That video was interesting and brought up a few ideas how we are meant to be plant either. However, our evolutionary advantage is our brain above all else. Early man hunted wooly mammoths for meat. This was going before there was organized culture of eating meat. Sure they also gathered fruits and nuts to compliment their diet, but early man had already mastered techniques like smoking and drying to preserve their hunt. Aboriginal tribes in North America and throughout the world all continue you to hunt before the introduction of modern technologies. The fact there isn't a group of individuals of any culture or country that are 100% vegetarian actual WEAKENS the theory that humans weren't meant to eat meat.
In addition between what natural and what's not. The majority of the fruits, vegetables, and grains were not naturally existing in nature before man learned how to artificially germinate and cross breed plants. Carrots, lettuce, bananas, spinach, corn to name a few are all inedible in their wild form.
From an evolution standpoint, let continue with the theory that man originated from Africa. From the geography, man's non meat food sources would be african grasses, leaves from trees, and fruits and nuts from the trees. This would explain how the earliest humans were smaller. However in order to keep evolving and get bigger in size, man's intelligence had to evolve to accommodate for hunting, otherwise, there was no way to man could survive unless it was constantly eating. True plant eaters are either very big grazers sometimes with multiple stomachs or smaller scavenger that feed on fruits and seeds. Organisms are size tend to be omnivores. Even chimps eat meat, not as their main source of food, but it has been documented that chimpanzees have hunted and ate meat (http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html)
To Vegans, I admire their position and it is a noble cause, but like religion, this is a personal choice thing, not a biological cause. I do agree though that we consume too much meat and fat, and in some part, society has gotten away from its connection to their environments. African Tribesman and Aboriginals for example honour their hunt and kill and respect that the animal died so that they may live. I don't suggest that we pray to the gods when we buy a steak from Safeway, but as a middle ground, just being informed about where your food comes from, eating sustainable foods, and supporting local farmers are just a few things we can make a difference.
I have nothing against Vegetarians or Vegans etc., but it is definetely a personal choice and not something that needs to be preached to everyone else like it's a fataing religion.
We've been here a thousand times. How many times have I come out and started a thread that even baited people into an animal rights conversation. I don't preach on here as I don't think it's the appropriate forum. I defend animal rights positions as they are attacked. If CP would not take the time to slam Animal rights activists all the time than I wouldn't post a word about it.
Humans are built to be omnivores/carnivores...period. Its not "tradition", its freaking nature. We were given teeth to do such, a digestive system to do such, and an instinct to do such. They have found evidence of this dating back over 2 MILLION years ago.
Now if you are arguing that some sort of human "evolution" is taking place to change that, fine, but that's another argument and a different topic. I would suggest its actually the other way around.
The point is that unlike other species Humans have the capacity to choose to evolve by living a life of compassion towards animals. We have evolved to the point we have that ability now.
And i do agree with you that we consume more meat now than ever before so it seems we have evolved towards this.
I say this all the time, the best sign of a weak argument is someone who has to shift the scope dramatically and make outlandish comparisons in order to prove their point.
I don't see where I shift the scope. I don't argue that humans are biologically supposed to refrain from meat. I argue that not eating meat is the morally correct path. There's nothing you can say that will change my mind.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FlamingLonghorn For This Useful Post:
I don't see where I shift the scope. I don't argue that humans are biologically supposed to refrain from meat. I argue that not eating meat is the morally correct path. There's nothing you can say that will change my mind.
It does call your morals into question, though.
You claim that not eating meat is the moral choice, which leads me to assume that you'd like to see a significant decrease, if not a complete elimination, of domesticated animals. At the very least, I'm sure you'd like to see the end of animals being raised as food. Am I wrong?
So here, your moral stance is that the domestication of animals for food purposes is wrong, and that it would be more ethical to allow all animals to live 'in a state of nature'. Again, if I'm wrong, let me know.
However, domesticated animals, by any measure, live a much safer, healthier, and softer existence than wild animals - who are subject to predation, disease, starvation, habitat disruption, etc. etc. So, your morals on this count anyway are pretty laissez faire and relative, as I'm sure you object to people being subject to disease and starvation, and support efforts to reduce those two scourges.
Also, as has been pointed out, in a 'state of nature' humans eat other animals. Our ability to be generalists in our eating habits is one of the great secrets to our success as a species.
So essentially you're saying that a state of nature is what's good and correct for other creatures, but not for us. And you also feel that values which we can agree are desirable for humans (such as prevention of disease and starvation) are not desirable for animals.
Do you see the tenuousness of the argument from morality when it comes to vegan/vegetarianism? If you make the choice, make it for personal reasons, or dietary reasons, but don't pretend that it's the 'moral' choice, because that is utterly subjective.
The Following User Says Thank You to driveway For This Useful Post:
You claim that not eating meat is the moral choice, which leads me to assume that you'd like to see a significant decrease, if not a complete elimination, of domesticated animals. At the very least, I'm sure you'd like to see the end of animals being raised as food. Am I wrong?
So here, your moral stance is that the domestication of animals for food purposes is wrong, and that it would be more ethical to allow all animals to live 'in a state of nature'. Again, if I'm wrong, let me know.
However, domesticated animals, by any measure, live a much safer, healthier, and softer existence than wild animals - who are subject to predation, disease, starvation, habitat disruption, etc. etc. So, your morals on this count anyway are pretty laissez faire and relative, as I'm sure you object to people being subject to disease and starvation, and support efforts to reduce those two scourges.
Also, as has been pointed out, in a 'state of nature' humans eat other animals. Our ability to be generalists in our eating habits is one of the great secrets to our success as a species.
So essentially you're saying that a state of nature is what's good and correct for other creatures, but not for us. And you also feel that values which we can agree are desirable for humans (such as prevention of disease and starvation) are not desirable for animals.
Do you see the tenuousness of the argument from morality when it comes to vegan/vegetarianism? If you make the choice, make it for personal reasons, or dietary reasons, but don't pretend that it's the 'moral' choice, because that is utterly subjective.
Your argument is all based on opinion, not fact. Animals that aren't domesticated die of starvation and disease? Is this a more common cause of death than being slaughtered on a factory farm? I guess it's tenuous if you make up scenarios that would happen if we stopped domesticating animals for food purposes.
And no I didn't say a state of nature is what's good for other animals and not us. Humans don't live in a state of nature right now.
Of course its subjective. All morals are subjective.
Last edited by FlamingLonghorn; 05-06-2009 at 04:14 PM.
Your argument is all based on opinion, not fact. Animals that aren't domesticated die of starvation and disease? Is this a more common cause of death than being slaughtered on a factory farm? I guess it's morally subjective if you make up scenarios that would happen if we stopped domesticating animals for food purposes.
There is a book called "The World Without Us" that looks into this. The book imagines what would happen if all humans just disappeared one day. There was a chapter about animals. Cows and other livestock are defenceless with humans keeping away predators. In addition, due to sheer size and number of the modern food cows, there would not be enough natural grassland to support them and they over consume the land and/or split off from each other making it easier for predation
The neat thing, the modern house cat would become the top predator in the urban environment as all cats retain their natural hunting instincts. They'll pretty much eat all of the small animals found in the urban setting
What an assumption. They don't move a lot in captivity because they are fed food and mating partners therefore this replicates their behaviour in the wild.
Of course they would. There would be numerous other ecological factors in play.
Prey abundance and dispersal, predation, competition (intra and interspecific), density dependance, off spring dispersal, ideal free distribution .......
Someone took their Bio 307 a little serious haha.
The Following User Says Thank You to anyonebutedmonton For This Useful Post:
Is there one supporting the "should eat meat" side? I noticed how this one didn't add stuff from the other side of the equation, like how the human stomach isn't designed to properly break down plant cells.
Some people can be so ignorant, Its like animal conservation is a big joke to them. Its almost a right wing agenda, "well If I can get richer at the expense of the environment its worth it"
Last edited by Canuck-Hater; 05-06-2009 at 06:16 PM.
