-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
If you've not noticed from another thread, my mate James Gold is on VeggieVisions talking on this very subject:
http://www.veggievision.co.uk/james_gold_part1.htm
(I would pick him on his "designed" argument stuff but he's bigger than me!)
Anyway, check him out, he's very good at his stuff and a very nice man.
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
Eating meat/dairy/egg is one of the specific "tasks" we did not evolve to do. Finding nutrients is necessary, but some people probably LEARNED (either by necessity in not having access to non-animal food sources due to drought or the like or by seeing other animals eat animal-based food sources) to eat animal products, it was not inherent in our nature to do so. As others have pointed out, our bodies do not "run" well on an animal-based diet, showing that it is not MEANT to metabolize such foods. [The study I already mentioned where herbivores produce arterial plaques on an omnivorous diet but carnivores and omnivores cannot is an obvious example.] I already admitted that we evolved to learn, but the specific behaviors--like deciding to eat flesh--are learned and not directly a result of some physical evolution. For example, there are cultures that are cannibals, but other cultures find that a taboo--like most Western cultures. They learned to eat people and have their reasons why they consider it OK, while other cultures find the behavior completely disgusting and barbaric. So which of these behaviors--cannibalism vs anti-cannibalism--are we "meant" to do? And yes, many consider language aquisition an instinct, but again the specific--which language(s)--is a learned behavior. Some people are multi-lingual and others have a hard time with one language. There also seems to be (as Seaside pointed out) a cut-off point beyond which a person will never be fluent in a human language if they have never learned one. Besides, there are other animals who can learn human language--such as some great apes and parrots--up to a point. Animals have also been taught behaviors that they would never have done in the "natural" world such as dancing, whistling the Andy Griffith show theme song, etc. And yes, there are human beings who are quite adept at running through forests because they learned to do so due to their environment.
An example outside human biology might be a good analogy...My mom used to have a 1974 VW Bug, which ran on REGULAR gasoline. After a while, you couldn't find regular gasoline--only unleaded. So my father added a special additive that somehow combined with the unleaded to allow the Bug to run on it. Does that mean that the Bug was MEANT to run on this additive+unleaded gasoline? No, it means that it could run on it and someone invented a way to do so, but the Bug was meant to run on regular gasoline and really never ran completely "right" on this created mixture.
Obviously I personally do not believe that biology is the complete "master" over our behaviors because the environment (through reinforcement and punishment, observation, etc) can alter our behaviors even if we are not biologically meant to do something. For example, some animals who chew their fur into bald spots without any physical problem underlying the behavior or people who have PTSD due to an extreme physical trauma. Biology is not destiny...for better or worse, sometimes we ignore what we should and are meant to do (biologically). Yes, there are biologists (and those who almost "worship" biology) who will claim that everything is biology, but thankfully there are many more scientists--in the "hard" and "soft" sciences--who realize that the whole is more than the sum of its parts: nature and nurture are intertwined in our behaviors and lives. (Some even discuss how the mind is an emergent property.)
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
Ok. just one more.
Quote:
eclectic_one
Eating meat/dairy/egg is one of the specific "tasks" we did not evolve to do.
There are NO high level specific task - see above.
Quote:
Finding nutrients is necessary, but some people probably LEARNED (either by necessity in not having access to non-animal food sources due to drought or the like or by seeing other animals eat animal-based food sources) to eat animal products, it was not inherent in our nature to do so.
Do you imagine our ancestors going around trying different foods and saying to themselves - oh I'm not suppose to eat that, ahh this ones on the list, I'll eat that instead.
No, either through mistake or curiously they tried EVERY thing. The poisions killed them. Those who evolved to detect the poisions through taste and smell won out. Those who tried meat and had the enzymes to digest them (however badly) would have had some small advantage over those who could not make use of this extra food when their normal food was scare (and it goes for all food matter not just meat - one of the mistakes that's repeatedly being made here is you're treating meat as some special case and its not - step out of the vegan box.).
You need also to remember that when meat becomes a problem it is only be reducing life expectany. We don't die at the ripe old age of 25 because of meat eating. If meat eating does not have a negative effect on our reproduction rates then eating meat is no issue for evolution.
Quote:
As others have pointed out, our bodies do not "run" well on an animal-based diet,
They do "better" not eating meat, but that's irrelevent here.
Quote:
showing that it is not MEANT to metabolize such foods.
Open your dictionary - meant.
Quote:
The study I already mentioned where herbivores produce arterial plaques on an omnivorous diet but carnivores and omnivores cannot is an obvious example.
Makes no difference to reproduction rates - irrelevent.
Quote:
I already admitted that we evolved to learn, but the specific behaviors--like deciding to eat flesh--are learned and not directly a result of some physical evolution.
Bees never ever ever ever ever ever learn to eat fish - I wonder why they can't?
Humas never ever ever ever ever ever learn to eat grass - I wonder why?
Quote:
For example, there are cultures ....
Stop right there ... cultures!!
Quote:
An example outside human biology might be a good analogy...My mom used to have a 1974 VW Bug,
No its a very bad analogy because the VW WAS designed and we evolved. You must understand the difference by now!:(
Quote:
Obviously I personally do not believe that biology is the complete "master" over our behaviors because the environment (through reinforcement and punishment, observation, etc) can alter our behaviors even if we are not biologically meant
meant meant meant meant
Quote:
Biology is not destiny...for better or worse, sometimes we ignore what we should and are meant to do (biologically).
meant meant meant meant
Quote:
(Some even discuss how the mind is an emergent property.)
Yes, they are the SAME thing. Evolution is meaningless without an evironment and the brain is such a wonderful device that it need to be programmed by the enviroment to do all the great things it does.
My answers may have seemed a bit curt but I feel you have yet still to appricate how evolution works and it is because of this you feel what I am saying is an attack on your justification for veganism - its not and when you understand why it is not you will be stronger when confronted by anti-vegan arguments.
Evolution:
It has no goals so you can not use words that imply design, authority, judgment, morality etc when speaking of it.
It does not progress or regress.
No species is any more evolved than any other.
Evolution only makes a difference if a trait effects reproduction rates (strokes and heart attack in old age make no difference)
Evolution does not give capability to solve one specific problem, it only gives "tools" to solve those problems.
So, if you can put forward an argument that does not break any of the above then your home and dry, but if it does your arguement will be dismissed by those who do understand evolution and one more potential veggie is lost to us.
-
Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution
First off, I have never tried to "convert" someone to veganism using the evolution argument and don't really foresee a situation where I ever will. Largely because as I have already stated, I do not believe that evolution completely determines human behavior. I realize that human behavior is MUCH too complex to be explained through reductionistic biological theories.
As far as the VW analogy (definition of analogy: Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar--Yahoo education), I do understand the difference between design and evolution, didn't you notice that I said that I was NOT referring to human biology/evolution, but rather showing that just because something can work--whether evolved or designed--does not mean that it was originally meant to work that way. The human mind is amazing and that was my point, we can in some ways "design"--there is a mind-body connection that even neuroscientists don't fully comprehend--ourselves to behave in certain ways even if it is not a biologically evolved/helpful trait to do so. And CULTURE is important in showing how evolution is not the be-all-end-all of human behavior. Cultural differences show how people can do things that do not necessarily make biological sense such as some cultures killing off infant girls when that will eventually lead to a vast imbalance of the sexes, which does greatly affect the ability to have future children. Many even discuss how humans use culture as a "replacement" for the myriad instincts that many animals have (yes, there is argument about humans having instincts and as I already pointed out many believe that language aquisition is an instinct)...since we do not naturally know as babies to avoid a hungry tiger, we have to have a culture to teach us how to keep our babies out of the tiger's way. Someone can also have biological parents who were intelligent, caring, and loving, but end up adopted and raised by ignorant, uncaring, hateful people and end up LEARNING to be totally different than that person's biological makeup. Just because some animals do not do every behavior that humans have chosen to does not disprove the point that humans can learn to do things that they were not meant to do. BTW, I just read an article on how in some parts of Asia, Afghanistan, and Africa people ARE eating grass as they have no choice with no other food available, so yes, humans do apparently learn to eat grass when necessary.
The definition of mean: To have as a consequence; bring about (Yahoo education). Does evolution have consequences? YES. Since "In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments, there are consequences (Robert Green Ingersoll)," I still think that saying mean/meant is quite applicable...so human beings have as a negative consequence of not staying true to their fructivore nature problems such as lower fertility (less sperm production, testicular cancer--even at younger ages, endometriosis, etc) which DOES have an impact on reproduction. And yes, eating meat/eggs/milk can have an impact on "youthful" people if you die of food poisoning or diseases such as asthma, which are largely animal-based food problems. [I know it is not completely due to meat/eggs/dairy, but the vast majority of deadly food poisoning instances do involve meat.]
On top of all that, I personally think debate/disagreement is healthy on any topic, as I enjoy true debate with open-minded people, even if they don't agree with me. However, to make character attacks on someone who doesn't agree with you by implying that they are somehow inferior (by being condescending--i.e., "you must know the difference by now" and repeatedly saying "meant meant meant") or nit-picking only points you have arguments against (i.e., "stop right there...culture!," ignoring PTSD, and constantly picking on the definition of one word--when most words have myriad definitions and one might fit or not, etc.) tends to water down any argument by showing that there is no cool-headed objectivity or openness to the possibility that those you disagree with might have some valid points. This is a topic, whether believed or not, that there is NOT complete agreement on even within the scientific community. Besides, I really think being condescending would be more likely to scare away future vegans--or anyone that you're trying to convince of anything--than seeming to not be an evolutionary expert.
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
Quote:
DancingWillow
I know evolutionary changes take a very looooong time, but given that there are no signs of meat-eating stopping any time soon (despite more and more people converting to veganism), is it possible that it will continue long enough to cause such changes?
I believe there is truth to the phrase "you are what you eat". If you look at children raised on a vegan diet and children on a meat eating diet they do develop at different rates. I feel that heavy meat eaters are prone to aggression (don't know if that is scientific or not but that's my observation). I remember once wondering how many violent criminals are vegan :confused: I wonder if there is a medical correlation to meat eating and violent behavior. Anybody know?
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
I've started doing my own reading about this after this discussion--like I said, I like learning new things:) and I agree that having more supporting evidence is a good idea--and found this site (both links from the same site) that discusses how culture is more "to blame" in humans meat-eating:
http://www.ecologos.org/fft.htm
http://www.ecologos.org/meat-eating.htm
{Peta also had some mention of human evolution, but their explanations were very brief and simplistic IMHO.}
I also found this about how meat/dairy/eggs influence reproduction (has links to many articles on the subject):
http://www.pcrm.org/search/?query_string=infertility
I personally think that one reason people eating meat can continue on to ages old enough to reproduce is because human beings designed ways to do so (i.e., taking tons of medications or having surgeries that we invented to stave off the natural consequences of our unnatural behaviors).
Also, if the word "meant" bothers some so much, how about this...since if you focus on the context of my argument and not the minutiae (such as semantics) it is obvious that equipped is just as apt, just substitute "equipped" for every time I said meant. So evolution equipped our human bodies to be fructivores, as displayed by the many traits that others have mentioned (long intestines, no claws, etc). However, we were also equipped to learn and create, leading to tools (i.e., forks and knives, medicines, guns) and processes (surgery, cooking, pickling, etc) and even the creation of culture to override the natural state of our bodies. So we cooked meat to kill bacteria that carnivores have natural defenses against, take medicines to overcome the problems that animal product consumption causes, sometimes even have surgeries to overcome those problems.
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
Quote:
UrbanVegan
I believe there is truth to the phrase "you are what you eat". If you look at children raised on a vegan diet and children on a meat eating diet they do develop at different rates. I feel that heavy meat eaters are prone to aggression (don't know if that is scientific or not but that's my observation). I remember once wondering how many violent criminals are vegan :confused: I wonder if there is a medical correlation to meat eating and violent behavior. Anybody know?
I'm sorry I can't recall the source (I'll try to find out), but I have read that aggressiveness is more common in non-vegans. I think one of the sources was the book Plant Roots by Bowlby...a book I'd recommend to anyone. I know I've read in many sources that more animal products lead to higher levels of estrogen/testosterone, which would lead to more of some types of behaviors and actually in some cases infertility.
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
Quote:
eclectic_one
I know I've read in many sources that more animal products lead to higher levels of estrogen/testosterone, which would lead to more of some types of behaviors and actually in some cases infertility.
Which is why teens with meat diets develop their sex drive earlier than those who do not eat meat.. well based on a study I read. I remember reading once that vegetarian and vegan teens become sexually active later than those who eat meat. I also read this is why female children "develop" so early and why their menstrual cycle begins before vegetarian and vegan girls. I really do believe that meat in a child's and teen's diet does impact their development.
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
Yes, quite a bit of research does seem to indicate that animal products, especially meat and dairy, has a big impact on hormones and the human body.
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution
Sorry for the long delay in replying but we've just had National Vegetarian Week and World Enviroment Day back to back in the UK and I've been running five events over that time and so the joys of debate (regardless of how condescending :-)) have had to be placed on the back burner.
BTW others - unless you have time to kill just skip to the end of the post.
Quote:
eclectic_one
First off, I have never tried to "convert" someone to veganism using the evolution argument and don't really foresee a situation where I ever will. Largely because as I have already stated, I do not believe that evolution completely determines human behavior. I realize that human behavior is MUCH too complex to be explained through reductionistic biological theories.
As soon as you talk about a species (humans) and "not meant to" you are putting forward either an evolutionary argument or a god one, and I refer the reader to the thread title.
Quote:
As far as the VW analogy (definition of analogy: Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar--Yahoo education), I do understand the difference between design and evolution, didn't you notice that I said that I was NOT referring to human biology/evolution, but rather showing that just because something can work--whether evolved or designed--does not mean that it was originally meant to work that way.
"but rather showing that just because something can work--whether evolved or designed"
But the big different is "meant" is totally applicable to something that was "designed", e.g. the VW, but totally unapplicable to something that evolved - so the analogy is merely an attempt to show that "evolution" and "design" are the same thing. I know you say that you understand the difference but your analogy shows the opposite.
Quote:
The human mind is amazing and that was my point, we can in some ways "design"--there is a mind-body connection that even neuroscientists don't fully comprehend--ourselves to behave in certain ways even if it is not a biologically evolved/helpful trait to do so. .... the point that humans can learn to do things that they were not meant to do.
Here you are again slipping into the mind set of believing evolution has given us a module in our head that says "if you do A you will pass on your genes and if you do B you will not" - a kin to the idea that there is a "you eat meat" module in a carnival and a "you do not eat meat" in a herbivoure.
What really happens is that there are lots of general purpose modules that come together to give solutions that are generally benifital in passing on genes. Evolution does not come along and say "oi you, humans! I didn't give you hands to type on keyboards I gave them to you to hold flints! - stop it!", no it just made us dextrous.
Our great social skills are just another evolved skills which us humans can use as we please and if a species (not a culture) does something silly with those general skills for long enough it will lose them or go
extinct.
If you move away from the emotional subjects like veganism, cannablism and killing babies when thinking about evolution, and replace them with unemotional things like running, flying, swimming you will more readily see the mistakes in your reasoning.
Quote:
BTW, I just read an article on how in some parts of Asia, Afghanistan, and Africa people ARE eating grass as they have no choice with no other food available, so yes, humans do apparently learn to eat grass when necessary.
No, they have not learnt to eat grass, they are merely starving and unless they can gain access to food they can properly digest they will die. I hope they are not reading your post.:(
Quote:
The definition of mean: To have as a consequence; bring about (Yahoo education).
Ok, let us play with this one.
The orginal premise:
"Humans are not meant to eat meat".
Let throw your new word into it, (and we have to completely rearrange the sentence to do it):
"There are consequences for humans if they eat meat."
Well that does not get us very far. If we take the standard meaning of "consequences" it just means "if one thing happens it will cause something else to happen" - cause and effect.
So let drop that into the sentence:
"if humans eat meat something will happen."
Again, we have not got very far as it fails to tell us anything about what will happen. So if we had:
"if humans eat apples something will happen" it would be an equivent statement to the meat one.
So the only conclusion we can come to is you wany to use the word in a slight diffence sense by putting an implied "bad" in front of it as in:
"If you break the law you will suffer the consequences!"
(This arguing technique is called equivocation. You start an argument by using one meaning of the word and then try to end the argument by slyly using a different meaning, but no worries as it is normally an accident caused by the looseness of language.)
So using this more emotive definition of the word we get:
"if humans eat meat something bad will happen."
And if they do eat enough of the stuff, bad things will surely happen and no one is in disagreement with that statement.
So, does that sound like agreement to you? Well, if you go back to my second post you will read:
"... eating meat is not optimumal for human health ... ".
It is just a more succinct way of saying if humans eat meat something bad will happen [to their health].
But why would you use the such an obscure meaning of the word meant when you really just want to say it was unhealthly? I put it to you that your adoption of the word consequences is just case of weasel words?
Quote:
Does evolution have consequences? YES. Since "In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments, there are consequences (Robert Green Ingersoll),"
By this he means that there are no moral judgements, things just happen that way, there is no "meant" about it - go back to my very first post.
Quote:
I still think that saying mean/meant is quite applicable...so human beings have as a consequence of not staying true to their fructivore nature problems such as lower fertility (less sperm production, testicular cancer--even at younger ages, endometriosis, etc) which DOES have an impact on reproduction. And yes, eating meat/eggs/milk can have an impact on "youthful" people if you die of food poisoning or diseases such as asthma, which are largely animal-based food problems. [I know it is not completely due to meat/eggs/dairy, but the vast majority of deadly food poisoning instances do involve meat.]
It has to be a signficant impact. Just taking on of your examples (but I can do the same with the others if you need it), ... about 500 people a year die from food poisioning in the UK, that's slightly less than the number that get murdered and we are not now going to start arguing that we not evolved to be able to kill each other. Dying from food poisioning is no fun but it not important as a evolutionary pressure humans (not in the West anyway.)
Quote:
On top of all that, I personally think debate/disagreement is healthy on any topic, as I enjoy true debate with open-minded people, even if they don't agree with me. However, to make character attacks on someone who doesn't agree with you by implying that they are somehow inferior (by being condescending--i.e., "you must know the difference by now" and repeatedly saying "meant meant meant") or nit-picking only points you have arguments against (i.e., "stop right there...culture!" and ignoring PTSD, etc.) tends to water down any argument by showing that there is no cool-headed objectivity or openness to the possibility that those you disagree with might have some valid points.
Sorry if my "short hand" upsets you, but it becomes tiresume to explain the same points multiple times.
"nit-picking" - very unvegan habit even nits have a right to live their lives in freedom. Which good points have I missed? I will address them.
I'm sure on different subjects or in different arenas you would humble me with you superiority and I'm sure if Richard Dawkins butted into the thread he would be very quick to pull me up where I have erred. I apologize for my style.
Quote:
to the possibility that those you disagree with might have some valid points
But what if there are none? I'm not being nasty, but what should one do in such a situation? I could put "we great respect ...." before every comment if that would help, but we all know what that cliche means.
And how do you think I go to the point of abandoning this "meant to eat meat" argument, only by listening to those who are not vegans! da-Darh!
"meant meant meant" - try forming your argument without using that word - it is the whole crux of the argument and if you can not say what you mean by not using it then you have yet to understand what you are trying to say.
"stop right there...culture!" - Cultural traits verses evolution are explained in great detail in my very first post.
Quote:
I really think being condescending would be more likely to scare away future vegans than seeming to not be an evolutionary expert.
I do get upset when false arguments are used to prove veganism and it makes the job of campaigning vegans more difficult if they have to spend their time proping up myths. The need for reliable B12 sources in the vegan diet was fiercely resisted (and still is somewhat) by some parts of the vegan community but by getting the science and language right and facing up to reality this has only be a positive thing for all vegans. We also need to remove false argument so we only put forward arguments that we can win for the good of veganism.
If a few vegans or even future vegans go away from this thread understanding that the "we are evolved/designed/meant to eat meat" argument is either illogical or at best irrelevant then the excerise has been very worth while indeed and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to exercise the points so well. ;)
(Ok that very last bit was a wee bit condescending but it was designed to be fun, and I'm sticking out my check for a well deserved slap!).
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
First I feel I have to respond to your characterization of me as somehow uncaring because I mentioned the people eating grass in some areas. I'm not sure why you characterized me in such a way from the comment, suggesting that I thought people enjoyed or deserved it...my very point was the complete opposite of that: that people will do what is necessary even if it is not "meant" to biologically occur--they have no choice as there are no food sources available, so they have started trying to eat grass, in complete opposition to YOUR previous statement that people have never tried to "eat grass." That is, since you implied that humans have not evolved to eat grass (by relating the bees eating fish example just before your statement) and further said they would not do something they were unable to--as you said only evolution makes you "able," they would not try. Since they are eating grass, that shows that they LEARNED to--which you said they hadn't...you even made the connection that the idea of humans eating grass is as ridiculous as bees eating fish. But bees operate more on instinct than humans, which was my point entirely! Regardless, I do understand and sympathize with these people who have no choice and personally give to many charities which are helping. My ignored point in that discussion is that many anthropologists believe that is why humans turned to meat--being unable to find suitable vegetable matter in some areas and climates--and that people will LEARN to do things even if they make no biological sense. I am only responding to your last response on this thread because I found it offensive that you would impune my character in such a way.
Also, as you just mentioned that food poisoning doesn't kill many (though if you looked worldwide, I'd disagree), there are two ailments that probably do that are linked to meat consumption: flu viruses and HIV/AIDs. With the current concern about the bird flu, I read up on flu viruses in general and most (if not all) come from Asian bird populations. The way they first enter human populations is through the slaughter/consumption of sick birds. Once there, they mutate into (often) airborne viruses, but the original start of the ailment is meat. Also with HIV/AIDs...many researchers into the origin of the virus believe and have fairly decent proof that it started with the slaughter/consumption of monkey meat. Though again there was mutation, if humans had not originally gone against their nature and slaughtered/consumed meat, flu pandemics and even the AIDs epidemic may not have happened. Surely you can't argue that the flu (in its many forms over hundreds of years) and HIV/AIDs have not killed millions--many of which were under the age of ability to reproduce!
Finally, I have found your arguments as persuasive as you have apparently found mine (and the MANY others who have disagreed with you). Your continued display of condescending and judgemental comments (such as your mischaracterization of my comment about people eating grass) is far from convincing for your "side" and mainly seems meant to be argumentative. With that in mind, I see no reason to continue this discussion just to "argue" for the sake of argument--apparently some others caught on more quickly:rolleyes:
-
Re: Vegans, Omni's, and Evolution...
Quote:
eclectic_one
to YOUR previous statement that people have never tried to "eat grass."
Quote:
StevieP
Humas never ever ever ever ever ever learn to eat grass - I wonder why?
-
More on Evolution
I was reading some of the old threads on evolution on the human diet and a majority of the posts began with the ad hoc assumption that meat eating is relatively modern.
I would caution my fellow vegans about tossing around this assumption when in debate. You can find justifications and evidence for just about anything, and a lot of it sounds fairly plausible. I've, for instance, read a lot about raw food diets and a lot of the arguments sound like they hold water, but if you dig deeper you notice there isn't a tremendous amount of science behind it. It is logic from the hip, so to speak.
Anyway, I recently came across this long article that addresses many questions and issues regarding humankind's prehistoric diet. I found it quite thorough, and a lot better researched than anything I've read that was strictly pro-vegan.
A basic summary is that the author researched a lot of paleontological journal articles and within the scientific community there is little debate that a) humans ate meat and b) have been doing it for quite some time. He then talks about how much meat, as he is interested in finding a diet based primarily on what we evolved on. He suggests that meat comprised about 30% of the prehistoric diet. Later he talks about cooked food, since his other goal is to discount complete raw-food diets, namely the Hygienist diet. He talks about probable dates humans began to use fire as a means to cook food. This all leads up to a discussion on how we've probably been eating cooked food for long enough to actually evolve to properly digest it (especially meat and yams). The final part is all about idealism and doesn't talk much about diet or science and what not.
I found the section on lactose tolerance quite fascinating, more because the suggested rate that humanity would gain widespread tolerance.
I think it is pretty clear that cultures that consume meat as the primary item in their diet are in general less healthy, but you read on these forums (and hear from vegan friends) the suggestion that eating any meat is strictly unhealthy. From the looks of this, and at least according to the author of the article, this is just idealistic, myopic hogwash. Armchair philosophy, he calls it.
Maybe your opinions will differ, but I found the article very compelling (if mostly becaused it did address in a very good manner all of the evidence I have stored in my brain about how veganism and vegetarianism are somehow natural diets). Of course my main field of study is mathematics, not paleontology or nutrition and so I have every reason to be compelled. If anything though, I am prompted to find the same research articles the author did and dissect the information myself.
Cheers.
-
Re: More on Evolution
Quote:
I found it quite thorough, and a lot better researched than anything I've read that was strictly pro-vegan.
Beyondveg is anti-vegan site. There's nothing 'beyond' about it at all. A lot of what is written there seem to be based around a person who lived on raw food for a while without knowing much about nutrition, and (of course) ended up totally out of balance.
Like most other stuff I've seen from them, this article seems like a fanatic attempt of trying to convince people that they shouldn't eat vegan, "because people have been eating animals for thousands (or ten thousands, millions or whatever) of years".
There have been cultures that have not been eating meat for thousands of years too. Secondly, if something have been happening for a long time, it's still wrong if it's wrong. Women have been raped for ages, men have killed each other, the life expectancy was a lot shorter back then due to a number of reasons... and so on. Do we want to eat and do what they did just because they did it? And - did they? Did they all?
beyondveg work very hard to promote "viewpoints" a la "evidence shows humans have always been omnivores"... but - when did 'always' start? Is it OK to be a vegetarian today if there were vegetarians 1000 years ago? Or isn't the last 1000 years part of 'always'? What about 5000 years ago? 10,000 years?
The idea that we should *** **** because "humans always *** ****", is not only unintelligent, it is a dangerous way of looking at life.
When humans develop as a species, there will be changes - in our bodies, in our digestive systems, in life expectancy, in how we look and in our diets. That change need to be initiated by someone. If humans did not eat meat, say, 10,000 years ago and some tribes started to eat a meat-less diet 5000 years ago, current vegetarians and vegans aren't even part of the beginning of the process away from a meat based diet. And even if we would have been the real pioneers - why bother? Shouldn't we be proud?
Human evolution is said to start with Australopithecus Afarensis (3-4 million years ago) - and they were herbivores. If science and Google had existed 1-2 million years ago, when Homo Habilis apparently started to include meat in their diet, do you think they would have gone 'Wait, Australopithecus Afarensis didn't eat meat 2 million years ago, so we shouldn't do it either? :) Do you think the admin at beyondveg eats insects and poo because primates that were part of the human evolution had this things on their menu? :) Or, if research showed that it was common among early 'versions' of humans to hunt and eat each other, would he do the same?
-
Re: More on Evolution
I really don't care if humans were "designed" to eat animals or not. We have a choice whether to do this or not and I choose not!
Edit...I hope that didn't sound rude. It was not meant to.
-
Re: More on Evolution
All my bodily functions appear to be functioning properly on a pure vegan diet, especially digestion. I certainly feel better than I did as an omnivore. I think I can guage my health by that better than any article.
-
Re: More on Evolution
Surely early humans were eating meat from animals that were free ranging anyway. Since by definition these were hunter gatherers and so before the domestication of animals. These animals would have been very different physiologically from the intensively farmed animals that are bred for meat today and so the nutrients from them would also be different. I don't see this as much of a reason for eating meat really.
I also agree with Red, I don't choose not to eat meat because I believe it to be natural or not, I have a choice to do less harm and still get all the nutrients I need. Why would I choose to do more harm?
-
Re: Are we designed or 'meant' to eat meat?
This seems like a good place to ask this...
What do you think of the idea of meat-eating being essential to human evaluation?
This isn't a full article
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/relea...-14-1999a.html
Even if it is so, should it matter? it's like if they showed that a propensity to killl other people helped us survive, that wouldn't mean we should go around killing eachother and it'd be ok, since that's what we used to do. Also, they say it doesn't reflect on vegitarian diets today with our knowledge of nutrition... but I feel it can be used as an arguement to the whole "meat is natural" thing. I was shown this and didn't know how to respond except to say that the person had to look damn hard to find it and if this was proven and excepted the information should have been more easily available. I dont' see any evidence either. Just meat lobby propaganda?
-
Re: Was meat-eating essential for human evolution?
There seems to be controversy about this. Some people see shellfish eating (rather than or as well as meat eating) as having played an important part in the lives of early humans or proto-humans, who tended to hang out along shorelines at times in their evolution. People point to the chemistry of the brain to support the idea, as well as some archaeological finds e.g. http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...own-seafood-di
Personally (as I'm sure I probably said further up the thread) I'm most convinced by the view that humans have done well in evolutionary terms because they can feed opportunistically on a lot of different foods and adapt to what's available at a given time. Species that can only feed on a narrow range of foods are likely to have suffered more when conditions changed and foods became unavailable.
To me, veganism is another example of our adaptability :)
-
Re: Was meat-eating essential for human evolution?
This is my view:
Human intellect developed from our social environment. Human brains are wired mostly on how to figure out who in the group is trust worthy, when someone is lying, remembering people's stories, etc. The idea is that the modern intellect developed not due to what we ate, or where we lived, but rather, the social environment of other humans itself.
Afterall, the brain itself isn't made of protein. It is mostly FAT.
In fact, we can see parts of this in other intelligent animals. The "smartest" are social animals, regardless of what food they eat.
Intelligent Birds are all social: Crows, and parrots. One eats carrion, the other eats nuts. Both are social.
Intelligent Cecapods: Dolphins, Orca. Both eat fish, but most of all, both are highly social.
Intelligent large mammals: Elephants. Primary herbivores and social animal. Notice how large carnivores aren't as intelligent as elephants.
non-human Primates are very intelligent, and the most intelligent, Bonobos, Chimpanzees, and Gorillas, eat mostly herbivorious diets.
Not all social animals are intelligent in the manner. Bees are a good example. However, these large social animals use "culture", and their social groupings quite differently than social animals without as much "culture".
Thus, I think that it is the social culture that is unique to "intelligent" animals. Thus it is our relationship to each other, and the symbols that we live with, that created an environment where the human species adapted to larger and more complex brains.
It wasn't our diets. It wasn't where we lived. It wasn't our hunting or gathering. It was our nascent social culture that required our brain, and our brain required that social culture. They are one and the same.
My rather un-expert view of human evolution has yet to be fully challenged even by my friends who have doctorates in anthropology. It seems that my ideas aren't new, but rather that some prominent anthropologists have the same idea (but much more refined and with direct evidence rather than the anecdotes I've posted). It is one of the competing ideas of how humans evolved.
I'd say, to me it is the most compelling.
....
That said, I think it matters very little in the end, since right now, I am free to choose to eat what I want and I can thrive.
-
Re: Was meat-eating essential for human evolution?
There is yet another theory that not meat but cooking - in particular, cooking tubers - sparked a crucial turning point in human evolution.
-
Re: Was meat-eating essential for human evolution?
Early humans did lots of things we don't (and shouldn't) carry on today...like, for example, mating with their own children/siblings, sleeping in their own waste, etc.
-
Re: Was meat-eating essential for human evolution?
To add a bit to the discussion I thought i'd link a post from PaleoVeganology, a blog I follow of a vegan anthropology student.
In this article he takes down the common hypothesis in favor of "meat made us smart". He also links us to a paper in nature which refutes the "expensive tissue hypothesis". Both are well written and fascinating.
http://paleovegan.blogspot.com/2011/...ve-tissue.html
Unfortunately you need a subscription to view the nature article
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture10629.html
I would definitely recommend the blog though, everything on there is interesting and intellectually rigorous, not to mention quite unbiased.