange juice. As part of the same free meal programs where the USDA dumps surplus milk. No reason they couldn't just as easily use soy milk. There's a surplus of soy beans, too.

Moot point, then.

so does WIC. Food stamps buy juice as easily as any other food and work the same for soy milk as cow's milk.

we already offer calcium enriched juice. But I'm not dropping milk.

who can't or won't consume cows' milk.

Have you ever stopped to consider how the nutritional benefits from drinking cow's milk (calcium & vitamin D) weigh against the nutritional harm that you may be doing your children? Consumption of cow's milk by children has been linked to allergies, anemia, obesity, acne, chronic ear infections, and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Is that really a fair trade for some calcium and vitamin D that can easily be found in vegetable sources?

By the way, the argument by authority fallacy doesn't go very far here at DU. :) Not many of us are actually politicians or lobbyists, yet we feel free to discuss political matters.

Good luck.

"Consumption of cow's milk by children has been linked to allergies, anemia, obesity, acne, chronic ear infections, and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Is that really a fair trade for some calcium and vitamin D that can easily be found in vegetable sources?"

Yes, I've seen the propaganda against milk. It's mostly garbage spewed by PETA and others of their ilk. Remember - "anything goes" with PETA - they said it themselves.

And yes, vitamin D is found in veggies, but getting the kids to eat them is not easy. Especially when I can't afford to smother them in cheese (another milk product) or doctor them up with hours of unaffordable labor. Milk is nutrient-dense, inexpensive, and kids like it. There's just no substitute that makes any sense at all.

And I've gotten into too many discussions over nutrition with ill-informed, adamant know-nothings than I can shake a stick at. It's just not worth my time. This being a good case in point.

I suppose those cranks at the PCRM are just shilling for the...uh...the Anti-Milk industry, right? That's a huge lobbying interest! So much profit to be made! :eyes:

Perhaps you'll enjoy this article from that famous PETA crank, Dr. Kradjian, who happens to be the Breast Surgery Chief Division of General Surgery at Seton Medical Centre:
http://www.afpafitness.com/articles/milkdoc.htm

Because I doubt you'll read the article itself, here are some of the referenced studies contained therein:
1."Cow's Milk as a Cause of Infantile Colic Breast-Fed Infants. Lancet 2 (1978): 437
2."Dietary Protein-Induced Colitis in Breast- Fed Infants, J. Pediatr. I01 (1982): 906
3."The Question of the Elimination of Foreign Protein in Women's Milk", J. Immunology 19 (1930): 15
4."Is Bovine Milk A Health Hazard?". Pediatrics; Suppl. Feeding the Normal Infant. 75:182-186; 1985
5."Milk of Dairy Cows Frequently Contains a Leukemogenic Virus". Science 213 (1981): 1014

"And I've gotten into too many discussions over nutrition with ill-informed, adamant know-nothings than I can shake a stick at. It's just not worth my time. This being a good case in point."

Well, it's an awfully good thing that scientific inquiry and critical thinking don't get in the way of your omniscience. :eyes:

1. You're quoting a breast surgeon as an authority on nutrition. That doesn't make much sense to me. He's done zero peer-reviewed research into nutritive positives/negatives of milk, so let's ditch the "scientific inquiry" line. Frankly, this is a parallel with the Discovery Institute (a creationist organization) lauding the opposition of engineers to evolution. Dr. Kradjian is no less an amateur than I.

2. Look at this quote: From 1988 to 1993 there were over 2,700 articles dealing with milk recorded in the "Medicine" archives. Fifteen hundred of theses had milk as the main focus of the article. There is no lack of scientific information on this subject. I reviewed over 500 of the 1,500 articles, discarding articles that dealt exclusively with animals, esoteric research and inconclusive studies.

Translation: I cherry-picked old articles, forming an "expert" opinion from only those articles that I approved of. How about reviewing something less than 12 years old (an eternity in scientific research)? And what constitutes "esoteric" and "inconclusive"? Here is where you really see that this isn't critical thinking. It's reading with an agenda, which isn't science.

3. There is no doubt whatever that these skeletal remains reflect great strength, muscularity (the size of the muscular insertions show this), and total absence of advanced osteoporosis.

This is wild conjecture, and it's misleading. First, paleolithic ancestors were highly unlikely to live long enough to develop advanced osteoporosis. Second, these bones aren't well preserved enough to determine osteoporosis or lack thereof. Third, these paleolithic ancestors had a much more active lifestyle, and sedentary lifestyle is a much greater indicator of osteoporosis than milk intake.

4. Can mother's milk increase intelligence? It seems that it can. In a remarkable study published in Lancet during 1992 (Vol. 339, p. 261-4), a group of British workers randomly placed premature infants into two groups. One group received a proper formula, the other group received human breast milk. Both fluids were given by stomach tube. These children were followed up for over 10 years. In intelligence testing, the human milk children averaged 10 IQ points higher! Well, why not? Why wouldn't the correct building blocks for the rapidly maturing and growing brain have a positive effect?

This is absolutely laughable. First, IQ isn't necessarily a good measure of intelligence. Second, unless the children were in an identical environment and had identical genetic makeups, even implying that human milk vs formula was the sole causative factor is scientifically and ethically irresponsible.

5. In the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1982) Ralph Holman described an infant who developed profound neurological disease while being nourished by intravenous fluids only. The fluids used contained only linoleic acid - just one of the essential fatty acids. When the other, alpha linoleic acid, was added to the intravenous fluids the neurological disorders cleared.

In the same journal five years later Bjerve, Mostad and Thoresen, working in Norway found exactly the same problem in adult patients on long term gastric tube feeding.

First, milk isn't an ingredient in IV fluids, rendering that sentence irrelevant. Second, Bjerve, Mostad, and Thoreson's article is a great example of why one should read the original articles. From the original article:

This paper reports linolenic acid deficiency with concomitant skin changes in two elderly patients treated by gastric-tube feeding. The
formula was prepared from a commercial, powdered nutrient mixed with either skimmed milk or skimmed milk and water

See that little word? "Skimmed"? Means that the essential fats present in the cow's milk were skimmed out.

And from later in the paper:

Combes et al (26) fed linoleate to premature infants in doses corresponding to 0.01%, 0.5%,and 4.5% of energy. The amount of linoleate
had been determined by GLC. They found the same relation between dietary linoleate and content ofdiene, triene, and tetraene fatty acids
as previous studies had found (16, 20, 21) but determined that all groups thrived equally well as measured by weight gain, skin condition,
and general health. Only the 0.01% linoleate group showed a decreased efficiency in energy utilization. Their results strongly
suggest that linoleate corresponding to 0.5% of total energy is an ample supply in premature,rapidly growing infants.

And guess what? Regarding lineolate percentage in whole cow's milk:

It has been suggested (17) that 1.3% linoleate would be more accurate, which would provide ~0.5% of energy as linoleate.

Conclusion: this guy might be a great surgeon, but he either lies about the papers he's read or he can't interpret primary scientific literature.

6. You may be horrified to learn that the USDA allows milk to contain from one to one and a half million white blood cells per millilitre. (That's only 1/30 of an ounce). If you don't already know this, I'm sorry to tell you that another way to describe white cells where they don't belong would be to call them pus cells.

The first sentence is either outdated, or a lie. Current USDA regulations allow 750,000 somatic cells per ml. Your average milk usually totals about half that. To put this in perspective, this is about 4.5% of the white blood count found in noninfected blood. Read it again: noninfected blood. And this count is measured before pasteurization.

7. Regarding diabetes and milk (vegans might wish to take note of the bold print):

From the JAMA Archives of Internal Medicine 2005;165:975-976: A relationship between milk consumption and type 1 diabetes in children was first proposed about 20 years ago. As a result, the American Academy of Pediatrics "strongly encouraged" families with a history of type 1 diabetes to avoid feeding commercially available cow’s milk formula to their infants. Children who inherited the risk-conferring HLA allele have a higher incidence of type 1 diabetes when cow’s milk is introduced earlier in life or when consumption is high. However, it has been argued that the heightened risk in children with the HLA allele may be because they have an enhanced immunity to dietary proteins in general. Proteins in wheat and soy seem to be more potent diabetogens than those found in milk. Until a prospective randomized controlled trial is completed, the specific role of milk protein in causing type 1 diabetes in children cannot be ascertained.

Like I said earlier...if milk was in fact not healthy for you, do you REALLY think the government would do anything about it? Sorry, there's just too much money and power to lose by hurting the dairy industry.

Believe what you will about milk, but most of us who don't support it have personal experiences to back up our beliefs.

drinking cow secretions has only been prevelant in the last 150 years or so.

If fact, cow's milk was used soley for the making of butter back in the 1800s and early 1900's. It was not used for straight consumption. How did they get by.

And once weaned, man ate cheese.

Prior to that they suffered terribly from calcium deficiency. They didn't survive very well.

Why do the poor women of Africa (who don't drink ANY milk) have almost a zero chance of getting osteoperosis?

There are much better ways to get calcium other than dairy and they don't have as many adverse side affects.

I guess I can take the milk away.

I think the answer you're looking for is called GENETICS.

they are in bed together and that's why there aren't health warnings concerning milk and dairy.

Hypothetically speaking...if milk were discovered to really have adverse effects that outweighed the suppossed positives, do you really think our government would come out and let you know? Of course not, there is too much money and power wrapped up in this industry for anyone to really tell us the truth.

So keep on buying the propoganda and make sure to get your three healthy servings a day. Just like the government and big business tell you to.

There's nothing like a big fat cookie buffet, and milk. And since I don't have a wussy-ass kid with all kinds of imaginary disorders, we do fine by milk. We also buy OV milk, which promises me that the cows get a little bit of field time. Imagine that! Being responsible, without being a reactionary! We even drink soy milk, too! Stop the insanity!!!!



(BTW, those cookies should be made with real butter and eggs, too, or they taste like shit.)

have such better life expectancies and general overall better health and fewer diseases given we eat so much more meat than those in third world countries?

There are many ways through modern medicine to treat disease and hide/eliminate symptoms to health problems.

?

we eat too much fat and dont exercise?

A staple of the Pokot diet is a porridge made from wild fruits boiled with a mixture of milk and blood. Lots of cultures along with the Pokot in Africa drink blood/milk mixtures, including the Masai, Muhima, Watusi, and Neurs tribes. My major professor has lived among some of these tribes and has talked about various milk/blood drinks. Perhaps education, not conjecture, is in order.

and used by the body. The lack of magnesium and other minerals/nutriets prevent this from happening.

Duh.

enjoy

No growth hormones. No antibiotics. The cows get to graze. Fan-fucking-tastic. And delicious.

Or are they just deep thinkers.

but I would expect nothing less from a poster who's screenname is KFC in a discussion on veganism and PETA! lol

if everyone stopped eating meat then how many animals would have been killed only to decompose on the store shelves and in land fills? bottem line is, animals kill animals all the time, im hungery, its dinnertime and i gotta eat, meat is easier to digest the leafs so.... bring on the beef. at least it didnt die of old age and suffering its a quick snap and onto the shelfs of butcher shops across the country, its the one truely renewable resource, want more cows.... got more cows

since this is going to evolve, no pun intended, into a discussion about eating meat or not eating meat and the morality therein.

Either we are just another animal, in which case whats the problem as we are doing what all of the other animals do which is eat other animals.

Or we are better than the animals, in which case whats the problem as we have a higher place as it were and therefore can use the animals as food.

I personally subscribe to number one, we are animals just like they are, just a bit smarter and better at tools. I like steak and fried chicken and even on occassion a little fish (not a big fan of pork, too many pork chops as a kid) and will continue to and PETA only makes me turn a deaf ear to them when they portray that desire for meat as something evil.

In a sense, PETA is arguing for the superiority of man.

where a species that gets worked up when, after strapping people to a rocket, start going into a fit when it actualy kills people, i mean you chose to sit on a few hundrad tons of explosives, go into an enviroment with no air pressure and no oxygen, then expect to crash back to earth going from flying in nothingness to hitting a brick wall of atmosphere, im pretty sure they had some idea of what the risks where, and thought it was worth it. not saying what they did was worthless or stupid, im just saying, people die, everything dies, we are not imortal, get over it


sorry for the little rant

exactly

we are basically animals, what makes us different is a sense of compassion that causes us to deeply care about others of our own species even if it puts our selfs in danger at times. also we have developed a system of shared knowledge, thousands of years of shared knowledge is much better then a few basic instinctual reactions to events. biologically(in the organ and cellular) speaking there is vary vary little difference between us and animals

have compassion.

I don't think we are on the same level as aminals as far as being able to sustain ourselves. We have options. A bear, for example, doesn't have the option, either because of instinct or lack lack of intellect, to "choose" to feed himself with plants. He can't opt for a Bocca Burger over a fish, and probably isn't "wired" to ponder the morality of taking the life of the fish. We do have options and we do have the ability to consider, for lack of a better word, the morality of our actions.

So I say, from your options, we are, to use your wording, "better." But being "better" than animals and having a "higher place" does not equal "therefore we can use the animals as food" imho. While eating other animals, or fighting for territory for that matter, might be necessary for wildlife survival, eating meat is not necessary to our survival.

And there is a wide gulf between deciding to eat meat, unnecessary as it may be, and supporting the brutal, tortued lives led by animals in factory farms. One could accept the practice of meat-eating, for the time being at least, and vehemetly oppose the ill treatment and cruel painful slaugther that goes on in this nation and this world on such a massive scale, every minute. That cruelty, that torture should stop, be stopped, NOW - but this doesn't necessarily equate to rejecting the concept of eating meat.

Starting at the bottom of your argument first...

It would be something if PETA focused ONLY on the cruelty that goes into slaughter, I dont have any problem with finding more humane ways to raise cows or chickens or slaughtering them, and most other people dont either. If they did that, they wouldnt be looked at as kooky crazy and just plain over the top and insulting, but they dont, they go FAR afield from looking at that.

THAT is their problem, and the question I posed, which does PETA's extreme position negate the effectiveness of their more reasonable arguments. Some say no, I say yes.

Now, to the more broader point you make. A bear doesnt have options because its a carnivore, nature has set it up that way. Guess what, so are we. We are not only set up to be carnivores, but we are basically omnivores, set up to eat anything. I'd also beg to differ with the "eating meat isnt necessary".

First of all, i would submit eating meat is necessary, and the scientific evidence quite frankly isnt as one sided against that premise as vegans want to make it, but we can debate that if you like.

Second, even if it werent technically necessary, thats not the end of the discussion. I NEVER drink straight water. I hate it. I SHOULD drink water. It's good for me, but I prefer gatorade, fruit juices, stuff like that. So can I survive without straight water just fine? Yep, is it hunky dory for me? Probably not.

EVEN if you could argue that modest eating of meat gives no positive benefits (which is an awfully hard argument to make), you still have the problem that the transition costs to an all veggie worldwide diet are staggering. How many years would it take to transition farms to a BALANCED diet including protein and all of the other vitamins and minerals meat brings? How do you get that to happen across the world? What do you do for food in the meantime? What do you do with all the animals currently used for food that are alive? You just let the cows roam free? What are the storage and shipping costs associated with transporting veggies versus meat? What do you do with all of the jobs associated with the meat, dairy and fishing industries?

Overall, I think your argument assumes too much. It assumes eating animals is immoral first of all. Why? Why is it immoral to eat meat? Ok so we have options, of which meat is one. And? What's wrong with exercising that option? Because an animal has to die? Well, animals get eaten all of the time. Cycle of life and all. If we didnt raise them for food how many cows and chickens do you think there would be in nature? I agree we should treat them better as we raise them but thats not something too many people debate.

I certainly hope we never find out that plants have feelings or feel pain, I'd shudder to think what we would be left to eat ;)

Also, meat actually provides very few vitamins. Perhaps you mean amino acids?

Don't blame me, it's just science. :)

What are the storage and shipping costs associated with transporting veggies versus meat? What do you do with all of the jobs associated with the meat, dairy and fishing industries?

Your concern for the economic impact of reduced meat intake on bloated corporate revenues is touching, but misplaced. The current costs to labour, health, and the environment of the meat industry are staggering. Do you have any idea how much vegetable crops and fresh water are required to produce meat, and how much industrial waste is produced in the process? Do you know how many times over we could feed every hungry child in the world with the vegetables and water used by the meat industry?

but yes they dont eat ONLY meat, but they certainly have it as a large part of their diet. There is more than one meaning of the word carnivore, the strict one that they only eat meat and nothing else, and the common usage of the word for an animal that largely eats meat.

If you want to replace vitamins with nutrients fine, although Vitamin B-12 and zinc ARE generally lacking in a vegetarian diet without supplements.

Is there anything substantive you want to add, or are you just sticking to sharpshooting today? :)

Presumably, my posts would have more substance if I refrained from pointing out your errors? :eyes:

Here's something substantive for you, Highness: Killing animals for meat when there are low-cost, healthy, environmentally-friendly alternatives is an unethical activity. Those who eat meat on the premise that they NEED to do so are profaning science by using faulty data to support an argument which really could be summed up as follows: "I'm too lazy to care about any creatures other than myself, and I've been raised to believe that meat tastes good."

Enjoy.

I tried being nice but ok lets get down to it then. You didnt "point out errors", the first one was about bears being carnivores, they are in all but the most technical of meanings, and even if the error was there it had little bearing to the overall point (and thus when you post to point out errors that have little or no bearing on the overall point yes they have no substance).

Then you follow by talking about vitamins, when in fact one of the more important ones, B-12, is something most people get from meat and which require supplements for a vegan diet.

Since you are continuing the snark, I'll repeat the same question, why does the presence of "alternatives" make eating meat "unethical"?

When you figure out that simply saying something doesnt make it so get back to me.

When you explain and give numbers as to how a poor person in downtown Chicago has vegetarianism as a low cost alternative, you let me know that too. And please do not make the insane accusation that merely because a farm swtiches from meat to veggie production it becomes environmentally friendly.

But I think its established that you dont want to have a substantive discussion, you merely want to have a smug discussion.

Please do tell when exactly you tried so very long and hard to be nice. Was is in the comment that I'm adding nothing substantive to the discussion, or was is when you accused me of "sharpshooting" by pointing out factual errors in the data you used to support your argument. In either event, these both occurred in the course of your initial response, so it hardly seems like a long and winding road you've been oh so selflessly traveling for my benefit.... :eyes:

But let us roll up our sleeves and "get down to it", shall we? (Oh, the machismo!) But rather than getting all muddled in a broad brush, let's take things one at a time:

1. You used the fact that bears are carnivores as a cornerstone of your tired "eating meat is natural" argument. I pointed out your error, and you responded with a lesson in taxonomy. You can equivocate all you like, but ursines are one of the textbook examples of omnivores. (Feel free to use the Polar Bear as a counter-example, and I'd be happy to present the Giant Panda.)

You also stated that meat is "a large part of their diet." Unlike ursines, humans lack elongated canines and shortened colons, yet ursines generally subsist upon a diet of 75% plant foods. However, because they don't digest fibrous plant matter easily, bears are HIGHLY selective in their diet--which is a direct contradiction of your purpose in using ursines as an example.

Again, I would recommend against using zoological or anthropological examples if you don't understand the science behind them. Or to use your words:
"When you figure out that simply saying something doesnt make it so get back to me."

-----

Once you've managed to resolve this disparity, I'd be happy to continue a discussion of the remaining points up for debate...presuming you're actually interested in a substantive discussion, of course.

you were the one who started the sharpshooting. you were the one who could have very easily figured out what my points were and responded to them, but instead decided to sharpshoot (with only limited success might i add).

You could have said, well do you mean carnivore as in eats a lot of meat or do you mean carnivore as in can only eat meat. but you didnt. You could have in short addressed the substance but you didnt, you simply nitpicked, and then left it at that, along with a snarky "its only science after all" thrown in.

So yes, I quite fairly responded that one your sharpshooting was a bit off target and two that it wasnt particularly substantive.

And now, even as i have pretty clearly clarified my meaning on bears being carnivores, you STILL want to discuss the issue as if I never did so then you want to assume I somehow based my entire argument on bears being carnivores, which boggles my mind since its pretty clear I didnt. I

Polar bears live exclusively on meat products, and from what I could tell, of the relatively few species of bears (8 from what I read) grizzlies also are primarily hunters who supplement their hunting with other foods, although grizzlies are a subspecies of Brown Bear who were the only ones I could find that matched the "75%" of food from plant material that you quoted. American Black bears on the other hand do not hunt at all and only eat carrion. So guess what, some bears are pure carnivores, some are primarily meat eaters, and some are primarily veggie eaters. Asiatic Black Bears are somewhere between the two extremes.

So seems to me that were bears the focus of either of our arguments, NEITHER of us would have much of an argument since polar bears are completely carnivorous and other bears are largely so, while still other bears are mostly not carnivorous.

Of course, bears WERENT the focus of my argument, and EVEN if they were, the fact that they do in fact EAT MEAT and are set up to do so WAS the point, and so quibbling over whether they are technically carnivores in the sense that they only eat meat and nothing else (which for the third time was not the point I was making) or whether they are carnivorous in that they eat meat as part of their diet (which they ALL do and WAS the point I was making) seems to me to be designed to as I said sharpshoot.

I dont think you want a substantive discussion, I think you want to be snarky and sarcastic. Have at it, but I'm really not interested.

they're their own thing.

Maybe you should stay away from the bears for a bit.

Also, it seems like the big sticking point in your argument is that vegetarians need vitamin B-12 supplements. So? BFD. Why is this such a concern for you?

Furthermore, vegetarian food is considerably cheaper than critters, so don't pull out the "healthy food is too expensive" canard.

You sure seem to have spent a great deal of time babbling nonsense on this thread tonight for someone who "isn't that interested."

I get my zinc and B12 from food. Soy milk, cereal and nutritional yeast all contain b12. As far as zinc, grains, nuts and legumes are great sources of zinc. So talking about having to take supplements to get these things is infactual.

One of the best things about my vegan diet is that it has educated me about what my body needs and what I consume. I now know more about food than I ever have before and since education, imo, is evolution, my diet is just another form of my evolving. In the process, I'm not harming any animals to sustain myself and that makes me feel pretty damn good about my karmic place in the world.

I think the initial misinformation spewed about how "hard" it is to be veg or vegan is what turns a lot of people away from even thinking about it. I think feeding the propaganda that you can't be a healthy person if you don't eat animal products is a cop-out. It's about not taking the time to fully educate yourself and most people don't want to work that hard or think that much about what they are eating. The initial learning curve is a matter of a month or so, beyond that, you know what you need to eat.

I've lost about 30 pounds on my vegan diet and my doctor says, besides my bad habit of smoking, I'm healthy. Since going vegan, my hypothyroidism has gone into remission and my endocronologist thought I'd have to be on medications for life to control it. Can't argue with that. I also haven't had a cold or the flu and I'm not really worried about that pesky little avian flu either.

it sounds like your bashing meat eaters, i eat meat, and like stated by other posters, i care about the animal i eat. i dont want a cow to be tortured to death, but provided the death was as quick and painless as possable, bring on the black angus brugers. the idea that veggies dont have feelings is wrong too, now its immoral to kill an animal because it is life and has feelings but a veggie is alright because eventhough it is life it dosnt have feelings? thats BS think about that head of lettus that was torn to peices for your little moral highground based diet.

stuff you added.

1. finally a substantive response out of you

2. How does that affect the jobs associated with the meat, dairy and fishing industries? Will they all simply switch over to veggie farming? Because you insinuate down below that if we just stopped eating meat we would be able to feed the world many times over on the farms we already have. That's a lot o' people out of a job. We arent even talking the related industries like milk, cheese, eggs,

3. you still dont talk about transition costs. How much to plant the right mix of new crops to insure that everyone gets the right balance? How much to make the nutrients cheap like zinc and B-12 that you wont get from a veggie diet? How well do veggie products travel and maintain their nutrient value compared to meat and dairy products? How quickly will the transition take place? Will industrial waste really be significantly different when farms switch over to veggie crops? Wouldnt you want to make darn sure that weather, drought and other problems didnt affect your now sole source of food? Wouldnt that mean more pesticides and preservatives?

In short, there are a whole host of practical effects and consequences that you pooh pooh away as being meaningless.

a transition to an all-vegetarian diet would be FAR cheaper, especially in the long run. It costs MUCH less to feed a population with vegetables than it does with meat.

Eating meat is not only immoral, it is unnatrual as well. We are not designed to eat meat, and furthermore, the way we do it is not natural. Secondly, it is immoral because we raise animals to murder them for wanton consumption. It is not a predator-prey relationship at all.

What's wrong with eating meat? To go with what I've said above, it is also unsustainable, since vegetables are easier to come by and are cheaper to consume. If you disagree with that, you will be trying to defy basic fact. With a population of humans growing exponentionally, we need to start thinking about the rational and right ways to feed ourselves.

Animals get eaten all the time, but by predators, in nature, in a natural manner. If we didn't raise cows or chickens for slaughter, they would be raised for eggs and milk. Even if they weren't raised for that purpose, they may be able to assume a niche in nature, but I'm not sure about which.

There is a lot of evidence that plants do fell pain. However, there would still be things left to eat, as the entire Jain population of the world relies on non-rooted plants (not the exact term), which are not killed by harvesting.

transition costs generally talk about the SHORT RUN, not the long run. The question wasnt if we could magically transform the world into a vegetarian utopia overnight would that be cheaper, the question was how expensive would such a transformation be. But even forgetting that for a moment, saying something doesnt make it so, what proof do you have that an all veggie set up would be cheaper world wide than what we have now?

Second of all, eating meat is unnatural? based on what? Proof please. Saying something doesnt make it so. We have incisors, they are designed for cutting through flesh not veggies. Our bodies are absolutely designed for hunting, with our eyes placed where they are and the amount of brain set aside for vision and tracking (admittedly part of that is also for us to spot out danger). We may not be designed to eat the vast amounts of meat we consume today, but to say we arent designed to eat any meat is absolutely unsupportable biologically or scientifically speaking.

So your statements are without support. As for the immoral part lets break that down. You start by saying the way we do it is unnatural. So apparently if we all killed in a hunt what we eat its natural, whatever that means, but if we simply raise it on a farm and kill it at our leisure then it becomes unnatural??

Then you seem to say, well its ok to raise them for eggs and milk, since you list that as an alternative to eating them, although not sure why eating an adult chicken is unnatural and immoral but eating a chicken embryo isnt but ok.

Some niche in nature? What niche would that be? Where would the cows go? What would they eat? How much damage can millions of free roaming cows do to the ecosystem by the way?

I think you will need a lot more than, its immoral because its not "natural". By the way, we arent the only animal that herds other animals for food or work.

By the way "unsustainable" you say? How long has human civilization been raising and eating meat again?

I refer you to post #33.

Transition would not be that drastic at all. There is no vacuum of infrastructure, as meat production already demands an insane amount of transport for vegetables. Considering this, it would be pretty easy to shift to total vegetarian intake.

What proof? OK, do you know what a trophic level is?
http://www.botany.uwc.ac.za/sci_ed/grade10/ecology/trophics/troph.htm

The fact that the meat industry needs to FEED its animals, which means it needs a large amount of FOOD, which would come in the form of vegetables. This amount of food would be able to feed MANY more people for a much lower cost than meat ever could.

Eating meat is pretty unnatural. Don't believe me? Try to hunt an animal WITHOUT technology. Have fun.

This is a horse's set of teeth. Horses are herbivores


This is a bear's jaw. Bears are omnivores


Which looks more like a human set of teeth?

Human incisors are not made to bite through raw meat. Incisors are for tearing, but that does not mean they are specifically for meat at all. (on edit) Please observe the presence of canine (as in, tearing) and incisor teeth in horses as well.

Our eyes placement means we are hunters? What? How about the eye placement on this "hunter"?


...Oops. That means about nil.

So your statements are without support. My statements stand.

There is quite a difference in breeding and raising a population simply to kill them at will, and in hunting them individually (even if done with technology). The former aim is very much an immoral one.

There is also a difference between eating eggs and milk and not slaughtering animals, and slaughtering them wholesale. Please, if you cannot see this distinction, that is sad.

Yes, in India, the roaming cows are singlehandedly destroying the environment! Oh, wait....

Yes, humans have been eating meat for a long time, but are you aware of something called population growth?


Eating meat is unsustainable for such a large population.

and asking which look more like a human's is a bit silly. If you want to talk internal structures, how about the fact that our intestines are not nearly as long by ratio as herbivores. In fact, we have evolved intestines roughly halfway between pure herbivores and pure carnivores, ideal for being an omnivore dontcha think? Intestine lenght is one of the determinants for herbivore or carnivore, the former needing long ones to process the plant material, the latter needing short ones to process the meat before it rots. Ours? Right in the middle, an 8-1 ratio where cats have a 3-1 and cattle 20-1. Yet another point for humans as omnivores.

How about the fact that we READILY absorb nutrients from meat? Herbivores do not, not without assistance and training. we have fairly simple digestive systems well suited to the consumption of animal protein, which breaks down quickly. Herbivores do not. Herbivores have specialized systems for breaking down plant material, we do not.

as for teeth, we certainly do have them in order to eat meat. Our teeth are generalists, designed to both eat meat and to eat plant material. I would suggest that the horse's incisors arent well placed to tear into meat at the tip of the "mouth". But if we are going to compare teeth, what about a dogs? Other than a larger canine, their teeth arent that different than ours.

How about we look at our closest relatives, primates? Several of them will eat meat in the wild for example (although not all), and all will eat meat in captitivity. How about we look to all of recorded human history for the fact that meat consumption has occurred. In fact, it seems difficult to find a time period where humans DIDNT eat at least some meat.

But after all of that, you assert that humans arent designed to eat meat? Well ok I guess.

distinction between eating eggs and animals? So you think eating embryo's is ok but eating the living animal isnt? Well not particularly consistent there but hey if you like eggs wont burst your bubble :)

Yes our eye placement is crucial to us as hunters. Wide stereoscopic vision and a brain largely dedicated to visual and movement processing. Arent too many hunters that dont have a set up like ours, and the fact that other animals happen to have two eyes in the front of their head doesnt make that fact any less true. (And by the way, Koalas have VERY poor eyesight, might want to research that fact before making an argument).

Now you revise your argument about sustainability by talking about population growth, ok. funny though how we got that population growth in the first place given how horrible eating meat is in so many respects ;)

The fact is that there is the same structure in horses' teeth as in humans' teeth. Look at the picture. You see insicors and canines, and horses are herbivores.

You brought up teeth as evidence in the first place, and now that it is debunked, it is "a bit silly"?...:eyes:

Intestine length is not good evidence, especially when considering this:
"the average ratio of intestine length to body length is 5.85, placing the giant panda plumb in the middle of the carnivore range"
http://library.thinkquest.org/27396/alimen.htm
and...
"A wild giant panda’s diet is almost exclusively (99 percent) bamboo."
http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/GiantPandas/PandaFacts/default.cfm

So, actually, that means very little.

That's just it, we have "training" to digest meat.

Yeah, with dogs, I can really see the similarity...


...or not....

Some primates might eat meat in nature, but bonobos, one of the closest related species to humans, is herbivorious, while the rest of the diet may be occassional insects.

With eye placement, we do have the same placement as Koala Bears. Also, such eye placement helps monkeys with their movements in trees, not with tracking prey. As for eye "vision" itself (something you didn't cite before), we have relatively poor vision, especially when it comes to movement, something dogs far outperform us at.

I do make the distinction between raising an animal to slaughter it and eating an egg. What, are you trying to turn this into an abortion debate? Anyway, it would be more cost-effective and most likely better to not raise animals in captivity at all, for any purpose.

I never revised anything, I pointed out an obvious fact that you couldn't comprehend. With a growing population, the practice of eating meat becomes all the more detrimental. And also, it takes much more work to get less food, so there would be more growth and there would NOT be an ever-nearing capacity of food that contributes to starvation if humans were entirely vegetarian.

heck why not compare us to eagles, that might make your point even better. lol

We have excellent vision compared to most animals. We have a great combination of acuity, range of color vision, and ability to track motion. Some animals are better in one area, but lest I remind you even dogs are colorblind.

I didnt say talking about teeth was silly, I said simply showing a picture of one set of teeth was silly, and it is. And yes I think on average dog teeth are fairly similiar to human teeth.

Intestine length is one of the PRIMARY ways of determining whether something is a carnivore, omnivore or herbivore, so not sure you've done your homework on that to say its somehow irrelevant.

Primates are all VERY closely related to humans. You can pick and choose the ones that are primarily plant eating if you want to, but in total, they nearly all can and do eat some portion of meat, and by the way, insects aint plants, they are meat.

predators have stereoscopic vision, thats a pre-requisite to being a predator. Predators have great eyesight particularly with color vision and motion tracking ability, thats a pre-requisite as well. We have all of that. The koala may have eyes in the front of its head instead of its side, but its vision is so bad it has been known to mistake a person's leg for a tree trunk.

to demonstrate actual predators' attributes to humans'.

Lions are colorblind as well, but they would be able to catch, kill and eat you or me or a gazelle or an impala with ease. Great point...:eyes:

If you look at the actual structure of the teeth, our teeth closely resemble horse teeth, while they are in stark comparison to those of bears and dogs. You really cannot see the difference between the mouth of a dog and that of a human? It's quite obvious, especially in regards to molars and frontal teeth (translation: everything).

It is irrelevant in some cases. One case is that which I pointed out. This proves that "carnivorous" intestine lengths can be in a species that is herbivorious.

Actually, bonobos are singled out for their relation to us. 95%, as a matter of fact. Most primates are primarily herbivorious. And by the way, if you want to start eating insects (which is VERY occasional for those primates, not an important or constant food source), be my guest. Perhaps you could win Fear Factor in the process.

Our vision with motion is far inferior to dogs and other predators, and that is just the beginning. Other completely herbivorious species have these "pre-requisites" as well, which makes that point even more meaningless.

many human cultures TODAY eat a heck of a lot of insects as part of their daily diet.

My point in talking about colorblindness is to point out that we have a wide range of abilities with regard to vision, not that seeing color equals good hunter.

Our vision is NOT "far inferior to dogs". http://www.lakeeffectdogs.com/dog_vision.htm
shows that human acuity is actually six times that of dogs. Dogs might be better with motion (and what they are REALLY better at is night vision), but again we are talking about DOGS! Dogs are carnivores, their whole being is hunting, that our eyesight is in the same ball park (and it is) says that we are biologically speaking designed to be not simply gatherers but hunter gatherers.

From another website: http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p=human+vision+AND+animal+vision&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&u=www.abledata.com/abledata_docs/Distance-Perception.pdf&w=human+vision+animal+vision&d=QvX7gY6CL5FO&icp=1&.intl=us

"Human vision is unique among all the species and it, alone, gives us a full range of
benefits lacking in other species. As with most animals, we humans have wide-field
peripheral vision which protects us from attacks, collisions and accidents (typically over
an angle of 175 degrees). Unlike most animals, we humans have a large area (85 to 95
degrees wide) of sharp, clear vision, typically rated 20/20). Unlike most animals, we
see a full range of colors and color intensities. And, unlike animals, we see a fused
binocular, stereoscopic image with both eyes, which enhances our distance- and depth-
perception abilities. As with most animals, the retinal “rod” cells that give humans wide-
angle peripheral vision also give us good night-vision, even in very dim light."

intestinal length is only "irrelevant" to the extent that you can find an exception to the rule. I'm sure I could find a carnivore somewhere out there with a longer intestine but that wouldnt be the norm, and the norm is that longer intestine equals herbivore and shorter equals carnivore.

bonobos are not the only primate within the upper 90% relation range and you know it. Why you persist in that argument is beyond me. Chimps are also very similiarly highly related to us.

go eat occassional insects as a very occassional source of food. Have fun.

My point was that your point has no bearing on hunting ability, which is true.

Our eye sight is not in the same ballpark. Ask yourself, when is it better to hunt: night or day? Is prey usually motionless or mobile? That should help you reach a better conclusion.

Once more:
"The majority of primate species are primarily or exclusively vegetarian."
http://anthro.palomar.edu/behavior/behave_3.htm

you're "killing" a single haploid cell.

Like a sperm cell, or an unfertilized human ovum.

Most (almost all) animals do not eat other animals. Predators compromise a very small portion of an animal community. This is because there is 10x less energy available in each preceeding level of food source. For instance, there is 10x more energy available for herbavores than for the carnivores that eat those herbavores.

Another thing is that humans are not supposed to eat meat. This is obvious when one considers the physical design of a human being, in both the aspects of body structure and digestive process.

Therefore, I must disagree with your conclusions.

we are absolutely designed to eat meat. We are omnivores, we are designed to eat just about darn near anything.

Everything from our teeth structure to digestive system indicates our being herbivores.

But this is simply not correct. There are many anatomical features, like the gall bladder and a single-chambered stomach lacking enzymes to break down cellulose and other complex plant carbohydrates, that suggest Homo sapiens have evolved from and currently are omnivores. Particularly with the gall bladder, which produces bile in which to emuslify (break down) fatty acids and fats. However, most scientists (myself included) believe that we are omnivores with a diet based primarily in vegetable matter supplimented by (approx. 20% of diet) meat products.

I'd say that the average American diet today is much made up of much more than 20% meat, which is 1)terribly unhealthy and 2)a massive waste of resources

Analogous structures are useful to point out that indeed we do share common anatomy with both primary herbivores and primary carnivores, but the I do not agree we are anatomically consistent with being herbivores.

my understanding is that we eat about 35% as meat, which probably is more than we should but not as much more as it presented (we arent eating meat pops on a stick after all) :)

I'd agree that we are omnivores who have as the majority source a diet based in veggie matter but also designed, as you point out, to supplement that with meat.

one of the closest related species to humans, bonobos, are almost completely herbivorious. That shows evolutionary evidence in favor of that diet.

The fact that we are not made to digest grass does not mean we are not primarily geared toward vegetable intake. Excuse me if I am wrong, but I do believe many herbivores, including primates, lack those same enzymes.

Nice quote in your signature, by the way.

It should be noted that chimpanzees and bonobos, our closet relatives, show a remarkable amount of variation despite being so related to one another and us.

We can digest a very, very large range of plant carbohydrates--just not some, like cellulose (different linkages in the chains of the carbon rings). Most primary herbavores have adapted many different ways to digest cellulose--either a multichambered stomach with symbiotic bacteria, or enzymes.

What I'm trying to stress here is that in these discussions of whether or not Homo sapiens should eat me is closely linked to "why" we eat me. Many posters' objections to eating meat-- cruelty, cost, diet-- are spot on and should not be ignored, particularly when the world is suffering from a crippling starvation crisis worldwise. It is not economical feasable, nor should it, to have diets consisting of high amounts of meat. Not only is it "not natural", it is economically impossible and inhumane to the earth.

But evolutionarily...we're omnivores. Doesn't mean we have to be either/or...but that we've always had a small part of our diet composed of animal flesh. Morally, science can't enter this question.

I find eating meat to be unethical, but I recognize as animals we probably evolved to include some meat in our diet.

ps--

have you read "Che: A Revolutionary Life"? A bloody fantastic book.

first, I think your points on the science are dead on, we evolved to have som portion of meat in our diet, but we primarily should eat plant material (which I think no one on the "pro-meat" side is arguing).

But if we evolved to eat meat, then why is eating meat "unethical"?

I fully understand the cruelty, cost and diet arguments but seems to me thats not a question of ethics in eating meat per se, but how we prepare the meat to be eaten (i.e. slaughter and environs, etc) and in how much meat we eat (diet and cost).

1. The high economic cost of eating meat means that resources that could be used to create more grains to be used in food are being used to feed animals-- this is wasteful. People are starving to death because we are using too many resources to feed our unhealthy need for a diet with much meat in it.
2. The meat industry is cruel. I do not distinguish here between eating meat, and how we prepare the meat. An animal is treated not like a living thing that should be respected; but as a mere object for our consumption. That is wrong.

My beliefs are rooted in thanking earth for allowing us to use her resources with respect...clearly, most people don't. And I think that's unethical.

well I'd disagree with most of that I'd say but nothing wrong in your belief. I would say that people are starving to death for other reasons than that we eat meat. We have plenty of food, meat or no, for everyone, but transportation is a problem, and the fact of the matter is we are nationalistic and we "feed our own" first. One can argue whether thats right or not but that along with transportation and environmental issues (living in Ethiopia isnt going to be highly conducive to growing veggies or animals) and simple greed, graft, etc. are the main reasons for hunger IMO.

I'd also probably not subscribe to the earth as anything more than an innanimate object, which I'm sure you disagree with me on. I do agree animals shouldnt be treated cruelly, but disagree that eating an animal per se isnt treating it like a living being. I think prey animals ARE objects for consumption.

if we were true herbivores we couldnt digest meat!!

we clearly can, and EASILY so.

We cannot eat most grasses.

We are patently not pure herbivores anymore than we are pure carnivores, we are omnivores. We can eat most plant material and ALL animal material and digest and draw nourishment from either.

It's pretty common knowledge, I think :shrug:

they arent built for HEAVY meat eating, they are however suitable for eating meat, our stomach is single chambered, our intestines are short enough for the meat to pass through before rotting.

We are designed to eat both meat and plants, but no one will dispute that we probably eat a lot more meat than we are supposed to (of course the average american still eats almost two thirds of their food as veggie based and not meat).

I might suggest you rent it this weekend. It is very enlightening.

Not whether or not we evolved to and current are able to digest meat. We clearly are, just as we are able to digest plant produces, but not cellulose and other complex plant carbohydrates that other "true" herbivores like cows and other grazing animals.

It's not an "either or" question. And while "SuperSize Me" does a superb job of showing the grossly unhealthy eating habits of America, and most developed nations, it does not negate the fact that Homo sapiens can now and have been able to process fats and meats.

The million dollar question is "how much" meat is appropriate in our diet. From an purely biological standpoint, as I've mentioned up stream in this thread, we are not primarily meat eaters. But it estimated that like most primates, up to 20% of our diet can be derived from meats.

not really sure what you mean by this.

sure Super Size Me was for the proposition that eating a highly processed, additive filled, fatty, junk food diet is bad for you.

I think thats self evident.

I dont think it was designed to show that MEAT was bad for you in and of itself, and I dont think it provides any evidence for that idea at all.

Although some historians and anthropologists say that man is historically omnivorous, our anatomical equipment ­ teeth, jaws, and digestive system ­ favors a fleshless diet. The American Dietetic Association notes that "most of mankind for most of human history has lived on vegetarian or near-vegetarian diets."

Meat and seafood putrefies within 4 hours after consumption and the remnants cling to the walls of the stomach and intestines for 3-4 days or longer than if a person is constipated. Furthermore, the reaction of saliva in humans is more alkaline, whereas in the case of flesh-eating or preying animals, it is clearly acidic. The alkaline saliva does not act properly on meat.

Also, all omnivorous and carnivorous animals eat their meat raw. When a lion kills an herbivore for food, it tears right into the stomach area to eat the organs that are filled with blood (nutrients). While eating the stomach, liver, intestine, etc., the lion laps the blood in the process of eating the dead animals flesh. Even bears that are omnivores eat salmon raw. However, eating raw or bloody meat disgust us as humans. Therefore, we must cook it and season it to buffer the taste of flesh.

Even on most industrialized countries, the love affair with meat is less than a hundred years old. It started with the refrigerator car and the twentieth-century consumer society. But even with the twentieth century, man's body hasn't adapted to eating meat. The prominent Swedish scientist Karl von Linne states, "Man's structure, external and internal, compared with that of the other animals, shows that fruit and succulent vegetables constitute his natural food." The chart below compares the anatomy of man with that of carnivorous and herbivorous animals.


When you look at the comparison between herbivores and humans, we compare much more closely to herbivores than meat eating animals. Humans are clearly not designed to digest and ingest meat.



Meat-eaters: have claws

Herbivores: no claws

Humans: no claws



Meat-eaters: have no skin pores and perspire through the tongue

Herbivores: perspire through skin pores

Humans: perspire through skin pores



Meat-eaters: have sharp front teeth for tearing, with no flat molar teeth for grinding

Herbivores: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding

Humans: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding



Meat-eaters: have intestinal tract that is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quickly

Herbivores: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.

Humans: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.



Meat-eaters: have strong hydrochloric acid in stomach to digest meat

Herbivores: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater

Humans: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater



Meat-eaters: salivary glands in mouth not needed to pre-digest grains and fruits.

Herbivores: well-developed salivary glands which are necessary to pre-digest grains and fruits

Humans: well-developed salivary glands, which are necessary to pre-digest, grains and fruits



Meat-eaters: have acid saliva with no enzyme ptyalin to pre-digest grains

Herbivores: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains

Humans: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains

Based on a chart by A.D. Andrews, Fit Food for Men, (Chicago: American Hygiene Society, 1970)


We may be ABLE to digest meat, but our bodies clearly favor the style of a herbivores' and thus a vegetarian diet.

This comparison of primary meat eaters VS primary herbavores is just not a valid one because we are have been omnivoures for most of our existance as a distinct species; we did not eat our meat raw, as your list correctly pointed out, it was cooked, and this is probably due to the ability of our species' ability to utilize tools and fire.

I find this discussions to be often not biologically valid because it seems to me we compare only herbavores with carnivores, instead of middle ground animals like coyotes, rats, other primates which have diets more similar to ours. Mostly based in plants, but supplimented by occasional meat.

So I'll take that at face value.

I understand your point, but you are just wrong on this.

That we're either have analogous internal structures more similar to herbavores than to carnivores. This...isn't representing the entire possibility of animal diets. There are many variations to these two general schemes, which is what I am trying to say.

And I don't like playing the "I'm right you're wrong" card, but my background on biology, and particulary evolutionary genetics and strcutures, on this subject does make my arguement credable.

I will again review your list and respond to them.

But please, do not make this personal, because while I do align myself on your side of the arguement (morally, at least), the science you attempt to use may not be 100% correct. :hi:

But my point is that our digestive systems are clearly more similar to herbivores. I don't see how one can argue against that. While we are ABLE to digest anything (hell, we can digest cardboard), that doesn't mean it is ideal for us.

And I am allowing myself to get off track with the most convincing arguments for a vegetarian diet, which is that it is disgusting, brutal and inhumane, unhealthy, and hurts the environment.

And, nothing personal at all :)

It may be quite long :)

And as I said, I agree 100% with your objections to eating meat; however, I will attempt to argue that from an evolutionary standpoint Homo sapiens have:

1)evolved from a common ancestor that had a diet primarily that of an omnivoure
2)that our diet, from an evolutionary standpoint, was composed of a majority of fruits, grains, and other non-meat sources BUT that because of our ability to make tools, use language, we were able to suppliment our diet with occasional meat that was gathered
3) Modern diets are becoming increasingly unhealthy due to an increase of % of diet being composed of by meat products, which contain numerous ill benefits including: icrease of cardio-vascular diseases and pesticides/hormones

I look forward to posting my response

1.) Bonobos are a very closely related species that is completely (or at least primarily) herbivorious.

2.) I would argue that technology is a relatively recent development, and because of this, it is not natural for humans to eat meat.

3.) I agree 100%

are not the only "very closely related species" to us, and it says nothing about his argument that our COMMON ancestor was an omnivore.

The fact that bonobos branched out and became herbivores is pretty irrelevant to whether or not we did the same, especially when other equally closely related species to us are also omnivores.

"The majority of primate species are primarily or exclusively vegetarian."
http://anthro.palomar.edu/behavior/behave_3.htm

Branched out? Not really.

of looking for only what you want to see.

Which part of "primarily" dont you understand? Primarily does not equal exclusively. An omnivore can be "primarily" vegetarian and in fact MOST omnivores are primarily vegetarians, and for the tenth time, i've said that WE as omnivores are primarily vegetarian.

but that aint the argument. If that were the argument this thread wouldnt exist. The argument that you are throwing out is that we are EXCLUSIVELY vegetarian, and so when you can come back and determine how much of that "majority" is exclusively vegetarian let me know but I suspect you will find that isnt going to be a large number.

Further what is one of the "exceptions"? Chimpanzees, one of the closest primates to us.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

You conveniently ignored the exclusively part of that quote. Good job. Secondly, primates may supplement their diet with non-vegetarian foods, but that is rarely a real consistent source of food. If an organism eats 99.9% vegetables, and then eats a few bugs, can they be considered "meat-eating"? Not really.

Sure, chimpanzees eat meat, after catching them and eating them in nature. However, humans cannot do so in nature. How's that hunting going for you?

Choosing to ignore aspects of an argument because they can't contest them. It's how you know you've won, so good job :)

1. not to be sarcastic, but what other animals do you know that have mastered fire? Of course all other animals eat their meat raw. Before fire, I guarantee you when humans ate the occassional rabbit or whatnot, they ate it raw too. After fire, we figured out, hey cooking this stuff is pretty tasty. animals dont worry so much about tasty. We cook our veggies too for the most part, again because we like tasty.

2. The poster below is absolutely right. comparing us to herbivores and carnivores makes little sense if we are making the argument that we are omnivores. The argument also isnt that we are designed to eat primarily meat, not a single poster in this thread has argued that. So making the point that the human body setup "favors" plant matter is a bit meaningless. Sure it does, no one argues that. What people are pointing out is its also set up to recieve meat too. Thats what makes us omnivores. You wanna argue we should eat less meat, feel free, its a fine argument. You want to argue that we are herbivores, sorry thats not a good argument.

1. Lions will starve to death if their meat is not raw. Humans can get all kinds of nasty diseases if they eat too much raw meat.

2. Yes, it is valid that the human body has much more in common with herbivores than with carnivores. From our lips to our anus our digestive system has evolved to efficiently process plant foods.

Digestion begins in the mouth with a salivary enzyme, called alpha-amylase (ptyalin), whose sole purpose is to help digest complex carbohydrates found in plant foods into simple sugars. There are no carbohydrates in meats of any kind (except for a smidgen of glycogen), so a true carnivore has no need for this enzyme – their salivary glands do not synthesize alpha amylase.

The stomach juices of a meat-eating animal are very concentrated in acid. The purpose of this acid is to efficiently break down the muscle and bone materials swallowed in large quantities into the stomachs of meat-eaters. Digestion of starches, vegetables and fruits is accomplished efficiently with the much lower concentrations of stomach acid found in the stomachs of people, and other plant-eaters.

The human intestine is long and coiled, much like that of apes, cows, and horses. This configuration makes digestion slow, allowing time to break down and absorb the nutrients from plant food sources. The intestine of a carnivore, like a cat, is short, straight, and tubular. This allows for very rapid digestion of flesh and excretion of the remnants quickly before they putrefy (rot). There are also marked sacculations (many sac-like enlargements that bulge out along our large intestine), like those found in all apes, which strongly supports the view that we are primarily plant-eating animals. Overall, the intestines of meat-eaters are noticeably simpler than ours.

"The argument also isnt that we are designed to eat primarily meat, not a single poster in this thread has argued that. So making the point that the human body setup "favors" plant matter is a bit meaningless. Sure it does, no one argues that. What people are pointing out is its also set up to recieve meat too."

As I said, we can digest cardboard, but does that mean it is what we're meant to do? No.

no its not valid because no one is claiming we are pure carnivores, heck no one is even claiming we are mostly carnivores, so you are setting up a strawman by comparing us to herbivores and carnivores and saying, see we are more like herbivores, therefore we are herbivores.

Thats just patently not true, notwithstanding the point made above ignored by everyone taht we have gall bladders, what your argument ignores is the ways in which we are NOT like herbivores starting with the structure of our stomach, and ending with our READY ability to absorb nutrition from meat. You make it seem like our body has to do a herculean struggle to get any nutrition from meat when in fact it doesnt.

But I'll challenge you, eat meat for a week and then eat cardboard for a week, see if there is a difference ;)

point one, second...yes we can get diseases from eating raw meat today, but would have gotten them 500K years ago? Is that what the appendix was for? How much evolution has occurred today that has removed our ability to process raw meat? Do other meat eating primates, and there are several, cook their food before eating it? Why dont they get sick?

The human intestine is also shorter than most herbivores (but longer than carnivores), yet another reason why we are omnivores, mostly eating veggies but ALSO set up to eat meat.

Getting again back to the cardboard strawman, we may be able to digest it, but how much nutritional value can we derive from it? Darn near zero, not so with meat.

It is written by the physician friend of my mother's, has some things you may be interested in:

http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall/030700pumeatinthehumandiet.htm

and responded below, but it certainly seems to suggest that we've been eating small amounts of meat going back to before we made the final evolutive split even.

I'm a college graduate, and I've never heard that our digestive systems are not capable of digesting meat.

Are we capable of it? Sure. But is it ideal, and are we designed to digest meat? No.

seems to me its pretty well established that the whole reason we are sitting here typing away debating this is because of the tremendous boost in brain size and power adding meat and fat to our diets gave us back in the day when our biggest worry was still not getting eaten by lions.

Is it designed? Clearly since we are not set up to be pure herbivores in the sense that we dont have the stomachs plural to eat grasses that's an indicator that some meat was part of the design process, especially considering the evolutionary time frame and geography of where we dropped down out of the trees (many of which weren't full of human-edible plant life).

Should we be eating whopper's with cheese three times a day? nope, we should eat a lot of veggie stuff and a modest amount of meat for a healthy balance, just like our ancestors back in the day lived when they were running from those lions.

You assumptions that humans wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for meat is absurd. Do you have any proof that we are what we are today thanks to eating as much meat as we could?

According to the website of a friend of my mother's who is a physician:

"The early ancestors of modern humans, from at least 4 million years ago, followed diets almost exclusively of plant-foods. Beginning at least 250,000 years ago, many of the hunter-gatherer societies consumed meat as a large part of their diet.1 However, more recently, over the past 12,000 years of agricultural development, people’s diets have been mostly based upon starches, like rice in Asia, corn in North America, potatoes in western parts of South America, wheat in Europe and Northern Africa. In terms of the time line of evolution, 12,000 years, and even 250,000 years, is only a brief moment."

"From our lips to our anus our digestive system has evolved to efficiently process plant foods. Digestion begins in the mouth with a salivary enzyme, called alpha-amylase (ptyalin), whose sole purpose is to help digest complex carbohydrates found in plant foods into simple sugars. There are no carbohydrates in meats of any kind (except for a smidgen of glycogen), so a true carnivore has no need for this enzyme – their salivary glands do not synthesize alpha amylase.

The stomach juices of a meat-eating animal are very concentrated in acid. The purpose of this acid is to efficiently break down the muscle and bone materials swallowed in large quantities into the stomachs of meat-eaters. Digestion of starches, vegetables and fruits is accomplished efficiently with the much lower concentrations of stomach acid found in the stomachs of people, and other plant-eaters.

The human intestine is long and coiled, much like that of apes, cows, and horses. This configuration makes digestion slow, allowing time to break down and absorb the nutrients from plant food sources. The intestine of a carnivore, like a cat, is short, straight, and tubular. This allows for very rapid digestion of flesh and excretion of the remnants quickly before they putrefy (rot). There are also marked sacculations (many sac-like enlargements that bulge out along our large intestine), like those found in all apes, which strongly supports the view that we are primarily plant-eating animals. Overall, the intestines of meat-eaters are noticeably simpler than ours."

because when civilization started, it started in large part to our larger brains and our transition from a simple gatherer to a hunter gatherer. Our brain size exploded. And we arent talking about this transition being about eating LARGE amounts of meat, we are talking about small portions of meat supplementing our diet which made all the difference.

This is yet another strawman, you create the argument you want to knock down. I didnt say anything about meat being a "large part of the diet", I in fact said it should be a samll supplement to the diet and was so back with our ancestors, but it was that added boost given by fats and meat that help jump start things (and all of those cultures ate SOME meat to go along with the rest).

You clearly made the tie that we are what w are today thanks to eating meat. Go back and re-read your posts if you're confused.

Today, we eat probably 20 or 30 times the meat we did when civilization started. Again, I'd suggest you read this:

http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall/030700pumeatinthehumandiet.htm

which is what i just said above when i said we got a boost, etc.

i think you are the one that is confused.

As for your link, I have to laugh when it starts off with "there is one diet that is best for each animal", thats a laughingly simplistic argument. Diet being "best" depends on lifestyle, habitat, and energy needs. There is no "one best diet" for an entire species.

But your own link goes back to what I said about the necessity of meat and fat in early society:

"So why has meat been an important part of the diet of so many of these hunter-gatherer societies?6 Throughout human history, especially before the development of agriculture-based living, acquiring food for survival was a full time job – food scarcity, even starvation, plagued most of these people, at least some of the time. Meat represented a gold mine of concentrated calories and nutrients whenever it was obtained."

And your own link shows that our ancestors ate at least SOME meat:

"The ancestors of modern humans were believed to live primarily on plant foods, eating wild fruits, leaves, roots, and other high quality plant parts with a few animal foods in their daily diet."

Seems to me your own link shows my point, we've been eating meat as part of our diet since before we had language or fire or anything else.

Link?

I never denied that, but I get why you're making that one aspect of this argument such a big deal. You're attempting to latch onto one teeny tiny aspect of that entire written piece as if that somehow "proves" you are correct, and just choosing to ignore the rest of it. Not to mention, mocking a very respected physician's knowledge and research.

But ok. Whatever makes you feel better. :hi:

we werent designed to eat meat and that we shouldnt eat meat, I am pointing out that even your link shows that going back 100s of thousands of years we STILL ate some amount of meat in our diet even before "we" were fully "we" aka modern homo saipiens saipiens.

Heaven forbid I argue against a "well respect physician", I mean afterall, if he says it, it must be true, he's a "well respected physician" aftera...oh wait, thats that whole argument from authority logical fallacy rearing its ugly head isnt it?

When someone says something akin to every species has one best diet, thats patently silly. Every species doesnt have one best diet. If you REALLY wanted to determine the "one best diet" you'd want to not only do a genetic makeup of that particular individual, but you'd want to know its daily caloric needs, is it a guy in a cubicle or is he a guy building a railroad? You'd want to know where he was living? Desert? jungle? Jersey?

so yep, I mocked him. I also recognize he isnt the only "well respected physician" in the world, and his view is not universal.

Or will we just keep playing this silly game?

do you even read what I write? You apparently dont think that our ancestors eating meat is particularly relevant or compelling.

Fine, you agree that our ancestors ate meat. Now get past that and look at the points being made, which is that eating meat is NATURALLY part of our diet, going back to before we were even modern man evolutionarily speaking.

We evolved to have at least some portion of our diet include meat.

Eating meat is NOT naturally part of our diet (or at least it shouldn't be), as that article pointed out. If you're seriously attempting to say that because we did it many years ago and that makes it reason enough, then that's absurd. Humans have done many things in the past that were stupid/unhealthy/etc.

You make ridiculous statements, then when someone calls you on them you get irritated. You've slightly changed your position about 6 times now, and frankly I have better things to do tonight than try to enlighten someone too stubborn to see what is so plainly in front of their face.

Hope you have a good night :)

are you actually going to say that what our ancestors ate has no bearing on whether it is NATURAL for us to eat that as well? Seriously? You dont see the great big looping problem with that kind of position?

you dont think the one way we might determine whether eating meat is natural or a product of civilization would be to go back before civilization and look at what our evolutionary ancestors ate?

Guess those pre-historic ape-men were just stupid for throwing in those bits of meat.

stupid stupid ape-men.

But you are right, this is a waste of time.

:thumbsdown:

90% of what I posted was words from a well-respected physician. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you take it up with him.

In the meantime, I'm more inclined to believe what an actual doctor says about health and nutrition than from most of the know-it-all blowhards on this website.

I argue it mostly from an evolutionary standpoint--but again, you know that we agree that eating meat is unethical, right? I just disagree with your assertion that we evolved (in your words, "designed") to be vegetarians.

Thank you for the civil discussion, btw :)


Meat-eaters: have claws

Herbivores: no claws

Humans: no claws


This is a rather interesting point to make because I argue that most of our most common ancestors and relatives who also have an omnivorous diet (like chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes ) have flat, non-retractable “claws” (nails). So, again, saying we have no “claws” is a false label; just as many grazing organisms like cows, gazelles, and deer have hooves made of the same material that nails and claws are made out of. Clearly some omnivores—again like chimps and many of our closely related primate relatives—have flat nails. Yet they still eat meat, and it is perfectly natural.


Meat-eaters: have no skin pores and perspire through the tongue

Herbivores: perspire through skin pores

Humans: perspire through skin pores


This is a feature that…I’m not honestly sure what it has to do with digestion. Chimps, and many other primates, perspire through skin pores as well and also consume meat.



Meat-eaters: have sharp front teeth for tearing, with no flat molar teeth for grinding

Herbivores: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding

Humans: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding


This is one of those “either or” categories that just isn’t valid for making an argument one way or another. We still have defined canines and sharp incisors. Many herbivores have enlarged incisors and molar that we do not have. But we have a combination of both. We have many molars in which to grind, and we have sharp canines to bite into small bites of flesh. And our common relatives have the same dental layout as we do. In fact, the farther you go down the chain of human evolution, we seem to have lost enlarged canines. So as primates became more and more “evolved” (this is really over simplifying like millions of years of evolution), we gained more defined molars. This I think is testimony to the fact that many primates, with growing mental capacity for things like tools, could become more opportunistic in their diets, and probably started having a diet with less meat. But I’m just speculating on this, and I can’t remember some geneses and specific species.


Meat-eaters: have intestinal tract that is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quickly

Herbivores: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.

Humans: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.


This is again…not so true. Some herbivores have shorter intestinal tracks in favor of a multi-chambered stomach with symbiotic bacteria, like cows. Others do have much longer intestinal tracks. Diversity in life is very high, and it’s not fair to use one anatomical plan and use it for all comparison. Humans can’t break down cellulose; which many herbivores can, but we still have (or should) most of our diet in the forms of other easily digested carbohydrates like grains and fruit.


Meat-eaters: have strong hydrochloric acid in stomach to digest meat

Herbivores: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater

Humans: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater


This is just not correct. Our normal pH is around 2-4, which is basically battery acid. Carnivores also have large gall bladders to help break down the high concentration of fat. Herbavores have a pH of 4-5. Carnivores around 1-2, IIRC from my anatomy class. So…no. This one is just not true, and the scale is in log form.


Meat-eaters: salivary glands in mouth not needed to pre-digest grains and fruits.

Herbivores: well-developed salivary glands which are necessary to pre-digest grains and fruits

Humans: well-developed salivary glands, which are necessary to pre-digest, grains and fruits


Humans also have a much defined gall bladder, which is the organ responsible for producing bile; bile breaks down fatty acids founds in meat. This organ is less defined in primary herbivores, but is also seen in omnivorous organisms like coyotes and chimpanzees.



Meat-eaters: have acid saliva with no enzyme ptyalin to pre-digest grains

Herbivores: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains

Humans: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains


This is true—we do have very different saliva compositions. This is reflected in our diet consisting of (usually ~80%) of carbohydrates. But omnivores also have this anatomy as well.

Conclusion:

We may be ABLE to digest meat, but our bodies clearly favor the style of a herbivores' and thus a vegetarian diet.

I conclude that our diet, based on evolutionary comparisons to members of the primate family, is a composition of herbivore and carnivore, with the majority of diet consisting of carbohydrates with opportunistic supplements of meat. This is based on the fact that our anatomy seems to be a composition of both extreme.
In conclusion, meat is not meant to be main source of calories for Homo sapien; carbohydrates are. But, we have evolved to process and take in small portions of meat, which I think cannot be ignored.

Modern man, however, for various ethical and economic reasons, should limit meat consumption <20%, and lower.

But we all know about the unethical practices of how most people get meat…but I think we have 0 disagreement there :)

disagreement with anything you typed here.

I do enjoy a nice steak though so my daily percentage might be more than "optimal" but I also love a good broccolli and cauliflower, green beans, and even munch on iceberg lettuce by itself on occassion (very tasty).

Your argument is simple and correct IMO. We shouldnt eat a lot of meat, but we are designed to supplment our mostly veggie diet with it. Evolutionary necessity demanded it of our ancestors.

You aren't the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?

There are some comments that simply aren't worth debate.

However, since you will probably just call me stupid again, let me remind you that our body produces enzymes that are designed(wish I had a better word to use) for breaking down meat(both the protein and the fat). I took several biology and human anatomy courses and I can say with a firm assertion that would you said is utter garbage. Considering that what you said is definitely not conventional wisdom among scientists, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove your statement.

I said you didn't seem to be the sharpest tool in the shed, which you don't. :shrug: Grow a thicker skin if you're going to post five word sentences then say nothing to back them up.

Saying "You're making ridiculous comments" then saying absolutely NOTHING to back them up is what's really ridiculous (until now, citing your vast expertise from "many biology and human anatomy classes"). Big friggety deal. I've taken many biology and human anatomy classes. What, does that make me an expert? If you have a problem with something I've said, go point by point and address them like everyone else does when we debate this. Then maybe I'll give a flying pig what you have to say.

Everything I cited was from a physician and nutrition expert's website. Like I said, if you have a problem with that, there's a link to the information with the Doctor's email address, and I'm sure he'd be very interested to hear what someone who took "many biology classes" thinks about it :rofl:

Humans are OMNIVORES, animals that eat both animal and vegetable matter. Eating meat (first from scavenging, then from hunting)was one of the things that allowed us to evolve our huge brains, 20% of out daily calorie requirements goes to fuel our brain and fatty meat is a verry concentrated source of energy (as well as a good source protien for growing young brains).

i have a very long family history of it, and studies have proven the link between eating meat and colon cancer.

I can get my protein elsewhere.

And yes, I support PETA. I don't agree with all their tactics, but they have the best intentions when it comes to animals.

on heart disease. Studies (published in such animal rights rags a JAMA and The Lancet) show that eating animal fats and protein causes cardiovascular disease. The surest way to cure cardiovascular disease is by giving up meat, dairy, eggs, and most fats.

But we're meant to eat meat. Right.

is to cut out all meat, dairy, alcohol, sex, smoking, traveling, adventure, etc.

I think it's obvious that saturated fats cause heart disease. That's why I supplement my 3-4 servings of lean meat (2 of which are fish), a week, with whole grains, nuts, seeds and a ton of olive oil. That's why I eat ONE cookie, made with real butter and eggs, instead of twenty. That's why I eat five servings of fruit and vegetables, a day. That's why I eat reasonable servings of low-fat dairy, and ee-gads, even sometimes change them out for soymilk, or other fake dairy products.

It doesn't make any sense to say "well meat causes heart disease," so you shouldn't eat ANY of it. It's fine, in moderation, with a little bit of care, just like everything else. And it tastes fucking great, and if you have half a brain cell in your head, you can find meat and dairy that are produced at responsible commercial organic farms, or on small local farms -- you can even go out during hunting season and bag one, yourself.

Meat tastes GOOD. Eggs taste FANTASTIC. And milk...don't get me started. Chocolate milk is worth its weight in platinum and small children.

You can live a life on lockdown -- trust me, I've been vegan, a vegetarian, a minimalist -- all of that fun self-effacing stuff. But what I've learned is that balance is beautiful. I can be an omnivore, a homeowner, a mother, a damn good cook, take care of myself, etc. -- and I can do it responsibly. If we all did it responsibly, we'd be a lot better off than we are. Sometimes those who suggest that the only alternative is extreme action scare people away from even making small choices that benefit the environment, and animals, and the world.

And on the health risks of meat.

The American Dietetic Association notes that "most of mankind for most of human history has lived on vegetarian or near-vegetarian diets."

PETA has destroyed any credibility they might have enjoyed among ordinary Americans and have become a punchline.

P.S. pasting in more than four paragraphs from a copyrighted story runs a serious risk of copyright infringement, the mods may want you to trim your quote block down a notch or two.

Great read - I'm going to alternet now to get the rest.

No explanation of how PETA is progressive, just a parenthetical assertion. How lovely.

I've never seen any such explanation, for that matter. The petans I've met online and IRL have so far only seen fit to spew condescending vitiriol equating omnivores (which they call carnivores) with Republicans.

I wish they'd identify as Jesus freaks or something, and stop trying to further divide the left. Assholes.

:sarcasm:

Pot, meet kettle.

...to a plant based diet. Lots of people just don't know the fact about how inefficient the production of "meat" is, as well as being unhealthy. It is a very progressive idea to lessen our reliance on the factory farming industry.

It's the same as "progressive" SUV drivers who defend their right to waste fossil fuel and pollute the environment.

:thumbsup:

but wow, thanks for all the snide cracks at the city of my birth

--ok, they are mostly true, but still...lol

I had and have a problem in my neighborhood, and when I quote the peta position only a few will still argue I should pay hundreds to spay and then find homes for them. I've never relocated them to some abandoned area or harmed them, I just deliver them to the pound.

http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=38
Because of the huge number of feral cats and the severe shortage of good homes, the difficulty of socialization, and the dangers lurking where most feral cats live, it may be necessary and the most compassionate choice to euthanize feral cats. You can ask your veterinarian to do this or, if your local shelter uses an injection of sodium pentobarbital, take the cats there. Please do not allow the prospect of euthanasia to deter you from trapping cats. If you leave them where they are, they will almost certainly die a painful death. A painless injection is far kinder than any fate that feral cats will meet if left to survive on their own.

I have tamed completely wild ferals (AND spend my money to spay them, horror of horrors) and they are all the sweetest creatures I've ever known. I also spend my own money to spay and neuter any cat I find. It is, quite simply, the morally right thing to do in my opinion.

If you really wanted to solve the problem, rather than dumping them at the pound (although yes, I suppose it is better than relocating them or hurting them, congratulations), you'd spend equal time attempting to educate people in your area about the importance of spaying and neutering. Otherwise, you're not really part of the solution.

You'll notice, that while PeTA advocates this stupid policy of "it's better to euthanize than trap-neuter-release," they also spend a HUGE amount of time promoting and encouraging adoption over breeding and spaying and neutering ALWAYS. It is imperative that if you personally insist on trapping these ferals and dumping them at a pound knowing full well they will be killed, you have a moral obligation to work to encourage people in your area to spay and neuter. Whether that be posting flyers at the local grocery store, writing letters to the newspaper, or donating money to the local SPCA so they can do low-cost spay neuters. You can't just dump them at the pound and think you're somehow doing good.

"You can't just dump them at the pound and think you're somehow doing good."

"writing letters to the newspaper" I have done this. it has not changed the people who feed the Ferrel's out side ( they believe they're doing good ) to then mark my living space. trap and euthanize IS the only responsible answer to this problem

People who feed outdoor ferals are doing good ONLY if they are also spaying and neutering them. People who feed them but do not stop the reproduction are doing bad, you're right there. But as long as they are being sterilized and cared for, they are absolute angels as far as I'm concerned.

When you trap and drop off these animals, how do you know they aren't sterilized and being cared for by someone? I care for several ferals that I have vetted and neutered, and I would be HEARTSICK if I found out someone like you was taking them and dropping them off at the pound knowing full well they wouldn't have a chance at being adopted out to a loving home. People like you are the reason why I have to microchip all my ferals because you just don't get it. You have no idea who is caring for those ferals, and possible caring for them responsibly. They may bother you, but that doesn't give you the right to take them and have them killed, which is exactly what you're doing.

But if it makes you feel better to tell yourself you're doing good by trapping and dropping off ferals to be killed, then so be it. But please don't kid yourself.

Do they not?