-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
I think the omnis will die out fairly soon. Human overpopulation is getting to be a real problem and nature usually finds a way to deal with such problems. This planet cannot sustain the ever increasing human population who are destroying everything with their diet and lifestyle choices so something is going to have to change soon. It would be fantastic if only vegans were left. A vegan world, how wonderful :)
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
Evolution simply does not work that way. It is caused by slight genetic mutatons over many generations, and usually when a species is struggling to survive and find its niche. Humans are almost fully evolved and won't evolve any farther unless put into an extreme survival situation. So the people who eat lots of flesh will continue to be sick and die young from preventable diseases, but probably won't evolve.
Oh, and since meat can cause impotence and such, maybe "evolution" will actually begin to favor us studly, virile vegan males. :D
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
"Oh, and since meat can cause impotence and such, maybe "evolution" will actually begin to favor us studly, virile vegan males. :D"
That's what I'm trying to say
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
Actually scientists don't view evolution as slow and gradual. The fossil record doesn't support such a view. What usually happens is that some event takes place, which opens new niches, or empties out old ones, and boom, there are brand new species found in them. What will probably happen is that we will cause the next major extinction event, permanently change the composition of the atmosphere, (its happened before) and a whole new order of life will emerge (this happens a lot too). If humans are to survive this, there will have to be people who have already mutated an ability to live on low or no oxygen, and tolerate higher temperatures, and be able to live off whatever else has already mutated an ability to thrive under the new conditions. This usually does not happen, though. I can't remember how many times 99% of all known species during any geological age has gone extinct (I should find my geological calendar), but it has happened many times, and will happen many times in the future. Some of us may be unhappy to find that we appear to be "destroying" our mother earth with our activities, but everything that is happening now has happened many times before. What takes a matter of perhaps hundreds of years for us is instantaneous change from the point of view of the earth itself, and someday someone looking through our fossil record in the stone 500 million years from now will be as mystified at what happened to us as we are about what happened to the dinosaurs.
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
Some people think there have been five major extinctions and we are headed for the sixth. The interesting thing about the sixth extinction is that WE have caused it.
http://www.well.com/~davidu/sixthextinction.html
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newf...eldredge2.html
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
I doubt the Earth would miss us. Humanity must seem like an annoying visitor who uses up all the groceries in the fridge and won't go away.
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
Thanks for those links, Antony. They are interesting!
Here is the Geologic Time Scale. Pretty much everywhere there is a change from one era, epoch, or period, there has been a major extinction event. That's how they decide where to end one time period and start another. Even if it takes us a thousand years to end all known life on this Earth, this will seem an instant in geological time.
And no, Pilaf, I don't think the Earth will miss us either.
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
Quote:
We all know that humans are not meant to eat meat and dairy ...
Tray - it is a bit OT, but this error is made so many times it needs to be corrected when it can.
"Meant" implies there is some authority out there that allows or disallows what we can do as a species. Evolution has no goal. What a species is capable of doing it will do and if it can't do it (e.g. elephants and flying) it won't do. Humans can eat meat and some of them can digest diary into adult hood and that's all there is to it.
Arguing that biologically we should not eat meat is absurd when we blatantly can. We would laugh at any one arguing with an elephant that they are not meant to fly. But arguing that culturally there are activities we should not do is a completely different game - murder, rape, stealing, eating meat, speeding, dropping litter etc.
It is only by the fact that vegans choose not to eat meat that they can we can claim any moral authority.
In short, never put forward "its natural" or evolutionary arguments when promoting or defending veganism (or meat eating). The two are unconnected.
If we did evolve into creatures that had to eat meat we could find no objection to it in exactly the same way we do not object to tigers following their prescribed diet with all other things being equal.
Another confusion comes from mixing up ideas of evolutionary biological with those of cultural traits. Veganism is purely cultural - it is not a biological dietary category. There are no vegan species and there are no vegetarian species and there never will be.
There are herbivores but they have made no choice about their diet, it is not cultural. To say a sheep is a Vegan is as silly as calling it a Conservative or a Christian or an atheist.
There are no vegan genes. Vegans to not give birth to baby vegans, they given birth to humans the same as our meat eating counterparts and no matter how we raise them they will still be omnivores.
For there to be any notion of "vegans" becoming a different species we would have to change our chromosomes to a point where we could not mate with other humanoids. But we would still not be a vegan species we would be a herbivore species and no longer human.
We would also have to show some evolutionary advantage over those eating meat, but with our social structures and technology there would be little hope of that ever being an issue.
Even if we evolved to be a meat eating species we could still choose to be vegans.
If we had concrete evidence that meat eaters lived a little longer than vegans would we stop being vegans - no. If we had concrete evidence that tortures lived a little longer than their victims would we all become tortures - no.
Vegans choose their diet on compassionate grounds not on the amoral whims of evolution.
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
Quote:
Maisiepaisie
I think the omnis will die out fairly soon.
It would be nice, but take a look at the world. Not going to happen.
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
Quote:
Russ
It would be nice, but take a look at the world. Not going to happen.
I'm confident it will. Cancer and heart disease are on the increase. The population is increasing and so is the demand for animal products which will lead to more genetic manipulation and god knows what methods of tampering with nature to increase meat and dairy production. Mad cow disease has not gone away either and I'm sure there will be more new diseases. Factory farming is a crime against nature that will not go unpunished.
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
If spiders started eating spaghetti and started dying from a disease attributed to the spaghetti, would we still say that the spiders were meant to eat spaghetti?
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
There's probably a bluebottle somewhere erecting an Italian restaurant as I type :-)
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
Quote:
TofuFooYung
If spiders started eating spaghetti and started dying from a disease attributed to the spaghetti, would we still say that the spiders were meant to eat spaghetti?
Well, the problem is the word "meant".
If you reprased the question to "would we still say that spaghetti was the optimum nutrition for spiders?" then we could give that an asnwer.
To say that eating meat is not optimumal for human health is fine - the quesion has meaningful because we can measure the relative benefits of different diets. If you say "meant" - you have to show intent or design. The only way the question could make sense is if you believed in god but that just makes things even more confusing because you would had to prove that you knew god's intentions.
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
I am having trouble accepting that. I feel fairly confident in saying that humans were not DESIGNED to consume fleshy meats. The mere fact that it must be heated to destroy bacteria is enough for me. I can understand that the consumption of insects might have been intended, but meats? I doubt, also, that humans were meant to commit suicide.
I guess I don't understand what you're saying.
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
Firstly have a read of the definition of DESIGNED:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=designed
You will see that it requires a designer. Because of that when we speak of revolution of a species we have to say "evolved" because evolution has no goal - what work best at the particular time wins and there's nothing more to it than that.
Also when using words like designed it implies that a particalur capacity a species has, say running, has been measured against some standard of what is deemed acceptable as running. Tigers are better at eating meat than us and cows are better at eating plants. Does it then follow we should do neither?
The main thrust of the "we are not designed to eat meat" is it can reduce our life expectancy compared to not eating it. But it does not follow that we do not have the ability to eat it. Let me give you an example.
The life expectancy of low-tec societies, e.g. hunter gathers, is lower than that of wealthly westerners. Do we then go on to say "we are not designed to live in jungles"?. Well, no, the complete opposite would be true. So, we can not make statements about the design of being meat eaters just because we live longer with out it.
Humans are really adaptive to their enviroments and being able to eat a wide range of foods is one of our great strengths as a species. Its pointless to deny and only makes it easier for others to dismiss veggie arguments if we persist in saying things that are untrue.
This all might seem a bit pedantic but we should take great care to only put forward veggie arguments that make sense. If we put forward unsupportable statements against meat eating then those arguments will be the ones they will pin you down on to make ua look stupid for being veggie. We must stick to the facts.
Of course many meat eaters use the "we're designed to eat meat" argument. Now, hopefully you can defeat that argument by just saying:
you: "designed by whom?"
them: by evolution
you:evolution doesn't design, it evolves.
them: ok, we're evolved to eat meat!
you: we've evolved to rape and murder also. Do you justify those activities in the same way?
VICTORY!
1 point to veggies - 0 points to meat eaters!
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
I see your point, Stevie, but I have to disagree... I wrote "meant" in my initial post, because humans as a species are NOT meant to eat meat/dairy, not because a designer did not mean us to eat these things, but because our species evolved this way. There's plenty of anthropological evidence showing that humans differ dramatically from true carnivores (I'm sure you've probably seen articles such as this one).
Of course, we can go against that and eat meat/dairy, but as you mentioned yourself, it will have adverse consequences. The purpose of evolution is reproduction (maintaining the species in existence). In addition, each individual has the basic goal/instict of survival, which imo includes health. So, if eating meat/dairy causes significant health problems and even death (heart attacks, cancer) then wouldn't you agree that we've evolved into a species that's not meant to eat meat/dairy?
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
If we aren't meant to eat any meat or dairy, then how would we get our daily values of vitamin B12, for instance? Primitive humans didn't have supplements or vitamin shots. It isn't like they could just chow down on semen all the time (not to be nasty, but as far as I know that's the only good source of B12 that's readily available (for men (and some women))).
We vegans have to watch what we eat because a lot of vitamans and minerals found readily in meat and dairy, which in my mind lends credence to the idea that we are meant to eat both. To me the argument for vegan is based on intellectual choice and beliefs, not what is "meant" by nature. Sure we can be healthy, but I know plenty of very healthy omnivores too. I'd just as soon leave mother nature out of a philosophical approach to life altogther.
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
I could be wrong about this, but as far as I know, a good quantity of B12 should be found in soil; conventional farming methods (which use all kinds of pesticides, herbicides, and so on, and do not use helpful strategies, such as crop rotation) have stripped soil from many nutrients, including B12. And iron and calcium, which I'm assuming are the other nutrients that you claim are "found readily in meat and dairy" can be gotten from vegan sources of food as well...
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
What you are referring to is discussed in The China Study. The author discusses how the soil used to have more nutrients and also that we used to not be as "hygenic." (That is, that before we abused the agricultural land, there were more bacteria and also we process foods--including putting antibiotics on them and washing them obsessively--thus getting rid of many nutrients, including B12.) Of course, being less "clean" probably isn't a good option, but there are still some sources of vitamin B12 like nutritional yeast. Trying to repair the damage done to the soil would be a good idea, but would probably take generations:( There are cultures that are basically vegan that do not have the depleted soil or great hygenie that seem to get plenty of nutrients from their plant crops. Also, we have genetically manipulated crops for higher yields, but often depleted them of their nutritional values--not to mention taste.
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
Quote:
DancingWillow
There's plenty of anthropological evidence showing that humans differ dramatically from true carnivores.
There's plenty of anthropological evidence showing that humans differ dramatically from true herbivores.
So what? We're pretty crap runners compared to "real" runners like cheetas, so are we not evolved to run? We're pretty crap swimmers compared to "real" runners like fish, so are we not evolved to swim?
Quote:
Of course, we can go against that and eat meat/dairy, but as you mentioned yourself, it will have adverse consequences.
You can not go against evolution. Its not going to come over and say "you can't do that". If you take that line then we are going against evolution by typing, leaving in houses and using toliets.
[qoute]
The purpose of evolution is reproduction (maintaining the species in existence).
[/quote]
Not quiet. Evolution is a mechanism that favours a adaptions that result in increased survival rates. It has no purpose, no aim, no goal.
Quote:
In addition, each individual has the basic goal/instict of survival, which imo includes health.
No, not really, we are far far far more complex than that. Evolution does not drive our actions. We don't sit there and think, oh doing X will increase my chances of propogating my DNA, instead we have evolved things like friendship, love, sexual desire, etc. It is these things that give us the advantages that may increase the chances of our DNA getting passed on. Without such high level systems notions of compassion would be absent from us, and we would never be vegans. As I hinted at before, we are not the victims or the slaves of evolution.
Quote:
So, if eating meat/dairy causes significant health problems and even death (heart attacks, cancer) then wouldn't you agree that we've evolved into a species that's not meant to eat meat/dairy?
Ok, I'm now the meating troll:
troll: Ok, you are saving that an action that causes illness proves that we are not meant to do it? That is your argument? Then how do you explain self sacrfic, why would any one endanger themselves for another.
2ndly those who eat moderate amounts of meat have the same life expectancy as VEGANS (see Plant Based Nutrion published by the Vegans Society) AND vegetarian out live vegans. Therefore, we must have evolved to eat dairy and eggs!
Me again.
This is why your argument is false. Your facts about diet are correct, but your argument is wrong.
Bed time!
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
The reasons that vegetarians and "moderate" meat eaters live longer are myriad. First off, the already discussed changes in soil, hygiene, genetic engineering, etc. of plant-based agriculture. Consequently, vegans may have a harder time getting adequate nutrition under some such circumstances. However, if a vegan can find healthy unprocessed non-GMO organic produce, I think you'd see less of a problem. Secondly, the "richer" nations--whose populace tends to eat more dairy and meat--tend to have better health care and hygiene, leading to longer life-spans. I would even suspect that in these rich cultures many people label themselves "vegan" or "vegetarian" when they are not, so that would skew any results of studies within the culture. It also depends how much "vegan" (whole grains, vegetables, fruits, etc) food the moderate meat eater or vegetarian eats to "make up for" the damage the non-vegan food does to your system. (For example, in the already discussed book The China Study, naturally occuring soluble and insoluble fiber can counteract to a small extent the negative impact of animal-based foods whereas more processed foods--especially fiber "supplements"--did not have the same impact.) It also matters what the vegan eats...if the vegan eats processed foods (such as processed soy meats) for every meal, many of the health benefits would be overshadowed by the unhealthy pattern of eating despite its "vegan" nature.
So what is YOUR "true" argument?
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
Quote:
mrknifey87
We vegans have to watch what we eat because a lot of vitamans and minerals found readily in meat and dairy...
What are they please?
And no animal is "meant" to consume dairy beyond infancy, much less the milk of another species. We are "meant" to consume what is easiest for us to obtain. I'd like to see anyone walk up to a wild cow and try to push her baby away and start sucking on her teat without getting kicked in the skull and killed. Its much easier to get our calcium from plants, which is where we should get it from, and where we always used to get it from before we became "civilized".
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
As Kerrie Saunders, PhD, states "The United States is one of the sickest nations on the planet. Most Americans accept degenerate chronic diseases such as diabetes, atherosclerosis, heart disease, osteoporosis, and cancer as part of the normal aging process."
As for those who think it is advantageous to eat vegies without washing them first, you need to watch for the trichostrongylus worm found on vegies that have had manure on them. May as well garnish your salad with faeces direct. There are quite a few people with gut problems from eggs of these worms. ("Pathology" 1995, 27:182-185).
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
Non-human omnis and carnis have a natural urge to eat what appeals to them in their basic form.
How many human meat eaters have the in-built capabilities and desire to hunt down an animal and kill it with their bare hands and eat it, skin, feathers, eyeballs, guts and all? Who, if starving, would walk straight pass a fallen fruit or vegetable and wait in the long grasses to hunt down a bird or a rodent?
If humans SHOULD* be eating meat, then they should only be allowed to eat meat on the strict condition that they have to catch it themselves from the wild, and without weapons, without tools to remove the fur and feathers, without ovens and sure as hell without knife and forks. If humans SHOULD* be eating dairy, then lets take them out to see some wild goats and milk them, and eggs... lets see them raid the nests of large birds living in the wild.
1) Who could be bothered? 2) How many people seriously like the taste of raw meat? Raw milk? Raw eggs? 3) Who wouldn't get sick? 4) Who can digest feathers? 5) Who can outrun a wild animal and bring it down without weapons... even domesticated cats & dogs can! 6) Who slavers at the site of a chicken? Who looks at a cow and envisions themself taking a large bite out of its side, skin and all? 7) Who's teeth could do that? 8) And so on!
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
Quote:
mrknifey87
If we aren't meant to eat any meat or dairy, then how would we get our daily values of vitamin B12, for instance?
Hi, this has been discussed in many of our B12 threads. Have you seen our B12 forums?
Quote:
Primitive humans didn't have supplements or vitamin shots.
And they weren't exposed to these B12 killers either. B12 has even been found in leaves, in soil, even in bark and in plain river water (NOT exposed to chlorine, of course). The so called primitive humans were privileged; they ate fresh food, and they never ate processed food. They didn't have amalgam in their teeth, didn't take any mercury containing vaccines, and they didn't use any of all the chemicals we use today (which are known to destroy B12).
Quote:
We vegans have to watch what we eat because a lot of vitamans and minerals found readily in meat and dairy, which in my mind lends credence to the idea that we are meant to eat both.
First of all, meat eaters definitely have to watch what they eat. Secondly, where do you think the minerals and vitamins found in animals come from? Humans normally don't eat meat eating animals.... If everything that contains minerals and vitamins is meant to be eaten, we'd really have to change our diet. I'm sure you don't suggest that we are meant to eat something just because it contains nutrients...
Have you seen this thread?
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
Quote:
The main thrust of the "we are not designed to eat meat" is it can reduce our life expectancy compared to not eating it.
I disagree. We have to develop tools to catch animals, we can't fly like the birds, we can't swim under water and catch fish, we don't have claws, we have only two legs and can't run fast enough to catch most animals. Some meat eaters use the 'tool-argument' to say that since we can make tools, we are 'meant to' use our ability to create tools to make weapons. IMO that statement is only based on habitual thinking; we don't have to make a trap or gun or nuclear bomb just because we can.
Of course we can use the art of creating tools, the art of cultivation (we do that already when we make a house or clothes), but there are different ways of cultivating nature. One way is destructive (example; a nuclear bomb is also made out of ingredients that once were 100% natural, but we don't normally can a nuclear bomb a 'natural' product). I think the expression 'meant to' or 'designed to' often is used when we intuitively find something in accordance with natural, ie. that our legs are meant for walking, and doesn't necessarily involve a god or religion. Since everything can be 'natural' if we want it to, 'in harmony with nature', makes more sense, but it's just easier to say natural.
Back to the tool/cultivation thing: If I peel a banana and eat it, I have also been 'destructive', but the banana hasn't destroyed my body, and the banana peel hasn't destroyed nature, it is recycled 'in harmony with nature' (unless someone tries to eat it to get drunk, apparently it contains 12% alcohol!).
If we kill an animal, it is destroyed. The process of killing another being isn't 'in harmony with' that animal to me, and that animal is part of nature. If it's not in harmony with that animal, it's not in harmony with nature. Hence it is not natural (it's not 'in harmony with nature').
As we know, the animal doesn't want to be killed, so instead of harmony, there is fight, pain and conflict. It's children/parents/kids doesn't want it to be eaten either. We attack nature destructively when we kill an animal, and even if we are able to do it using tools (guns) not provided by nature (like ie. claws), we are vegans, and don't think that we are 'meant to' make a weapon just because we can.
It seems that getting enough B12 wouldn't be a problem at all in a natural environment, but IF we would have to create B12 by using tools, cultivating bacteria to get the nutrients we need is still a process that's much more in harmony with nature than trying to catch and kill a bear, deer, moose or fox.
Not only aren't the animals OK with becoming our food, I'm not OK with killing or eating them either, even if I've been trained to eat them. It doesn't feel natural, the thought disturbs me, it doesn't seem that we are meant to do it (yes, I think nature is full of meaning and intentions), and I don't need to.
Not only are we not equipped with the speed and claws etc. that natural meat eaters are, but most people don't like the idea of eating raw meat, so we would need even more tools in to be able to eat and digest it. And re. the evolution thing, even if humans at some early point in evoulution would have been natural meat eaters, there aren't enough wild animals to feed humanity today anyway, which means that the only way to survive on a animal based diet would be mass production of chicken, eggs, meat etc, which even many meat eaters admit that they don't accept.
The choice is not difficult, is it?
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
Good points, Korn. I wanted to add that our bodies make b12 and store it as well. Those who are b12 deficient have absorbtion problems and they can be either omni or vegan.
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
Quote:
StevieP
We're pretty crap runners compared to "real" runners like cheetas, so are we not evolved to run? We're pretty crap swimmers compared to "real" runners like fish, so are we not evolved to swim?
First of all, running and swimming are not intrinsically damaging to your health, unlike the consumption of meat and dairy, which, as mentioned before, has serious consequences, including death. Second, if you want to swim reacreationally, then we are evolved to do that; our bodies and limbs allow us to do so. However, I doubt that you would argue that humans are swimmers, as we cannot live underwater like other swimmers (fish, manatees, etc). Thus, we're clearly not "meant" to be swimmers. You can choose to go against that, and decide that you'll live like a swimmer, but you would obviously die.
Quote:
StevieP
You can not go against evolution. Its not going to come over and say "you can't do that". If you take that line then we are going against evolution by typing, leaving in houses and using toliets.
Yes, you can go against evolution, or, more specifically, the current abilities and mechanisms that your body has evolved. All the heart disease, heart attacks, hypertension, and so on are precisely nature coming and saying "you can't do that"... unfortunately, most people ignore this warning and continue to destroy their bodies.
Quote:
StevieP
Not quiet. Evolution is a mechanism that favours a adaptions that result in increased survival rates. It has no purpose, no aim, no goal.
And since death due to cancer, heart disease, and other health disturbances is the opposite of an "increased survival rate," then evolution does not favor it.
Quote:
StevieP
No, not really, we are far far far more complex than that. Evolution does not drive our actions. We don't sit there and think, oh doing X will increase my chances of propogating my DNA, instead we have evolved things like friendship, love, sexual desire, etc. It is these things that give us the advantages that may increase the chances of our DNA getting passed on. Without such high level systems notions of compassion would be absent from us, and we would never be vegans. As I hinted at before, we are not the victims or the slaves of evolution.
I don't understand your point/argument here...
Quote:
StevieP
Ok, I'm now the meating troll:
troll: Ok, you are saving that an action that causes illness proves that we are not meant to do it? That is your argument? Then how do you explain self sacrfic, why would any one endanger themselves for another.
Self-sacrifice is a whole different story and not a good analogy here. It usually involves religious beliefs and rituals, unlike basic survival needs (eating, sleeping, etc).
Quote:
StevieP
2ndly those who eat moderate amounts of meat have the same life expectancy as VEGANS (see Plant Based Nutrion published by the Vegans Society) AND vegetarian out live vegans. Therefore, we must have evolved to eat dairy and eggs!
Now, you're confusing correlation and causation. You can't argue that eating dairy and eggs causes vegetarians to outlive vegans, because there are other factors that come into play (lifestyle choices, exercise, etc). For instance, if a vegan is either uneducated about proper nutrition or chooses to eat junk food, then a healthy vegetarian who eats healthy food, exercises, and so on, will mostly likely outlive the unhealthy vegan. And that's not even factoring in genetically inherited aspects of health. On the other hand, there is research that clearly shows a causative relationship between eating meat/dairy and various diseases, just like there is a clear causative relationship between smoking and lung cancer.
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
Slow down guys, your getting all excited over this but you don't need to.
What I'm try to do is ensure you are not putting forward arguments that are flawed. If we are to win the veggie debate we must know which arguments we can win and those we can not and those which just make us look like we don't know what we are talking about.
1 To say: humans are better suited to eat plant matter than meat is true.
2 To say: humans can not eat meat is not true. (we see them doing all the time)
3 To say: humans are not evolved to eat meat is not true. (and is the direct implication of the previous statement).
If its not in the nature of a species to do something (say fish and tap-dancing) you don't need to make rules about it. Fish can't tap-dance and therefore you KNOW they have not evolved to do it. If they could tap-dance you would KNOW that they had and it would be stupid to say to them "you shouldn't tap-dance", even if they still weren't as good at it as Fred Astaire. It is simple: if they can do it, they evolved to do it - there is no other way they could have got that ability apart from evolving it. The first animals to evolve eye had crap eye, it does not mean they should not see.
You need to understand the differences between the above statements.
If you argue statement 1 you will win the argument. If you argue statements 2 or 3 you have lost.
The vegan forum is a nice place to be because it does not allow meat eating trolls to probe your veggie beliefs. But in some ways that is a pity because it would help refine your understanding for how to promote veganism in debate.
There are so many good reasons to be vegan that we don't need to put forward false ones.
If your veganism hangs on the belief that we did not evolve to eat meat then your veganism will be dismissed by anyone with the merest passing interest in biology and WE don't want that.
Very briefly:
Quote:
1) Who could be bothered? 2) How many people seriously like the taste of raw meat? Raw milk? Raw eggs? 3) Who wouldn't get sick? 4) Who can digest feathers? 5) Who can outrun a wild animal and bring it down without weapons... even domesticated cats & dogs can! 6) Who slavers at the site of a chicken? Who looks at a cow and envisions themself taking a large bite out of its side, skin and all? 7) Who's teeth could do that? 8) And so on!
This assumes humans do not have brains!
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
Quote:
StevieP
To say: humans are not evolved to eat meat is not true.
Cattle can be kept alive long enough to go to slaughter on carcass and manure, and lots of drugs. Just because they can eat something that does not provide optimal nutrition and survive on it does not mean they are evolved to eat it. Through the use of technology we can obtain flesh for consumption, just as through the use of technology we can force cattle to eat flesh too. But humans are not evolved to eat meat, any more than cattle are. We evolved, we continue to evolve, and some of us eat meat. These two processes are independent of each other.
Quote:
StevieP
This assumes humans do not have brains!
We cannot yet use our brains to change our internal systems into those of carnivores. We have a mistaken idea that carnivores are superior to prey animals, and we want to be like the predator, and not the prey, so we try to imitate them, and go against our biological needs in a misguided effort to appear superior to all other animals. Humans do have brains, but most of us are not using them to their best potential.
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
Boy this is hard work. Two simple statements.
1) Can a species gain an ability (eating meat, flying, jumping etc) other than evolving it?
2) Do humans have the ability to eat meat?
If you answered 1 - No, 2 - yes then humans evolved to be able to eat meat. (STOP: It's a total differerent point whether eating it is a good idea though (like rape and murder) - so don't even start typing that point again - we all agree!!!)
If you answered 1 - yes - then you have made a crucial biological discovery which you must publish and becomes very famous.
If you answered 1 - No, 2 - No. Then you are on a planet where all the humans are vegan and then this conversation has been totally meaningless to you.
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
Just because humans are able to eat meat does not mean that they were meant to eat meat though, right? As Seaside pointed out, cows are forced to eat other cows (by it being added to their feed) and can do so, but they are obviously not "meant" to eat meat being natural herbivores. Besides, humans completely altered the "cow" that is fed back to other cows, making it an unnatural--not even evolved--product. Thus when cows are eating other cows, it would NEVER have happened without man's intervention and material manipulation--they would not have been able to eat the "cow" any other way.
We humans are probably fructivores: our bodies are better able to digest and process fruits, vegetables, nuts, etc than meat, dairy, and eggs. Even fructivores (such as chimpanzees) sometimes eat some "meat"--usually small amounts of insects that might make up 1 ounce of their weekly diet--but if they ate like most Americans eat, they'd end up in the same condition that most Americans are in healthwise because they were not meant to eat like that. I actually read about one study where rabbits were forced to eat carnivorously and ended up with arterial plaques whereas dogs/cats fed the exact same way did not--because they are MEANT to eat carnivorously while rabbits and humans are not. BTW, with your argument, you could also argue that people evolved to smoke tobacco so we were "meant" to do so since we have that "ability."
Oh, and humans (as well as other animals) can LEARN a new ability without a biological evolution according to most social scientists, so it's not an exciting new discovery to say so...that is not to say that the ability to learn did not evolve, but the specific behaviors were learned and not something that had to have a physical/biological evolution to occur. (That is, they can "learn" to drink cow's milk even though that may lead to--because of their biology--lactose intolerance. Some people "evolved" to have the enzyme that digests lactose after many generations.) I guess this goes back to the "nature vs. nurture" argument over whether your behavior is determined by heredity or the environment. The answer (to most but the most diehard biologist or social scientist) is that it is a combination of both that makes us who we are--INCLUDING what we eat. It seems that quite a few of us on this forum believe that humans in their original/natural state were fructivores/vegans, but we went against our inherent nature based on many occurences and perhaps through learning (i.e., seeing natural carnivores take down prey and thinking that seemed like a good idea), leading to some physical changes (i.e., producing more of the enzymes that break down meat).
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
Evolution doesn't "mean" for anything to happen. Humans aren't "meant" to eat vegetables any more than they're "meant" to eat meat. Humans evolved the capacity to eat meat. So did cows, else they would not be able to digest it. Cows did not evolve the ability to eat iron and thus cannot digest it. Eating meat isn't optimal for either man or cow, but evolution isn't concerned with anyone's health.
Evolution produces bad ideas all the time. Those ideas eventually go extinct with no human intervention needed. Evolution produced the dinosaurs.
Man can build airplanes because man evolved the capacity for reason. The capacity for reason is a phenominally powerful natural attribute, but it is a natural attribute none the less.
...and for the record, during a previous phase of my life I have caught edible animals bare handed. Didn't even need my capacity for reason to do it.
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
Quote:
eve
As Kerrie Saunders, PhD, states "The United States is one of the sickest nations on the planet. Most Americans accept degenerate chronic diseases such as diabetes, atherosclerosis, heart disease, osteoporosis, and cancer as part of the normal aging process."
As for those who think it is advantageous to eat vegies without washing them first, you need to watch for the trichostrongylus worm found on vegies that have had manure on them. May as well garnish your salad with faeces direct. There are quite a few people with gut problems from eggs of these worms. ("Pathology" 1995, 27:182-185).
Right, U.S. citizens in general are the sickest relative to rich/industrialized nations, as we have loads of the diseases of affluence: diseases caused by an excessive diet, lack of exercise, and loads of "unnatural" foods (i.e., high fructose corn syrup). However, many poor nations are really "sicker" with diseases of poverty: diseases caused by malnourishment (no way to afford/find food or only a few foods available--like only eating rice all the time), dangerous physical conditions (i.e., living in a "war zone"), and lack of medical care. The diseases of affluence and poverty both IMHO show that humans were meant to eat certain types/combinations of food and not others.
As far as not washing veggies, I totally agree...that's why I said we wouldn't want to go back to the "less hygenic" days even if we could. We can get plenty of B12 in fortified soy milk, fortified cereal, dulce (and some other sea veggies), nutritional yeast, etc. We were just talking about how humans who were naturally vegan used to get their B12. I hope no one took my discussion as encouragement to stop washing veggies:eek:
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
Quote:
StevieP
B1) Can a species gain an ability (eating meat, flying, jumping etc) other than evolving it?
Driving a car, operating a computer, using a cook stove, watching TV, ..........
These are all learned abilities, not products of evolution. Even human speech is a learned ability. We have evolved the capacity for speech, but if we are not taught how to speak before we reach a certain age, we will never be able to speak. This was documented in a severe case of child abuse. The little girl in question was kept locked in a basement for many years, and when she was finally removed, it proved impossible for her to develop the ability to speak with her vocal cords, in spite of her intelligence. There was no physical reason for her inability; she had a voice, and could make sounds, but never real words. She was able to learn to use sign language, but she never became able to speak.
Most wild mammalian predators are not born with the ability to hunt. They must be taught by their mothers or their pack. They have evolved the capacity to hunt, but not the ability. That is taught.
Humans have learned that they are able to consume meat. However, we do not have the biological capacity to thrive on it, and since our bodies manufacture all the cholesterol we need (cholesterol is a vital brain nutrient despite all the bad press it gets) we have not evolved a need for outside sources. Cholesterol is found in animal "foods" only. Since we have not evolved a need for outside sources, we have not evolved an ability to consume "meat". We have learned it instead.
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
Thanks FR! :)
And you too, eclectic_one. I forgot to quote what you said about learning. :o
Quote:
eclectic_one
Oh, and humans (as well as other animals) can LEARN a new ability without a biological evolution according to most social scientists, so it's not an exciting new discovery to say so...
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
Quote:
Seaside
Driving a car, operating a computer, using a cook stove, watching TV, ..........
These are all learned abilities, not products of evolution. Even human speech is a learned ability. We have evolved the capacit
Don't get too excited FR.:)
Ohhhh yes they are!! If they can just be learnt then ANY animal could learn them, but they can't.
The brain evolved general purposes modules for dealing with problems, not specific modules for one off tasks.
To run through a forest and not the hit trees requires a massive amount of processing power associated with understanding of the laws of motion, of 3D processing etc, predictions of grip on different surfaces etc.We have not evolved a modules to run through forests.
These are the skills we use in driving a car, and that's why we find it so easy.
(Learning is also an evolved ability).
We did not evolve the ability to pick up 3 cm * 5cm stones, and then the ability to pick up sticks, and then the ability to pick up 3cm * 7cm stones etc, we evolved the ability to grasp 3D objects in multiple planes.
You're so close with the langauge bit, but you've drawn the wrong conclusion. See below.
There's most probably not much point in pushing this debate any further but let me suggest that just a little more reading on how evolution works will make you an even more passionate veggie than you already are.
Try any book by Richard Dawkins and if you want a good read on the evolution of langague and why that girl could not learn to speak check out "Stephen Pinker" specifically the "Language Instinct". Until that point I would recommend not promoting vegginess by evolution unless you start from.
"Humans have evolved not to require meat in their diet" - that one is true!!