Author Topic: Ignorant food consumers  (Read 30370 times)

cobbb11

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #100 on: June 02, 2017, 01:04:47 PM »
If you can get through this whole lecture and not be vegan after, than kudos, but this changed me on the spot. There is no such thing as "humane" in the animal products world when the end result is always an early death to an otherwise perfectly functioning and sentient animal. That's why we don't have things like humane rape and humane murder.

Also I personally don't think anyone can complain about climate change and the environment without first adopting a vegan diet. It's something simple everyone can do at any time and you don't need a President to tell you to do it.

In regards to the mock meats discussion, no one ever claims they're healthy. Trust me you can be unhealthy as a vegan, but at least you're only hurting yourself and not causing harm to other beings. They are meant to be occasional treats like pizza and ice cream (both have great vegan varieties, even Ben and Jerry's has vegan ice cream), and also help people who are transitioning to plant-based and still have meat cravings. But I promise you within 2/3 weeks, your tastes will change.
 
There's also a 30 minute Q&A video that takes place after this lecture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es6U00LMmC4&t=1502s

Hey cobbb11, maybe you can answer some questions for me. I've often wondered what the idea solution to the existence of animals, under a fully vegan moral code. If no animals are food, then they must be either pets or wild.

Animal in the wild don't die of old age. They die of predation, exposure, or illness. Wouldn't setting all the feed animals free also be humans causing the premature ending of an otherwise viable animal?

Perhaps that example doesn't help, because we can all admit the magical release of all feed animals currently awaiting slaughter ain't never going to happen. But even a carefully scheduled released plan seems problematic. At this point the breed of cows, chickens, and hogs eaten in N. American have been heavily modified by humans, and those modifications do not emphasis survival in the wild. If anything, the things humans want reduces survivalist in the wild. Chicken's with breasts so massive they cannot walk will have brutish lives in the wild. When taking into account those human adaptations, is it moral to simply release the current version of Holstein or Angus into the wild.

If wild release isn't moral, and they must remain pets, that also has moral implications on the continued existence of large animals. We're no longer a society predicated on the ability to keep a cow and a sheep in the back garden. Urban density is just going to increase.

From your post count, you seem new here and you might not know me very well. Let me assure you this is a sincere conversation, based on curiosity. I'm not collecting ammunition to rebut. I don't agree with you, but I accept your right to think keeping animals for meat is immoral, but correcting the moral issue creates a whole slew of future moral questions. I'm interested in your thoughts.

I've been here for years, just post very little. But no worries, I love discussing this topic. Although I think many questions you have would be answered in the video I linked.

Animals killing other animals in nature is of no concern to me. True carnivores need to eat other animals to survive (they don't have to worry about clogged arteries like humans, who are truly herbivorous and eat meat/dairy at our own detriment. It is true we have basically "engineered" animals at this point to have no chance for survival in the wild and instead provide maximum output of meat/milk/eggs etc. There is no good solution, but whether we give as many as possible to sanctuaries, or did some kind of cut off and just "finished off" the current animal stock and stopped after that....I don't know. But the concern is the future of these animals and not exploiting them for generations to come, the same way I would assume you wouldn't exploit your dog/cat.

cobbb11

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #101 on: June 02, 2017, 01:07:22 PM »
Also I personally don't think anyone can complain about climate change and the environment without first adopting a vegan diet.

I challenge you to do some research on this issue. I don't claim to have read everything on the topic, but my understanding is that few biological systems sequester more carbon than grasslands pulsed by rotationally grazing herbivores. Contrary to the common vegan/environmental crowd's belief that cows are killing the planet, grass-fed cattle (and other ruminants) on properly managed pastures do wondrous things to heal the planet. The amount of carbon sequestered by actively managed pasture or sylvopasture can approach 100x the amount of wild forest systems, in that topsoil builds at close to an inch a year versus an inch a century.

If you look at regenerating landscapes with design systems like permaculture, it nearly always involves animals.

The killing and eating of sentient beings is a whole other issue, not going to try debating that as the viewpoints are just too far apart to make discussion practical, but veganism - especially one based primarily off of annual food crops is NOT more environmentally friendly than a mixed diet of animal and plants with the animal portion coming exclusively from perennial systems. As someone involved with meat animals from birth to death, it's not an easy choice to make, but I take it because it's what is personally best for my body (after experimenting with plant-based diets for some time) and I make sure that the death is as quick and painless as possible.

It's pretty simple logic to me, but I have done the research as well:

We need to grow crops for not only human consumption, but also a MASSIVELY greater number of animal consumption so that they can grow old enough for future human consumption as well. How does it not make perfect sense that cutting out the "middle man" and everyone only eat the crops directly would have nothing but positive benefits for the planet? We already grow enough food for all humans if we would just allocate it. Please watch the video I linked above if you haven't. It answers many questions, the guy speaking has done this for years.

KCM5

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 856
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #102 on: June 02, 2017, 01:50:58 PM »
Also I personally don't think anyone can complain about climate change and the environment without first adopting a vegan diet.

I challenge you to do some research on this issue. I don't claim to have read everything on the topic, but my understanding is that few biological systems sequester more carbon than grasslands pulsed by rotationally grazing herbivores. Contrary to the common vegan/environmental crowd's belief that cows are killing the planet, grass-fed cattle (and other ruminants) on properly managed pastures do wondrous things to heal the planet. The amount of carbon sequestered by actively managed pasture or sylvopasture can approach 100x the amount of wild forest systems, in that topsoil builds at close to an inch a year versus an inch a century.

If you look at regenerating landscapes with design systems like permaculture, it nearly always involves animals.

The killing and eating of sentient beings is a whole other issue, not going to try debating that as the viewpoints are just too far apart to make discussion practical, but veganism - especially one based primarily off of annual food crops is NOT more environmentally friendly than a mixed diet of animal and plants with the animal portion coming exclusively from perennial systems. As someone involved with meat animals from birth to death, it's not an easy choice to make, but I take it because it's what is personally best for my body (after experimenting with plant-based diets for some time) and I make sure that the death is as quick and painless as possible.

It's pretty simple logic to me, but I have done the research as well:

We need to grow crops for not only human consumption, but also a MASSIVELY greater number of animal consumption so that they can grow old enough for future human consumption as well. How does it not make perfect sense that cutting out the "middle man" and everyone only eat the crops directly would have nothing but positive benefits for the planet? We already grow enough food for all humans if we would just allocate it. Please watch the video I linked above if you haven't. It answers many questions, the guy speaking has done this for years.

You're surmising that all meat is fed annual crops grown by humans. There are other options - grazing, as Thegoblinchief mentioned, and wild hunted meat. Both of these options do not require crops that humans would eat.

I'm seconding the above suggestion that you do more research on the issue.

One thing that is clear, is that humans (North Americans among them) generally eat way more meat than is reasonable for the planet to sustain. In order to have a sustainable system, we'd need to change the way we grow/raise/catch our food as well as reduce our meat consumption. But eliminating it would not necessarily be the answer.

Goldielocks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5808
  • Location: BC
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #103 on: June 02, 2017, 06:26:55 PM »
After touring sheep, goat and cattle ranches, I realized that many animals are raised on land that can not readily grow human food crops.    Not saying the above arguments are wrong, just not the whole story.

Kitsune

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1592
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #104 on: June 02, 2017, 06:57:57 PM »
You're surmising that all meat is fed annual crops grown by humans. There are other options - grazing, as Thegoblinchief mentioned, and wild hunted meat. Both of these options do not require crops that humans would eat.

I'm seconding the above suggestion that you do more research on the issue.

One thing that is clear, is that humans (North Americans among them) generally eat way more meat than is reasonable for the planet to sustain. In order to have a sustainable system, we'd need to change the way we grow/raise/catch our food as well as reduce our meat consumption. But eliminating it would not necessarily be the answer.

Around here, deer hunting is a necessity - with the elimination of natural predators, the deer population can either be (humanely) thinned out, or a decent portion can starve over winter.

Also, a small-scale farm can't function with no animals. Vegetables need fertilizer. In short, that means composted manure or chemical additives (or vegetable compost with chemical additives...) Large-scale grain farming is environmentally dubious, requires pesticides and a range of chemical fertilizers, and kills a whole lot of field-dwelling animals (mice, voles, rabbits) as a byproduct.

I'll definitely agree that current meat consumption is unsustainable (and unhealthy), and current industrial farming is problematic in the extreme, but if your ethical standard is "nothing should die"... well, good luck...

AnnaGrowsAMustache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #105 on: June 02, 2017, 07:18:14 PM »
There's no way I would eat insects. I just couldn't. I can't eat shrimp, crab or lobster for similar reasons. All that exoskeleton, antennae stuff is creepy as hell and NOT going near my mouth.

I'd definitely try faux chicken fungus, though.

My co-workers have a thing with milk. They actually pour it down the sink if it gets within a FEW DAYS of the best before date, and they certainly wouldn't drink it after that, even if it looks and smells just fine. The rule now is that no one pours away milk. Just leave it for Anna and she'll take it home. And they think this means I"M the weirdo...
« Last Edit: June 02, 2017, 07:21:10 PM by AnnaGrowsAMustache »

cobbb11

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #106 on: June 03, 2017, 08:55:08 PM »
Also I personally don't think anyone can complain about climate change and the environment without first adopting a vegan diet.

I challenge you to do some research on this issue. I don't claim to have read everything on the topic, but my understanding is that few biological systems sequester more carbon than grasslands pulsed by rotationally grazing herbivores. Contrary to the common vegan/environmental crowd's belief that cows are killing the planet, grass-fed cattle (and other ruminants) on properly managed pastures do wondrous things to heal the planet. The amount of carbon sequestered by actively managed pasture or sylvopasture can approach 100x the amount of wild forest systems, in that topsoil builds at close to an inch a year versus an inch a century.

If you look at regenerating landscapes with design systems like permaculture, it nearly always involves animals.

The killing and eating of sentient beings is a whole other issue, not going to try debating that as the viewpoints are just too far apart to make discussion practical, but veganism - especially one based primarily off of annual food crops is NOT more environmentally friendly than a mixed diet of animal and plants with the animal portion coming exclusively from perennial systems. As someone involved with meat animals from birth to death, it's not an easy choice to make, but I take it because it's what is personally best for my body (after experimenting with plant-based diets for some time) and I make sure that the death is as quick and painless as possible.

It's pretty simple logic to me, but I have done the research as well:

We need to grow crops for not only human consumption, but also a MASSIVELY greater number of animal consumption so that they can grow old enough for future human consumption as well. How does it not make perfect sense that cutting out the "middle man" and everyone only eat the crops directly would have nothing but positive benefits for the planet? We already grow enough food for all humans if we would just allocate it. Please watch the video I linked above if you haven't. It answers many questions, the guy speaking has done this for years.

You're surmising that all meat is fed annual crops grown by humans. There are other options - grazing, as Thegoblinchief mentioned, and wild hunted meat. Both of these options do not require crops that humans would eat.

I'm seconding the above suggestion that you do more research on the issue.

One thing that is clear, is that humans (North Americans among them) generally eat way more meat than is reasonable for the planet to sustain. In order to have a sustainable system, we'd need to change the way we grow/raise/catch our food as well as reduce our meat consumption. But eliminating it would not necessarily be the answer.

If you're going to say I need more research, then please provide citation for your own claims. You can watch the video I originally linked (again, I request everyone that has a rebuttal to the idea that veganism is one of the best things for ourselves and our planet to please watch that Gary Yourofsky speech before trying to refute), Cowspiracy, Forks Over Knives, the research on nutritionfacts.org, Drs Barnard, Esselstyn, McDougall, Gregor etc. and many other places that will show you a vegan diet is not only viable for every stage of human life, but we thrive on it. Even the World Heath Org has connected meat to cancer.


I really hate that argument that "I agree we eat too much of it so we should MODERATE it". When you say something is healthy in moderation, you're basically saying "I know this will harm me if I do too much of it, so I should moderate it to keep the danger lower". Does anyone ever say to moderate the amount of fruits and vegetables you should eat? Here's a good video on that topic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY1PFPhQbLg&t=358s

cobbb11

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #107 on: June 03, 2017, 08:59:01 PM »
You're surmising that all meat is fed annual crops grown by humans. There are other options - grazing, as Thegoblinchief mentioned, and wild hunted meat. Both of these options do not require crops that humans would eat.

I'm seconding the above suggestion that you do more research on the issue.

One thing that is clear, is that humans (North Americans among them) generally eat way more meat than is reasonable for the planet to sustain. In order to have a sustainable system, we'd need to change the way we grow/raise/catch our food as well as reduce our meat consumption. But eliminating it would not necessarily be the answer.

Around here, deer hunting is a necessity - with the elimination of natural predators, the deer population can either be (humanely) thinned out, or a decent portion can starve over winter.

Also, a small-scale farm can't function with no animals. Vegetables need fertilizer. In short, that means composted manure or chemical additives (or vegetable compost with chemical additives...) Large-scale grain farming is environmentally dubious, requires pesticides and a range of chemical fertilizers, and kills a whole lot of field-dwelling animals (mice, voles, rabbits) as a byproduct.

I'll definitely agree that current meat consumption is unsustainable (and unhealthy), and current industrial farming is problematic in the extreme, but if your ethical standard is "nothing should die"... well, good luck...

If the biggest problem is fertilizer than fine, keep cows/pigs/chickens on farms as regular pets like dogs and cats, let them live healthy lives, feed them regularly but not the obcense amounts to get them fat for consumption, and then take their manure for fertilizer.  I'm sure a cow would much rather it's crap be used to grow more food (that they themselves would be eating too), then be forcefully impregnated to provide humans with its milk while its baby is stolen and killed for veal.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2999
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #108 on: June 03, 2017, 10:27:32 PM »
If you're going to say I need more research, then please provide citation for your own claims. You can watch the video I originally linked (again, I request everyone that has a rebuttal to the idea that veganism is one of the best things for ourselves and our planet to please watch that Gary Yourofsky speech before trying to refute), Cowspiracy, Forks Over Knives, the research on nutritionfacts.org, Drs Barnard, Esselstyn, McDougall, Gregor etc. and many other places that will show you a vegan diet is not only viable for every stage of human life, but we thrive on it. Even the World Heath Org has connected meat to cancer.


I really hate that argument that "I agree we eat too much of it so we should MODERATE it". When you say something is healthy in moderation, you're basically saying "I know this will harm me if I do too much of it, so I should moderate it to keep the danger lower". Does anyone ever say to moderate the amount of fruits and vegetables you should eat? Here's a good video on that topic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY1PFPhQbLg&t=358s

Last time I stuck my nose into a thread on what the science says about veganism it took days and finally ended up getting locked by the mods, but there is some faulty reasoning in your second paragraph that is bothering me: You say "When you say something is healthy in moderation, you're basically saying "I know this will harm me if I do too much of it, so I should moderate it to keep the danger lower"." Yet there are countless examples of foods that truly are healthy in moderation, which means that too much OR too little is bad for you.

For example, vitamin A. Too little and you get night blindness, impaired immune function, and birth defects. Too much and you get vomiting, skin peeling, cirrhosis, and bleeding in the lungs. This is why one should always avoid eating polar bear liver if you ever find yourself stranded in the arctic (also keep any sled dogs you may have with you from eating it).

Spinach is another good example of a food that is healthy in moderation. Loaded full of various vitamins and actually quite high in protein per calorie. But too much of it in the diet increases the amount of oxalate in your bloodstream increasing your risk of kidney stones.

Red wine seems to provide health benefits (reduced heart disease), but again, over indulgence creates its own problems, meaning moderation is likely the best course...

So without weighing in on the case meat specifically (although I believe evidence collected to date does suggest that consumption of fish, at least, is linked with even more favorable health outcomes than vegan diets), I think it is clear there are lots of foods which can indeed be healthier to eat in moderation than either overindulgence or abstention.

TL;DR "Too much meat is bad for you" != "The best amount of meat to eat is zero."

cobbb11

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #109 on: June 04, 2017, 11:55:03 AM »
If you're going to say I need more research, then please provide citation for your own claims. You can watch the video I originally linked (again, I request everyone that has a rebuttal to the idea that veganism is one of the best things for ourselves and our planet to please watch that Gary Yourofsky speech before trying to refute), Cowspiracy, Forks Over Knives, the research on nutritionfacts.org, Drs Barnard, Esselstyn, McDougall, Gregor etc. and many other places that will show you a vegan diet is not only viable for every stage of human life, but we thrive on it. Even the World Heath Org has connected meat to cancer.


I really hate that argument that "I agree we eat too much of it so we should MODERATE it". When you say something is healthy in moderation, you're basically saying "I know this will harm me if I do too much of it, so I should moderate it to keep the danger lower". Does anyone ever say to moderate the amount of fruits and vegetables you should eat? Here's a good video on that topic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY1PFPhQbLg&t=358s

Last time I stuck my nose into a thread on what the science says about veganism it took days and finally ended up getting locked by the mods, but there is some faulty reasoning in your second paragraph that is bothering me: You say "When you say something is healthy in moderation, you're basically saying "I know this will harm me if I do too much of it, so I should moderate it to keep the danger lower"." Yet there are countless examples of foods that truly are healthy in moderation, which means that too much OR too little is bad for you.

For example, vitamin A. Too little and you get night blindness, impaired immune function, and birth defects. Too much and you get vomiting, skin peeling, cirrhosis, and bleeding in the lungs. This is why one should always avoid eating polar bear liver if you ever find yourself stranded in the arctic (also keep any sled dogs you may have with you from eating it).

Spinach is another good example of a food that is healthy in moderation. Loaded full of various vitamins and actually quite high in protein per calorie. But too much of it in the diet increases the amount of oxalate in your bloodstream increasing your risk of kidney stones.

Red wine seems to provide health benefits (reduced heart disease), but again, over indulgence creates its own problems, meaning moderation is likely the best course...

So without weighing in on the case meat specifically (although I believe evidence collected to date does suggest that consumption of fish, at least, is linked with even more favorable health outcomes than vegan diets), I think it is clear there are lots of foods which can indeed be healthier to eat in moderation than either overindulgence or abstention.

TL;DR "Too much meat is bad for you" != "The best amount of meat to eat is zero."

I would never recommended a diet of only one food, but assuming you have overall healthy organs, you would have to consume a near impossible amount of food in a short amount of time to "overdose" on those vitamins/minerals. One of the best things about a vegan diet is you don't have to calorie restrict. Your stomach will naturally send signals to your brain when it has consumed enough. Eating over processed crap and oils have way more calories in them than what your stomach thinks based on the receptors it has so you will think you're hungry when you already consumed plenty of calories.

Any supposed benefits you can get from meat/dairy, you can get from plant foods. And yes the best amount of meat is zero when we have to worry about things like heart disease and cancer. Not to mention the ethical argument as well. https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/world-health-organization-says-processed-meat-causes-cancer.html

I know mustachians tend to look at the cold hard facts and not let emotions guide them, one of the reasons why I love the moment so much. I just don't get when it comes down to "hey, look at all this research that shows mean/dairy is bad for you and we are naturally herbivores and the longest lived societies in the world are at least vegetarian", everyone goes all emotional
 and can't stand the thought of not having meat or cheese anymore.

As anyone actually watched the Gary Yourofsky lecture yet? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es6U00LMmC4&t=1707s
« Last Edit: June 04, 2017, 12:03:39 PM by cobbb11 »

Sailor Sam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4048
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Steel Beach
  • Semper...something
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #110 on: June 04, 2017, 12:50:31 PM »
I think the problem has always been, and continues to remain, that the study of nutrition is still in its infancy. You have studies; I have studies; they appear to contraindicate each other. Then only answer we can currently point to with certainty is that we don't yet have the answers.

As for morals, well, I'm 36 and the only person responsible for my moral landscape is me. It's possible you might sway me with sincere discussion, but it certainly won't happen if you lecture me from a lofty position so high above my omnivorous self. The only thing that hill is going to earn you is increased truculence, and fortification of my current position. I don't want to watch your video, because I won't believe it. Instead, why don't you tell me why veganism is working for you, from both a moral and physical standpoint?

Example, I'd still like to have a discussion on what we should morally do with all those extra feedlot animals currently in existence. And what to do about breeds that have been so heavily modified by humans. Let them die? Make them pets? Is pet ownership moral?

Last time you replied with 'meh, dunno'. Uninspiring, and unsurprising that I won't follow your leadership down some new path. So, here. Here is your space inspire me!

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2999
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #111 on: June 04, 2017, 12:52:28 PM »
Any supposed benefits you can get from meat/dairy, you can get from plant foods. And yes the best amount of meat is zero when we have to worry about things like heart disease and cancer. Not to mention the ethical argument as well. https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/world-health-organization-says-processed-meat-causes-cancer.html

Note that this link is specifically about processed meats. The presumptive mode of action are nitrates added as preservatives (either directly or from nitrate containing celery extracts in foods labeled as having no added nitrates). The WHO makes these classifications based on the level of statistical confidence in the link, not the estimated effect size.

So it is helpful to understand that the same risk category the WHO has put processed meats (Category 1) into also includes very scary and dangerous things (cigarettes and asbestos), but also a lot of things that, while we know with a lot of statistical evidence do increase the risk of cancer, but do so by small amounts: alcoholic beverages, wood dust,  sunlight, and flying on planes (through increased exposure to ionizing radiation). But again, this is a bit of a side tangent, because the article you linked to is specifically about the health effects of a preservation method used for some meat products, not meat itself.

And again, there is plenty of evidence that high consumption levels of red meat isn't great for the heart, so I'm not arguing that high meat diets are necessarily healthy. Just that the specific evidence and reasoning being used here doesn't hold up.

Quote
I know mustachians tend to look at the cold hard facts and not let emotions guide them, one of the reasons why I love the moment so much. I just don't get when it comes down to "hey, look at all this research that shows mean/dairy is bad for you and we are naturally herbivores and the longest lived societies in the world are at least vegetarian", everyone goes all emotional and can't stand the thought of not having meat or cheese anymore.

I find that generally when a person, or group of people, who I know well react in a way that is completely different from how I would expect, that it is often a sign there is something about the situation that I don't understand or misinterpreted. In this case you feel like you've presented strong evidence for three points (we'll get to them individually below), and a group of people that you know to be generally very rational and evidence driven are irrationally rejecting that evidence. So now you're confronting with two possibilities. 1) In this particular case, many different individual people are all suddenly picking this one issue to be irrational about or 2) The evidence that seems clear cut and convincing to you isn't actually as convincing to others as you think it should be.

1) "meat/dairy is bad for you"

See above for a discussion of how the evidence you presented about the specific link to cancer for all meat/dairy doesn't hold up with the evidence collected to date. There is lots of evidence that excessive amounts of red meat and dairy is bad for the human heart. Does anyone on this thread want to speak up and disagree with this point? However, the problem with the reasoning that if an excessively large amount of something is bad for you, a small amount must also be bad for you was the subject of my last point.

2) "we are naturally herbivores"

This one could easily devolve into an argument about the definition of what naturally is. We certainly have the capacity to live on diets completely free of animals and animal products. So you could say that we naturally have the capacity to be herbivores. But what do "natural" humans do? Well we can look at our closest living relatives: chimps, gorillas, and orangutans. All three consume a lot less meat than we do, but they do eat meat. We can look at our closest extinct relatives, Neanderthals (Homo sapiens ssp. neanderthalensis), who appear to have gotten approx. 80% of their calories from meat.* Looking at existing hunter gatherer populations, the proportion of calories coming from meat ranges from ~30-75%.**

3) "the longest lived societies in the world are at least vegetarian"

I'm assuming this is a reference to the Blue Zone studies of places in the world where people are most likely to live to 100? If so, I'm going to steal the below from another thread on diet and health.

"[There were five blue zones identified in the original National Geographic story on blue zones] we have the Okinawans who eat (small) portions of fish and pork and are the longest lived people on Earth. We have the seven day adventists, where those who consumed fish tended to live longer than those who were purely vegan or even purely vegetarian (source: http://www.livescience.com/37102-vegetarians-live-longer.html). We have the greeks of the island Icaria where goats milk and goats cheese are a regular part of the diet. We have Sardinia,  where the people have non-trivial amounts of meat and cheese in their diets (though likely less than the average american), and we have Nicoya peninsula where diets include lots of eggs and meat from both chickens and pigs."

But that's a guess. If you have a different source of evidence for this third point, I'd be happy to take a look at it.

Summary: I'm not trying to get you to question your own dietary choices. I'm not questioning your ethics. I think everyone is entitled to their own views on ethics as long as they are trying to impose those values on others by force. I'm not even trying to get you to stop trying to convince other people to stop eating meat if you feel you are ethically compelled to do so. I'm simply trying to show you how the current evidence and logic you are using to make your case is at best ineffective and at worst misleading.

*Source: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160314091128.htm

**Source Table 3 in the linked PDF: http://www.unm.edu/~hkaplan/KaplanHillLancasterHurtado_2000_LHEvolution.pdf

cobbb11

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #112 on: June 04, 2017, 01:04:29 PM »
I think the problem has always been, and continues to remain, that the study of nutrition is still in its infancy. You have studies; I have studies; they appear to contraindicate each other. Then only answer we can currently point to with certainty is that we don't yet have the answers.

As for morals, well, I'm 36 and the only person responsible for my moral landscape is me. It's possible you might sway me with sincere discussion, but it certainly won't happen if you lecture me from a lofty position so high above my omnivorous self. The only thing that hill is going to earn you is increased truculence, and fortification of my current position. I don't want to watch your video, because I won't believe it. Instead, why don't you tell me why veganism is working for you, from both a moral and physical standpoint?

Example, I'd still like to have a discussion on what we should morally do with all those extra feedlot animals currently in existence. And what to do about breeds that have been so heavily modified by humans. Let them die? Make them pets? Is pet ownership moral?

Last time you replied with 'meh, dunno'. Uninspiring, and unsurprising that I won't follow your leadership down some new path. So, here. Here is your space inspire me!

I could say something like, "I choose to buy coke over pepsi. It's MY choice". That is a different argument then saying "let me eat meat because it's MY choice". In this second case, your choice directly affects the lives of other beings. That's like saying being a slave owner is my choice. Your choices can very well have consequences on others.

What you consider "lofty", I consider simple morals. I highly doubt if you saw a chicken in the middle of the street you would chase it down and kill it. Dogs/cats are treated like family members, and in some cases even better since they aren't expected to go to work and provide for the good of the family. They pretty much consume and just give love back. I fail to see any moral dilemma there. Chickens/cows/pigs are born and bred to be killed in their prime solely to be eaten by a species that has no true need for them to survive.

I've given you several links. You are choose to be purposefully ignorant. Are you afraid that what he lecturer says might actually be a complete mindf*** and change your whole outlook as it did mine over a year ago? I went vegan, changed nothing else about my lifestyle, and went from 227 to 197 from Feb'16 to August'16. But I'm not telling you take my word for it. I'm providing you with a lot of evidence, evidence not funded by the meat and dairy industry that have profits to be concerned about, and i'm just asking you to try it out for 2 weeks minimum. That's the time I gave myself. I'm fully Italian and from NJ. I thought there was no way I could keep it up long term without cheese, but 2 weeks was doable. I haven't looked back since.

Just take an hour out of your day and watch the lecture. If you still don't agree, then fine, it's your call. I would just prefer taking the path that doesn't cause pain and suffering to creatures I share this world with that wish no harm on me. Everyone cares so much about climate change and the Paris Accords we just backed out of in the USA...here's a great way to make a difference that doesn't require a presidential order.

Sailor Sam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4048
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Steel Beach
  • Semper...something
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #113 on: June 04, 2017, 01:16:04 PM »
I'm not ignorant. I find food production and the science of nutrition interesting, just as you seem to. Thus, I'm trying to have a conversation with you. A conversation that might be engaging, and from which we both might walk away different.

But, eh, you're not interested. So good day and good luck.

cobbb11

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #114 on: June 04, 2017, 02:19:17 PM »
Wrong sir. I find the whole process of animal agriculture abhorrent, and I'm trying to show you various outlets that will do a better job explaining it than I possibly could do in a MMM forum, and you seem to prefer to keep your head in the sand. It's your call. Just know that your call also affects innocent sentient lives.

AnnaGrowsAMustache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #115 on: June 04, 2017, 03:35:38 PM »
Wrong sir. I find the whole process of animal agriculture abhorrent, and I'm trying to show you various outlets that will do a better job explaining it than I possibly could do in a MMM forum, and you seem to prefer to keep your head in the sand. It's your call. Just know that your call also affects innocent sentient lives.

I'm guessing that you're against battery egg farming, as we all should be, and probably against "barn raised" and all that stuff that isn't much better than battery farming. What's your opinion on owning your own chickens for meat and eggs? I guess what I'm asking is whether you're against the entire idea of livestock, or just commercial operations. Simply interested in your personal take on things.

cobbb11

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #116 on: June 04, 2017, 03:47:07 PM »
Wrong sir. I find the whole process of animal agriculture abhorrent, and I'm trying to show you various outlets that will do a better job explaining it than I possibly could do in a MMM forum, and you seem to prefer to keep your head in the sand. It's your call. Just know that your call also affects innocent sentient lives.

I'm guessing that you're against battery egg farming, as we all should be, and probably against "barn raised" and all that stuff that isn't much better than battery farming. What's your opinion on owning your own chickens for meat and eggs? I guess what I'm asking is whether you're against the entire idea of livestock, or just commercial operations. Simply interested in your personal take on things.

Pretty much only way I can see around the ethics argument would be if you found a dead animal somewhere that died of natural causes, freak accident, or was the remains of some other animal's kill, and decided to bring it home and eat it. Raising chickens as pets that you intend to keep until they die naturally and taking their eggs that would otherwise be unfertilized would probably be considered ok as well. I'm not the "vegan police" though. I just operate under the simple premise of treat others how you would want to be treated. So if I was able to have all my needs met and someone wanted eggs that came out of me that I had no use for and couldn't turn into a baby chick and would just rot on the ground anyway...I don't see why I would have a problem with that. But obviously those examples are the staggering minority and we haven't even talked about the health implications on why someone would want to eat those things other than taste and habit.

I just re-read what you said though and saw you mentioned raising chickens for meat. This goes to the "humane" argument and I would challenge anyone that there is no such this as humane killing. Taking someone's life against their will is not tolerated in our society when it is human to human, or even human to dogs/cats/Cecil the Lion (i've seen an article pop up on my facebook of some punks forcing an alligator to inhale cigarette smoke for christ's sake). And the first thing I do is go to the comment section and look at the rabid hypocrisy of people condemning those guys to death or long prison sentences for harming the animals, yet I'm sure after hitting 'send' they head straight for McD's or put some steaks on a grill. There is no reason why some animals should be considered cruel to kill and others not.

AnnaGrowsAMustache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #117 on: June 04, 2017, 04:07:10 PM »
Wrong sir. I find the whole process of animal agriculture abhorrent, and I'm trying to show you various outlets that will do a better job explaining it than I possibly could do in a MMM forum, and you seem to prefer to keep your head in the sand. It's your call. Just know that your call also affects innocent sentient lives.

I'm guessing that you're against battery egg farming, as we all should be, and probably against "barn raised" and all that stuff that isn't much better than battery farming. What's your opinion on owning your own chickens for meat and eggs? I guess what I'm asking is whether you're against the entire idea of livestock, or just commercial operations. Simply interested in your personal take on things.

Pretty much only way I can see around the ethics argument would be if you found a dead animal somewhere that died of natural causes, freak accident, or was the remains of some other animal's kill, and decided to bring it home and eat it. Raising chickens as pets that you intend to keep until they die naturally and taking their eggs that would otherwise be unfertilized would probably be considered ok as well. I'm not the "vegan police" though. I just operate under the simple premise of treat others how you would want to be treated. So if I was able to have all my needs met and someone wanted eggs that came out of me that I had no use for and couldn't turn into a baby chick and would just rot on the ground anyway...I don't see why I would have a problem with that. But obviously those examples are the staggering minority and we haven't even talked about the health implications on why someone would want to eat those things other than taste and habit.

I just re-read what you said though and saw you mentioned raising chickens for meat. This goes to the "humane" argument and I would challenge anyone that there is no such this as humane killing. Taking someone's life against their will is not tolerated in our society when it is human to human, or even human to dogs/cats/Cecil the Lion (i've seen an article pop up on my facebook of some punks forcing an alligator to inhale cigarette smoke for christ's sake). And the first thing I do is go to the comment section and look at the rabid hypocrisy of people condemning those guys to death or long prison sentences for harming the animals, yet I'm sure after hitting 'send' they head straight for McD's or put some steaks on a grill. There is no reason why some animals should be considered cruel to kill and others not.

Well, I agree with a lot of what you've said. Killing is always nasty, and animals deserve kindness and dignity and all that also. It's not always cruel though. It's not cruel to put a loved pet to sleep in the face of injury or illness, is it? I don't believe it's cruel to take the life of a chicken as long as it has minimal stress and hasn't a clue what's happening. Yes, it's being killed for my purposes. You could argue that it would not have lived were it not for my purposes, as well. I think it's about intention. Hunting for sport is something I find revolting. But hunting for food I'm fine with.

cobbb11

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #118 on: June 04, 2017, 04:29:33 PM »
Wrong sir. I find the whole process of animal agriculture abhorrent, and I'm trying to show you various outlets that will do a better job explaining it than I possibly could do in a MMM forum, and you seem to prefer to keep your head in the sand. It's your call. Just know that your call also affects innocent sentient lives.

I'm guessing that you're against battery egg farming, as we all should be, and probably against "barn raised" and all that stuff that isn't much better than battery farming. What's your opinion on owning your own chickens for meat and eggs? I guess what I'm asking is whether you're against the entire idea of livestock, or just commercial operations. Simply interested in your personal take on things.

Pretty much only way I can see around the ethics argument would be if you found a dead animal somewhere that died of natural causes, freak accident, or was the remains of some other animal's kill, and decided to bring it home and eat it. Raising chickens as pets that you intend to keep until they die naturally and taking their eggs that would otherwise be unfertilized would probably be considered ok as well. I'm not the "vegan police" though. I just operate under the simple premise of treat others how you would want to be treated. So if I was able to have all my needs met and someone wanted eggs that came out of me that I had no use for and couldn't turn into a baby chick and would just rot on the ground anyway...I don't see why I would have a problem with that. But obviously those examples are the staggering minority and we haven't even talked about the health implications on why someone would want to eat those things other than taste and habit.

I just re-read what you said though and saw you mentioned raising chickens for meat. This goes to the "humane" argument and I would challenge anyone that there is no such this as humane killing. Taking someone's life against their will is not tolerated in our society when it is human to human, or even human to dogs/cats/Cecil the Lion (i've seen an article pop up on my facebook of some punks forcing an alligator to inhale cigarette smoke for christ's sake). And the first thing I do is go to the comment section and look at the rabid hypocrisy of people condemning those guys to death or long prison sentences for harming the animals, yet I'm sure after hitting 'send' they head straight for McD's or put some steaks on a grill. There is no reason why some animals should be considered cruel to kill and others not.

Well, I agree with a lot of what you've said. Killing is always nasty, and animals deserve kindness and dignity and all that also. It's not always cruel though. It's not cruel to put a loved pet to sleep in the face of injury or illness, is it? I don't believe it's cruel to take the life of a chicken as long as it has minimal stress and hasn't a clue what's happening. Yes, it's being killed for my purposes. You could argue that it would not have lived were it not for my purposes, as well. I think it's about intention. Hunting for sport is something I find revolting. But hunting for food I'm fine with.

So if killing is always nasty, how does killing an animal as long as it doesn't have a clue that's happening be considered ok? Again, plenty of people are murdered and don't see it coming, we still treat murder as murder. Hunting for food is only slightly better than hunting for no reason at all, but in modern society with all the options at our disposal (including vegan options that mimic the taste of milk/meat/cheese etc), it is completely unnecessary.

Putting a loved pet (or even human in a vegetative state or what-have-you) to sleep because of a debilitating illness or injury where it is judged that it will be in terrible pain for the rest of its life is considered an act of mercy. It is not done for personal gain and everyone wishes it didn't have to be done at all. I see a big difference there. I want my dog to live as long and as healthy as possible.

AnnaGrowsAMustache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #119 on: June 04, 2017, 05:43:48 PM »
Killing is nasty because organisms are designed to live. It takes a bit of effort to kill anything, anything not in a movie, anyway. And it takes time and effort, and preparation to kill something quickly and humanely.

My attitude is that I'm an omnivore. I've had my time being vegetarian and vegan for a short period, but it wasn't healthy for me. I've accepted that's I'm an omnivore. I'm picky about what I buy. I'm picky about how my animals live. Seems to me that it's all a balancing exercise. You know, you buy sisal shopping bags to save the environment but it's grown in Madagascar and the rain forests are chopped down to grow it, killing lemurs. You buy free range eggs but they're actually produced by the free range arm of the biggest battery farm in the country, so you're still supporting battery farming. You drink only soy milk, but soy farming has a bigger impact on the environment than dairy farming. Whatever you do, you're having a potentially negative impact. So you just do what you feel is best.

big_slacker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #120 on: June 04, 2017, 08:00:06 PM »
Whatever you do, you're having a potentially negative impact. So you just do what you feel is best.

Some things are definitely MORE harmful than others and you don't have to go all Portlandia chicken cult (google, it's hilarious) to come up with your own 80/20 rules.

Turnbull

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 122
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #121 on: June 04, 2017, 09:25:55 PM »
The deer that I kill with my rifle every year WILL die even if I don't shoot them. Starvation, disease, predation, or a collision with a car will get 100% of them. Any of those deaths would be much lengthier and more painful than me getting close to them in the woods and putting a bullet through their heart or lungs.

I'm thankful for the opportunity to kill and butcher healthy meat for my family.


snacky

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8358
  • Location: Hoth
  • Forum Dignitary
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #122 on: June 04, 2017, 09:38:22 PM »
If humans and animals are equals then why is it wrong for a human to eat meat but not another omnivore? Bears, for example.

If humans and animals are not equal than the death of an animal is not tragic in the same way the death of a human is.

Which is it, Cobb?

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1086
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #123 on: June 05, 2017, 06:33:30 AM »
Whatever topic you study at university in Norway, you first have to go through something called "examen philosophicum". This topic is an introduction to scientific theory, ethics and the history of philosophy. Depending upon what you are planning to study, you can then choose between different types of philosophy to focus on. I chose environmental philosophy, and it forwever changed my view on the world:

In 1929, Albert Scweitzer wrote that it is good to keep and support life, and evil to destroy and hinder life. He claimed that a human being is acting morally correct when it adjusts to the limits that are necessary to support all life, and that it takes on burdens to avoid to harm anything living. Some of this is similar to what vegans claim. The big difference, is that Schweitzer valued ALL life. He even suffered from a bad conscience because he was a "mass murderer of bacteria" (Schweitzer, 1950, Kultur und Ethik).

Most of us live with an antroposentric world view, where the humans have a special role and position. Some don't think anything more about it, and don't really care if animals die (unless they are loved pets) or nature gets destroyed. Other people think that humans have been given, or should take, a special role, and have a responsibility to take care of nature. The pope is a typical example of this.

A lot of animal activists are still antroposentric, it is just that they include animals that they find cute or intelligent into their inner circle. They will not hesitate to kill a bug, but will fight fiercly to protect a whale (because "it is just as intelligent as a human"). Some vegans, like that man in the video cobbb11 pointed to, are moving just one step further, and include all animals. But they are still a long step from a true biosentric world view. There is no logical reason to set the limit for "worthy of life" between animals and plants. In fact, some philosophers claim that there is no logical reason to set the limit between socalled living and non living objects. This is when you move into deep ecology, or eco-sophy.  I highly recommend reading this summary, by George Sessions and Arne Nęss: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/arne-naess-and-george-sessions-basic-principles-of-deep-ecology

I can't claim I manage to live 100% after Nęss' principles, but I try. Going vegan or even vegetarian is not part of this for me, because I believe the morally correct thing to do is to cause as little suffering as possible in total, not just to a selected group of living beings on this planet. I believe it is better to eat a sheep that has lived a good life on a farm, than to eat palmoils or soybeans that have been grown where rainforests used to grow and transported halfway around the globe.

As to the health argument (which, again, is totally antroposentric), the fascinating thing about human beings is how well we are able to adapt to different living condition. This article describes how more or less animals in the traditional diet affects us on the genetic level: https://natureecoevocommunity.nature.com/users/41254-kaixiong-ye/posts/17234-opposite-genetic-adaptation-to-the-diets-of-european-hunter-gatherers-and-farmers

SachaFiscal

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 242
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #124 on: June 05, 2017, 07:22:47 AM »
Maybe if the US government stopped subsidizing animal feed crops and disallowed inhumane factory farming practices meat and dairy prices would rise to a level that people would only be able to eat them in small quantities. Also the processed foods made from these crops would be more expensive too. This may reduce some of the diet related health problems we're seeing in this country.

cobbb11

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #125 on: June 05, 2017, 07:59:52 AM »
If humans and animals are equals then why is it wrong for a human to eat meat but not another omnivore? Bears, for example.

If humans and animals are not equal than the death of an animal is not tragic in the same way the death of a human is.

Which is it, Cobb?

Hippos are animals and you don't see them eating meat. Being an animal has nothing to do with it. Every animal simply goes after for what it is evolved to. Lions are built to chase down and kill zebras. If you see a squirrel run in front of you do you have any desire whatsoever to go after it? Even if you did, do you really think you can? Look up specific traits of herbivores/omnivores/carnivores and you will see we fit right in with herbivores, no matter how much you want it to be different. (for the millionth time, this is all in that lecture I'm trying show people). Just because we can subsist of off meat doesn't mean it is what we should be eating for optimal health. And since it requires the taking of a life, if it isn't optimal, I argue we shouldn't be doing it.

Our jaws go side to side for chewing and grinding, actual meat eaters go up and down. Our intestines are much longer than omnivores/carnivores. This is because we are designed to digest plant matter. You eat meat and it rots and decays inside you. The much shorter intestine of a lion allows it to crap out the waste quickly, which is why things like cholesterol and saturated fat do not matter to a lion. We sweat, carnivores pant through their tongues. We don't have claws. Look at all the tools and tricks we needed to develop to kill animals with any sort of effectiveness.

Here's a picture to demonstrate:
http://www.whale.to/c/10013268_676368449097110_1949968139_n.jpg

cobbb11

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #126 on: June 05, 2017, 08:08:14 AM »
Whatever topic you study at university in Norway, you first have to go through something called "examen philosophicum". This topic is an introduction to scientific theory, ethics and the history of philosophy. Depending upon what you are planning to study, you can then choose between different types of philosophy to focus on. I chose environmental philosophy, and it forwever changed my view on the world:

In 1929, Albert Scweitzer wrote that it is good to keep and support life, and evil to destroy and hinder life. He claimed that a human being is acting morally correct when it adjusts to the limits that are necessary to support all life, and that it takes on burdens to avoid to harm anything living. Some of this is similar to what vegans claim. The big difference, is that Schweitzer valued ALL life. He even suffered from a bad conscience because he was a "mass murderer of bacteria" (Schweitzer, 1950, Kultur und Ethik).

Most of us live with an antroposentric world view, where the humans have a special role and position. Some don't think anything more about it, and don't really care if animals die (unless they are loved pets) or nature gets destroyed. Other people think that humans have been given, or should take, a special role, and have a responsibility to take care of nature. The pope is a typical example of this.

A lot of animal activists are still antroposentric, it is just that they include animals that they find cute or intelligent into their inner circle. They will not hesitate to kill a bug, but will fight fiercly to protect a whale (because "it is just as intelligent as a human"). Some vegans, like that man in the video cobbb11 pointed to, are moving just one step further, and include all animals. But they are still a long step from a true biosentric world view. There is no logical reason to set the limit for "worthy of life" between animals and plants. In fact, some philosophers claim that there is no logical reason to set the limit between socalled living and non living objects. This is when you move into deep ecology, or eco-sophy.  I highly recommend reading this summary, by George Sessions and Arne Nęss: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/arne-naess-and-george-sessions-basic-principles-of-deep-ecology

I can't claim I manage to live 100% after Nęss' principles, but I try. Going vegan or even vegetarian is not part of this for me, because I believe the morally correct thing to do is to cause as little suffering as possible in total, not just to a selected group of living beings on this planet. I believe it is better to eat a sheep that has lived a good life on a farm, than to eat palmoils or soybeans that have been grown where rainforests used to grow and transported halfway around the globe.

As to the health argument (which, again, is totally antroposentric), the fascinating thing about human beings is how well we are able to adapt to different living condition. This article describes how more or less animals in the traditional diet affects us on the genetic level: https://natureecoevocommunity.nature.com/users/41254-kaixiong-ye/posts/17234-opposite-genetic-adaptation-to-the-diets-of-european-hunter-gatherers-and-farmers

I appreciate you taking the time to watch the video. The point of veganism is to do as little harm to other animals as is practically possible. I never submit we should live like those monks who walk with brooms to delicately sweep away insects so they don't step on them. I am full aware life as a whole is "unfair" and some animals are born with a disadvantage over others. But when all the science, and to me common sense, shows that we perform better eating whole food plant based meals, then the fact that we can live optimally and NOT have to kill billions of animals in the process is a no-brainer.

snacky

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8358
  • Location: Hoth
  • Forum Dignitary
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #127 on: June 05, 2017, 08:28:19 AM »
If humans and animals are equals then why is it wrong for a human to eat meat but not another omnivore? Bears, for example.

If humans and animals are not equal than the death of an animal is not tragic in the same way the death of a human is.

Which is it, Cobb?

Hippos are animals and you don't see them eating meat. Being an animal has nothing to do with it. Every animal simply goes after for what it is evolved to. Lions are built to chase down and kill zebras. If you see a squirrel run in front of you do you have any desire whatsoever to go after it? Even if you did, do you really think you can? Look up specific traits of herbivores/omnivores/carnivores and you will see we fit right in with herbivores, no matter how much you want it to be different. (for the millionth time, this is all in that lecture I'm trying show people). Just because we can subsist of off meat doesn't mean it is what we should be eating for optimal health. And since it requires the taking of a life, if it isn't optimal, I argue we shouldn't be doing it.

Our jaws go side to side for chewing and grinding, actual meat eaters go up and down. Our intestines are much longer than omnivores/carnivores. This is because we are designed to digest plant matter. You eat meat and it rots and decays inside you. The much shorter intestine of a lion allows it to crap out the waste quickly, which is why things like cholesterol and saturated fat do not matter to a lion. We sweat, carnivores pant through their tongues. We don't have claws. Look at all the tools and tricks we needed to develop to kill animals with any sort of effectiveness.

Here's a picture to demonstrate:
http://www.whale.to/c/10013268_676368449097110_1949968139_n.jpg

Your teeth argument is nonsense, and has been thoroughly debunked. You can do your own googling on that one. We are omnivores, biologically, and have an instinctive desire to eat meat when we smell it cooking. Being omnivorous has been a fantastic evolutionary strategy; it has helped us establish viable settlements everywhere but Antarctica.
Just because you wish humans were herbivores doesn't make us herbivores.

cobbb11

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #128 on: June 05, 2017, 09:07:03 AM »
If humans and animals are equals then why is it wrong for a human to eat meat but not another omnivore? Bears, for example.

If humans and animals are not equal than the death of an animal is not tragic in the same way the death of a human is.

Which is it, Cobb?

Hippos are animals and you don't see them eating meat. Being an animal has nothing to do with it. Every animal simply goes after for what it is evolved to. Lions are built to chase down and kill zebras. If you see a squirrel run in front of you do you have any desire whatsoever to go after it? Even if you did, do you really think you can? Look up specific traits of herbivores/omnivores/carnivores and you will see we fit right in with herbivores, no matter how much you want it to be different. (for the millionth time, this is all in that lecture I'm trying show people). Just because we can subsist of off meat doesn't mean it is what we should be eating for optimal health. And since it requires the taking of a life, if it isn't optimal, I argue we shouldn't be doing it.

Our jaws go side to side for chewing and grinding, actual meat eaters go up and down. Our intestines are much longer than omnivores/carnivores. This is because we are designed to digest plant matter. You eat meat and it rots and decays inside you. The much shorter intestine of a lion allows it to crap out the waste quickly, which is why things like cholesterol and saturated fat do not matter to a lion. We sweat, carnivores pant through their tongues. We don't have claws. Look at all the tools and tricks we needed to develop to kill animals with any sort of effectiveness.

Here's a picture to demonstrate:
http://www.whale.to/c/10013268_676368449097110_1949968139_n.jpg

Your teeth argument is nonsense, and has been thoroughly debunked. You can do your own googling on that one. We are omnivores, biologically, and have an instinctive desire to eat meat when we smell it cooking. Being omnivorous has been a fantastic evolutionary strategy; it has helped us establish viable settlements everywhere but Antarctica.
Just because you wish humans were herbivores doesn't make us herbivores.

Again, if you're going to refute, please don't just make empty assertions. I have cited multiple peer-reviewed doctors and studies that have shown a vegan diet is healthy for all stages of a human's life. And even IF you are right that we got where we are because of eating meat, perhaps in an ice age of some sort or arid lands where growing crops and foraging was not possible, what does any of that have to do with today where there is a walmart and wholefoods on nearly every corner? We are not cavemen anymore. You know damn well if you were hungry and saw a banana hanging from a tree and a cow chilling out in a field, you would go for the banana every singe time. Dogs are omnivores. They can be fed several kinds of vegetables and survive, while also are equipped with the physical features and instincts necessary to chase down certain small animals if needed (hence why my dog always tries to take off after every squirrel and rabbit it sees while I just sit back and admire nature. What TRUE ominvore only cares about meat when it's cooking? Real omnivores like it raw. You should see roadkill with the same eyes as a bucket of KFC if you were a real omnivore. Get back to me when a pack of lions actually fires up a grill the next time it chases down some Savannah animals.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2999
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #129 on: June 05, 2017, 09:33:48 AM »

Hippos are animals and you don't see them eating meat. Being an animal has nothing to do with it. Every animal simply goes after for what it is evolved to. Lions are built to chase down and kill zebras. If you see a squirrel run in front of you do you have any desire whatsoever to go after it? Even if you did, do you really think you can? Look up specific traits of herbivores/omnivores/carnivores and you will see we fit right in with herbivores, no matter how much you want it to be different. (for the millionth time, this is all in that lecture I'm trying show people). Just because we can subsist of off meat doesn't mean it is what we should be eating for optimal health. And since it requires the taking of a life, if it isn't optimal, I argue we shouldn't be doing it.

2) "we are naturally herbivores"

This one could easily devolve into an argument about the definition of what naturally is. We certainly have the capacity to live on diets completely free of animals and animal products. So you could say that we naturally have the capacity to be herbivores. But what do "natural" humans do? Well we can look at our closest living relatives: chimps, gorillas, and orangutans. All three consume a lot less meat than we do, but they do eat meat. We can look at our closest extinct relatives, Neanderthals (Homo sapiens ssp. neanderthalensis), who appear to have gotten approx. 80% of their calories from meat.* Looking at existing hunter gatherer populations, the proportion of calories coming from meat ranges from ~30-75%.**

*Source: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160314091128.htm

**Source Table 3 in the linked PDF: http://www.unm.edu/~hkaplan/KaplanHillLancasterHurtado_2000_LHEvolution.pdf

Quote
Our jaws go side to side for chewing and grinding, actual meat eaters go up and down.
I don't know about you, but my jaw goes up and down much more comfortably than it goes side to side.

Quote
Our intestines are much longer than omnivores/carnivores. This is because we are designed to digest plant matter. You eat meat and it rots and decays inside you. The much shorter intestine of a lion allows it to crap out the waste quickly, which is why things like cholesterol and saturated fat do not matter to a lion.
Off the top of my head, pigs are an unrelated omnivorous speices, and pig's small intestine can be ~60 ft long. Ours is about 20 ft long. I'd need to spend a lot more time googling to come up with a comprehensive list, but I'm going to put a big ol' citation needed, on this claim.

If you want to compare our intestines to obligate carnivores like a lion, yes, we're clearly not obligate carnivores, but you're saying our intestines are too long for us to be omnivores.

Quote
We sweat, carnivores pant through their tongues. We don't have claws. Look at all the tools and tricks we needed to develop to kill animals with any sort of effectiveness.

I'd like to point out that the vast majority of herbivores, omnivores, and carnivores do not sweat for thermoregulation like humans do.

I'll also mention that our ability to sweat profusely (combined with a relative lack of body hair) is actually thought to have been a critical adaption that allowed our ancestors to hunt more effectively through a strategy called "persistence hunting" prior to the development of any tools, tricks, or technology more sophisticated than a pointy rock.

An antelope or gazelle or what have you in the serengeti can outrun pretty much any human over the short term, but because we can stay cool while running, while they need to slow down and pant to cool off, a trained endurance runner (or hunter gatherer) can usually continue to chase many types of animals during the hottest part of the day for hours until they overheat and collapse.

For an example of what adaptation to an extremely low meat diet looks like in a hominid, it is interesting to read up on Paranthropus boisei https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3111330/ Unlike humans and our direct ancestors, Paranthropus had a much heaver and more muscles jawbone, with wider, flatter molars adapted to chewing raw plant material for hours on end.

snacky

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8358
  • Location: Hoth
  • Forum Dignitary
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #130 on: June 05, 2017, 09:45:37 AM »
Every indigenous group living a traditional lifestyle on the planet disagrees with you, as do the majority of small farmers.

The key issue for me is that you seem to want everyone to conform to your personal ethics. That attitude is abhorrent to me.

If you want to be vegan, awesome. Go for it! But don't assert that your food choices and ethics are best for everyone. That's ignorant and hubristic. You live according to your values, and accept that others will live according to theirs.

cobbb11

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #131 on: June 05, 2017, 09:47:41 AM »

Hippos are animals and you don't see them eating meat. Being an animal has nothing to do with it. Every animal simply goes after for what it is evolved to. Lions are built to chase down and kill zebras. If you see a squirrel run in front of you do you have any desire whatsoever to go after it? Even if you did, do you really think you can? Look up specific traits of herbivores/omnivores/carnivores and you will see we fit right in with herbivores, no matter how much you want it to be different. (for the millionth time, this is all in that lecture I'm trying show people). Just because we can subsist of off meat doesn't mean it is what we should be eating for optimal health. And since it requires the taking of a life, if it isn't optimal, I argue we shouldn't be doing it.

2) "we are naturally herbivores"

This one could easily devolve into an argument about the definition of what naturally is. We certainly have the capacity to live on diets completely free of animals and animal products. So you could say that we naturally have the capacity to be herbivores. But what do "natural" humans do? Well we can look at our closest living relatives: chimps, gorillas, and orangutans. All three consume a lot less meat than we do, but they do eat meat. We can look at our closest extinct relatives, Neanderthals (Homo sapiens ssp. neanderthalensis), who appear to have gotten approx. 80% of their calories from meat.* Looking at existing hunter gatherer populations, the proportion of calories coming from meat ranges from ~30-75%.**

*Source: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160314091128.htm

**Source Table 3 in the linked PDF: http://www.unm.edu/~hkaplan/KaplanHillLancasterHurtado_2000_LHEvolution.pdf

Quote
Our jaws go side to side for chewing and grinding, actual meat eaters go up and down.
I don't know about you, but my jaw goes up and down much more comfortably than it goes side to side.

Quote
Our intestines are much longer than omnivores/carnivores. This is because we are designed to digest plant matter. You eat meat and it rots and decays inside you. The much shorter intestine of a lion allows it to crap out the waste quickly, which is why things like cholesterol and saturated fat do not matter to a lion.
Off the top of my head, pigs are an unrelated omnivorous speices, and pig's small intestine can be ~60 ft long. Ours is about 20 ft long. I'd need to spend a lot more time googling to come up with a comprehensive list, but I'm going to put a big ol' citation needed, on this claim.

If you want to compare our intestines to obligate carnivores like a lion, yes, we're clearly not obligate carnivores, but you're saying our intestines are too long for us to be omnivores.

Quote
We sweat, carnivores pant through their tongues. We don't have claws. Look at all the tools and tricks we needed to develop to kill animals with any sort of effectiveness.

I'd like to point out that the vast majority of herbivores, omnivores, and carnivores do not sweat for thermoregulation like humans do.

I'll also mention that our ability to sweat profusely (combined with a relative lack of body hair) is actually thought to have been a critical adaption that allowed our ancestors to hunt more effectively through a strategy called "persistence hunting" prior to the development of any tools, tricks, or technology more sophisticated than a pointy rock.

An antelope or gazelle or what have you in the serengeti can outrun pretty much any human over the short term, but because we can stay cool while running, while they need to slow down and pant to cool off, a trained endurance runner (or hunter gatherer) can usually continue to chase many types of animals during the hottest part of the day for hours until they overheat and collapse.

For an example of what adaptation to an extremely low meat diet looks like in a hominid, it is interesting to read up on Paranthropus boisei https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3111330/ Unlike humans and our direct ancestors, Paranthropus had a much heaver and more muscles jawbone, with wider, flatter molars adapted to chewing raw plant material for hours on end.

When you're chewing food, it goes side to side a lot more than up and down.
I already conceded that in extreme conditions where plant food is scarce, the need to eat animals might be required for survival where anything is better than nothing.
Even obligate omnivores don't have to worry about heart disease. Please show me one animal besides humans that has a history of atherosclerosis. Only herbivores eating food their digestion is not meant to handle can contract this disease. And furthermore, a vegan diet is the only diet shown to reverse heart disease as well. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2100124/

My argument, and veganism's argument, is that IN THIS DAY IN AGE, with the abundance of food at our disposal, there is no longer a need to breed animals solely to kill them for food. Especially when that food is detrimental to our health. I don't know how much plainer this needs to be said. If you could show actual evidence that we NEED to eat animals, that our lives depend on it here and now in 2017, I'm all ears. Even if we were omnivores, that would mean we could go either way, so even in that case why would you not choose the path of less violence and suffering?

cobbb11

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #132 on: June 05, 2017, 09:52:50 AM »
Every indigenous group living a traditional lifestyle on the planet disagrees with you, as do the majority of small farmers.

The key issue for me is that you seem to want everyone to conform to your personal ethics. That attitude is abhorrent to me.

If you want to be vegan, awesome. Go for it! But don't assert that your food choices and ethics are best for everyone. That's ignorant and hubristic. You live according to your values, and accept that others will live according to theirs.

Sadly you are patently wrong in this case. Your decisions affect others. I'm sorry you don't see cows/pigs/chickens/etc as "others" but you don't just get to say "you do your thing and i do mine". This is not a decision in a vacuum. I don't want everyone to conform simply because I have these ethics. I would love if everyone watched that lecture, saw what actually happens at slaughter houses and how sick and obese we are as a society from these choices that we make out of pure habit at this point, and worked to do something about it.

But if you can get through all of it and still want to continue then fine. Just admit your apathy and that you have an arbitrary line where you are fine with certain animals dying and not others, but don't be a part of the "lets save our planet" campaign, because veganism is not only the first and easiest step, it also would be the largest impact if everyone did it.

Don't call me ignorant if you can't even be bothered to watch the lecture and open your mind up even slightly to the fact that maybe we've done this whole food thing wrong for generations. The difference between you and I is that I did it your way for a long time. Have you even given this a fair shot?

snacky

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8358
  • Location: Hoth
  • Forum Dignitary
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #133 on: June 05, 2017, 09:56:40 AM »
I disagree with you so I must be wrong? Got it.

Later, skater.

cobbb11

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #134 on: June 05, 2017, 10:04:03 AM »
I disagree with you so I must be wrong? Got it.

Later, skater.

Whatever dude. You clearly lack reading comprehension if that's all you got out of what is a pretty elementary statement. One last time and I'm gone anyway. This is getting to tiresome:

You: "You do you and I do me"
Me: "Saying 'you do you and I do me' makes it sound like only you and I are affected. Your choice to eat meat/dairy is affecting the lives of billions of sentient animals that we share this planet with. It's not as simple as you do you and I do me".
You: "I disagree with you so I must be wrong?"

Good luck in your future endeavors buddy. Just try not to think too hard about the hypocrisy you live every time you pet a dog or cat and eat a steak.

snacky

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8358
  • Location: Hoth
  • Forum Dignitary
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #135 on: June 05, 2017, 10:22:50 AM »
I have pet a rabbit, then butchered and eaten it. I have no ethical problem with that.
Your argument closely parallels the anti-abortion line, which I also disagree with. That killing x is fundamentally wrong.

My point is that your ethics are not empirically superior to all other ethics, and just because you believe something doesn't make it true.

cobbb11

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #136 on: June 05, 2017, 10:34:29 AM »
Are you joking? The abortion argument has a very real debate about where the term "life" truly starts and when we consider a fetus "living" and therefore in need of having its own rights protected.

Who the hell is arguing that farm animals slaughtered for meat aren't already alive? But good for you killing a rabbit that had no quarrel with you. Bet you feel like a real man after that. Next time try letting the rabbit outside without cages or fences and see if you can chase it down with your bare hands/feet.

Sailor Sam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4048
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Steel Beach
  • Semper...something
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #137 on: June 05, 2017, 11:23:25 AM »
Cobbb, you're raving. Do you want to calm down, and try civil conversation again? If not, this threads gonna get locked. Who does that serve?

cobbb11

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #138 on: June 05, 2017, 11:46:37 AM »
How am I raving? Please cite any point where I degrade to an Ad hominem attack and I will apologize profusely. I provided a simple youtube video that I thought anyone that claims to be informed on where there food comes from, the impact it has on their body, and the impact it has on the environment, needs to watch. Or they are, by definition, ignorant of information that might change their mind.

The reason why you're all getting upset over my points is that they directly contradict what you've been doing your whole life, and I'm (rightfully) accusing you of being the cause of billions of animals suffering that we all know you wouldn't want to cause if you had to do it yourself. Buying some boneless skinless chicken breast all wrapped up nicely in a grocery store is really easy when you don't have to do the raising and slaughtering of the chickens. I have seen video of baby chicks tossed into a grinder, completely alive and awake. Suddenly my taste buds don't seem that important anymore. Like I said, after all the BS excuses and arguments meat eaters make (I made the same arguments myself at one point), you are left with the bare essentials that (unless you're already a butcher), you would never go up to a cow and kill it yourself and the only reason bacon is such a big deal is because all of the violence is done far away from your eyes. It's a hypocritical position and one I just wish people would admit instead of making lame excuses.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2999
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #139 on: June 05, 2017, 12:47:47 PM »
My argument, and veganism's argument, is that IN THIS DAY IN AGE, with the abundance of food at our disposal, there is no longer a need to breed animals solely to kill them for food. Especially when that food is detrimental to our health. I don't know how much plainer this needs to be said. If you could show actual evidence that we NEED to eat animals, that our lives depend on it here and now in 2017, I'm all ears. Even if we were omnivores, that would mean we could go either way, so even in that case why would you not choose the path of less violence and suffering?

If you stick to making the argument that people don't absolutely need to eat meat to survive, I won't have to keep dropping into this thread. In every post I've made it clear I don't disagree with the statement that humans are able to survive on a diet that doesn't include animals or animal products.

However, you've got about three arguments going at once: eating meat is unethical for humans, eating meat is unhealthy for humans, and eating meat is unnatural for humans. Whenever someone points out the hole in the case you make for one of these three you response by switching to one of the other two and don't acknowledge the flaws in your own previous statements. That's not the way to be taken seriously or win over hearts and minds.

The first argument is one of philosophy or ethics, so there's really no hard empirical truth to be found there. You cannot prove that you're right, and no one else is going to be able to prove that you're wrong. But trying to convince people to adopt your ethical position works better when it's clear you've thought long and hard about the evidence and reasoning you're presenting.

The second is true when red meat is consumed in large quantities, but you haven't been able to successfully make the case that any amount of meat consumption is harmful, and, as discussed above, almost all the longest lived populations on the planet include some level of meat or animal production consumption in their diets.

The third is completely inaccurate, and if you keep bringing up faulty and misleading evidence, I'm going to continue to point out the issues with that evidence. ... see below.

Quote
Even if we were omnivores, that would mean we could go either way, so even in that case why would you not choose the path of less violence and suffering?

That's not what the word omnivore means. You're specifically talking about facultative omnivores (which is seems we are, if just only). Obligate omnivores would need to consume both animals and plants.

Quote
you are left with the bare essentials that (unless you're already a butcher), you would never go up to a cow and kill it yourself and the only reason bacon is such a big deal is because all of the violence is done far away from your eyes

Given that this whole thread started with a discussion about things like hunting where people do kill and butcher animals themselves, this statement is clearly false for the population of people ("you") who are reading this thread.

Quote
Next time try letting the rabbit outside without cages or fences and see if you can chase it down with your bare hands/feet.

Most people in the USA wouldn't last a day trying to grow crops with their bare hands and feet. Obviously they could train up to being able to do so, but they can also train up to how to chase down and kill a rabbit so it seems this objection is equally valid to people who eat plants or animals or both.

Quote
Please show me one animal besides humans that has a history of atherosclerosis.

Dogs: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021997505801264
Cats: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9389784

cobbb11

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #140 on: June 05, 2017, 01:35:04 PM »
Wow, still can't believe we go round in circles.

"Also, I have been accused of being a hypocrite for both having pets and eating meat. I proved that there is no contradiction, and was told that my faltering sense of masculinity caused me to murder poor little bunnykins."

If the bunny was destined to be killed for your consumption, then it wasn't your pet. Here's the definition if you need help: a domestic or tamed animal kept for companionship or pleasure.


"If you stick to making the argument that people don't absolutely need to eat meat to survive, I won't have to keep dropping into this thread. In every post I've made it clear I don't disagree with the statement that humans are able to survive on a diet that doesn't include animals or animal products.

However, you've got about three arguments going at once: eating meat is unethical for humans, eating meat is unhealthy for humans, and eating meat is unnatural for humans. Whenever someone points out the hole in the case you make for one of these three you response by switching to one of the other two and don't acknowledge the flaws in your own previous statements. That's not the way to be taken seriously or win over hearts and minds.

The first argument is one of philosophy or ethics, so there's really no hard empirical truth to be found there. You cannot prove that you're right, and no one else is going to be able to prove that you're wrong. But trying to convince people to adopt your ethical position works better when it's clear you've thought long and hard about the evidence and reasoning you're presenting.

The second is true when red meat is consumed in large quantities, but you haven't been able to successfully make the case that any amount of meat consumption is harmful, and, as discussed above, almost all the longest lived populations on the planet include some level of meat or animal production consumption in their diets.

The third is completely inaccurate, and if you keep bringing up faulty and misleading evidence, I'm going to continue to point out the issues with that evidence. ... see below."


First off, none of my arguments contradict each other, so who cares how many I have? One of the cornerstones of ethics/morality all that stuff is the golden rude. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. Where does this state that "others" only applies to humans? Because we have greater cognitive thought than any other species, we can apply it this rule and extrapolate it better. A lion really doesn't have an excuse for doing what it does. We don't need to. It's as simple as this: If you were a human female (I'm assuming you're a dude so sorry if I'm wrong), would you appreciate being raped and kept it constant pregnancy to produce milk for a different species, and then have your baby taken away that will get slaughtered for food? If the answer is no, why is it bad if it happens to a human but ok for a cow? Does the empathy really stop when you go across species lines? Do you not get upset when you hear about dog fighting and other animal abuses to "the cute ones"?

Regarding the prefix in front of omnivore, it doesn't matter in this case because either one doesn't have to worry about food-related diseases from plants or meat. We eat meat at the cost of our health. This is proven over and over again. You still haven't shown any citations to refute the work at nutritionfacts.org for example. A website funded by donations from anyone like Wikipedia, and run by Dr. Michael Gregor, who takes the most recent peer-reviewed science and makes videos out of them for the lay person to understand. He's vegan.

Please prove me wrong by going up to a cow and literally tearing into it with your bare hands like other carnivores or omnivores would do. Good luck with that. Would be nice to see what happens when the animal has a chance to fight back.

You could never be "Trained" to chase down and kill a rabbit in the wild unless the thing was completely tired out or something. In the open, you aren't fast enough. That's why we need all these stupid tricks to be able to hyperinflate ourselves on the food chain. Even if you did catch the rabbit, are you going to eat it straight down to the bone like other animals? Doubt it.

In regards to the atherosclerosis request, well done. Your 2 examples were literally the 2 most popular pets we humans keep and have full control over their diet. I meant more so show me a carnivore/omnivore in the wild that was shown to have died from artery clogging.



gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1086
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #141 on: June 05, 2017, 01:47:48 PM »
As mentioned earlier, the reason that humans have managed to colonize almost every ecosystem on earth, is our ability to adapt. Not only do we adapt by using tools, building shelters, and clothes, but there are several cases where we can see changes to the DNA on population level, due to adaptation to evolutionary pressures. One blatant example is the color of our skin, a less visible one is the link I posted earlier about adaptation to diets higher in omega3 vs omega6, which is directly correlated to whether you are trying to survive in a farming society in southern Europe with access to a lot of vegetables, or in a hunter/gatherer society in the north where even your vitamine C comes from animal sources (whale and seal blubber). I have also mentioned CTD earlier in the thread, a genetic disorder that is much more common in communities that have a diet rich in red meat. Having CTD, your body doesn't store the amino acid carnitine, and you need to eat it daily. It is most commonly found in whale, lamb, and kangaroo. If people with CTD try to live as vegetarians or vegans, they die. Now, the interesting part in this long winded explanation, is that apparently atherosclerosis is correlated with having a lot of carnitine stored in your body. So CTD might be a genetic adaptation to a meat rich diet, but with the downside that you can't choose a vegetarian diet.

So to the three main arguments that maizeman so eloquently sorted out:
1: "It is ethically wrong to eat animals". No: it is ethically wrong to put any type of being over any other, because of arbitrary similarity to your own species. If you want to live in balance with nature, you need to take a much broader perspective, and try to live with as little imprint on nature as you can. In some areas that can be combined with a vegetarian diet, in other areas wild meat and fish are the local sources that can be harvested with the least environmental impact.
2: "Eating meat is unhealthy for people". This is wrong, some of us will die if we don't eat red meat. Unless you think drinking fake expensive vegan amino acids from a plastic bottle imported from the other side of the world is a proof in favour of the vegan diet? Here are some stats about the Inuit diet: http://www.theiflife.com/the-inuit-paradox-high-fat-lower-heart-disease-and-cancer/
3: "Eating meat is unnatural": Humans survive and thrive because we adapt. Are the Inuit living an "unnatural" life?

cobbb11

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #142 on: June 05, 2017, 02:20:36 PM »
The inuit people have a much lower life span than average.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18457208

I would put the 7th day Adventists, who are strict vegetarians in California with an average span of about 89 years over them any day.

But look where your argument is going: a tribe of people in a much more exotic locale. I'm talking about first world places like America, where produce abounds on every street corner.

Here's a video that talks about the Inuit "paradox". He provides plenty of citations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N7Sk1ZRohU
« Last Edit: June 05, 2017, 02:30:32 PM by cobbb11 »

Goldielocks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5808
  • Location: BC
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #143 on: June 05, 2017, 02:26:14 PM »
Gaja,  nice post,  thoughtful.

My favorite line:
A lot of animal activists are still antroposentric, it is just that they include animals that they find cute or intelligent into their inner circle.


With regards to the concept that plant life has equal value to all life, and animal life... it reminds me of this song (a favorite of my daughters')... Okay, it is a satire, and no offense is meant to anyone here, other than this song came to mind reading gaja's post...

Carrot Juice is Murder  (Arrogant Worms)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov5Jgw_Nwx4

On the whole vegan / Vegetarian / hunter / meat eater / consumer scale...   two things that I believe  a)  We need to grow (hunt? raise?) our food sustainably and respectfully, as we best know according to science ,and b) If we kill something, let's make certain we reduce waste.

cobbb11

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #144 on: June 05, 2017, 02:28:05 PM »
Gaja,  nice post,  thoughtful.

My favorite line:
A lot of animal activists are still antroposentric, it is just that they include animals that they find cute or intelligent into their inner circle.


With regards to the concept that plant life has equal value to all life, and animal life... it reminds me of this song (a favorite of my daughters')... Okay, it is a satire, and no offense is meant to anyone here, other than this song came to mind reading gaja's post...

Carrot Juice is Murder  (Arrogant Worms)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov5Jgw_Nwx4

On the whole vegan / Vegetarian / hunter / meat eater / consumer scale...   two things that I believe  a)  We need to grow (hunt? raise?) our food sustainably and respectfully, as we best know according to science ,and b) If we kill something, let's make certain we reduce waste.

We have to eat SOMETHING to survive. I don't think anyone argues this. The whole "plants have feelings too" is the lamest cop-out ever. They don't have nervous systems and cannot feel pain. Also when you pick a banana or apple off a tree, the tree doesn't die with it.

Goldielocks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5808
  • Location: BC
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #145 on: June 05, 2017, 03:06:42 PM »
Gaja,  nice post,  thoughtful.

My favorite line:
A lot of animal activists are still antroposentric, it is just that they include animals that they find cute or intelligent into their inner circle.


With regards to the concept that plant life has equal value to all life, and animal life... it reminds me of this song (a favorite of my daughters')... Okay, it is a satire, and no offense is meant to anyone here, other than this song came to mind reading gaja's post...

Carrot Juice is Murder  (Arrogant Worms)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov5Jgw_Nwx4

On the whole vegan / Vegetarian / hunter / meat eater / consumer scale...   two things that I believe  a)  We need to grow (hunt? raise?) our food sustainably and respectfully, as we best know according to science ,and b) If we kill something, let's make certain we reduce waste.

We have to eat SOMETHING to survive. I don't think anyone argues this. The whole "plants have feelings too" is the lamest cop-out ever. They don't have nervous systems and cannot feel pain. Also when you pick a banana or apple off a tree, the tree doesn't die with it.

Sigh.... Eye roll.

cobbb11

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #146 on: June 05, 2017, 03:11:06 PM »
Gaja,  nice post,  thoughtful.

My favorite line:
A lot of animal activists are still antroposentric, it is just that they include animals that they find cute or intelligent into their inner circle.


With regards to the concept that plant life has equal value to all life, and animal life... it reminds me of this song (a favorite of my daughters')... Okay, it is a satire, and no offense is meant to anyone here, other than this song came to mind reading gaja's post...

Carrot Juice is Murder  (Arrogant Worms)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov5Jgw_Nwx4

On the whole vegan / Vegetarian / hunter / meat eater / consumer scale...   two things that I believe  a)  We need to grow (hunt? raise?) our food sustainably and respectfully, as we best know according to science ,and b) If we kill something, let's make certain we reduce waste.

We have to eat SOMETHING to survive. I don't think anyone argues this. The whole "plants have feelings too" is the lamest cop-out ever. They don't have nervous systems and cannot feel pain. Also when you pick a banana or apple off a tree, the tree doesn't die with it.

Sigh.... Eye roll.

Once again, a reply with zero substance.

Alright ladies and fellas, I'm done. I just popped into this thread because it was talking about ignorance with food consumers and until you've watched this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es6U00LMmC4&t=2705s I don't think you can claim to be well informed on what goes into the food you buy. Do with it what you will. Just be glad you're a human and don't have to deal with the horrors that billions of animals do just so you can eat a burger. I'm sorry I don't have that little empathy.

At least we can agree on frugality if nothing else...but I'm sure the idea of saving most of your income and riding a bike to work seemed crazy at one point too, until you opened your mind a bit.

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1086
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #147 on: June 05, 2017, 03:13:11 PM »
Gaja,  nice post,  thoughtful.

My favorite line:
A lot of animal activists are still antroposentric, it is just that they include animals that they find cute or intelligent into their inner circle.


With regards to the concept that plant life has equal value to all life, and animal life... it reminds me of this song (a favorite of my daughters')... Okay, it is a satire, and no offense is meant to anyone here, other than this song came to mind reading gaja's post...

Carrot Juice is Murder  (Arrogant Worms)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov5Jgw_Nwx4

On the whole vegan / Vegetarian / hunter / meat eater / consumer scale...   two things that I believe  a)  We need to grow (hunt? raise?) our food sustainably and respectfully, as we best know according to science ,and b) If we kill something, let's make certain we reduce waste.

We have to eat SOMETHING to survive. I don't think anyone argues this. The whole "plants have feelings too" is the lamest cop-out ever. They don't have nervous systems and cannot feel pain. Also when you pick a banana or apple off a tree, the tree doesn't die with it.
To quote what you yourself has urged several times: please read the links I have posted. Especially this one: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/arne-naess-and-george-sessions-basic-principles-of-deep-ecology

Simply by your argument of "nervous systems" and "ability to feel pain" you are showing that you place value on life only if it is similar to your own. Your empathy, moral and ethics doesn't extend further than the chosen few you deem worthy. The biosentric view has nothing to do with those types of arguments, but rather about the inherent value every living (and for some; non-living) beings have. Not because they are useful to humans, not because they feel pain, not because they are cute. Simply because we are all a part of nature, and there is no reason we as human beings should have a right to take more than we need to have a decent life.

(I don't normally lecture people on their ethics and "faults" in their world view. But as the old saying goes: "people on high horses put themselves in a good position to be chopped down by axes").

AZDude

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1298
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #148 on: June 05, 2017, 04:10:41 PM »
This thread reminds me of the story about he researcher in Japan who was tasked with studying ways to make human excrement useful. Eventually he found a way to make an edible "steak" out of it.

I think that would be the ultimate test on what "food" you are willing to eat.

As for hunting, as someone who used to hunt and fish, I certainly have no moral qualms against the practice, but I will say that many hunters are not exactly environmentally conscious consumers, or at least the ones I have met.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2999
Re: Ignorant food consumers
« Reply #149 on: June 05, 2017, 06:03:08 PM »
*sigh*

Okay, here we go again.

First off, none of my arguments contradict each other, so who cares how many I have?

You can have as many arguments as you want, but it does make it important to keep track of which people are debating which positions.  Instead, you've mixed and matching and trying to use ideas from one argument as a response to people pointing out flaws in your position on a completely different argument.

You're making 3 true/false assertions, which means there are 2*2*2 = 8 possible combinations of outcomes. For example, if killing animals for food is unethical that doesn't make it any more or less likely that eating animals is bad for your health.

Quote
One of the cornerstones of ethics/morality all that stuff is the golden rude. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. Where does this state that "others" only applies to humans? Because we have greater cognitive thought than any other species, we can apply it this rule and extrapolate it better. A lion really doesn't have an excuse for doing what it does. We don't need to. It's as simple as this: If you were a human female (I'm assuming you're a dude so sorry if I'm wrong), would you appreciate being raped and kept it constant pregnancy to produce milk for a different species, and then have your baby taken away that will get slaughtered for food? If the answer is no, why is it bad if it happens to a human but ok for a cow? Does the empathy really stop when you go across species lines? Do you not get upset when you hear about dog fighting and other animal abuses to "the cute ones"?

This is a great example. I've pointed out problems with the statements you claim are evidence for your 2nd and 3rd arguments (meat is unhealthy, and humans eating meat is unnatural), so you've pivoted back to the ethics angle. Which would be fine if I wasn't concerned you'll go right back to asserting the 2nd and 3rd arguments again without regard to the problems previously raised with both once the thread went on a bit further.

Quote
Regarding the prefix in front of omnivore, it doesn't matter in this case because either one doesn't have to worry about food-related diseases from plants or meat. We eat meat at the cost of our health. This is proven over and over again. You still haven't shown any citations to refute the work at nutritionfacts.org for example. A website funded by donations from anyone like Wikipedia, and run by Dr. Michael Gregor, who takes the most recent peer-reviewed science and makes videos out of them for the lay person to understand. He's vegan.

... (from another post) ...
The inuit people have a much lower life span than average.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18457208

I would put the 7th day Adventists, who are strict vegetarians in California with an average span of about 89 years over them any day.

But look where your argument is going: a tribe of people in a much more exotic locale. I'm talking about first world places like America, where produce abounds on every street corner.

I see you didn't read, or forgot, or decided to disregard, my post up thread about the 7th day adventists. Not all 7 day adventists are vegans. Some are vegetarians, some are pescetarians (fish eaters), some occasionally eat red meat, and some eat meat regularly. Comparing the death rates across these five groups within the same population (so same environment, a lot of the same genetics and behavioral factors), the fish eaters have the lowest risk of death, vegetarians and occasional red meat eaters are about the same, and vegans and regular meat eaters have the highest rates of mortality.*

This also leaves aside the other four populations around the world with the longest lifespans, all of whom eat some meat (although less than the standard american). Again, this was already posted upthread.

*See Table 7 of this paper: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/70/3/516s/T7.expansion.html

Quote
Please prove me wrong by going up to a cow and literally tearing into it with your bare hands like other carnivores or omnivores would do. Good luck with that. Would be nice to see what happens when the animal has a chance to fight back.

Surely you'll allow me a rock or a stick? After all, chimpanzees and ravens and sea otters all use tools at at least that level.

Quote
You could never be "Trained" to chase down and kill a rabbit in the wild unless the thing was completely tired out or something. In the open, you aren't fast enough. That's why we need all these stupid tricks to be able to hyperinflate ourselves on the food chain. Even if you did catch the rabbit, are you going to eat it straight down to the bone like other animals? Doubt it.

Again, this was discussed up thread. The way a human being would hunt a rabbit in the absence of any tools is persistence hunting which would indeed end with the rabbit completely tired out and exhausted. The same method used by our ancestors for literally hundreds of thousands of years until the development of the throwing spear made ambush hunting more feasible.

Over a long enough distance, on a hot day, human beings can run practically any other animal on the planet to exhaustion, including cheetahs.*

*Note that in this case the villagers who ran down the cheetah who was eating their goats didn't kill it but turned it over to the local wildlife service for relocation. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-24953910

Quote
In regards to the atherosclerosis request, well done. Your 2 examples were literally the 2 most popular pets we humans keep and have full control over their diet. I meant more so show me a carnivore/omnivore in the wild that was shown to have died from artery clogging.

Indeed. It could well be argued that the prevalence of atherosclerosis in domesticated animals is an indication that the standard american diet isn't particularly healthy for either us or our companion animals. However, your specific argument up thread was was animals adapted to eat meat cannot get atherosclerosis, therefore the fact that humans do means we are not adapted to eat meat. Cats, at least, are complete obligate carnivores, so the fact that they can indeed develop this condition, regardless of diet, would seem to indicate there are other potential mechanisms that can produce this condition because an animal that doesn't "naturally" eat meat deciding to start eating it.

Quote
At least we can agree on frugality if nothing else...but I'm sure the idea of saving most of your income and riding a bike to work seemed crazy at one point too, until you opened your mind a bit.

So here the argument appears to be: $X seemed crazy until you thought about it, therefore anything that doesn't make sense must be true, even if you think about it and still think it doesn't make sense.

But since cob is out of this thread now, maybe this can be my last post of the subject?
« Last Edit: June 05, 2017, 06:24:52 PM by maizeman »