Why Vegan Instead of Just Vegetarian??
Prisoner at War
I've been ruminating, off and on, with increasing frequency, for
years, over switching to a vegetarian diet (lacto-ovarian).
I'm still thinking about it, and it's 50/50 between health benefits
and animal rights...so can someone explain why, um, "whole-hog" vegan
instead of simply lacto-ovo vegetarian?? I mean, I was never sure how
animals would be harmed by us using their surplus milk and
unfertilized eggs (assuming they are free-range, etc.), but now I've
just found out that eggs and dairy is supposed to be *harmful* to us
somehow???
I still don't have a lot of motivation to become either vegetarian or
vegan just yet -- my vanity as a bodybuilding weight-lifter precludes
it, I'm afraid, though there are a few famous vegetarian or vegan
bodybuilders and strength athletes -- but I will be ready soon to give
at least a vegetarian diet a 30-day "shareware" trial, just to really
see what it's like (I've done a day or two at a time already, but
haven't noticed much of a change besides hunger sometimes!)....
I once thought that I would defer any vegetarian or vegan switch until
old age when bodybuilding and that kind of strength won't matter, but
God damn it's really disgusting how cattle, livestock, and seafood are
raised these days -- no, "raised" is too generous a term: they're
practically manufactured!
Forget about the acts of sheer cruelty we see on the evening news, bad
as that is: just the whole cooped up experience of being raised in a
cage, living with no space to turn around, is fucking sick!! I really
try not to think about it, but in trying to live a conscious life of
awareness and self-realization, there's no way but to also live
conscientiously, for all sentient beings...hard-scrabbled bastard that
I am, it's the least I can do to not put such food in my mouth, to
fuel my lifts at the gym on the lifelong suffering of animals -- never
mind all the health reasons!
So anyway, just thinking out loud again on usenet...any relevant
advice appreciated. My fear as a lifter is that I would somehow lose
muscle, or not gain, or gain as much or as fast...is that a valid
concern at all? It won't stop me from doing at least a vegetarian
diet in another year or two, but I'm curious about any such
consequences.
My plan is to do 30-day vegetarian trials, just to "acclimate"
myself...though many claim to feel so good that doing another 30 days,
then another, then another, just becomes second nature! But why all-
out vegan? What's wrong with lacto-ovo?
And, just for curiosity's sake...is it true that growing kids simply
cannot realize their full physical potential on a vegetarian and/or
vegan diet??
TIA!
David
"Prisoner at War" <prisone...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:823efdd7-d8e6-489d...@28g2000hsw.googlegroups.com...
animals have no rights
Mr. Smartypants
Y'know...if you need some one to explain it to you, you probably don't
have the brain power to understand it anyway.
Doug Freese
"David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:47b6be4a$0$8437$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> animals have no rights
And neither do plants. Whose says that plants don't have feelings. With
animal ethics on the carbon list I guess we are not going to meet a
barbeque and swap chicken wing recipes.
A happy omnivore.
-D
Elflord
> So anyway, just thinking out loud again on usenet...any relevant
> advice appreciated. My fear as a lifter is that I would somehow lose
> muscle, or not gain, or gain as much or as fast...is that a valid
> concern at all? It won't stop me from doing at least a vegetarian
> diet in another year or two, but I'm curious about any such
> consequences.
I've done the lifting thing both while veg and while non-veg (wasn't that
good at lifting either way though I did deadlift more than you ;-). I don't
think you'll suddenly atrophy.
> My plan is to do 30-day vegetarian trials, just to "acclimate"
> myself...though many claim to feel so good that doing another 30 days,
> then another, then another, just becomes second nature! But why all-
> out vegan? What's wrong with lacto-ovo?
Start with ovo-lacto. That way, you can still take whey protein.
Would suggest surviving on that for a while before trying all-out vegan
(which is much harder to pull off)
Cheers,
--
Elflord
Elflord
>
> "David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:47b6be4a$0$8437$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>> animals have no rights
>
> And neither do plants. Whose says that plants don't have feelings. With
I say there is no credible evidence that plants have feelings.
Cheers,
--
Elflord
Bartleby
I'm not a vegetarian, but I share some of your thoughts and feelings.
You might want to follow elflord's advice and do the lacto-ovo thing
for a while.
Vegan is harder.
Remember when eating your veggies that Mikie likes it!
http://www.naturalphysiques.com/cms/index.php?itemid=166
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/mahler21.htm
Prisoner at War
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:46:17 +0000 (UTC), Elflord <ab...@aol.com>
> wrote this stuff here :
>
> >On 2008-02-16, Doug Freese <dfre...@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >> "David" <forgot...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> >>news:47b6be4a$0$8437$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> >>> animals have no rights
>
> >> And neither do plants. Whose says that plants don't have feelings. With
>
> >I say there is no credible evidence that plants have feelings.
>
> >Cheers,
>
> It is natural and normal to eat meat as a human being.
Animals in the wild have a *life*...that was the point of my concern
over the ethics of it all.
And now, it's even an environmental problem, all the shit generated!
EXCERPTS
Like oil, meat is subsidized by the federal government. Like oil, meat
is subject to accelerating demand as nations become wealthier, and
this, in turn, sends prices higher. Finally -- like oil -- meat is
something people are encouraged to consume less of, as the toll
exacted by industrial production increases, and becomes increasingly
visible.
...
Grain, meat and even energy are roped together in a way that could
have dire results. More meat means a corresponding increase in demand
for feed, especially corn and soy, which some experts say will
contribute to higher prices.
...
Because the stomachs of cattle are meant to digest grass, not grain,
cattle raised industrially thrive only in the sense that they gain
weight quickly. This diet made it possible to remove cattle from their
natural environment and encourage the efficiency of mass confinement
and slaughter. But it causes enough health problems that
administration of antibiotics is routine, so much so that it can
result in antibiotic-resistant bacteria that threaten the usefulness
of medicines that treat people.
Those grain-fed animals, in turn, are contributing to health problems
among the world's wealthier citizens -- heart disease, some types of
cancer, diabetes. The argument that meat provides useful protein makes
sense, if the quantities are small. But the "you gotta eat meat" claim
collapses at American levels. Even if the amount of meat we eat
weren't harmful, it's way more than enough.
...
Longer term, it no longer seems lunacy to believe in the possibility
of "meat without feet" -- meat produced in vitro, by growing animal
cells in a super-rich nutrient environment before being further
manipulated into burgers and steaks.
Another suggestion is a return to grazing beef, a very real
alternative as long as you accept the psychologically difficult and
politically unpopular notion of eating less of it. That's because
grazing could never produce as many cattle as feedlots do. Still, said
Michael Pollan, author of the recent book "In Defense of Food," "In
places where you can't grow grain, fattening cows on grass is always
going to make more sense."
But pigs and chickens, which convert grain to meat far more
efficiently than beef, are increasingly the meats of choice for
producers, accounting for 70 percent of total meat production, with
industrialized systems producing half that pork and three-quarters of
the chicken.
Once, these animals were raised locally (even many New Yorkers
remember the pigs of Secaucus), reducing transportation costs and
allowing their manure to be spread on nearby fields. Now hog
production facilities that resemble prisons more than farms are
hundreds of miles from major population centers, and their manure
"lagoons" pollute streams and groundwater. (In Iowa alone, hog
factories and farms produce more than 50 million tons of excrement
annually.
Prisoner at War
>
>
> I've done the lifting thing both while veg and while non-veg (wasn't that
> good at lifting either way though I did deadlift more than you ;-). I don't
> think you'll suddenly atrophy.
Hehe...I'm positively pissed that my deadlifts and squats are so
puny...I'm still in consultation with that laser spinal surgery place
in FL...sigh....
> Start with ovo-lacto. That way, you can still take whey protein.
I've bought some soy isolate now and will be trying that out soon.
It's not too much more expensive, though I have no problems with whey.
> Would suggest surviving on that for a while before trying all-out vegan
> (which is much harder to pull off)
So you say you've "done" this thing...sounds like you gave it up?? Or
maybe it was the weight-lifting you gave up?
I'm looking forward to my experiment...I'll be living my usual
lifestyle, especially WRT weights and running, but doing lacto-ovarian
for thirty days...I have an initial acclimatization phase where I
reduce my intake of meat each day until I'm having it only once a
week, while substituting eggs, cheeses, and tofu, along with protein
powders (not just with my workouts anymore)...once that's settled, the
experiment will begin with the first week of absolutely no meat at
all, which will probably be in early March....
> Cheers,
> --
> Elflord
Prisoner at War
>
>
> I'm not a vegetarian, but I share some of your thoughts and feelings.
>
> You might want to follow elflord's advice and do the lacto-ovo thing
> for a while.
> Vegan is harder.
>
> Remember when eating your veggies that Mikie likes it!
>
> http://www.naturalphysiques.com/cms/index.php?itemid=166http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/mahler21.htm
Thanks, man; good to see a fellow traveler among fellow lifters!
I've already started cutting back on meat consumption, and I expect to
have eased into a fully lacto-ovo diet by early March...I will keep up
my usual volume and intensity of weight-lifting and report back to the
group sometime in April! I often hear of runners gaining more energy
than ever while on vegetarian and vegan diets, but maybe that's just
'cause those guys and gals lose weight and muscle mass! What would be
interesting is to see if that results for a weight-lifter...thirty
days should be enough time to determine that, I hope....
Elflord
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:46:17 +0000 (UTC), Elflord <ab...@aol.com>
> wrote this stuff here :
>
> It is natural and normal to eat meat as a human being.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
Cheers,
--
Elflord
Elflord
> So you say you've "done" this thing...sounds like you gave it up?? Or
> maybe it was the weight-lifting you gave up?
I did some weight lifting before I started with the veg diet, then stopped
for a while, then started again after being on the veg diet. I stopped lifting
eventually because I was doing much better at running.
Cheers,
--
Elflord
Mr-Natural-Health
> years, over switching to a vegetarian diet (lacto-ovarian).
>
> I'm still thinking about it, and it's 50/50 between health benefits
> and animal rights...so can someone explain why, um, "whole-hog" vegan
> instead of simply lacto-ovo vegetarian?? I mean, I was never sure how
> animals would be harmed by us using their surplus milk and
> unfertilized eggs (assuming they are free-range, etc.), but now I've
> just found out that eggs and dairy is supposed to be *harmful* to us
> somehow???
Way, way, way back in the pre-history of the smn newsgroup animal
rights wackjobs took control of this forum. Which resulted in a
movement to turn smn into a moderated newsgroup.
That never happened. And, animal rights wack-jobs are still nuts,
IMHO.
As michael savage wrote: "Liberalism is a form of mental illness."
http://prosites-prs.homestead.com/
You have to eat to live. And, that means animals have to die. Heck,
you cannot even walk with killing some type of life form.
Between me, and some animal it is going to be me every time.
Rudy Canoza
But this sword cuts two ways:
"Appeal to nature is a commonly seen fallacy of
relevance consisting of a claim that something is good
or right because it is natural, or that something is
bad or wrong because it is unnatural. "
Very often in these newsgroups, "vegans" and other
breeds of vegetarian try to bolster their position by
claiming that meat eating is "unnatural" for humans.
First of all, they're wrong: eating meat is completely
natural for humans. Humans evolved as a meat eating
species. Secondly, their claim, which is wrong, would
do nothing to support their prior claim that eating
meat is wrong if done by humans.
Humans and their predecessor hominid species naturally
ate meat before the development of morality. "vegans"
are faced with the task of showing how the development
of morality somehow invalidated a biologically natural
function of eating meat. They've never been able to do it.
Charlie Pendejo
> ANIMALS , in the wild, eat other animals though.
> It is natural and normal to eat meat as a human being.
And humans "in the wild" in some primitive societies or outside
society altogether often kill each other, sometimes even eat each
other, and engage in all kinds of behaviors you'd find abhorrent and
thoroughly unwelcome.
Ethics is not the same as "what's natural". From some angles it looks
like an antidote to, or at least checks and balances against, natural
instincts and behaviors.
I eat other animals, con mucho gusto, and agree with your point that
in doing so we are acting within a well established tradition
throughout the animal kingdom for zillions of years - it's hardly as
if us uniquely diabolical humans invented oppression, "murder", and
consumption of other beings. Just saying, you can't expect people who
disagree with eating animals on an ethical basis to find "it's
natural" a very satisfying rebuttal.
P.S. Soylent Green is people.
Prisoner at War
>
>
> But this sword cuts two ways:
>
> "Appeal to nature is a commonly seen fallacy of
> relevance consisting of a claim that something is good
> or right because it is natural, or that something is
> bad or wrong because it is unnatural. "
>
> Very often in these newsgroups, "vegans" and other
> breeds of vegetarian try to bolster their position by
> claiming that meat eating is "unnatural" for humans.
> First of all, they're wrong: eating meat is completely
> natural for humans. Humans evolved as a meat eating
> species. Secondly, their claim, which is wrong, would
> do nothing to support their prior claim that eating
> meat is wrong if done by humans.
>
> Humans and their predecessor hominid species naturally
> ate meat before the development of morality. "vegans"
> are faced with the task of showing how the development
> of morality somehow invalidated a biologically natural
> function of eating meat. They've never been able to do it.
I've always been concerned over the fact that evolutionary theorists
attribute meat-eating to our species' increased brain volume and
power...would seem like there *was* a place for meat-eating...but
perhaps it's just another evolutionary vehicle which we should perhaps
abandon now??
Prisoner at War
>
>
> I did some weight lifting before I started with the veg diet, then stopped
> for a while, then started again after being on the veg diet. I stopped lifting
> eventually because I was doing much better at running.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Elflord
Ah, I see. I would be giving up running, too, as it seems to really
exacerbate bad back symptoms, if it weren't for the fact that I just
love the activity, even though I can't even sprint anymore!
You know, I wonder...how come them great apes get so big and strong
simply on a mostly vegetarian diet?? I would have thought that their
muscles were like ours -- if so, there's definite proof one needn't be
a typical American meat-eater to be a strength athlete!
Prisoner at War
go...@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote:
>
>
> Way, way, way back in the pre-history of the smn newsgroup animal
> rights wackjobs took control of this forum. Which resulted in a
> movement to turn smn into a moderated newsgroup.
Hmm, really! Sounds bad, though I am interested in their health
claims about animal products being bad.
> That never happened. And, animal rights wack-jobs are still nuts,
> IMHO.
>
> As michael savage wrote: "Liberalism is a form of mental illness."
Speaking of mental problems, I find that conservatives lack a sense of
historical memory. I don't know of any conservative figure that's
ever advanced human society and civilization. Think about it: all the
leaders, in any field, are by definition liberals WRT their
discipline! Economics, the arts, science, politics,
philosophy...conservatives have **never** contributed to the
advancement of life! Think about that...name one conservative who
actually moved the world forward...it's amazing, though kind of
obvious once you realize it, since conservatives by definition do not
want change and wish to remain in the status quo...I can't think of
one conservative figure in *any* endeavor who made a direct positive
contribution to his or her field of expertise or interest.
I mean, it was almost certainly a liberal who said, hey guys, let's
get down from these trees....
> http://prosites-prs.homestead.com/
I hate sites that stall my system while loading Java or multimedia
unasked.
> You have to eat to live. And, that means animals have to die. Heck,
> you cannot even walk with killing some type of life form.
>
> Between me, and some animal it is going to be me every time.
That's a choice you make, but it's simply not true that animals must
be killed for food in order for us to live or be strong.
What I'm still uncertain about is whether children do need animal
products, even if only lacto-ovo fare, to grow to their full physical
and mental potential.
Mr-Natural-Health
> > You have to eat to live. And, that means animals have to die. Heck,
>
> > Between me, and some animal it is going to be me every time.
>
> That's a choice you make, but it's simply not true that animals must
> be killed for food in order for us to live or be strong.
I prefer to walk, myself.
I bet driving your automobile to work everyday has killed 1,000's of
lifeforms. Why do you discriminate?
It has been conclusively proven by research that a vegetarian diet
causes brain rot.
You have my condolences.
Prisoner at War
Yes, walking and bicycling should probably even be enforced!
> I bet driving your automobile to work everyday has killed 1,000's of
> lifeforms. Why do you discriminate?
I don't drive (not that I can't; I usually don't), but as to the point
of your question, no, bacteria and bugs don't count in the same way
that an embryo or (very primitive?) fetus doesn't for me.
> It has been conclusively proven by research that a vegetarian diet
> causes brain rot.
>
> You have my condolences.
My my, such defensiveness...sounds like you're fighting against your
better self more than any imagined vegetarian or vegan agitator....
Prisoner at War
>
>
> Michael Savage is mentally ill. He and Ann Coulter are vying for the
> "biggest nutcase" award.
How come no one (heh, no pun intended) seems to ever bring up the fact
that political conservatism has made *no* contribution to society?
I'm really hard-pressed to find even one example of a lasting societal
benefit that's come about as a result of political conservatism. I
wasn't a poli-sci major but I don't recall any conservative actually
advancing civilization as a direct result of their policies.
Now that's not to say there haven't been very otherwise intelligent
conservatives, but in their field of expertise or interest, I can't
think of one conservative figure who's ever advanced their field,
whether it involves war or peace, art or science, business or
politics. Somebody name someone, please! I've been realizing that
there isn't any, not a one whatsoever! Even in the military, where
conservatives overwhelmingly predominate, it's the "liberal" or
"radical" thinkers of military strategy and application who have
changed warfare.
Cubit
dogs, yet in Asia they would be slaughterred for food. It is not a huge
jump to assume that other animals are worthy of considerate handling.
However, consider the life of these animals in nature. The weak and the
unlucky are taken by preditors. Many animals live in constant vigilance for
their very lives 24/7. A life of fear ended with being eaten alive.
My feeling is that the food industry is necessary to proper human nutrition.
The answer is not to destroy one's health by pretending to be an herbivore.
Supporting regulation of the handling of animals in the food industry makes
more sense.
If I had not eaten for a week, and had the opportunty to kill and eat a cute
bunny rabbit, I would forget about animal rights. Maybe, I would reflect on
things later, but the rabbit would still be dead.
Elflord
> Elflord wrote:
>> On 2008-02-16, Cheese Wheels <obesi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:46:17 +0000 (UTC), Elflord <ab...@aol.com>
>>> wrote this stuff here :
>>>
>>>> On 2008-02-16, Doug Freese <dfr...@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>> "David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>> news:47b6be4a$0$8437$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>>>> animals have no rights
>>>>> And neither do plants. Whose says that plants don't have feelings. With
>>>> I say there is no credible evidence that plants have feelings.
>>> ANIMALS , in the wild, eat other animals though.
>>> It is natural and normal to eat meat as a human being.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
>
> But this sword cuts two ways:
Not in this thread, it doesn't.
> "Appeal to nature is a commonly seen fallacy of
> relevance consisting of a claim that something is good
> or right because it is natural, or that something is
> bad or wrong because it is unnatural. "
>
> Very often in these newsgroups, "vegans" and other
> breeds of vegetarian try to bolster their position by
> claiming that meat eating is "unnatural" for humans.
I agree that if someone were to make that argument, it would
be fallacious.
However, it is not at all clear who you are arguing with, because
you don't cite your source. A fierce rebuttal of a fallacious
argument from an uncited source is a digression at best, but since
you post this in response to me as though it's supposed to be some
kind of rebuttal, it also has the unfortunate appearance of a
"straw man" argument.
[ digression snipped ]
> Humans and their predecessor hominid species naturally
> ate meat before the development of morality. "vegans"
> are faced with the task of showing how the development
> of morality somehow invalidated a biologically natural
> function of eating meat. They've never been able to do it.
First, unless these vegans are trying to recruit you, the only "task" they are
faced with is finding good vegan food. They do not owe you an explanation.
But I'd like to address this anyway. Omnivore diets don't survive on the basis
of morality, they survive because they make sense on a cost-benefit basis for
most people living in today's societies.
Based on the prevalence of laws against animal cruelty in nearly every civilised
country, I would argue that the debate on the desirability of causing less harm
to animals is largely settled discussion. That doesn't "invalidate" eating meat
but it does make a veg diet a commendable choice for those who are willing to
swim against the societal inertia.
Cheers,
--
Elflord
Mr-Natural-Health
> <c4b52abf-243f-4531-8700-c83c6f287...@72g2000hsu.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Mr-Natural-Health <john-h-go...@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote:
> > As michael savage wrote: "Liberalism is a form of mental illness."
> >http://prosites-prs.homestead.com/
>
> "biggest nutcase" award.
Savage is a man of Science. Plus, he does not like his write up in
Wikipedia. :)
http://www.nndb.com/people/588/000044456/
University: BS Biology, Queens College New York (1963)
University: MS Anthropology, University of Hawaii (1970)
University: MS Ethnobotany, University of Hawaii (1972)
University: PhD Nutritional Ethnomedicine, University of
California at Berkeley (1978)
Author of many books:
Plant a Tree: A Working Guide to Regreening America (1975)
Bugs in the Peanut Butter: Dangers in Everyday Food (1976)
Man's Useful Plants (1976)
The Taster's Guide to Beer: Brews and Breweries of the World (1977)
Earth Medicine, Earth Food: Plant Remedies, Drugs, and Natural Foods
of the North American Indians (1980)
Weiner's Herbal: The Guide to Herb Medicine (1980)
The Way of the Skeptical Nutritionist: A Strategy for Designing Your
Own Nutritional Profile (1981)
The Art of Feeding Children Well (1982, with Kathleen Goss)
Vital Signs (1983)
Nutrition Against Aging (1983)
Secrets of Fijian Medicine (1983)
Getting Off Cocaine (1984)
The People's Herbal: A Family Guide to Herbal Home Remedies (1984)
The Complete Book of Homeopathy (1986, with Kathleen Goss)
Maximum Immunity (1986)
Reducing the Risk of Alzheimer's (1989)
Earth Medicine, Earth Food (1990)
The Herbal Bible: A Family Guide to Herbal Home Remedies (1992)
Healing Children Naturally (1993, with Kathleen Goss)
Herbs That Heal: Prescription for Herbal Healing (1994, with Janet
Weiner)
The Antioxidant Cookbook (1995)
The Savage Nation: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our
Borders, Language and Culture (2003)
The Enemy Within: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our
Schools, Faith, and Military (2004)
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder (2005)
The Political Zoo (2006)
Mark Thorson
>
> I'm still thinking about it, and it's 50/50 between health benefits
> and animal rights...so can someone explain why, um, "whole-hog" vegan
> instead of simply lacto-ovo vegetarian?? I mean, I was never sure how
> animals would be harmed by us using their surplus milk and
> unfertilized eggs (assuming they are free-range, etc.), but now I've
> just found out that eggs and dairy is supposed to be *harmful* to us
> somehow???
Compared to what? Meat?
You can have a perfectly healthful diet, even as a body builder,
on ovo-lacto vegetarianism. It's much more difficult to
formulate a good diet as a vegan, but it is possible. It would
require you to develop a good knowledge of the vitamins and
amino acids that a vegan diet would lack, and what sources of
those nutrients would be acceptable.
Serious body-builders follow a high-protein, low-fat diet.
Egg whites are an excellent source of low-fat complete protein,
so that covers all of the amino acids.
The main vitamin concern is B-12. A little runny egg yolk will
cover that need (B-12 is destroyed by heat, so fully cooked
egg yolk is not nearly so good a source, but that has to be
balanced against the salmonella risk from undercooked eggs).
Egg yolk contains a significant amount of cholesterol, so it
should be used sparingly. Cheese also provides B-12, but it
is rich in saturated fat and therefore is a cardiovascular
disease risk.
Rudy Canoza
> On 2008-02-16, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>> Elflord wrote:
>>> On 2008-02-16, Cheese Wheels <obesi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:46:17 +0000 (UTC), Elflord <ab...@aol.com>
>>>> wrote this stuff here :
>>>>
>>>>> On 2008-02-16, Doug Freese <dfr...@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "David" <forg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:47b6be4a$0$8437$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>>>>> animals have no rights
>>>>>> And neither do plants. Whose says that plants don't have feelings. With
>>>>> I say there is no credible evidence that plants have feelings.
>>>> ANIMALS , in the wild, eat other animals though.
>>>> It is natural and normal to eat meat as a human being.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
>> But this sword cuts two ways:
>
> Not in this thread, it doesn't.
Yes, it does.
>
>> "Appeal to nature is a commonly seen fallacy of
>> relevance consisting of a claim that something is good
>> or right because it is natural, or that something is
>> bad or wrong because it is unnatural. "
>>
>> Very often in these newsgroups, "vegans" and other
>> breeds of vegetarian try to bolster their position by
>> claiming that meat eating is "unnatural" for humans.
>
> I agree that if someone were to make that argument, it would
> be fallacious.
A moron named lesley who posts in
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian and alt.food.vegan under
the highly inapt name "pearl" makes that argument all
the time.
>
> However, it is not at all clear who you are arguing with, because
> you don't cite your source. A fierce rebuttal of a fallacious
> argument from an uncited source is a digression at best, but since
> you post this in response to me as though it's supposed to be some
> kind of rebuttal, it also has the unfortunate appearance of a
> "straw man" argument.
Look at any post by "pearl" in the thread "Destruction
of rainforest accelerates despite outcry" in a.a.e.v.
>> Humans and their predecessor hominid species naturally
>> ate meat before the development of morality. "vegans"
>> are faced with the task of showing how the development
>> of morality somehow invalidated a biologically natural
>> function of eating meat. They've never been able to do it.
>
> First, unless these vegans are trying to recruit you, the only "task" they are
> faced with is finding good vegan food. They do not owe you an explanation.
"veganism" is inherently evangelistic. They owe an
explanation.
Rudy Canoza
> Prisoner at War wrote:
>> I'm still thinking about it, and it's 50/50 between health benefits
>> and animal rights...so can someone explain why, um, "whole-hog" vegan
>> instead of simply lacto-ovo vegetarian?? I mean, I was never sure how
>> animals would be harmed by us using their surplus milk and
>> unfertilized eggs (assuming they are free-range, etc.), but now I've
>> just found out that eggs and dairy is supposed to be *harmful* to us
>> somehow???
>
> Compared to what? Meat?
>
> You can have a perfectly healthful diet, even as a body builder,
> on ovo-lacto vegetarianism.
That isn't vegetarianism at all. Eggs and milk are
animal protein products - period.
Mark Thorson
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> >
> > You can have a perfectly healthful diet, even as a body builder,
> > on ovo-lacto vegetarianism.
>
> That isn't vegetarianism at all. Eggs and milk are
> animal protein products - period.
That's the religious point of view, yes.
I was responding to the nutritional aspects.
Doug Freese
"Prisoner at War" <prisone...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cc465e62-7aac-4789...@34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com...
> I've always been concerned over the fact that evolutionary theorists
> attribute meat-eating to our species' increased brain volume and
> power...would seem like there *was* a place for meat-eating...but
> perhaps it's just another evolutionary vehicle which we should perhaps
> abandon now??
Why? There is nothing wrong with meat in general unless we pump it
full of roids etc. The greedy meat farmer wants the animal to go from
birth to full maturity in 10 minutes in a closet. The meat that was
chomped may years back we're not abused by man. If anything, return to
natural range fed.
-D
Doug Freese
"Mr-Natural-Health" <john-h...@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote in
message
news:c4b52abf-243f-4531...@72g2000hsu.googlegroups.com...
>
> Between me, and some animal it is going to be me every time.
I'll share a steak with ya! :)
-D
Rudy Canoza
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>> You can have a perfectly healthful diet, even as a body builder,
>>> on ovo-lacto vegetarianism.
>> That isn't vegetarianism at all. Eggs and milk are
>> animal protein products - period.
>
> That's the religious point of view, yes.
No, that's a fact.
>
> I was responding to the nutritional aspects.
Eggs and milk are not vegetables in any aspect.
Doug Freese
> Speaking of mental problems, I find that conservatives lack a sense of
> historical memory. I don't know of any conservative figure that's
> ever advanced human society and civilization. Think about it: all the
> leaders, in any field, are by definition liberals WRT their
> discipline! Economics, the arts, science, politics,
> philosophy...conservatives have **never** contributed to the
> advancement of life!
How can you possibly say that? Look at Bush and his cohorts see what a
wonderful job he is doing to preserve life. What's a few hundred
thousand of collateral death but our own troops. If there is an
afterlife of up and down he will get his reward in the warm place.
Elflord
>> Not in this thread, it doesn't.
>
> Yes, it does.
It's not clear what your point is (you don't appear to have one). If you're
trying to argue that there are some vegans who make dumb arguments, I won't
contest that, but I don't find the observation interesting or relevant.
> A moron named lesley who posts in
> alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian and alt.food.vegan under
> the highly inapt name "pearl" makes that argument all
> the time.
I cannot account for what "pearl" or "lesley" post.
> "veganism" is inherently evangelistic. They owe an
> explanation.
It isn't, they don't, but I provided one anyway. Since you snipped my explanation,
and didn't further inquire, I hope that I have settled this perceived "debt" to
your satisfaction.
Cheers,
--
Elflord
Prisoner at War
>
>
> Why? There is nothing wrong with meat in general unless we pump it
> full of roids etc. The greedy meat farmer wants the animal to go from
> birth to full maturity in 10 minutes in a closet. The meat that was
> chomped may years back we're not abused by man. If anything, return to
> natural range fed.
>
> -D
Even if the animals didn't suffer and even if there was no inherent
danger to meat-eating as some vegans claim, I do think the whole
notion of depriving another living thing of life is morally
problematic. I mean, scientists have even confirmed that cows have
accents! Yeah, no joke, a cow in England moos differently than one in
Wales!
And how about lobsters...apparently, these things never age!
Seriously, they just keep growing and growing...no one has ever
observed a lobster to die of strictly old age...their cells don't ever
stop dividing for some reason -- which means, in effect, that they
never "age" because they're always regenerating...I mean, stuff like
that causes a kind of wonder and awe at the phenomenon of *life
itself*...and...well, it just becomes harder and harder (though
admittedly not yet hard enough) to justify my consumption of living
beings when it's not necessary at all, now that I read more and more
about bodybuilders and strength athletes who are well-developed
despite vegetarian/vegan diets -- indeed, they all seem to claim that
they've made such progress precisely because of such diets!
So once again it's a whole nexus between animal suffering, health
benefits, and just plain morality that makes it harder and harder for
me to continue eating meat...it's so weird, but this has only just
happened like a day or two ago when I just, like, woke up and the
thought simply arose in my mind to go vegetarian...and it's not like
I'd just seen a really graphic snuff video of animals at the
slaughterhouse or something...it's like waking up once day to find
you've lost weight or gained an extra inch on your arms...I mean, this
kind of a quality makes it feel so *true*...I'm not going on a sudden
surge of emotions here, actually...I just woke up and thought, felt,
that I shouldn't be eating meat.
I'm just curious now about why vegans don't think lacto-ovo is good
enough. I'm also curious whether children could grow to their full
potentials on vegan or even vegetarian diets. And lastly, I'm curious
what vegetarians and vegans might make of their meat-eating pets! Any
vegans with pet snakes here??
Prisoner at War
> The plight of animals in our food industry is a valid concern. I have loved
> dogs, yet in Asia they would be slaughterred for food. It is not a huge
> jump to assume that other animals are worthy of considerate handling.
Even though it was recently claimed by research scientists that
lobsters have no way of feeling pain (like when dropped live into a
boiling pot), I'm still bothered by the moral issue of taking
another's life to sustain my own -- though I'm much less concerned
about non-mammals, to be sure.
> However, consider the life of these animals in nature. The weak and the
> unlucky are taken by preditors. Many animals live in constant vigilance for
> their very lives 24/7. A life of fear ended with being eaten alive.
Yes, I agree. I wonder what vegetarians/vegans say to that, though I
imagine it might be what I would say right now -- I do what *I* can.
> My feeling is that the food industry is necessary to proper human nutrition.
> The answer is not to destroy one's health by pretending to be an herbivore.
> Supporting regulation of the handling of animals in the food industry makes
> more sense.
Sounds like a good compromise, except that no industry gives a damn
about people, much less animals. There's even been some expose of
free-range chickens, I understand, where the chickens are not caged
but that's all and thus given the appellation "free-range."
IOW, I'm not sure a mindset which sees people as just cogs in the
machine could care about animals at all.
> If I had not eaten for a week, and had the opportunty to kill and eat a cute
> bunny rabbit, I would forget about animal rights. Maybe, I would reflect on
> things later, but the rabbit would still be dead.
Yes, perhaps -- but obviously none of us usenet typists are anywhere
near such a situation.
So the issue remains for me: meat-eating is immoral...until I can wean
myself off it. Which, like a junk-food snarfing fatbody, I've
recently begun slowly doing.
I hope my muscles don't stop growing or start disappearing...but it
seems like they won't.
Prisoner at War
>
>
> Compared to what? Meat?
Compared to a vegan diet. Apparently eggs and dairy are also bad for
human consumption???
I used to think that was just extreme, but someone I really respect
has recently made that comment and I wonder what he meant.
> You can have a perfectly healthful diet, even as a body builder,
> on ovo-lacto vegetarianism. It's much more difficult to
> formulate a good diet as a vegan, but it is possible. It would
> require you to develop a good knowledge of the vitamins and
> amino acids that a vegan diet would lack, and what sources of
> those nutrients would be acceptable.
Yeah, that's another issue, too, the practical one: I can barely bring
myself to grocery-shop and cook, much less go on a treasure hunt, as
it were, looking for each individual vitamin and mineral!
Still, I feel really certain that I just have to go vegetarian...I
don't know why, there's no obvious reason, but I just woke up like two
or three days ago and my thinking simply changed. Weird. Kinda like
how one day in the gym you just don't bother with the free-weights and
decide to try a machine (or vice-versa). What's got me really
convinced about the "correctness" of all this is that there's no great
surge of emotion involved at all...I just want it, but there's none of
the usual intensity of emotions behind a desire. Isn't that just
weird? Even just going to the gym often requires that I psych myself
up a little bit. But not with this veggie thing.
> Serious body-builders follow a high-protein, low-fat diet.
> Egg whites are an excellent source of low-fat complete protein,
> so that covers all of the amino acids.
Tofu has 'em all, too, right? A complete protein as well -- though
one might have to eat more of it, as measure by weight, say, than one
would of eggs...?
> The main vitamin concern is B-12. A little runny egg yolk will
> cover that need (B-12 is destroyed by heat, so fully cooked
> egg yolk is not nearly so good a source, but that has to be
> balanced against the salmonella risk from undercooked eggs).
Apparently liquid egg whites takes care of that somehow....
> Egg yolk contains a significant amount of cholesterol, so it
> should be used sparingly. Cheese also provides B-12, but it
> is rich in saturated fat and therefore is a cardiovascular
> disease risk.
Yeah, thanks for the reminder. This'll take some work. It's quite a
curiosity that I'm not put off by that, for a change.
Prisoner at War
Semantics. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable with the label "lacto-
ovo vegetarianism."
Ron Peterson
> On 2008-02-16, Doug Freese <dfre...@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
> I say there is no credible evidence that plants have feelings.
Mimosa pudica has feelings -- it reacts to being touched.
--
Ron
Bartleby
Nothing wrong with an egg a day. And you don't have to kill the bird
or treat it cruelly to get the egg.
"There is only a weak relationship between the amount of cholesterol a
person consumes and their blood
cholesterol levels or risk for heart disease." If one has diabetes or
high cholesterol, maybe an egg a day
wouldn't be such good advice.
"Recent research by Harvard investigators has shown that moderate egg
consumption--up to one a day--
does not increase heart disease risk in healthy individuals.(5) While
it's true that egg yolks have a lot of
cholesterol--and, therefore may slightly affect blood cholesterol
levels--eggs also contain nutrients that
may help lower the risk for heart disease, including protein, vitamins
B12 and D, riboflavin, and folate.
So, when eaten in moderation, eggs can be part of a healthy diet.
People with diabetes, though, should
probably limit themselves to no more than two or three eggs a week, as
the Nurses' Health Study
found that for such individuals, an egg a day might increase the risk
for heart disease. Similarly,
people who have difficulty controlling their blood cholesterol may
also want to be cautious about eating
egg yolks and choose foods made with egg whites instead."
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats.html
Rudy Canoza
> On 2008-02-16, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>
>> "veganism" is inherently evangelistic. They owe an
>> explanation.
>
> It isn't, they don't,
It is, and they do. You're full of shit.
pearl
enough. "
"There is only a weak relationship between the amount of cholesterol a
person consumes and their blood cholesterol levels or risk for heart disease"
'Plasma lipids and diet groups
..
The most striking results from the analysis were the strong positive
associations between increasing consumption of animal fats and
ischemic heart disease mortality [death rate ratios (and 95% CIs) for
the highest third of intake compared with the lowest third in subjects
with no prior disease were 3.29 (1.50, 7.21) for total animal fat,
2.77 (1.25, 6.13) for saturated animal fat, and 3.53 (1.57, 7.96)
for dietary cholesterol; P for trend: <0.01, <0.01, and <0.001,
respectively]. In contrast, no protective effects were noted for
dietary fiber, fish, or alcohol consumption. Consumption of eggs
and cheese were both positively associated with ischemic heart
disease mortality in these subjects (P for trend, < 0.01 for both
foods).
..'
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/525S
'There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or
minimization of fat intake beyond which further disease prevention
does not occur. These findings suggest that even small intakes of
foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in
plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn,
with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality
rates. - Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative
diseases: perspectives from China. Am J Clin Nutr 1994 May;59
(5 Suppl):1153S-1161S.'
'William C. Roberts, M.D., Professor and Director of the Baylor
University Medical Center, and Editor in Chief of the American
Journal of Cardiology, stated in this peer-reviewed journal,
Thus, although we think we are one and we act as if we are one,
human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals
to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which
contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for
human beings, who are natural herbivores.[11] [- frugivores]
..
[11] Roberts, William C. American Journal of Cardiology.
Volume 66, P. 896. 1 Oct, 1990 .
..'
http://animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Morality/examination_of_property.htm
Cancer:
'*Meta-Analysis: "Milk consumption is a risk factor for prostate
cancer.... In conclusion, we found a positive association between
milk consumption and prostate cancer."
Nutr Cancer. 2004;48(T):22-7. [Search Pubmed.org for 15203374.]
* "Among the food items we examined, cheese was most closely
correlated with the incidence of testicular cancer at ages 20-39,
followed by animal fats and milk.... Concerning prostatic cancer,
milk was most closely correlated with its incidence, followed by
meat and coffee.... The food that was most closely correlated
with the mortality rate of prostatic cancer was milk, followed by
coffee, cheese and animal fats." Int J Cancer. 2002
Mar 10;98(2):262-7. [Search Pubmed.org for 11857417.]
..
* "Suggestive positive associations were also seen between fatal
prostate cancer and the consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and
meat. There was an orderly dose-response between each of the
four animal products and risk." Am J Epidemiol. 1984
Aug: 120(2):244-50. [Search PubMed.org for 6465122.]
..
* "Positive correlations between foods and cancer mortality rates
were particularly strong in the case of meats and milk for breast
cancer, milk for prostate and ovarian cancer, and meats for colon
cancer." Cancer 1986 Dec 1;58(11):2363-71. [Search Pubmed.org
for 3768832.]
....'
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISW/is_257/ai_n7638034
'Dietary Risk Factors for Colon Cancer in a Low-risk Population
(white meat - fish, poultry)
..
Strong positive trends were shown for red meat intake among
subjects who consumed low levels (0-<1 time/week) of white meat
and for white meat intake among subjects who consumed low levels
of (0-<1 time/week) of red meat. The associations remained evident
after further categorization of the red meat (relative to no red meat
intake): relative risk (RR) for >0-<1 time/week = 1.38, 95 percent
CI 0.86-2.20; RR for 1-4 times/week = 1.77, 95 percent CI 1.05-
2.99; and RR for >4 times/week = 1.98, 95 percent CI 1.0-3.89
and white meat (relative to no white meat intake): RR for >0-<1
time/week = 1.55, 95 percent CI 0.97-2.50; RR for 1-4 times/
week = 3.37, 95 percent CI 1.60-7.11; and RR for >4 times/week
= 2.74, 95 percent CI 0.37-20.19 variables to higher intake levels.
..'
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/148/8/761.pdf
'I'm also curious whether children could grow to their full
potentials on vegan or even vegetarian diets. "
'Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are
appropriate for all stages of the lifecycle, including during
pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence.
Appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful,
nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the
prevention and treatment of certain diseases.' These 'certain
diseases' are the killer epidemics of today - heart disease,
strokes, cancers, diabetes etc.
This is the view of the world's most prestigious health
advisory body, the American Dietetic Association and
Dietitians of Canada, after a review of world literature.
...'
http://www.vegetarian.org.uk/mediareleases/050221.html
'Analyses of data from the China studies by his collaborators
and others, Campbell told the epidemiology symposium, is
leading to policy recommendations. He mentioned three:
* The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet,
the greater the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of
known and unknown nutrient needs.
* Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity,
a healthful and nutritionally complete diet can be attained
without animal-based food.
* The closer the food is to its native state - with minimal
heating, salting and processing - the greater will be the benefit.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/01/6.28.01/China_Study_II.html
"I've always been concerned over the fact that evolutionary theorists
attribute meat-eating to our species' increased brain volume and
power...would seem like there *was* a place for meat-eating..."
'Brown says that pushing the emergence of Homo sapiens from
about 160,000 years ago back to about 195,000 years ago "is
significant because the cultural aspects of humanity in most cases
appear much later in the record - only 50,000 years ago - which
would mean 150,000 years of Homo sapiens without cultural stuff,
such as evidence of eating fish, of harpoons, anything to do with
music (flutes and that sort of thing), needles, even tools. This
stuff all comes in very late, except for stone knife blades, which
appeared between 50,000 and 200,000 years ago, depending on
whom you believe."
Fleagle adds: "There is a huge debate in the archeological literature
regarding the first appearance of modern aspects of behavior such
as bone carving for religious reasons, or tools (harpoons and things),
ornamentation (bead jewelry and such), drawn images, arrowheads.
They only appear as a coherent package about 50,000 years ago,
and the first modern humans that left Africa between 50,000 and
40,000 years ago seem to have had the full set. As modern human
anatomy is documented at earlier and earlier sites, it becomes
evident that there was a great time gap between the appearance of
the modern skeleton and 'modern behavior.'"
..
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223122209.htm
'Frugivory is an intellectually demanding feeding behaviour demanding
the development of strategic planning, whereas the folivores feeding
behavior engages relatively simple tactics. According to Caroline
E. G. Tutin et al. 'Allometric analyses suggest a relation between brain
size (relative to body mass) and diet, with frugivores having relatively
larger brains . . . Maintaining a frugivorous diet presents huge
intellectual challenges of memory and spatial mapping compared with
the relative ease of harvesting abundant foliage foods.
.
Anthropologies 'Man The Hunter' concept is still used as a reason
for justifying the consumption of animal flesh as food. This has even
extended as far as suggesting that animal foods have enabled or
caused human brain enlargement. Allegedly this is because of the
greater availability of certain kinds of fats and the sharing behaviour
associated with eating raw animal food. The reality is that through
natural selection, the environmental factors our species have been
exposed to selected for greater brain development, long before raw
animal flesh became a significant part of our ancient ancestors diet.
The elephant has also developed a larger brain than the human brain,
on a diet primarily consisting of fermented foliage and fruits. It is my
hypothesis that it is eating fruits and perhaps blossoms, that has, if
anything, contributed the most in allowing humans to develop
relatively larger brains than other species. The ability of humans to
develop normal brains with a dietary absence of animal products is
also noted.
..
Given a plentiful supply of fruits the mother does not have to
risk expending much of her effort obtaining difficult to get foods
like raw animal flesh, insects, nuts and roots. Furthermore, fruits
contain abundant supplies of sugars which the brain solely uses
for energy. The mother who's genes better dispose her for an
easy life on fruits would have an advantage of those who do not,
and similarly, the fruit species which is the best food for mother
and child nutrition, would tend to be selected for. There is now
little doubt amongst distinguished biologists that fruit has been
the most significant dietary constituent in the evolution of humans.
..
What are the essential biochemical properties of human metabolism
which distinguish us from our non-human primate relatives? One,
at least, is our uniquely low protein requirement as described by
Olav T. Oftedal who says:
"Human milk has the lowest protein concentration (about 7% of
energy) of any primate milk that has been studied. In general, it
appears that primates produce small daily amounts of a relatively
dilute milk (Oftedal 1984). Thus the protein and energy demands
of lactation are probably low for primates by comparison to the
demands experienced by many other mammals." The nutritional
consequences of foraging in primates: the relationship of nutrient
intakes to nutrient requirements, p.161 Philosophical Transactions:
Biological Sciences vol 334, 159-295, No. 1270
One might imagine that given our comparatively 'low protein' milk,
we would not be able to grow very fast. In fact, as the image on the
right shows, human infants show very rapid growth, especially of
the brain, during the first year of life. Human infants are born a full
year earlier than they would be projected to, based on comparisons
with other animals. This is because of the large size their brains
reach. A human infant grows at the rate of 9 kg/year at birth, falling
to 3.5 kg/year a year later. Thereafter its growth rate is about half
that of a chimpanzees at 2 kg/year vs. about 4.5 kg/year. Humans
are relatively half as bulky as the other great apes, thus allowing
nutrients to be directed at brain development and the diet to be less
demanding. The advantages of such an undemanding metabolism
are clear. Humans delay their growth because they 'catch up' later,
during puberty as seen on the graph. Even so, the growth rate never
reaches that of a newborn infant who grows best by only eating
breast milk.
...
According to Exequiel M. Patiño and Juan T. Borda 'Primate milks
contain on the average 13% solids, of which 6.5% is lactose, 3.8%
lipids, 2.4% proteins, and 0.2% ash. Lactose is the largest
component of the solids, and protein is a lesser one'. They also say
that 'milks of humans and Old World monkeys have the highest
percentages of sugar (an average of 6.9%)' and when comparing
human and non human primate milks, they have similar proportions
of solids, but human milks has more sugar and fat whereas the non
human primate milks have much more protein. They continue 'In
fact, human milk has the lowest concentration of proteins (1.0%)
of all the species of primates.' Patiño and Borda present their
research in order to allow other primatologists to construct artificial
milks as a substitute for the real thing for captive primates. It is to
be expected that these will have similar disasterous consequences
as the feeding of artificial bovine, and other false milks, has had on
human infants.
Patiño and Borda also present a table which compares primate
milks. This table is shown below and identifies the distinctive
lower protein requirements of humans. [see link]
Undoubtedly these gross metabolic differences between humans
and other mammals must have system wide implications for our
metabolism. They allow us to feed heavily on fruits, and may restrict
other species from choosing them. Never the less, many nutritional
authorities suggest that adult humans need nearly double (12% of
calorific value) their breast milk levels of protein, although it is
accepted that infant protein requirements for growth are triple those
of adults. The use of calorific values might also confuse the issue
since human milk is highly dilute (1% protein), and clearly eating
foods that might be 25 times this concentration, such as meat, are
massive excesses if constantly ingested. Certainly the body might
manage to deal with this excess without suffering immediate
problems, but this is not proof of any beneficial adaptation. It also
needs to be pointed out that berries, such as raspberries, may yield
up to 21% of their calorific value from protein, but are not regarded
as 'good sources' of protein by nutritional authorites. There are
millions of fruits available to wild animals, and blanked
generalisations about the qualities of certain food groups, need to
be examined carefully, due to some misconceptions arising from
the limited commercial fruits which we experience in the domestic
state.
The weaning of a fruigivorous primate would clearly demand the
supply of a food with nutritional characteristics similar to those
of the mothers milk. We must realise that supportive breast
feeding may continue for up to 9 or 10 years in some 'primitive'
peoples, and this is more likely to be representative of our
evolutionary history than the 6 month limit often found in modern
cultures. This premature weaning should strike any aware
naturalist as being a disasterous activity, inflicting untold damage.
However, what we do know of the consequences is that it
reduces the IQ and disease resistance of the child, and that the
substitute of unnatural substances, like wheat and dairy products,
is pathogenic.
Finally we need to compare some food group compositions with
human milk in order to establish if any statistical similarity exists.
This would demonstrate that modern humans have inherited their
ancient fruigivorous metabolism. This data is examined below in
the final sections of the article.
....'
http://tinyurl.com/dahps
pearl
'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours
etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy
and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be
painful), and to distract and divert attention away from
themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is achieved
through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this,
every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their
target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves.'
The Socialised Psychopath or Sociopath
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm
Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment.
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
pearl
> On Feb 16, 1:32 pm, Elflord <ab...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I did some weight lifting before I started with the veg diet, then stopped
> > for a while, then started again after being on the veg diet. I stopped lifting
> > eventually because I was doing much better at running.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > --
> > Elflord
>
>
> Ah, I see. I would be giving up running, too, as it seems to really
> exacerbate bad back symptoms, if it weren't for the fact that I just
> love the activity, even though I can't even sprint anymore!
>
> You know, I wonder...how come them great apes get so big and strong
> simply on a mostly vegetarian diet?? I would have thought that their
> muscles were like ours -- if so, there's definite proof one needn't be
> a typical American meat-eater to be a strength athlete!
This may be of interest too..
'The patas monkey (Cercopithecus patas) is the most terrestrial
of guenons, and is one of the most terrestrial primates. It inhabits
open grasslands and marginal areas of savannah woodlands,
avoiding predation primarily by camouflage, stealth, and vigilance.
Its reddish pelage blends into the predominantly red African soils.
Adult males perform decoy and defensive behaviors. Male patas
monkeys, capable of sustaining running speeds of 50 km per
hour, are unique among nonhuman primates. Even though some
mammalian predators can manage short dashes of more than
100 km per hour, no predator on the African savannah can
outrun an adult male patas except in ambush.
..
The male patas monkey performs a role of vigilance and decoy.
When a troop approaches a dangerous area, such as a water
source (ambush predators find water sources convenient places
to hunt), the male approaches first and is not joined by the group
until he finds it safe and proceeds to drink. If a predator is
encountered in a context dangerous to the troop, the male may
run near the predator in a conspicuous display. If the predator
gives chase, the male runs just fast enough to maintain a safety
margin against a sudden dash by the hunter as pursuit lures the
danger away from the troop. [..] Patas monkeys forage
throughout the grasslands eating seeds, shoots, fruits, berries,
gums, and beans from savannah grasses shrubs and trees. The
troop disperses widely in relaxed circumstances so that adjacent
individuals are sometimes out of sight of each other. Troops are
territorial and their home ranges often exceed 5,000 ha. Patas
day ranges are second in size only to humans among primates.
...'
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~bramblet/ant301/eight.html
fer...@paris.com
anything, contributed the most in allowing humans to develop
relatively larger brains than other species. The ability of humans to
develop normal brains with a dietary absence of animal products is
also noted."
Not so say those whose study such things, switch to including meat led
to larger brain:
Meat-eating was essential for human evolution, says UC Berkeley
anthropologist specializing in diet
By Patricia McBroom, Public Affairs
BERKELEY-- Human ancestors who roamed the dry and open savannas of
Africa about 2 million years ago routinely began to include meat in
their diets to compensate for a serious decline in the quality of
plant foods, according to a physical anthropologist at the University
of California, Berkeley.
It was this new meat diet, full of densely-packed nutrients, that
provided the catalyst for human evolution, particularly the growth of
the brain, said Katharine Milton, an authority on primate diet.
Without meat, said Milton, it's unlikely that proto humans could have
secured enough energy and nutrition from the plants available in their
African environment at that time to evolve into the active, sociable,
intelligent creatures they became. Receding forests would have
deprived them of the more nutritious leaves and fruits that
forest-dwelling primates survive on, said Milton.
Her thesis complements the discovery last month by UC Berkeley
professor Tim White and others that early human species were
butchering and eating animal meat as long ago as 2.5 million years.
Milton's article integrates dietary strategy with the evolution of
human physiology to argue that meat eating was routine. It is
published this month in the journal "Evolutionary Anthropology"
(Vol.8, #1).
Milton said that her theories do not reflect on today's vegetarian
diets, which can be completely adequate, given modern knowledge of
nutrition.
"We know a lot about nutrition now and can design a very satisfactory
vegetarian diet," said Milton, a professor in the Department of
Environmental Science, Policy & Management.
But she added that the adequacy of a vegetarian diet depends either on
modern scientific knowledge or on traditional food habits, developed
over many generations, in which people have worked out a complete diet
by putting different foods together.
In many parts of the world where people have little access to meat,
they have run the risk of malnutrition, said Milton. This happened,
for instance, in Southeast Asia where people relied heavily on a
single plant food, polished rice, and developed the nutritional
disease, beriberi. Closer to home, in the Southern United States, many
people dependent largely on corn meal developed the nutritional
disease, pellagra.
Milton argues that meat supplied early humans not only with all the
essential amino acids, but also with many vitamins, minerals and other
nutrients they required, allowing them to exploit marginal, low
quality plant foods, like roots - foods that have few nutrients but
lots of calories. These calories, or energy, fueled the expansion of
the human brain and, in addition, permitted human ancestors to
increase in body size while remaining active and social.
"Once animal matter entered the human diet as a dependable staple, the
overall nutrient content of plant foods could drop drastically, if
need be, so long as the plants supplied plenty of calories for
energy," said Milton.
The brain is a relentless consumer of calories, said Milton. It needs
glucose 24 hours a day. Animal protein probably did not provide many
of those calories, which were more likely to come from carbohydrates,
she said.
Buffered against nutritional deficiency by meat, human ancestors also
could intensify their use of plant foods with toxic compounds such as
cyanogenic glycosides, foods other primates would have avoided, said
Milton. These compounds can produce deadly cyanide in the body, but
are neutralized by methionine and cystine, sulfur-containing amino
acids present in meat. Sufficient methionine is difficult
to find in plants. Most domesticated grains - wheat, rice, maize,
barley, rye and millet - contain this cyanogenic compound as do many
beans and widely-eaten root crops such as taro and manioc.
Since plant foods available in the dry and deforested early human
environment had become less nutritious, meat was critical for weaned
infants, said Milton. She explained that small infants could not have
processed enough bulky plant material to get both nutrients for growth
and energy for brain development.
"I disagree with those who say meat may have been only a marginal food
for early humans," said Milton. "I have come to believe that the
incorporation of animal matter into the diet played an absolutely
essential role in human evolution."
Milton's paper also demonstrates that the human digestive system is
fundamentally that of a plant-eating primate, except that humans have
developed a more elongated small intestine rather than retaining the
huge colon of apes - a change in the human lineage which indicates a
diet of more concentrated nutrients.
Charlie Pendejo
> I've been ruminating, off and on, with increasing frequency, for
> years, over switching to a vegetarian diet (lacto-ovarian).
Buster Martin ain't switching to no vegetarian diet!
--- snip ---
101 year old Buster Martin will attempt to beat this record at the
LOndon Marathon this year. The dad of 17 is determined to become the
oldest man to complete the gruelling 26.2-mile run.
War veteran Buster, who plays in a rock band when he's not at work
cleaning vans, said: "It's about time someone my age did the marathon.
It will be a record, though I'm not doing it for that. I just want to
show that old people can do things." He added modestly: "I would like
to be able to do it in three-and-a-half hours - but then I don't run
as fast as I used to."
Buster, who completed the 10km Great London Run in 2hrs 22mins this
June, will prepare for next April's marathon by running near his home
in Vauxhall, south London. He vowed: "Every Saturday and Sunday
morning I will be up at 5.30am to jog. "You have got to keep your
knees from freezing up - and a couple of pints to grease them up could
be called for." He will be running to raise money for the Rhys Daniels
Trust, which provides a "home from home" for parents of children
having treatment for life-threatening illnesses.
Great-grandfather Buster's geriatric band The Zimmers - combined age
of over 3,000 years - reached No28 in the singles chart in May with a
cover of The Who's My Generation. Buster, who puts his long life down
to a daily pint of bitter and "good red meat" rather than cheese or
fish, started work in London's markets when he was 10.
He was in the Army during the Second World War, rising to regimental
sergeant major.
Buster's wife of 35 years, Irana, died in 1955. He worked in the
markets until he was 97. Buster got bored with retirement and landed a
job cleaning plumbers' vans three times a week. He said: "I will only
give up when they put me in a wooden box." Charlie Mullins, boss of
Pimlico Plumbers, said: "Buster is a great asset to the company and
everyone looks up to him."
17 kids and running a marathon! I guess it just comes down to the size
of your balls people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK_laAjtVNw
--- snip ---
Rudy Canoza
> "Rudy Canoza" <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message news:13res9r...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Elflord wrote:
>>
>>> On 2008-02-16, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "veganism" is inherently evangelistic. They owe an
>>>> explanation.
>>> It isn't, they don't,
>> It is, and they do. You're full of shit.
>
> 'Bul
You're full of shit, too.
Bartleby
> "I'm just curious now about why vegans don't think lacto-ovo is good
> enough. "
>
> "There is only a weak relationship between the amount of cholesterol a
> person consumes and their blood cholesterol levels or risk for heart disease"
>
> 'Plasma lipids and diet groups
> ..
> The most striking results from the analysis were the strong positive
> associations between increasing consumption of animal fats and
> ischemic heart disease mortality [death rate ratios (and 95% CIs) for
> the highest third of intake compared with the lowest third in subjects
> with no prior disease were 3.29 (1.50, 7.21) for total animal fat,
> 2.77 (1.25, 6.13) for saturated animal fat, and 3.53 (1.57, 7.96)
> for dietary cholesterol; P for trend: <0.01, <0.01, and <0.001,
> respectively]. In contrast, no protective effects were noted for
> dietary fiber, fish, or alcohol consumption. Consumption of eggs
> and cheese were both positively associated with ischemic heart
> disease mortality in these subjects (P for trend, < 0.01 for both
> foods).
> ..'http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/525S
<snip> with more eggs-dairy-and-meat-are-bad studies
Here's a link noted on http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/525S
http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/abstract/23/suppl_6/596S
Journal of the American College of Nutrition, Vol. 23, No. 90006,
596S-600S (2004)
Published by the American College of Nutrition
A Review of Scientific Research and Recommendations Regarding Eggs
Stephen B. Kritchevsky, PhD
Sticht Center on Aging, Department of Internal Medicine, Section on
Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, Wake Forest University School of
Medicine, Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Address reprint requests to: Stephen B. Kritchevsky, Ph.D., Sticht
Center on Aging, Department of Internal Medicine, Section on
Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, Wake Forest University School of
Medicine, Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC 27157. E-mail:
skritche{at}wfubmc.edu
For much of the past 40 years, the public has been warned away from
eggs because of a concern over coronary heart disease risk. This
concern is based on three observations: 1. eggs are a rich source of
dietary cholesterol; 2. when fed experimentally, dietary cholesterol
increases serum cholesterol and; 3. high serum cholesterol predicts
the onset of coronary heart disease. However, data from free-living
populations show that egg consumption is not associated with higher
cholesterol levels. Furthermore, as a whole, the epidemiologic
literature does not support the idea that egg consumption is a risk
factor for coronary disease. Within the nutritional community there is
a growing appreciation that health derives from an overall pattern of
diet rather than from the avoidance of particular foods, and there has
been a shift in the tone in recent dietary recommendations away from
"avoidance" messages to ones that promote healthy eating patterns. The
most recent American Heart Association guidelines no longer include a
recommendation to limit egg consumption, but recommend the adoption of
eating practices associated with good health. Based on the
epidemiologic evidence, there is no reason to think that such a
healthy eating pattern could not include eggs.
*****************************************************************************************************************************
Also -
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6672044/Unscrambling-the-research-eggs-serum.html
http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.716/pub_detail.asp
For someone who doesn't have high cholesterol or diabetes, tries to
avoid or minimize saturated fat consumption, and
exercises, eats (and possibly supplements) sensibly, I don't see why
an egg a day would be harmful or anything but healthy.
Zen Cohen
>
> I've been ruminating, off and on, with increasing frequency, for
> years, over switching to a vegetarian diet (lacto-ovarian).
>
> and animal rights...
For once, I think you make some good points. I love meat, esp beef and
chicken, but I have some misgivings about it, given the inhumane treatment
of animals and the effect on the environment I've been learning about. This
article has an embedded video showing some pretty outrageous treatment of
sick cattle that are being led to slaughter and fed to us:
http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/would-you-like-sick-cow-with-those-fries/
I've cut way back on red meat in the last year and this kind of shit
motivates me to eat it even less. And today I watched the movie "Babe" with
my daughter, so I'm not so big on pork right now.
BTW, how can you be such a misanthrope (except for the swiss or swedes,
IIRC) and misogynist (you said women are "meat") but care about animal
rights?
Prisoner at War
>
>
> For once, I think you make some good points. I love meat, esp beef and
> chicken, but I have some misgivings about it, given the inhumane treatment
> of animals and the effect on the environment I've been learning about. This
> article has an embedded video showing some pretty outrageous treatment of
Thanks for the ref -- but I won't view it until I'm ready to go all-
out vegetarian...I'm still doing the gradual "acclimatization" thing
so I'm not totally meatless yet -- just meat like once every other
day...I mean, I've got tons of chicken soup and beef stew in
cans...sigh...I don't miss them, but it's weird tasting them now, a
bit like meeting an ex-girlfriend, somewhat awkward...but I do enjoy
it, so that's really weird, too...I just put it out of my mind (and
that's also weird: the older I get the easier it is to put aside
"mental objections" but not "physical ones," whereas in youth physical
issues are no big deal while it's the psycho-emotional ones that
consume all attention)....
> I've cut way back on red meat in the last year and this kind of shit
> motivates me to eat it even less. And today I watched the movie "Babe" with
> my daughter, so I'm not so big on pork right now.
They say pigs are smarter than horses. It's always bugged me a bit
seeing a lot of wholesale meat distributors with logos of happy pigs
and cows...goodness, now I'm getting all politically correct on
myself!!
Well, I really have no business eating anyone I wouldn't kill myself.
There, another reason to go vegetarian.
> BTW, how can you be such a misanthrope (except for the swiss or swedes,
> IIRC) and misogynist (you said women are "meat") but care about animal
> rights?
Well, I dislike most dogs and cats and absolutely hate roaches. I
also think pigeons should behave better.
Charlie Pendejo
> It's always bugged me a bit seeing a lot of wholesale meat
> distributors with logos of happy pigs and cows...
Hey man, it's fine with me if you live on nuts and berries henceforth,
but don't be dissin' Moo and Oink, the single most likable thing about
Chicago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz8fTbLjo9c
http://home.moo-oink.com/home.html
Prisoner at War
>
>
> Hey man, it's fine with me if you live on nuts and berries henceforth,
I just really hope I don't start doing scented candles and power
crystals....
> but don't be dissin' Moo and Oink, the single most likable thing about
> Chicago.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz8fTbLjo9chttp://home.moo-oink.com/home.html
Damn, those ribs remind me of any number of scenes from movies like
"Conan The Barbarian" and "V" to videogames like "Diablo" -- involving
humans!
But happy-go-lucky Moo and Oink...it's like something out of "The
Restaurant at The End of The Universe" where the talking cow suggests
its best body parts and then goes into the kitchen to shoot itself.
TBRallame...@yahoo.com
> On Feb 17, 1:17 am, Charlie Pendejo <Charlie.Pend...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hey man, it's fine with me if you live on nuts and berries henceforth,
>
> I just really hope I don't start doing scented candles and power
> crystals....
>
> > but don't be dissin' Moo and Oink, the single most likable thing about
> > Chicago.
>
>
> Damn, those ribs remind me of any number of scenes from movies like
> "Conan The Barbarian" and "V" to videogames like "Diablo" -- involving
> humans!
>
> But happy-go-lucky Moo and Oink...it's like something out of "The
> Restaurant at The End of The Universe" where the talking cow suggests
> its best body parts and then goes into the kitchen to shoot itself.
I've been a life-long vegetarian, and it's never hurt my athletic
prowess, nor cost me a race or lifting comp.
I'm not a STRICT vegetarian though, I occasionally eat an egg, or
maybe some milk, and once in a great while I have steaks, burgers,
pork chops, chicken, turkey, venison, and bacon, but only once a day
or so, so I think I still qualify as a vegetarian, right?
spodosaurus
> I've been ruminating, off and on, with increasing frequency, for
> years,
Wow. Don't the neighbours complain about the methane?
> over switching to a vegetarian diet (lacto-ovarian).
>
> I'm still thinking about it, and it's 50/50 between health benefits
> and animal rights...so can someone explain why, um, "whole-hog" vegan
> instead of simply lacto-ovo vegetarian?? I mean, I was never sure how
> animals would be harmed by us using their surplus milk and
> unfertilized eggs (assuming they are free-range, etc.), but now I've
> just found out that eggs and dairy is supposed to be *harmful* to us
> somehow???
>
You just find out complete bullshit daily, and then go and post it here.
Well done. Whatever would we do without your genius intellect?
> I still don't have a lot of motivation to become either vegetarian or
> vegan just yet -- my vanity as a bodybuilding weight-lifter precludes
> it, I'm afraid, though there are a few famous vegetarian or vegan
> bodybuilders and strength athletes -- but I will be ready soon to give
> at least a vegetarian diet a 30-day "shareware" trial, just to really
> see what it's like (I've done a day or two at a time already, but
> haven't noticed much of a change besides hunger sometimes!)....
>
> I once thought that I would defer any vegetarian or vegan switch until
> old age when bodybuilding and that kind of strength won't matter, but
> God damn it's really disgusting how cattle, livestock, and seafood are
> raised these days -- no, "raised" is too generous a term: they're
> practically manufactured!
>
> Forget about the acts of sheer cruelty we see on the evening news, bad
> as that is: just the whole cooped up experience of being raised in a
> cage, living with no space to turn around, is fucking sick!!
If you really had a problem with this you'd be motivated to reduce the
demand for this type of production. As you've said above, you're not
motivated and prefer your vanity - so quit spewing your shite here, mate.
> I really
> try not to think about it, but in trying to live a conscious life of
> awareness and self-realization,
Bwahaha you have about as much insight into yourself as a blind person
has visual depth perception.
> there's no way but to also live
> conscientiously, for all sentient beings
Sentient prawns...wow...keep smokin what you're smokin, mate.
>...hard-scrabbled bastard that
> I am, it's the least I can do to not put such food in my mouth, to
> fuel my lifts at the gym on the lifelong suffering of animals -- never
> mind all the health reasons!
>
> So anyway, just thinking out loud again on usenet
Much to our dismay...and I really don't feel that your use of the word
"thinking" is at all appropriate.
>...any relevant
> advice appreciated.
Die. Don't breed. In whatever order you choose.
> My fear as a lifter is that I would somehow lose
> muscle, or not gain, or gain as much or as fast
So you're a "lifter" before being a moral human being - what self
awareness you have!
>...is that a valid
> concern at all?
Who cares? You'd prefer to torture animals.
> It won't stop me from doing at least a vegetarian
> diet in another year or two,
Yeah, another year or two of supporting a "fucking sick" production system.
> but I'm curious about any such
> consequences.
Karma? Hell?
>
> My plan is to do 30-day vegetarian trials, just to "acclimate"
> myself...
You're going to dabble with being a vegetarian? Was that like those
times you dabbled with letting another guy suck you off?
> though many claim to feel so good that doing another 30 days,
> then another, then another, just becomes second nature! But why all-
> out vegan? What's wrong with lacto-ovo?
Why not add fish, too?
>
> And, just for curiosity's sake...is it true that growing kids simply
> cannot realize their full physical potential on a vegetarian and/or
> vegan diet??
>
> TIA!
You're very welcome!
Ari
--
spammage trappage: remove the underscores to reply
Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow transplant. Please
volunteer to be a marrow donor and literally save someone's life:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/
Doug Freese
> So once again it's a whole nexus between animal suffering, health
> benefits, and just plain morality that makes it harder and harder for
> me to continue eating meat...it's so weird, but this has only just
> happened like a day or two ago when I just, like, woke up and the
> thought simply arose in my mind to go vegetarian...and it's not like
> I'd just seen a really graphic snuff video of animals at the
> slaughterhouse or something...it's like waking up once day to find
> you've lost weight or gained an extra inch on your arms...I mean, this
> kind of a quality makes it feel so *true*...I'm not going on a sudden
> surge of emotions here, actually...I just woke up and thought, felt,
> that I shouldn't be eating meat.
Then do your thing! I'm saving my outrage for the lying scumbag
president that is killing people for oil.
> I'm just curious now about why vegans don't think lacto-ovo is good
> enough. I'm also curious whether children could grow to their full
> potentials on vegan or even vegetarian diets.
I don't see any reason why not as long as you make sure everyone gets
all the necessary proteins that one usually get from eating meat. It's
not easy to get little children to eat the necessary variety of food for
a balanced diet. And then turn off the TV so they don't see the ads for
the Double Whopper or KFC or etc.
-D
pearl
> "hypothesis that it is eating fruits and perhaps blossoms, that has, if
> anything, contributed the most in allowing humans to develop
> relatively larger brains than other species. The ability of humans to
> develop normal brains with a dietary absence of animal products is
> also noted."
>
> Not so say those whose study such things, switch to including meat led
> to larger brain:
>
> Meat-eating was essential for human evolution, says UC Berkeley
> anthropologist specializing in diet
>
> By Patricia McBroom, Public Affairs
>
> BERKELEY-- Human ancestors who roamed the dry and open savannas of
> Africa about 2 million years ago routinely began to include meat in
> their diets to compensate for a serious decline in the quality of
> plant foods, according to a physical anthropologist at the University
> of California, Berkeley.
'Male strategies and Plio-Pleistocene archaeology
Authors: O'Connell J.F.1; Hawkes K.2; Lupo K.D.3; Blurton Jones
N.G.4 Source: Journal of Human Evolution, Volume 43, Number 6,
December 2002 , pp. 831-872(42) Publisher: Academic Press
Abstract:
Archaeological data are frequently cited in support of the idea that
big game hunting drove the evolution of early Homo, mainly through
its role in offspring provisioning. This argument has been disputed on
two grounds: (1) ethnographic observations on modern foragers show
that although hunting may contribute a large fraction of the overall diet,
it is an unreliable day-to-day food source, pursued more for status
than subsistence; (2) archaeological evidence from the Plio-Pleistocene,
coincident with the emergence of Homo can be read to reflect low-yield
scavenging, *not* hunting. Our review of the archaeology yields results
consistent with these critiques: (1) early humans acquired large-bodied
ungulates primarily by aggressive scavenging, not hunting; (2) meat was
consumed at or near the point of acquisition, not at home bases, as the
hunting hypothesis requires; (3) carcasses were taken at highly variable
rates and in varying degrees of completeness, making meat from big
game an even less reliable food source than it is among modern foragers.
Collectively, Plio-Pleistocene site location and assemblage composition
are consistent with the hypothesis that large carcasses were taken *not*
for purposes of provisioning, but in the context of competitive male
displays. Even if meat were acquired more reliably than the archaeology
indicates, its consumption cannot account for the significant changes
in life history now seen to distinguish early humans from ancestral
australopiths. The coincidence between the earliest dates for Homo
ergaster and an increase in the archaeological visibility of meat eating
that many find so provocative instead reflects: (1) changes in the
structure of the environment that concentrated scavenging
opportunities in space, making evidence of their pursuit more
obvious to archaeologists; (2) H. ergaster's larger body size (itself
a consequence of other factors), which improved its ability at
interference competition.
Document Type: Research article
DOI: 10.1006/jhev.2002.0604
Affiliations: 1: Department of Anthropology, University of Utah,
270 South 1400 East, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84112, U.S.A.
2: Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, 270 South
1400 East, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84112, U.S.A.
3: Department of Anthropology, Washington State University,
Pullman, Washington, 99164, U.S.A. 4: Departments of
Anthropology and Psychiatry, and Graduate School of Education,
University of California, Los Angeles, California, 90095, U.S.A.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/hu/2002/00000043/00000006/art00604
'The New Scientist September 16, 2007
Starchy tubers gave our ancestors' brains a boost
By Bob Holmes
A DRAMATIC shift in diet sometime during the evolution of modern
humans has left its imprint on our genome. The discovery could provide
some of the strongest evidence to date in support of a controversial
hypothesis that purports to explain why humans, alone among all the
apes, suddenly evolved such big brains.
One plausible reason is that early hominins suddenly stumbled on a new,
rich food source capable of fuelling a large, energetically expensive brain.
For many years, anthropologists presumed the crucial food source was
meat, which became more accessible as our ancestors began to use
stone tools for hunting or cutting. More recently, however, others have
proposed an alternative - starchy tubers. Proponents of this view argue
that early hominins had teeth better suited to grinding plant matter than
tearing flesh. Recent studies of isotope ratios in hominin fossils also
suggest a plant-rich diet.
But definitive proof is hard to come by. "We're talking millions of years
ago, we're talking perishable food items. We're just not going to find
archaeological evidence for it," says Nathaniel Dominy, an evolutionary
anthropologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz.
So Dominy and his colleagues decided to look for evidence in an unusual
place: our genome. They focused on a gene called AMY1, which codes
for salivary amylase, a starch-digesting enzyme. They already knew that
the number of copies of AMY1 varies widely from person to person, and
when the researchers surveyed 50 American college students of European
descent, they found anywhere from 2 to 15 copies. Moreover, individuals
with more copies had higher levels of amylase in their saliva. By contrast,
chimpanzees, whose natural diet contains very little starch, have just two
copies and very little salivary amylase.
The researchers then compared the genes of ethnic groups that traditionally
eat a high-starch diet - such as Europeans, Japanese and the African Hadza
people - with those whose traditional diet is very low in starch, such as
the African Datog and Asian Yakut. Those from a high-starch background
averaged 6.72 gene copies, significantly higher than the 5.44 copies carried
by those from a low-starch background (Nature Genetics, DOI:
10.1038/ng2123). "We think that selection is strongly favouring more copies
in populations with more starch in the diet," says Dominy. The study is one
of the first to show that natural selection can lead to an increase in gene
copy numbers.
If that increase coincided with the dramatic expansion in our ancestor's
brain size about 1.8 million years ago, that would be the strongest possible
evidence that roots and tubers, not meat, fuelled our intelligence.
pearl
> I do enjoy it, so that's really weird, too...I just put it out of my mind
'Measuring Brain Activity In People Eating Chocolate Offers
New Clues About How The Body Becomes Addicted
CHICAGO --- Using positron emission tomography scans to
measure brain activity in people eating chocolate, a team of U.S.
and Canadian neuroscientists believe they have identified areas
of the brain that may underlie addiction and eating disorders.
Dana Small, assistant professor of neurology at Northwestern
University Medical School, and colleagues found that individuals'
ratings of the pleasantness of eating chocolate were associated
with increased blood flow in areas of the brain, particularly in
the orbital frontal cortex and midbrain, that are also activated
by addictive drugs such as cocaine.
..
According to Small, a primary reinforcer is a stimulus that an
individual doesn't have to learn to like but, rather, is enjoyed
from birth. Addictive drugs can be viewed as primary
reinforcers. Fat and sweet also are primary reinforcers, and
chocolate is chock full of fat and sweet, Small said.
..
Small explained that studying the brain's response to eating a
highly rewarding food such as chocolate provides an effective
"in-health" model of addiction. "
..'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/08/010829082943.htm
'The big problem we have before us in the meat industry is to
how to reduce the levels of fat in meat without leaving it dry
and tasteless when we eat it. Fat contributes a lot of taste to
meat, particularly those flavours that allow us to recognize
one species from another. Without it, we may end up with
just a bland, general meaty taste. '
http://www.aps.uoguelph.ca/~swatland/ch2_4.htm
"The combination of fat with sugar or fat with salt seems to
have a very particular neurochemical effect on the brain,"
Ann Kelley, a professor at the University of Wisconsin (search)
who co-authored the unpublished study, said on the Fox News
Channel. "What that does is release certain chemicals that are
similar to drugs, like heroin and morphine."
..'
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93031,00.html
Elflord
> Elflord wrote:
>
>> On 2008-02-16, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "veganism" is inherently evangelistic. They owe an
>>> explanation.
>>
>> It isn't, they don't,
>
> It is, and they do.
No, I provided an explanation (which you snipped). So your claim that you are *still*
owed an explanation isn't credible.
> You're full of shit.
I'll note that you snipped most of my post. If there's anything wrong with my
arguments, please feel free to go ahead and rebut them instead of allowing them
to stand unchallenged.
If on the other hand you can't find any flaws, please show a little more respect (-;
Cheers,
--
Elflord
Elflord
That it moves (even with apparent purpose) does not in itself demonstrate that
it has "feelings".
Cheers,
--
Elflord
Charlie Pendejo
> But happy-go-lucky Moo and Oink...it's like something out of "The
> Restaurant at The End of The Universe" where the talking cow suggests
> its best body parts and then goes into the kitchen to shoot itself.
You almost hint at making that sound like plausibly an ambiguously bad
thing, nearly.
Rudy Canoza
> On 2008-02-16, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>> Elflord wrote:
>>
>>> On 2008-02-16, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "veganism" is inherently evangelistic. They owe an
>>>> explanation.
>>> It isn't, they don't,
>> It is, and they do.
>
> No, I provided an explanation
You didn't.
>> You're full of shit.
>
> I'll note that
We note that you're full of shit.
rick++
no eggs, no diary, no fish ...
Elflord
> Elflord wrote:
>> On 2008-02-16, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>>> Elflord wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2008-02-16, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "veganism" is inherently evangelistic. They owe an
>>>>> explanation.
>>>> It isn't, they don't,
>>> It is, and they do.
>>
>> No, I provided an explanation
>
> You didn't.
I posted (and you snipped):
But I'd like to address this anyway. Omnivore diets don't survive on the basis
of morality, they survive because they make sense on a cost-benefit basis for
most people living in today's societies.
Based on the prevalence of laws against animal cruelty in nearly every civilised
country, I would argue that the debate on the desirability of causing less harm
to animals is largely settled discussion. That doesn't "invalidate" eating meat
but it does make a veg diet a commendable choice for those who are willing to
swim against the societal inertia.
>>> You're full of shit.
>>
>> I'll note that
>
> We note that you're full of shit.
Who's "we" ? I don't see anyone leaping to your defense. You're welcome to your
opinion, but I find it a little presumptuous to claim victory while leaving most
of my points to stand unchallenged.
In short, you throw up a white flag which defangs any claim to authority to judge
yourself the victor.
Cheers,
--
Elflord
Rudy Canoza
> On 2008-02-17, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>> Elflord wrote:
>>> On 2008-02-16, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>>>> Elflord wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2008-02-16, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "veganism" is inherently evangelistic. They owe an
>>>>>> explanation.
>>>>> It isn't, they don't,
>>>> It is, and they do.
>>> No, I provided an explanation
>> You didn't.
>
> I posted (and you snipped):
[...irrelevant crap...]
That does not address in any way the evangelistic
nature of "veganism", nor its glaring logical flaws.
What it does, though, is nicely illustrate the smug,
self-congratulatory nature of so-called "ethical"
vegetarians, whose ethics is a load of incoherent bullshit.
>>>> You're full of shit.
>>> I'll note that
>> We note that you're full of shit.
>
> Who's "we" ?
All those who can see through you.
Mark Thorson
>
> On Feb 16, 3:32 pm, Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > The main vitamin concern is B-12. A little runny egg yolk will
> > cover that need (B-12 is destroyed by heat, so fully cooked
> > egg yolk is not nearly so good a source, but that has to be
> > balanced against the salmonella risk from undercooked eggs).
>
The B-12 is in the yolk. About half of a raw yolk
provides the US RDA for B-12. If you cook it, you
probably should eat the whole thing. Liquid egg whites
should not be eaten, because they contain avidin, which
binds to biotin. Eating raw egg white is just about
the only way to develop a biotin deficiency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotin#Deficiency
B-12 is a problem in a vegan diet because plants
don't make B-12. Some plants such as seaweed
concentrate B-12 from other sources.
Blue-green algae is sometimes promoted as a vegan
source of B-12, but it has practically no B-12
in it. It has non-nutritionally active B-12
analogs which show up in the assays used to make
label claims for vitamin content, but these B-12
analogs are not active for B-12 metabolism
in humans, and they may block the active forms
of B-12.
A similar situation exists with tempeh, which
also cannot satisfy the nutritional requirement
for B-12.
There are yeasts that do satisfy the B-12
requirement, but these yeasts are grown in
culture media that have non-vegan B-12 added
to it. The yeast absorbs the B-12, then it's
prepared for human consumption. Basically,
these yeasts are just a form of packaging
to allow strict vegans to get their B-12
without "violating" their principles.
Elflord
> Elflord wrote:
>> On 2008-02-17, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>>> Elflord wrote:
>>>> On 2008-02-16, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>>>>> Elflord wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2008-02-16, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "veganism" is inherently evangelistic. They owe an
>>>>>>> explanation.
>>>>>> It isn't, they don't,
>>>>> It is, and they do.
>>>> No, I provided an explanation
>>> You didn't.
>>
>> I posted (and you snipped):
>
> [...irrelevant crap...]
>
> That does not address in any way the evangelistic
> nature of "veganism",
> nor its glaring logical flaws.
You have not demonstrated any "logical flaws" or "envangelism" in my posts. I can
account for my own decision to become vegetarian. I cannot answer for others.
> What it does, though, is nicely illustrate the smug,
> self-congratulatory nature of so-called "ethical"
> vegetarians, whose ethics is a load of incoherent bullshit.
Yet you are unable to challenge these arguments. Instead you cut and run by
snipping the arguments, and hide behind name-calling.
What a mature and honest person would do under these circumstances is
acknowledge that there is a solid argument, but choose to respectfully
disagree.
> All those who can see through you.
Who are you trying to fool ? You don't challenge any of my points, and yet you
insist that my arguments are flawed in what appears to be a desperate attempt
to claim some sort of "victory". In my opinion, you need to move beyond the
"pissing contest" paradigm, or failing that, at least work a little bit on your
pissing skills so that you "win" more often.
I'm done, because it is clear that we disagree on substantial points, and it
also appears that you are not interested in having a civil and intelligent
discussion with people who don't agree with you.
I'll leave the last word to you, because you strike me as the type of person
who will be satisfied that they've "won" if they get the last word. This way,
everyone's happy.
have a good day,
--
Elflord
Rudy Canoza
> On 2008-02-17, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>> Elflord wrote:
>>> On 2008-02-17, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>>>> Elflord wrote:
>>>>> On 2008-02-16, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Elflord wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2008-02-16, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "veganism" is inherently evangelistic. They owe an
>>>>>>>> explanation.
>>>>>>> It isn't, they don't,
>>>>>> It is, and they do.
>>>>> No, I provided an explanation
>>>> You didn't.
>>> I posted (and you snipped):
>> [...irrelevant crap...]
>>
>> That does not address in any way the evangelistic
>> nature of "veganism", nor its glaring logical flaws.
>
> You have not demonstrated any "logical flaws" or "envangelism" in my posts.
Evangelism in "veganism" is clearly established beyond
rational dispute. The logical fallacy at the core of
"veganism" also is established.
>> What it does, though, is nicely illustrate the smug,
>> self-congratulatory nature of so-called "ethical"
>> vegetarians, whose ethics is a load of incoherent bullshit.
>
> Yet you are unable to challenge these arguments.
Have done, dozens of times.
>> All those who can see through you.
>
> Who are you trying to fool ?
No one.
Bartleby
I wonder what definition of "evangelistic" is being used in this
context - "relating to or promoting the preaching and dissemination of
the Christian gospel" or
"marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause". I suspect the
latter. While I can see how veganism could become a "cause" for some
people, I know vegans who don't act that way. They eat with me while
I eat meat and don't comment on my eating habits or try to change my
diet.
I've never been a vegetarian, lacto-ovo or otherwise. I've also never
been to a slaughterhouse. Somehow I don't think I'd like that
experience very much.
I'll never try to make my dog and cat live on a vegetarian diet, but
I've begun to gradually reduce the amount of meat, pork, and chicken I
consume. I'll give up seafood only when the oceans, rivers, and lakes
become too polluted. So, any day now . . .
dorsy1943
> I've been ruminating, off and on, with increasing frequency, for
>
> I'm still thinking about it, and it's 50/50 between health benefits
> and animal rights...so can someone explain why, um, "whole-hog" vegan
> instead of simply lacto-ovo vegetarian?? I mean, I was never sure how
> animals would be harmed by us using their surplus milk and
> unfertilized eggs (assuming they are free-range, etc.), but now I've
> just found out that eggs and dairy is supposed to be *harmful* to us
> somehow???
>
> vegan just yet -- my vanity as a bodybuilding weight-lifter precludes
> it, I'm afraid, though there are a few famous vegetarian or vegan
> bodybuilders and strength athletes -- but I will be ready soon to give
> at least a vegetarian diet a 30-day "shareware" trial, just to really
> see what it's like (I've done a day or two at a time already, but
> haven't noticed much of a change besides hunger sometimes!)....
>
> I once thought that I would defer any vegetarian or vegan switch until
> old age when bodybuilding and that kind of strength won't matter, but
> God damn it's really disgusting how cattle, livestock, and seafood are
> raised these days -- no, "raised" is too generous a term: they're
> practically manufactured!
>
> Forget about the acts of sheer cruelty we see on the evening news, bad
> as that is: just the whole cooped up experience of being raised in a
> try not to think about it, but in trying to live a conscious life of
> conscientiously, for all sentient beings...hard-scrabbled bastard that
> I am, it's the least I can do to not put such food in my mouth, to
> fuel my lifts at the gym on the lifelong suffering of animals -- never
> mind all the health reasons!
>
> advice appreciated. My fear as a lifter is that I would somehow lose
> muscle, or not gain, or gain as much or as fast...is that a valid
> concern at all? It won't stop me from doing at least a vegetarian
> diet in another year or two, but I'm curious about any such
> consequences.
>
> My plan is to do 30-day vegetarian trials, just to "acclimate"
> then another, then another, just becomes second nature! But why all-
> out vegan? What's wrong with lacto-ovo?
>
> cannot realize their full physical potential on a vegetarian and/or
> vegan diet??
>
> TIA!
I'll add my two cents. Why not switch to wild caught salmon or some
other non farmed fish before dairy and eggs. Milk was not part of our
evolutionary ancestors diet except for breast milk and eggs were
probably only eaten if someone was lucky enough to find them during
nesting season.
RE kids on vegetarian or vegan diets. Kids can get plenty of protein
on a diet adequate in calories. On the other hand vitamin B12 is
available in animal protein foods. I wouldn't rely on pills to give
my kids the vitamins they can easily get from wholesome food. There
are people in the world who eat a primarily vegetarian or vegan diet
but they do eat meat when they can get it. Just not by the truckload
full as we do. And don't forget that meat can mean insects,
shellfish, rodents, etc.
Dolores
Dolores
pearl
Is it? Bacteria produce Vitamin B12, presumably cultured.
For your consideration..
'The Bacterial Flora of Humans
..
(8) While E. coli is a consistent resident of the small intestine,
many other enteric bacteria may reside here as well, including
Klebsiella, Enterobacter and Citrobacter.
1. The normal flora synthesize and excrete vitamins in excess of
their own needs, which can be absorbed as nutrients by the host.
For example, enteric bacteria secrete Vitamin K and Vitamin B12,
and lactic acid bacteria produce certain B-vitamins.
.. '
http://textbookofbacteriology.net/normalflora.html
The B12-Cobalt Connection
http://www.championtrees.org/topsoil/b12coblt.htm
(Do read this article)
'Mineral content: This may be the most important nutritional difference
between organic and regular produce since heavy use of fertilizer inhibits
absorption of some minerals, which are likely to be at lower levels to
begin with in soils that have been abused. This may be caused in part
by the lack of beneficial mycorrhizae fungi on the roots since high levels
of fertilizer tend to kill them. Standard diets tend to be low in various
minerals, resulting in a variety of problems including osteoporosis.
..'
http://math.ucsd.edu/~ebender/Health%20&%20Nutrition/Foods/organic.html
Emphasis added -
'Suzuki1 (1995, Japan) studied 6 vegan children eating a genmai-
saishoku (GS) diet, which is based on high intakes of brown rice
and contains plenty of sea vegetables, including 2-4 g of nori
per day ("dried laver"); as well as hijiki, wakame, and kombu.
*The foods are organically grown and many are high in cobalt*
(buckwheat, adzuki beans, kidney beans, shiitake, hijiki).
Serum B12 levels of the children are shown:
Results of Suzuki.1
age(yrs) years vegan sB12
7.1 4.4 520
7.7 4.4 720
8.6A 8.6 480
8.8A 8.8 300
12.7 10 320
14.6 10 320
average 443 (ą 164)
A - Exclusively breast-fed until 6 months old. Mothers had been
vegan for 9.6 and 6.5 yrs prior to conception. Both mothers
consumed 2 g of nori per day.
..'
http://www.veganhealth.org/b12/plant
Furthermore..
'Are You Vitamin B12 Deficient?
Nearly two-fifths of the U.S. population may be flirting with
marginal vitamin B12 status-that is, if a careful look at nearly 3,000
men and women in the ongoing Framingham (Massachusetts)
Offspring Study is any indication. Researchers found that 39 percent
of the volunteers have plasma B12 levels in the "low normal" range-
below 258 picomoles per liter (pmol/L).
While this is well above the currently accepted deficiency level
of 148 pmol/L, some people exhibit neurological symptoms at the
upper level of the deficiency range, explains study leader Katherine
L. Tucker. She is a nutritional epidemiologist at the Jean Mayer
USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts
University in Boston.
"I think there's a lot of undetected vitamin B12 deficiency out there,"
says Tucker. She noted that nearly 9 percent of the study population
fell below the current deficiency level. And more than 16 percent fell
below 185 pmol/L. "Many people may be deficient at this level,"
she says. "There is some question as to what the clinical cutoff for
deficiency should be."
Deficiency can cause a type of anemia marked by fewer but larger
red blood cells. It can also cause walking and balance disturbances,
a loss of vibration sensation, confusion, and, in advanced cases,
dementia. The body requires B12 to make the protective coating
surrounding the nerves. So inadequate B12 can expose nerves to
damage.
Tucker and colleagues wanted to get a sense of B12 levels spanning
the adult population because most previous studies have focused on the
elderly. That age group was thought to be at higher risk for deficiency.
The researchers also expected to find some connection between dietary
intake and plasma levels, even though other studies found no association.
Some of the results were surprising. The youngest group-the 26 to 49
year olds-had about the same B12 status as the oldest group-65 and up.
"We thought that low concentrations of B12 would increase with age,"
says Tucker. "But we saw a high prevalence of low B12 even among
the youngest group."
The good news is that for many people, eating more fortified cereals
and dairy products can improve B12 status almost as much as taking
supplements containing the vitamin. Supplement use dropped the
percentage of volunteers in the danger zone (plasma B12 below 185
pmol/L) from 20 percent to 8. Eating fortified cereals five or more
times a week or being among the highest third for dairy intake reduced,
by nearly half, the percentage of volunteers in that zone-from 23 and
24 percent, respectively, to 12 and 13 percent.
The researchers found no association between plasma B12 and meat,
poultry, and fish intake, even though these foods supply the bulk of B12
in the diet. "It's not because people aren't eating enough meat," Tucker
says. "The vitamin isn't getting absorbed." The vitamin is tightly bound
to proteins in meat and dairy products and requires high acidity to cut
it loose. As we age, we lose the acid-secreting cells in the stomach. But
what causes poor absorption in younger adults? Tucker speculates that
the high use of antacids may contribute. But why absorption from dairy
products appears to be better than from meats is a question that needs
more research. Fortified cereals are a different story. She says the
vitamin is sprayed on during processing and is "more like what we get
in supplements."
By Judy McBride, Agricultural Research Service Information Staff.
This research is part of Human Nutrition, an ARS National Program
(#107) described on the World Wide Web. Katherine L. Tucker is
at the Jean Mayer USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research Center on
Aging at Tufts University, 711 Washington St., Boston, MA 02111;
..
"Are You Vitamin B12 Deficient?" was published in the August 2000
issue of Agricultural Research magazine.
http://www.epic4health.com/areyouvitb12.html
Doug Freese
"Elflord" <ab...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:slrnfrgi8h...@panix2.panix.com...
I was talking to carrot the other day about his relatives being
uprooted, shaved and munched raw. Not a pretty sight. Maybe you need to
eat more meat before you can hear them. ;)
-D
fer...@paris.com
big game hunting drove the evolution of early Homo, mainly through
its role in offspring provisioning."
Note the second article in response is irrelevant to the first. The
second article finds little or no favor among scholors.
The entire argument has been clinched many thousands of years ago.
Recently discovered and translated ancient books from a monastery in
tibet which are a part of the hollow earth chronicles make it clear.
They declare the natural condition of man as eaters of meat in all his
glory as the gods intended.
They are saddened to see a growing idea among some unenlightened lower
souls for descending into eating like animals of the field.
Bartleby
<snip>
> I'll add my two cents. Why not switch to wild caught salmon or some
> other non farmed fish before dairy and eggs. Milk was not part of our
> evolutionary ancestors diet except for breast milk and eggs were
> probably only eaten if someone was lucky enough to find them during
> nesting season.
"Evolutionary ancestors" covers a lot of territory. For early hunter-
gatherers, milk was not a food source, except for babies.
The situation began to change when some groups began herding animals
and, later, developed dairying technology.
In these groups lactose absorbers survived at greater rates than
nonabsorbers. Many malabsorbers could still digest
processed, soured milk products, such as cheese and yogurt. Fresh and
processed milk products are good sources of
calcium, but only for lactose absorbers. Vitamin D produced in the
skin from UV-B radiation from the sun
enabled those who couldn't absorb lactose to eat cheese and get
calcium from processed milk products.
For more information and context, see - Coevolution and Milk.pdf at
http://ishkbooks.com/human_journey.html
pearl
> "Archaeological data are frequently cited in support of the idea that
> big game hunting drove the evolution of early Homo, mainly through
> its role in offspring provisioning."
>
> Note the second article in response is irrelevant to the first. The
> second article finds little or no favor among scholors.
What are you referring to? Even your own source thinks
that roots (tubers) provided calories to fuel a larger brain,
but, contrary to your source's claims..
'In addition to starch (the major carbohydrate reserve),
tubers contain high-quality proteins, substantial amounts
of vitamins, minerals and trace elements. ...
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1360138501020209
Whether it was fruits, blossoms, nuts and seeds, tubers,
or a combination of the above, it apparently wasn't meat.
I think you realise this, and hence the silly ad hominem.
Rudy Canoza
> <fer...@paris.com> wrote in message news:47b788c0$0$4420$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu...
>> "hypothesis that it is eating fruits and perhaps blossoms, that has, if
>> anything, contributed the most in allowing humans to develop
>> relatively larger brains than other species. The ability of humans to
>> develop normal brains with a dietary absence of animal products is
>> also noted."
>>
>> Not so say those whose study such things, switch to including meat led
>> to larger brain:
>>
>> Meat-eating was essential for human evolution, says UC Berkeley
>> anthropologist specializing in diet
>>
>> By Patricia McBroom, Public Affairs
>>
>> BERKELEY-- Human ancestors who roamed the dry and open savannas of
>> Africa about 2 million years ago routinely began to include meat in
>> their diets to compensate for a serious decline in the quality of
>> plant foods, according to a physical anthropologist at the University
>> of California, Berkeley.
>
> 'Male strategies and Plio-Pleistocene archaeology
[snip BULLSHIT that lesley has not and *cannot* read]
Humans evolved as meat eaters - full stop.
Rudy Canoza
> "I'm just curious now about why vegans don't think lacto-ovo is good
> enough. "
>
> person consumes and their blood cholesterol levels or risk for heart disease"
>
> 'Plasma lipids and diet groups
> ..
> The most striking results from
[snip BULLSHIT lesley has not and *cannot* read]
Humans evolved as meat eaters. This is not in dispute
by biologists and anthropologists.
Rudy Canoza
> "Archaeological data are frequently cited in support of the idea that
> big game hunting drove the evolution of early Homo, mainly through
> its role in offspring provisioning."
>
> Note the second article in response is irrelevant to the first. The
> second article finds little or no favor among scholors.
You're going to get one sloppy copypasta after another
from lesley (the real name of this miscreant posting as
"pearl".) She is a foot masseuse ("reflexologist",
which is bunk) in Cork, Ireland, and she hasn't read
*any* of this crap she sloppily copies and pastes into
her posts, because she *CAN'T* - she has no background
in science.
It is settled ground: humans evolved as meat eaters.
Homo sapiens first appeared some 250,000 years ago,
eating meat; their hominid ancestors back to and
including australopithecus, 2.25 million years earlier,
all ate meat.
Humans eat meat, and they do so as a matter of nature.
Rudy Canoza
> <fer...@paris.com> wrote in message news:47b99c56$0$21648$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu...
>
>> "Archaeological data are frequently cited in support of the idea that
>> big game hunting drove the evolution of early Homo, mainly through
>> its role in offspring provisioning."
>>
>> Note the second article in response is irrelevant to the first. The
>> second article finds little or no favor among scholors.
>
> What are you referring to?
The scientific consensus, you stupid poxed whore.
Humans eat meat - full stop. They and their ancestors
have done for 2.5 million years.
fer...@paris.com
" Meat-eating was essential for human evolution, says UC Berkeley
anthropologist specializing in diet
By Patricia McBroom, Public Affairs
BERKELEY-- Human ancestors who roamed the dry and open savannas of
Africa about 2 million years ago routinely began to include meat in
their diets to compensate for a serious decline in the quality of
plant foods, according to a physical anthropologist at the University
of California, Berkeley."
Second article:
"Archaeological data are frequently cited in support of the idea that
big game hunting drove the evolution of early Homo, mainly through
its role in offspring provisioning."
Note the second article in response is irrelevant to the first. The
second article finds little or no favor among scholors.
The entire argument has been clinched many thousands of years ago.
pearl
> First article:
>
> " Meat-eating was essential for human evolution, says UC Berkeley
> anthropologist specializing in diet
>
> By Patricia McBroom, Public Affairs
>
> BERKELEY-- Human ancestors who roamed the dry and open savannas of
> Africa about 2 million years ago routinely began to include meat in
> their diets to compensate for a serious decline in the quality of
> plant foods, according to a physical anthropologist at the University
> of California, Berkeley."
>
> Second article:
>
> "Archaeological data are frequently cited in support of the idea that
> big game hunting drove the evolution of early Homo, mainly through
> its role in offspring provisioning."
>
> Note the second article in response is irrelevant to the first.
"routinely began to include meat"
"archaeological evidence from the Plio-Pleistocene,
coincident with the emergence of Homo can be read
to reflect low-yield scavenging."...."carcasses were
taken at highly variable rates and in varying degrees of
completeness" - an unreliable food source. ...."Meat
was consumed at or near the point of acquisition, not
at home bases".."*not* for purposes of provisioning."
"Even if meat were acquired more reliably than the
archaeology indicates, its consumption cannot account
for the significant changes in life history now seen to
distinguish early humans from ancestral australopiths. "
> The second article finds little or no favor among scholors.
How about among scholars? These are the authors:
James F. O'Connell
Distinguished Professor
http://www.anthro.utah.edu/people/faculty/james-f.-oconnell.html
Kristen Hawkes
Distinguished Professor
http://www.anthro.utah.edu/people/faculty/kristen-hawkes.html
Dr. Karen D. Lupo
Ph.D., University of Utah
Associate Professor
Archaeology and Evolutionary Anthropology
http://libarts.wsu.edu/anthro/faculty/lupo.html
Nicholas Blurton-Jones
Professor Emeritus
http://www.international.ucla.edu/person.asp?Facultystaff_ID=78
Rudy Canoza
> <fer...@paris.com> wrote in message news:47ba0f69$0$21646$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu...
>> First article:
>>
>> " Meat-eating was essential for human evolution, says UC Berkeley
>> anthropologist specializing in diet
>>
>> By Patricia McBroom, Public Affairs
>>
>> BERKELEY-- Human ancestors who roamed the dry and open savannas of
>> Africa about 2 million years ago routinely began to include meat in
>> their diets to compensate for a serious decline in the quality of
>> plant foods, according to a physical anthropologist at the University
>> of California, Berkeley."
>>
>> Second article:
>>
>> "Archaeological data are frequently cited in support of the idea that
>> big game hunting drove the evolution of early Homo, mainly through
>> its role in offspring provisioning."
>>
>> Note the second article in response is irrelevant to the first.
>
> "routinely began to include meat"
Humans have always eaten meat.
fer...@paris.com
"How about among scholars? These are the authors:"
They are not among the elevated masters who have provided us the real
story:
Rudy Canoza
>> The second article finds little or no favor among scholors.
>
> "How about among scholars? These are the authors:"
>
> They are not among the elevated masters who have provided us the real
> story:
>
> The entire argument has been clinched many thousands of years ago.
> Recently discovered and translated ancient books from a monastery in
> tibet which are a part of the hollow earth chronicles make it clear.
That's pretty funny, because lesley, the nut case with
whom you're arguing, is a big believer in "hollow
earth". It's bullshit, of course.
Humans eat meat, naturally. They always have. The
hominid predecessor species to homo sapiens were eating
meat as a dietary staple for at least 2.25 million
years before the emergence of homo sapiens. Homo
sapiens has eaten meat at all times and places. There
have been no vegetarian societies; just individuals.
Rudy Canoza
in the human line of evolution"
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1c.shtml
Dayrl
"Doug Freese" <dfr...@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:47b82c0a$0$16660$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
> "Prisoner at War" <prisone...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:a4fed611-07d8-48b8...@o10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> So once again it's a whole nexus between animal suffering, health
>> benefits, and just plain morality that makes it harder and harder for
>> me to continue eating meat...it's so weird, but this has only just
>> happened like a day or two ago when I just, like, woke up and the
>> thought simply arose in my mind to go vegetarian...and it's not like
>> I'd just seen a really graphic snuff video of animals at the
>> slaughterhouse or something...it's like waking up once day to find
>> you've lost weight or gained an extra inch on your arms...I mean, this
>> kind of a quality makes it feel so *true*...I'm not going on a sudden
>> surge of emotions here, actually...I just woke up and thought, felt,
>> that I shouldn't be eating meat.
>
> Then do your thing! I'm saving my outrage for the lying scumbag president
> that is killing people for oil.
>
Yea right. If they were doing it for oil, wouldn't prices go down? Drill
the damn Anwar and flush the retarded liberals down the toilet with the rest
of the turds!!!!
dh
. . .
>Forget about the acts of sheer cruelty we see on the evening news, bad
>as that is: just the whole cooped up experience of being raised in a
>cage, living with no space to turn around, is fucking sick!! I really
>try not to think about it, but in trying to live a conscious life of
>awareness and self-realization, there's no way but to also live
>conscientiously, for all sentient beings...
· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:
Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings
The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
>hard-scrabbled bastard that
>I am, it's the least I can do to not put such food in my mouth, to
>fuel my lifts at the gym on the lifelong suffering of animals
· Because there are so many different situations
involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely
unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same
way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is
cruel, and to think of all animals which are raised for
the production of food in the same way, oversimplifies
and distorts one's interpretation of the way things
really are. Just as it would to think that there is no
cruelty or abuse at all.
Beef cattle spend nearly their entire lives outside
grazing, which is not a bad way to live. Veal are
confined to such a degree that they appear to have
terrible lives, so there's no reason to think of both
groups of animals in the same way.
Chickens raised as fryers and broilers, and egg
producers who are in a cage free environment--as well as
the birds who parent all of them, and the birds who parent
battery hens--are raised in houses, but not in cages. The
lives of those birds are not bad. Battery hens are confined
to cages, and have what appear to be terrible lives, so
there is no reason to think of battery hens and the other
groups in the same way. ·
Justin E. Miller
Prisoner at War wrote:
> On Feb 16, 4:08 pm, "Doug Freese" <dfre...@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
> And lastly, I'm curious
> what vegetarians and vegans might make of their meat-eating pets! Any
> vegans with pet snakes here??
Actually, my dogs are vegetarians just like me. :)
Rudy Canoza
I doubt it, but at least it wouldn't kill them. Don't
try it with cats, though.
Justin E. Miller
news to me.
Elflord
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 02:06:09 -0800 (PST), Prisoner at War <prisone...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
This isn't much of an argument. Doing less harm is preferable to doing more.
The argument that an omnivore diet results in less harm to animals is simply
not very convincing. Very few people who adopt a diet with the intent on
minimizing harm to animals are omnivores, and most people who advance this
argument are more interested in discouraging people from adopting veg diets
than they are in advancing the cause of animal welfare.
[snip]
> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
> future.
This needs to be weighed against the moral issues involving taking life.
Were we talking about raising humans for slaughter, I've little doubt that
we would agree that it is unacceptable, even if those humans enjoyed a good
life.
> People who want to contribute to decent lives for livestock
> with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
> being vegan.
Again, if you knew that humans were being raised for slaughter, would you give
money to the slaughter facility that provides the best life for those they
raise ? Or would you risk "failing to contribute to decent lives" for these
people, because of your refusal to participate in the system ? Perhaps you would
decide that it would be better if we didn't breed those "cattle people", or at
least, that none were bred on your account.
> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
Meat animals need to be fed, and that involves providing them with some sort of
plant food (usually corn in the US). I think you're going to have a tough time
making the case that meat is more efficient use of land than grains, especially
when the cheap consumer-grade meat is all based on grains.
>>hard-scrabbled bastard that
>>I am, it's the least I can do to not put such food in my mouth, to
>>fuel my lifts at the gym on the lifelong suffering of animals
>
> · Because there are so many different situations
> involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely
> unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same
> way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is
They vary greatly, but I think we all agree that they do all end with the
animal being slaughtered.
Cheers,
--
Elflord
Rudy Canoza
> On 2008-02-20, dh@. <dh@.> wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 02:06:09 -0800 (PST), Prisoner at War <prisone...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
>
> This isn't much of an argument. Doing less harm is preferable to doing more.
Being "vegan" in no way establishes that you are doing
less harm.
> The argument that an omnivore diet results in less harm to animals is simply
> not very convincing.
Some meat-including diet can almost certainly "beat"
any "vegan" diet you wish to adopt, if reducing harm to
animals is the goal.
> Very few people who adopt a diet with the intent on
> minimizing harm to animals are omnivores, and most people who advance this
> argument are more interested in discouraging people from adopting veg diets
> than they are in advancing the cause of animal welfare.
No one is particularly interested in discouraging
anyone from adopting whatever diet they choose; that's
a red herring. What omnivores who criticize "vegans"
are using as the grounds for criticism is that the
"vegan" position is badly thought out incoherent
bullshit. It is based on a logical fallacy: denying
the antecedent. Even when the occasional "vegan" backs
away from his initially false and fallacy-based belief
that he isn't harming animals, the resulting fall-back
positions are no better.
The first false fall-back position is that the "vegan"
is "minimizing" harm to animals, even if not avoiding
all harm. But that is clearly bullshit: the "vegan"
has *never* measured the harm, and you must measure in
order to make a legitimate claim of minimization. My
favorite way of demolishing this bullshit claim is to
point out that even within an all-vegetarian or "vegan"
diet, there is still a lot of variability in the amount
of collateral harm inflicted on animals. If you
haven't measured the "death toll" of each and every
item you consume, then picked the truly least-harm
combination of consumption goods, you cannot be said to
be "minimizing".
The next false, and morally loathsome, fall-back
position is one of comparative virtue. The "vegan",
chased first from his absolute (and absolutely false)
"no harm" claim, and subsequently chased from the
equally false "minimization" claim, eventually settles
on a claim of doing less harm than the omnivore, and
basing his claim to virtue on that. But that is still
a false claim, and is now an even shittier moral
position, because virtue *NEVER* is established by
comparing oneself to someone else; virtue *ONLY* is
established by following correct moral principles.
It's easy to show this: if your brother fucks the
six-year-old boy next door up the ass eight times a
week, while you "only" fuck the same boy up the ass
four times, you can hardly be said to be "better" than
your brother. You *both* are criminal scum who should
be executed in that case. Now let's say your brother
increases his ass-fucking rapes of the boy to eighteen
times a week, while you only increase yours to six.
Relative to your filthy criminal brother, you now are
even more "virtuous" than before, because the ratio of
your rapes to his has fallen, from 1/2 to 1/3. But you
actually *increased* the number of filthy criminal
assaults you commit against the poor six-year-old boy.
There is absolutely nothing left to "veganism" in terms
of the bloated but false sense of moral superiority
with which all "vegans" first start. In fact, the only
thing that's left is the complete certainty that ego
and self-exaltation are all that really motivated the
"vegan" in the first place.
Elflord
>> This isn't much of an argument. Doing less harm is preferable to doing more.
>
> Being "vegan" in no way establishes that you are doing less harm.
In my opinion, it greatly increases the likelihood that you are doing less harm.
I'll grant you that it doesn't make it certain, but it's a good start.
>> The argument that an omnivore diet results in less harm to animals is simply
>> not very convincing.
>
> Some meat-including diet can almost certainly "beat"
> any "vegan" diet you wish to adopt, if reducing harm to
> animals is the goal.
Then please do explain how killing animals causes less harm than not killing animals.
>> Very few people who adopt a diet with the intent on
>> minimizing harm to animals are omnivores, and most people who advance this
>> argument are more interested in discouraging people from adopting veg diets
>> than they are in advancing the cause of animal welfare.
>
> No one is particularly interested in discouraging
> anyone from adopting whatever diet they choose; that's
> a red herring. What omnivores who criticize "vegans"
> are using as the grounds for criticism is that the
> "vegan" position is badly thought out incoherent
> bullshit. It is based on a logical fallacy: denying
> the antecedent. Even when the occasional "vegan" backs
> away from his initially false and fallacy-based belief
> that he isn't harming animals, the resulting fall-back
> positions are no better.
>
> The first false fall-back position is that the "vegan"
> is "minimizing" harm to animals, even if not avoiding
> all harm. But that is clearly bullshit: the "vegan"
> has *never* measured the harm, and you must measure in
> order to make a legitimate claim of minimization. My
Has anyone measured this harm ? How would precisely would one measure it ?
When a murderer goes to court, do the prosecution have the burden of proving
that killing that person didn't result in a net positive to public well being ?
> favorite way of demolishing this bullshit claim is to
> point out that even within an all-vegetarian or "vegan"
> diet, there is still a lot of variability in the amount
> of collateral harm inflicted on animals. If you
I don't think the argument that you *might be* doing something that causes collateral
harm is a very good justification for doing deliberate harm. If everyone avoided
actions that were *known* to cause harm, less harm would be done.
To adopt a moral principal that is designed to minimize harm, it is not necessary to
prove that every instance of adherance to that principal, in every forseeable context
always results in less harm.
> haven't measured the "death toll" of each and every
> item you consume, then picked the truly least-harm
> combination of consumption goods, you cannot be said to
> be "minimizing".
>
> The next false, and morally loathsome, fall-back
> position is one of comparative virtue. The "vegan",
> chased first from his absolute (and absolutely false)
> "no harm" claim, and subsequently chased from the
> equally false "minimization" claim, eventually settles
> on a claim of doing less harm than the omnivore, and
> basing his claim to virtue on that. But that is still
I agree with you on this point, this is simply a bad argument.
> a false claim, and is now an even shittier moral
> position, because virtue *NEVER* is established by
> comparing oneself to someone else; virtue *ONLY* is
> established by following correct moral principles.
Like, "abstain from taking of life". That's a moral principal, and variations of
it are almost universal.
The prevailing presumption is that not killing is less harmful than killing.
For each murder that you don't commit, aren't expected to justify not
committing that murder. This is the case even though killing some people given
the opportunity might actually make the world a happier place.
Cheers,
--
Elflord
Rudy Canoza
> On 2008-02-21, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>
>>> This isn't much of an argument. Doing less harm is preferable to doing more.
>> Being "vegan" in no way establishes that you are doing less harm.
>
> In my opinion, it greatly increases the likelihood that you are doing less harm.
>
> I'll grant you that it doesn't make it certain, but it's a good start.
You ran your mouth too soon. You ought to have read
the whole post first.
>
>>> The argument that an omnivore diet results in less harm to animals is simply
>>> not very convincing.
>> Some meat-including diet can almost certainly "beat"
>> any "vegan" diet you wish to adopt, if reducing harm to
>> animals is the goal.
>
> Then please do explain how killing animals causes less harm than not killing animals.
You just showed that you're *still* committing the
classic "vegan" fallacy: assuming that because you
don't eat animal parts, you don't harm animals. That
is provably false. Animals die all the time in the
course of commercial agriculture, and you *do* eat
commercially grown fruits and vegetables. The *fact*
is, you have no idea how much death is caused by the
cultivation, harvesting, processing and distribution of
the plant foods you eat.
Answer this question. Which causes more animal death,
a pound of venison or a pound of rice?
>>> Very few people who adopt a diet with the intent on
>>> minimizing harm to animals are omnivores, and most people who advance this
>>> argument are more interested in discouraging people from adopting veg diets
>>> than they are in advancing the cause of animal welfare.
>> No one is particularly interested in discouraging
>> anyone from adopting whatever diet they choose; that's
>> a red herring. What omnivores who criticize "vegans"
>> are using as the grounds for criticism is that the
>> "vegan" position is badly thought out incoherent
>> bullshit. It is based on a logical fallacy: denying
>> the antecedent. Even when the occasional "vegan" backs
>> away from his initially false and fallacy-based belief
>> that he isn't harming animals, the resulting fall-back
>> positions are no better.
>>
>> The first false fall-back position is that the "vegan"
>> is "minimizing" harm to animals, even if not avoiding
>> all harm. But that is clearly bullshit: the "vegan"
>> has *never* measured the harm, and you must measure in
>> order to make a legitimate claim of minimization.
>
> Has anyone measured this harm ? How would precisely would one measure it ?
The point is, you can't claim to be "minimizing" unless
you have measured, and no "vegan" has ever measured.
So, the claim goes out the window. It is irretrievable.
>
> When a murderer goes to court, do the prosecution have the burden of proving
> that killing that person didn't result in a net positive to public well being ?
No, because murder is wrong and criminal in and of
itself. Killing animals isn't.
>
>> My favorite way of demolishing this bullshit claim is to
>> point out that even within an all-vegetarian or "vegan"
>> diet, there is still a lot of variability in the amount
>> of collateral harm inflicted on animals. If you
>
> I don't think the argument that you *might be* doing something that causes collateral
> harm is a very good justification for doing deliberate harm. If everyone avoided
> actions that were *known* to cause harm, less harm would be done.
No, you *ARE* doing something that causes collateral
harm. You *know* you are. You *know* animals die in
the course of growing, harvesting, processing and
distributing the foods you eat.
Let's go back to my question from a moment ago, and
change it. Which causes more animal death, a pound of
rice or a pound of wheat? If one unequivocally causes
more than the other, then you cannot possibly include
*any* quantity of the higher death food and still
maintain your claim to be "minimizing".
Rice as it is most commonly produced is exceptionally
lethal to animals. When rice paddies are flooded,
ground-dwelling mammals and quite a lot of birds are
drowned. While the paddies are flooded, amphibians and
other water-dwelling animals take up residence. Then
the paddies are drained, and the water dwelling animals
die.
How much rice do you eat? Do you have any idea how
many animals die in the course of getting that rice
onto your plate. No, you don't know; no idea at all.
>
> To adopt a moral principal that is designed to minimize harm, it is not necessary to
> prove that every instance of adherance to that principal, in every forseeable context
> always results in less harm.
The bogus "principle" underlying "veganism" isn't a
principle at all, and not putting animal parts in your
mouth in no way establishes that you're minimizing the
animal harm toll you cause.
>
>> haven't measured the "death toll" of each and every
>> item you consume, then picked the truly least-harm
>> combination of consumption goods, you cannot be said to
>> be "minimizing".
You really whiffed on this point. Take any two
different "vegan" diets. Unless you're willing to make
the absurd assumption that each vegetable and fruit
crop causes exactly the same amount of harm to animals,
on a per-serving basis, then *CLEARLY* the two diets
cause different amounts of harm. Yet some "vegan" who
chooses the higher-harm diet will delude herself into
thinking she is "minimizing" the harm she inflicts on
animals as a result of her diet. She is not.
>>
>> The next false, and morally loathsome, fall-back
>> position is one of comparative virtue. The "vegan",
>> chased first from his absolute (and absolutely false)
>> "no harm" claim, and subsequently chased from the
>> equally false "minimization" claim, eventually settles
>> on a claim of doing less harm than the omnivore, and
>> basing his claim to virtue on that. But that is still
>
> I agree with you on this point, this is simply a bad argument.
I have argued long and hard with many "vegans" in this
group, over the last nine years, over that very
argument. You're to be commended for acknowledging
that it is a very bad and completely untenable
argument, but it is one commonly made by "vegans" after
they have been pushed off their earlier ones.
>
>> a false claim, and is now an even shittier moral
>> position, because virtue *NEVER* is established by
>> comparing oneself to someone else; virtue *ONLY* is
>> established by following correct moral principles.
>
> Like, "abstain from taking of life". That's a moral principal, and variations of
> it are almost universal.
But if you eat food, you are violating the principle.
More broadly, if you live life, you are violating the
principle.
>
> The prevailing presumption is that not killing is less harmful than killing.
But killing of animals takes place in the course of
producing not only your food, but myriad other
consumption goods. The fact that you personally don't
do it is of no importance.
> For each murder that you don't commit, aren't expected to justify not
> committing that murder. This is the case even though killing some people given
> the opportunity might actually make the world a happier place.
But murder is wrong per se. Say you decide to kill
someone in your neighborhood known to be a burglar.
We'll even presume the guy commits a burglary every
week. Even in a "three strikes" state, this felon, if
caught and convicted, would not be put to death. The
presumption is that burglary, while causing distress
and a welfare loss to the victims, does not warrant
loss of life as punishment. So, you decide to kill the
guy - just track him down and blow him away, while he
is not in the commission of a crime. Clearly this
particular felon will commit no more felonies, but you
have imposed a "sentence" on him that is harsher than
that which would result even if he were apprehended and
convicted of a third-strike crime.
Briefly, the issue of morality simply doesn't admit of
a strictly utilitarian calculation such as you have
attempted. Yes, the utility of society would be
improved by your criminal removal of this felon from
society, but this kind of utility/welfare calculation
is not the only thing to consider. It's worth noting
that the underlying initial presumption of "veganism"
is not utilitarian, but rather deontological: that
killing animals is wrong, irrespective of whatever
positive increment of utility results from killing them.
Elflord
>>> The first false fall-back position is that the "vegan"
>>> is "minimizing" harm to animals, even if not avoiding
>>> all harm. But that is clearly bullshit: the "vegan"
>>> has *never* measured the harm, and you must measure in
>>> order to make a legitimate claim of minimization.
>>
>> Has anyone measured this harm ? How would precisely would one measure it ?
>
> The point is, you can't claim to be "minimizing" unless
> you have measured, and no "vegan" has ever measured.
> So, the claim goes out the window. It is irretrievable.
So it seems that no-one really knows.
The bottom line is though, I don't buy this moral equivalence between
collateral harm and deliberate killing.
> No, you *ARE* doing something that causes collateral
> harm. You *know* you are. You *know* animals die in
> the course of growing, harvesting, processing and
> distributing the foods you eat.
You don't know that the apple that you're eating is directly linked to
the death of an animal. At best, it is linked to some probabilistic
and unknown(!) average.
This is not in my opinion a moral equivalent of direct and intentional harm.
Cheers,
--
Elflord
Rudy Canoza
> On 2008-02-21, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>>>> The first false fall-back position is that the "vegan"
>>>> is "minimizing" harm to animals, even if not avoiding
>>>> all harm. But that is clearly bullshit: the "vegan"
>>>> has *never* measured the harm, and you must measure in
>>>> order to make a legitimate claim of minimization.
>>> Has anyone measured this harm ? How would precisely would one measure it ?
>> The point is, you can't claim to be "minimizing" unless
>> you have measured, and no "vegan" has ever measured.
>> So, the claim goes out the window. It is irretrievable.
>
> So it seems that no-one really knows.
No one knows with any precision, but that's a problem
for "vegans", not for omnivores. The reason is that
omnivores aren't making a fatuous moral claim based on
their diet in the first place, but "vegans" are.
>
> The bottom line is though, I don't buy this moral equivalence between
> collateral harm and deliberate killing.
First, a dead animal is a dead animal. Second, not all
the animals whose deaths are attached to your diet were
killed collaterally. Third, collateral doesn't equate
to accidental. Farmers may not set out to chop animals
to bits in fields, but they don't take any steps to
avoid it, either. If you drive your car through a
municipal park as a shortcut and mow down a few
children, and then say, "Well, I wasn't actually trying
to hit any children; I just wanted the shortcut because
I was in a hurry", your "defense" will fail.
>
>> No, you *ARE* doing something that causes collateral
>> harm. You *know* you are. You *know* animals die in
>> the course of growing, harvesting, processing and
>> distributing the foods you eat.
>
> You don't know that the apple that you're eating is directly linked to
> the death of an animal. At best, it is linked to some probabilistic
> and unknown(!) average.
Some foods, you *know* cause animal death. And you
*know* that those deaths were caused by the equivalent
of reckless endangerment, i.e., no steps were taken to
try to prevent or avoid the deaths.
>
> This is not in my opinion a moral equivalent of direct and intentional harm.
It doesn't get you off the hook, and all of the
fallback positions fail.
Derek
[..]
>The bottom line is though, I don't buy this moral equivalence between
>collateral harm and deliberate killing.
And nor should you, because it's a bogus equivalence on a
number of grounds. Unlike the buying of meat which always
goes through death to obtain it, the buying of vegetables is
a morally neutral act because it doesn't have to go through
death to obtain it, and nor does it always incidentally go
through death to obtain it. The collateral deaths found in
agriculture, though unfortunate, are merely "the double effect"
of buying veg.
The Double Effect;
It states that an action having an unintended, harmful effect
(collateral deaths*) is defensible on four conditions as follows:
1) the nature of the act (buying veg*) is itself good, or at least
morally neutral;
2) the intention is for the good effect (buying veg*) and not the bad;
3) the good effect outweighs the bad effect in a situation sufficiently
grave to merit the risk of yielding the bad effect (e.g., risking
collateral deaths*);
4) the good effect (obtaining vegetables*) does not go through the
bad effect (e.g., collateral deaths*).
Although different writers state the doctrine in different ways, it
always claims that there is a moral difference between courses of
action such as the following although this is not a full description:
1)An agent that deliberately causes harm in order to promote some
good. (Not permitted by the doctrine)
(using animals as tools and models to produce drugs, buying meat*)
2) An agent that promotes some good in such a way that harm is
caused as a foreseen side-effect. (Permitted)
(buying veg*)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_effect (*my edit)
There's quite a lot of discussion on "The double effect", so I've included
a couple of extra links, if it interests you.
[The doctrine (or principle) of double effect is often invoked to explain
the permissibility of an action that causes a serious harm, such as the
death of a human being, as a side effect of promoting some good end.
It is claimed that sometimes it is permissible to cause such a harm as
a side effect (or “double effect”) of bringing about a good result even
though it would not be permissible to cause such a harm as a means to
bringing about the same good end. This reasoning is summarized with
the claim that sometimes it is permissible to bring about as a merely
foreseen side effect a harmful event that it would be impermissible to
bring about intentionally.
......
The conditions provided by Joseph Mangan include the explicit
requirement that the bad effect not be intended:
A person may licitly perform an action that he foresees will produce a
good effect and a bad effect provided that four conditions are verified
at one and the same time:
1) that the action in itself from its very object be good or at least indifferent;
2) that the good effect and not the evil effect be intended;
3) that the good effect be not produced by means of the evil effect;
4) that there be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect”]
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/
[..]
Elflord
> No one knows with any precision, but that's a problem
> for "vegans", not for omnivores. The reason is that
> omnivores aren't making a fatuous moral claim based on
> their diet in the first place, but "vegans" are.
What claim are they making ?
>> The bottom line is though, I don't buy this moral equivalence between
>> collateral harm and deliberate killing.
>
> First, a dead animal is a dead animal. Second, not all
> the animals whose deaths are attached to your diet were
> killed collaterally. Third, collateral doesn't equate
> to accidental. Farmers may not set out to chop animals
You're arguing this from a purely utilitarian standpoint, but we both agree
that this is not adequate.
Could you elaborate a little on point (2) above ?
> to bits in fields, but they don't take any steps to
> avoid it, either. If you drive your car through a
> municipal park as a shortcut and mow down a few
> children, and then say, "Well, I wasn't actually trying
> to hit any children; I just wanted the shortcut because
> I was in a hurry", your "defense" will fail.
Yes, but it would not be considered *equivalent* to shooting
them for sport (even though they end up dead either way)
>> You don't know that the apple that you're eating is directly linked to
>> the death of an animal. At best, it is linked to some probabilistic
>> and unknown(!) average.
>
> Some foods, you *know* cause animal death. And you
> *know* that those deaths were caused by the equivalent
> of reckless endangerment, i.e., no steps were taken to
> try to prevent or avoid the deaths.
My position is that if I tell you "go get me a piece of dead animal", then I'm
accountable for the death of the animal, but if I tell you "go get me an
apple", and you happen to shoot an animal in the course of getting that animal,
I'm not.
Cheers,
--
Elflord
Rudy Canoza
> On 2008-02-21, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>
>> No one knows with any precision, but that's a problem
>> for "vegans", not for omnivores. The reason is that
>> omnivores aren't making a fatuous moral claim based on
>> their diet in the first place, but "vegans" are.
>
> What claim are they making ?
I've already laid that out for you, and you've
responded to it.
>
>>> The bottom line is though, I don't buy this moral equivalence between
>>> collateral harm and deliberate killing.
>> First, a dead animal is a dead animal. Second, not all
>> the animals whose deaths are attached to your diet were
>> killed collaterally. Third, collateral doesn't equate
>> to accidental. Farmers may not set out to chop animals
>
> You're arguing this from a purely utilitarian standpoint, but we both agree
> that this is not adequate.
I'm not arguing from a utilitarian standpoint at all.
I'm not making any claim about the harm caused to
animals by my diet, or any other omnivore's diet. I'm
pointing out that the claims made by "vegans" - the
initial "no harm" claim and each of the fallback claims
- are untenable.
>
> Could you elaborate a little on point (2) above ?
Lots of animals are deliberately exterminated as pests
at various stages of tillage, cultivation, harvesting,
storage, processing and distribution of food. One of
the best examples is the extermination of rodents at
grain storage facilities.
>
>> to bits in fields, but they don't take any steps to
>> avoid it, either. If you drive your car through a
>> municipal park as a shortcut and mow down a few
>> children, and then say, "Well, I wasn't actually trying
>> to hit any children; I just wanted the shortcut because
>> I was in a hurry", your "defense" will fail.
>
> Yes, but it would not be considered *equivalent* to shooting
> them for sport (even though they end up dead either way)
You will be prosecuted criminally if you do it, and a
defense based on a claim that the deaths or injuries
were "accidental", i.e. not intended, will fail completely.
>
>>> You don't know that the apple that you're eating is directly linked to
>>> the death of an animal. At best, it is linked to some probabilistic
>>> and unknown(!) average.
>> Some foods, you *know* cause animal death. And you
>> *know* that those deaths were caused by the equivalent
>> of reckless endangerment, i.e., no steps were taken to
>> try to prevent or avoid the deaths.
>
> My position is that if I tell you "go get me a piece of dead animal", then I'm
> accountable for the death of the animal, but if I tell you "go get me an
> apple", and you happen to shoot an animal in the course of getting that animal,
> I'm not.
You're wrong. If you *know* that I cause harm to
animals in the course of getting you your food, and you
do know it, then you share in the moral responsibility
for it. You don't need to employ me as your agent at
all, if you're really interested in not causing, or
being a part of causing, harm to animals. You could
grow all your own food, on your own little "death free
zone" farm. You choose not to do that, and you know
that the farmers who produce the food you consume are
not taking any steps to avoid collateral animal deaths.
Elflord
> I'm not arguing from a utilitarian standpoint at all.
> I'm not making any claim about the harm caused to
> animals by my diet, or any other omnivore's diet. I'm
> pointing out that the claims made by "vegans" - the
> initial "no harm" claim and each of the fallback claims
> - are untenable.
OK, but I can't account for these "vegans" you are arguing
against. I agree that one can't make a "no harm" claim.
>>> to bits in fields, but they don't take any steps to
>>> avoid it, either. If you drive your car through a
>>> municipal park as a shortcut and mow down a few
>>> children, and then say, "Well, I wasn't actually trying
>>> to hit any children; I just wanted the shortcut because
>>> I was in a hurry", your "defense" will fail.
>>
>> Yes, but it would not be considered *equivalent* to shooting
>> them for sport (even though they end up dead either way)
>
> You will be prosecuted criminally if you do it, and a
> defense based on a claim that the deaths or injuries
> were "accidental", i.e. not intended, will fail completely.
Yes, it would still be considered criminal, but it's not equivalent.
>> My position is that if I tell you "go get me a piece of dead animal", then I'm
>> accountable for the death of the animal, but if I tell you "go get me an
>> apple", and you happen to shoot an animal in the course of getting that animal,
>> I'm not.
>
> You're wrong. If you *know* that I cause harm to
> animals in the course of getting you your food, and you
> do know it, then you share in the moral responsibility
> for it. You don't need to employ me as your agent at
> all, if you're really interested in not causing, or
> being a part of causing, harm to animals. You could
> grow all your own food, on your own little "death free
> zone" farm.
I don't buy that argument. If that were true, one could make arguments along
the same lines about employing agents who engage in unsafe labor practices and
claiming this is morally equivalent to deliberate killing.
Cheers,
--
Elflord