Re: Vegan/non-vegan: Does 'natural' matter?
Good point about the parakeets.
I think many cows in the US eat at least some meat (no longer other cows... but still chickens and pigs). What do we call them? Herbivores eating an omnivorous diet? Omnivores (if the definition is based solely on what animal eats)? They probably couldn't live on a diet that was all meat or even mostly meat or half meat or whatever... but they can live with a bit of meat.
I wonder how many herbivorous animals can and do eat meat--even small amounts--when the going gets tough?
Re: Vegan/non-vegan: Does 'natural' matter?
We discuss a number of things simultaneously in this (and similar) threads, which obviously may cause confusion and misunderstanding... :)
Since Klytemnest has taken the dirty job of representing the typical meat eater viewpoints in this discussion, I'll use some of his posts as a basis for some questions that meat eaters who read this thread may think of, and later post this as a separate questionnaire aimed towards non-vegans.
The questions aren't really interesting for people who don't think we are 'natural omnivores' or who aren't interested in whter something is natural or not.
There seem to be (at least) 14 different arguments claiming that humans are 'natural omnivores'. This include...
1) Normality.
A diet or activity is natural for humans if it's common, or "normal", or at least is/has been 'normal' for that person. A typical meat eater may claim that it's "natural" for humans to eat meat because he did it most of his life.
Comment: Normal and natural are two entirely different things. Ignorance is common, pollution is normal, killing animals are normal in our culture, and in the past not allowing women to vote was normal. This doesn't mean that humans are natural thieves even if stealing is quite common.
Question 1: If you were white and living in Africa, would you consider your skin color unnatural, or just uncommon?
Question 2: If being white is only to be considered unnormal, but not unnatural, why is eating animal products natural, and not only normal (in your area)?
Question 3: Would you consider meat eating unnatural if you lived in a vegetarian Hinduist village (where eating meat is uncommon or disallowed)?
Question 4: If you rather think that eating meat simply isn't common in that area, why should we claim that humans are 'natural omnivores' instead of just say that eating meat is 'normal'?
2) Historic.
A diet or activity is natural for us today because it has been commonly eaten for a long time, or because it was 'natural' for us a certain amount of years ago (eg. a limited, albeit long period, in some/many geographical areas..).
Comment: 'Commonly eaten' again has to do with normal, and not natural, and looking back in history, it's commonly thought that our early ancestors were plant eaters. Looking back at recent history (a few thousand years; the part we know the most about), we know that what's common in one culture/area, isn't in another. Lots of Buddhists/Hinduists/Jains and others have been against meat eating for a very long time, and to look at only some geographical areas, or some parts of history doesn't tell us what's to be considered 'natural' for all humans today.
Question 5: Rape, murder, cannibalism, suppressing women or living for only max. 30-40 years has all been part of our ancestors history. Do you think we should copy the past, or at least use it as a reference for what we should consider 'natural' for humans today?
Question 5: Do you consider humans 'natural rapers', or consider men 'natural suppressors of women' or 'natural short-lived beings' - based on historic info about our past?
Question 6: Why should we consider what some of our ancestors ate in some of our ancestors' past a refrence for what's 'natural' for humans today?
Question 7: Do you think we should look what our ancestors ate (grasshoppers, larvae, earthworms...) and use that as a reference for what is natural for us today?
Question 8: If not, do you still think that it's 'natural' for humans to use eg. meat and milk 'because (some of) our ancestors did it?
Question 8b:
Do you suggest that we are 'natural meat/milk eaters' but not 'natural larvae/earthworm eaters'? Our ancestors ate both...
3) Capable ("Level 1").
A diet, certain foodstuff or an activity may by some be considered natural for us just because "we are capable of eating it" or "we are capable of doing it" - even if we know it's not good for us.
In extreme cases, people may even claim that we should just eat meat and not feel bad about it, and 'obey nature', simply because we are capable of eating meat without being immediately killed.
Comment: Based on all the stuff we 'may' eat, and if we should use 'capable' as a reference for what may 'digest' (without taking into consideration if it's good for us or not), we would all be 'natural mud eaters', 'natural junk food eaters', 'natural pizza eaters' etc. For me, claiming that something is 'natural' for us only because we may do it (eat it) makes no sense.
Question 9: Humans are capable of dancing foxtrot (with no known unwanted side effects). Do you suggest that humans are 'natural foxtrot dancers'? Or would 'we may or may not dance foxtrot' be more accurate?
Question 10: Does it make sense to you to look at stuff "we can digest" (vague term, I know) and use that as a reference for terms like 'natural ******** eaters', terms normally used to describe what would be considered a good diet for humans ?
Question 11: If you do not see 'capable of' as a relevant criterion for what's to be considered natural for us, why should we consider humans 'natural omnivores' or 'natural animal product eaters'?
4) Perfectly capable ("Level 2")
Some will say that whether something only is 'eatable' or 'possible' isn't enough to consider it natural, and that we must be perfectly capable of eg. eating meat and thriving on a meat including diet if it should be considered natural for us. The opposite view of this would be to claim that meat is not good for us, which I'm pretty sure most people would agree that would be a good example of how we are not 'perfectly' capable to thrive on an omnivorous diet (that includes meat).
Comment: "Perfectly capable" and "thrive" has a lot do with what's good for our health, and how we perform. If something makes us sick, causes digestive problems, allergies, intestinal bacterial overgrowth etc, or even contributes to cancer, heart disease, diabetes or worsen medical conditions like arthritis, I wouldn't say that we are 'perfectly' capable of thriving on that diet as a species.
Question 12: We have many other threads with links between health problems on an omnivorous diet, and many more will come. Looking at our Cancer, adaptation and the vegan diet, would you say that humans are 'perfectly capable of eating meat and thriving'?
Question 13: Are you sure it wouldn't make more sense to claim that a plant based diet (containing many nutrients known for reducing/preventing serious diseases like cancer - nutrients NOT existing in animal products*) is a diet we are "perfectly capable of eating and thriving on" to a larger extent than an omnivorous diet?
*meaning that we'll get less of them for every piece of animal product we consume)
5) Short term perspective only.
Some people ignore known, long term side effects of a diet - often without knowing it, and claim that a diet could be considered "natural" for humans even if it makes us sick, as long as we don't die more or less immediately. This use of 'natural' somehow suggests that everything we don't die of within a short time span of is natural for us.
Comment: the most serious health problems humans may enconter are rarely occurring overnight. To me, ignoring serious, long time health problems - diseases that in many cases have no known cure, an alarming death rate and where even the treatments are known to cause a lot of suffering and unwanted side effects - makes no sense at all.
Question 14: Do you agree that the long term, common problems that are associated with animal products should be taken into consideration if one should define if humans are natural omnivores or not, and what's suitable for us?
Question 15: If yes, how can humans be considered 'natural' omnivores - when there are so many long term health problems associated with animal products?
6) No/little, or only environment friendly processing.
A diet can be considered natural for us if the food in it appears in nature, and we use it with no or little processing, or at least a kind of processing that isn't harmful for us/the environment.
Comment: This one isn't really related to the 'natural omnivores'-topic, but more about what a natural vegan diet consists of. Vegan food can be unprocessed and heathy, or it can be processed, unhealthy junk food - and everything between those extremes. (All processing aren't even that bad, and in a few cases, good). Vegan food doesn't have to be 'natural' - or even healthy. All vegan food isn't 'natural'.
7) 'Natural' vs 'nature'.
Some people may claim that a diet may be natural for us today, even if it is a well known fact that that particular diet is the diet that's most known for it's many unwanted effects on the environment - due to the very high need for extra resources (land, water, pollution, electricity etc) compared with a plant based diet.
Comment: IMO, if we shall look at what's the most natural diet, we should also look at what's the most 'natural friendly', or environmental friendly diet as well... in other words, what's best for nature as a whole, and not only for ourselves.
Question 16: Do you agree that the planet/nature/environment should be taken into consideration when looking at what the most natural diet is for humans?
Question 17: If yes, how can an omnivorous diet, which today is considered a serious environmental threat (even by lots of non-veggies living on that very diet) be considered a 'natural' diet for humans, or that we are 'natural' omnivores?
Question 18: Please elaborate if you suggest that 'natural' has nothing to do with nature...
8) Adjustment over time.
An action or diet can be maybe be considered natural if it is suitable for us today (suitable in the sense that it doesn't damage our digestive systems/bodies, make us sick etc) even if wasn't suitable for us ten thousands of years ago, because we are now (unlike then) adapted to that diet. It doesn't represent a problem for us anymore.
Comment: Based on the info we have about the currently known 21 hominoids, and based on a relatively high amount of info about humans recent history, but relatively little detailed info about what happened with our forefathers over the millions of years since humans and other apes were divided into separate evolutionary branches, we have few hard facts about what all our forefathers ate.
We know that some of our ancestors ate very little meat, if any, and that for the last few thousands of years, vegetarian cultures have existed in areas where respect for animals have been more common in the Western world.
Question 19: If you insist that humans over a long period of time have adjusted well to consuming eg. meat and milk, why do you think we needed to adapt to that diet?
Question 20: If our early ancestors ate a meat/dairy based diet, why would adapting/adjustments to such a diet be necessary?
Question 21: Could it be that humans for a long time has been moving towards a plant based diet, and that we are in the middle of that evolutionary period right now?
9) Equipped (from nature) to catch, kill and tear apart
Almost no animals who eat animal products use tools to kill them, so being able to catch and kill an animal (and tear it's skin apart etc) without tools may be seen as an indiction that it's eg. 'natural' for a tiger to kill a deer.
Comment: Humans aren't from nature's side equipped with the strength, speed, claws and teeth that animals who kill other large animals are. We need tools to kill cows etc.
Question 22: Since our bodies aren't from nature's side equipped with what it takes to kill, catch and tear apart the skin of eg. an ox or a cow, and if you insist that eating these animals are natural for us, wouldn't it be more correct to claim that we are 'cultural omnivores' than 'natural omnivores'?
10) Tools and cultural development.
Since our ancestors slowly learned how to make tools, and since we actually may make tools that can kill (animals), some will say that it's "natural' to kill and eat (animals).
Comment: I don't think killing animals or murdering humans are 'natural' for us even if we can make tools. It's just... possible. And cruel.
Question 23: If humans' ability to make tools that can kill should be used as a basis for saying that we are natural omnivores, do you suggest this on the basis that 'humans can make tools, therefore we should make weapons'?
Question 24: If yes, do you think it's more 'natural' to make guns than eg. to make tools that can improve the level of nutrients in the food we eat, which in our 'denaturalized' world may be a much simpler way to compensate for the reduced level of nutrients in soil anyway?
Question 25: If you think it's better to use our ability to cultivate when we need food (and because of the nutrients currently/commonly lacking in soil), why should claim that it's natural for us to kill animals?
Question 26: If you think it's natural for us to live on an omnivorous diet (as in "we are natural omnivores"), it must be natural for us to kill animals as well, meaning that we need tools. Please provide at least one argument showing that it's more natural to make tools for killing than eg. tools for fermenting plants...
Question 27: If you agree that humans are dependent on culture/cultivation/tools, why all the fuzz about us being natural omnivores... maybe we are only 'natural cultivators', and can choose what kind of tools we want to make and where we should get our nutrients from?
11) Nutrients.
If it can be proven that a species need certain nutrients that only can be found in certain 'products' (animals), many will say that eating these animals is natural for that species.
Comment: This would somehow automatically exclude the acceptance of humans needing culture/cultivation, or that culture (making tools, clothes, houses etc) is a natural part of humans' (and some animals) lives.
If we assume that we (at least currently) need culture in order to get the nutrients we need, there's still no need for animal products or for claiming that they are 'natural' for us to use.
Comment 2: Omnivores are often deficient in a number of nutrients, and we have no guarantee for getting all the nutrients we need even if we eat vegan food. Vegans need to pay special attention to B12, basically due to a lot of environmental issues, omnivores need to focus on other nutrients.
Question 28: There's no convincing facts indicating that we wouldn't get enough B12 in an non-artificial world/environment. A lot of facts actually point in the opposite direction. Do you think that eg. low, current levels of bioavailable B12 in lots of plants backs up a claim about humans being 'natural omnivores'?
Question 29: If yes, how does this relate to the fact that we use clothes etc... after, all we are 'natural nudes', but people don't seem to have a problem with wearing clothes?
Question 30: Should we go naked since we are born naked? If not, if 'culture' is accepted as a part of human behavior, what's wrong eg. using plant fermentation to produce eg. B12 (which may be needed with all the synthetic B12 killers in food, soil and water)?
Question 31: Do you agree that it's simply 'natural' for humans to cultivate (make clothes and not only wear leaves etc), and that this - at least in our current, de-naturalized world also applies to food/nutrient needs?
Question 32: If yes: even if someone hypothetically would be able to prove that in an unspoiled, natural world there still wouldn't be enough B12 in plants, would we still be 'natural omnivores' when we don't need animal products for nutritional reasons, since we can them without harming animals?
12) Copying other animals
Some will say that an action or diet is natural for humans if it's natural for other species, eg. those species that are considered our 'closest relatives'. These people suggest that we should look at what they do (eg. humans should look at what chimps do, and copy it).
Comment: Humans are different from all other species, including our so called closest relatives - in more than one way. No other animals copy the lifestyle or diet of another species, so why should we?
Question 33: Do you think that humans are natural omnivores because it's eg. known that some apes include circa 5% of animal products in their diet?
Question 34: Does this mean that those who believe in copying chips' diets shouldn't exceed 5% of animal products?
Question 35: If you suggest that we should copy other species' diet, do you also suggest that we should copy their behavior in other areas (live mainly in trees, masturbate publicly, not wear clothes, eat termites and so forth)?
Question 36: If not, why should we copy the consumption of up to 5% of animal products, but not the other stuff?
Question 37: What would be a good explanation for claiming that "humans are natural omnivores because some other species are natural omnivores"?
13) No other choice.
Many will say that if the brain or the body of a tiger or lion isn't equipped from nature's side to survive on plants (they don't know to survive on plants and don't have the advanced 'cultural' abilities humans have), it's natural for them to kill and eat animals.
Comment: I agree, and/but this doesn't - of course - make humans natural omnivores.
14) Death vs. life quality
Some people will claim that something is natural if it won't kill us, or if we are able to 'survive'.
Comment: Life quality doesn't seem to be taken into consideration here, and to use death as the main criterion for what is natural and healthy for us seem to be a macabre, silly mistake. Plus, many of the health problems associated with an omnivorous diet are incurable and can cause death long before we have reached an age were death is expected/natural.
Question 38: Do you think it makes sense to claim that 'we can survive' on an omnivorous diet when the most common, serious lethal diseases often are associated with this diet... and not with the plants in the diet, which often have a healing effect on those diseases - but the animal products in it?
Question 39: If not... if that diet threatens our life quality or survival, would you still insist that this diet is natural for us, and that we are closer to being 'natural omnivores' than 'natural herbivores'? Why?
Question 40: Even if we could "survive" - with reduced life quality (digestive problems, more frequent 'lighter' diseases, less energy and the suffering of animals and the environment on our conscience), would it sill make sense to claim that we can 'thrive' as omnivores - from a psychological point of view?
Question 41: Which essential question did I forget? :)
Re: Vegan/non-vegan: Does 'natural' matter?
By the way, here are the first definitions of 'adapted' I found after having googled that word and looked for definitions (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/adapted):
a) "To make suitable to or fit for a specific use or situation."
Using common sense, I don't think we could consider foodstuff that isn't good for us "suitable". I would be sick, and ask a nutritionist to suggest some food suitable for my condition, I would expect him to find something that would not make more more sick, but rather something which my contain elements (antioxidants/flavinoids/vitamin C, phytosterols etc) that could help me get well. If I was not ill, and asked for advice about a suitable diet, and two diets were available, I'd expect an expert to suggest that I should eat that one of those two diet that were not associated with increased risks for cancer, heart disease etc, because that diet simply would be more suitable for me.
b) "To become adapted: a species that has adapted well to winter climes."
This suggests a change over time. Since 'adapted' normally means adapted over time, one would need to know something about the past in order to figure out if a diet is more suitable for our bodies now than it was earlier in order to say something about change over time. 'Adapted' means 'adapted well': one wouldn't say that humans are adapted to cigarette if cigarettes still give us lung cancer, or clearly increase the risk of lung cancer. One wuld rather say that cigarettes are not suitable for humans in such a situation.
c) "Synonyms: adapt, accommodate, adjust, conform, fit, reconcile
These verbs mean to make suitable to or consistent with a particular situation or use: adapted themselves to city life; can't accommodate myself to the new requirements; adjusting their behavior to the rules; conforming her life to accord with her moral principles; fitting the punishment to the crime; couldn't reconcile his reassuring words with his hostile actions."
Again; adapted is again about 'change over time'.
d) "adapted - changed in order to improve or made more fit for a particular purpose; "seeds precisely adapted to the area"; "instructions altered to suit the children's different ages""
This definition isn't absolute - it says 'more fit', and not 'fit', but the example that is used (" precisely adapted to the area") suggest an absolute state.
e) "altered"
Definitely about change over time.
f) "modified - changed in form or character; "their modified stand made the issue more acceptable"; "the performance of the modified aircraft was much improved""
Again - about change over time.
If the word adapted is used loosely, it could probably mean 'not really suitable, but more suitable than before'.
Some people may use adapted without thinking about adjustments over time at all, and claim that we are adapted to an omnivorous diet just because it seems suitable for us (good for us), without knowing if it was suitable/good for our ancestors.
Re: Vegan/non-vegan: Does 'natural' matter?
[QUOTE]
Quote:
Korn
Since Klytemnest has taken the dirty job of representing the typical meat eater viewpoints in this discussion, I'll use some of his posts as a basis for some questions that meat eaters who read this thread may think of, and later post this as a separate questionnaire aimed towards non-vegans.
Korn, I did not "take the dirty job of representing the typical meat-eater viewpoints". You appointed me to it without my consent. I represent MY position and nothing else. And my opinion is shared by other vegans/vegetarians. So, it reflects the opinion of some omnivores, vegans and vegetarians. I do not like being associated with the omnivorous point of view. Being of the opinion that humans are natural omnivores does not make one less vegan or sympathetic to the omnivorous way of life. Of course, this is your forum so you can do as you please, but for the record, I would like to make it clear that I object to this implication. Just leave me out of it. Please.
Rami
Re: Vegan/non-vegan: Does 'natural' matter?
Quote:
Korn, I did not "take the dirty job of representing the typical meat-eater viewpoints".
I didn't write that you did it in this thread, but that you did it in this discussion (referring to our ongoing discussion about omnivore arguments vs. vegan arguments in several threads.) You have clearly stated that you are not representing you own viewpoints in several of your posts.
When discussing why omnis are omnis, the argument about the omnivorous diet being 'natural' is the arguments that omnis seem to think are the best/main argument for an omnivorous diet. You have recently started a new thread about this topic - clearly stating things like "I am presenting Omni's position and asking for comments", "I want to emphasize that I am not presenting my own point of view when I present some of the arguments used by omnivores"..
In our survey about the most commonly heard comments from omnivores (Top 50: Comments from non-vegans), this comments scored the highest:
"Humans have always been eating animals - eating meat is natural".
You have now taken their main 'fact', the 'eating meat is natural' aspect further, and been very active defending that it's natural for us to eat meat, and now, again confirm that these are your own opinions.
So... our survey shows that their 'best argument' is that it's 'natural' for us to eat meat. You have posted lots of posts only since yesterday in a new thread about pro- omni arguments, and also started a thread opening with a link promoting that it's natural to eat animal products earlier.
These sentences are from ONE of your posts: "The indisputable fact is that our species is adapted to eat meat." "IF the definition of omnivore is "a species that is adapted to eating both meat and plants", then the label of omnivore applies to us." "The fact remains that our species is adapted to eat meat." "Our ancestors evolved to have the option of eating meat."
This isn't discussion, it's propaganda, and it's propaganda centered around (and supporting) a 'fact' that seems to be omnivores' most important argument for using animal products.
Re: Vegan/non-vegan: Does 'natural' matter?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoli..._and_nutrition
We are capable of processing both animals and plants, which means that we did. It's part of the reason why humans have been able to live in such extremely varied climates. The inuit for example, live(d) almost completely off of -raw- flesh for survival, and then there are people living in the bush in tropical zones on a mostly plant diet becuase they can. This is what leads me to the idea that the ratio of meat-plant in our diet largely has to do with where and when we lived.
It surprises me that there's so much controversy over the meat-plant ratios in our paleolithic diet because it's seems so obvious based on what we can observe in the world today (or just a short while ago) that it's based on geographical location and therefore the availability of food source.
We have made many archeological finds of hunting tools and weapons from the paleolitic ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic ) eras, as well as evidence that we then used the animal skins for shelter and pouches among other things.
I have a theory that before the paleolithic ages, we (or our ancestors) ate less meat because we hadn't yet developped as many tools and skills to catch and kill it. Somewhere along the line though we developped enzymes necessary to process some meat with our plants. Our digestive systems are completely different to either that of an herbivore or a carnivore. We are specifically evolved to be able to eat either, depending on what environmental circumstances we have to adapt to.
Now we have the luxury to eat a vegan diet and get complete nutrition out of it. Also, our conscious sense of morality has evolved. Evolved morality combined with the ability to get everything we need from a vegan diet should, IMO, result in a gradual switch to wordwide veganism.
By this reasoning, I believe that veganism is the next step in evolution :D
Re: Vegan/non-vegan: Does 'natural' matter?
Quote:
ALexiconofLove
I don't think arguments about what is "natural" are relevant to ethical questions
Me neither. I can be a vegan, therefore I am. I think the "what is natural" arguments are just another desperate grasping at straws for people trying to justify themselves.
Quote:
ALexiconofLove
Some [omnivores] eat large amounts of meat, some very little... this can even be true within the same family (panda bears live mostly on bamboo, polar bears live mostly on meat).
That's right, just like how some races of humans who live(d) in colder climates with exponentially less vegetarion like the Inuit adapted to eating mostly meat, and people living in tropical rainforests with an abundance of edible plants could survive on an almost vegan diet. We are evolved to be able to process but not to have to process both animal and plant food sources. Now that we have the ressources available to eat only vegetation and get all of our nutrients, I don't see any good excuses not to take advantage of that, no matter what we are capable of processing or for how many years we've been able to do it.
Quote:
ALexiconofLove
I think when vegans assert that we are herbivores as a bald fact, they are opening veganism to attack.
....
And some are "obsessed" with promoting the idea of humans being natural herbivores. I think both obsessions are silly, because they distract from the core issues of vegansim.
I absolutely completely agree.
I've found that any time that an omni tells me that it's not natural to eat only plants, I tell them that I believe it's much more "natural" than how our meat is "raised" today, and I also point out that the consumption of dairy of other species is also completely unnatural. I haven't had one single person disagree with me when I put it that way, and they always appear to have changed something in their mind at that moment.
Sometimes I also assert that it doesn't matter much anyways what our meat-plant ratio was originally, because we have the choice to eat what we want so there's no more reasonable excuse to eat animals when it's not necessary for survival (or even good health). I'm also met with little resistance to this philosophy, even from the most hard-core self prolaimed carnivores.
Re: Vegan/non-vegan: Does 'natural' matter?
Quote:
I think the "what is natural" arguments are just another desperate grasping at straws for people trying to justify themselves.
Why, then, claim that we are 'natural omnivores', which basically means that eating animal products is natural for us?
Re: Vegan/non-vegan: Does 'natural' matter?
Quote:
Klytemnest
Being of the opinion that humans are natural omnivores does not make one less vegan or sympathetic to the omnivorous way of life.
This is how I feel too. I think there's a lot of evidence that shows that humans have eaten meat in varying ammounts for many many years, not lightly based on the fact that our digestive systems have developped to be able to process both animal and plant matter. That doesn't mean that I think we should, or need to, process animals. It's like the subject of religion for me, and anything else... I'm open to understanding the most accurate perception of reality that I possibly can, not the one that would make me the most happy or comfortable.
Of course if I were only open to the perception of reality that would make me the most happy and comfortable, I'd chose to believe that humans are herbivores by nature. I think we have too much evidence, including our own evolved state, that shows that that's not the case.
I believe that by trying to appease everyone's ego that we're naturally beautifully herbivorian, and to try use that to prove the rightness of veganism to omnivores, it will only make our point of view appear to lose its validity in the end when the argument collapses under overwhelming evidence that suggests the opposite.
I think that instead we should promote veganism as where we are evolving to, as opposed to where we evolved from.
It's not where we are from but where we are going :)
Re: Vegan/non-vegan: Does 'natural' matter?
Quote:
Korn
Why, then, claim that we are 'natural omnivores', which basically means that eating animal products is natural for us?
Natural doesn't necessarily mean right, healthy, or good. We have evolved past the need to eat meat, if there ever was a need to do it and not just the ability.
I claim it (well I don't claim it, I claim the belief and the probability that is so probable that it's almost fact) because that's what I perceive to be the truth and I don't think it will move the world closer to veganism to deny it.
Re: Vegan/non-vegan: Does 'natural' matter?
Quote:
songlife
We are capable of processing both animals and plants, which means that we did. It's part of the reason why humans have been able to live in such extremely varied climates.
What does 'process animals' mean? If we eat a mushroom and it makes us ill, would you say that we are capable of processing it?
Quote:
The inuit for example, live(d) almost completely off of -raw- flesh for survival,
Those eskimos who lived on almost only animal products, had a lifespan at least ten years shorter than those who didn't. That they didn't die immediately, but diedeaslier on a almost raw-flesh diet tells us something, doesn't it?
Even if these weapons both have been used to protect us against much stronger animals, and that some tools originally was assumed to be used for hunting were used for digging in the earth, I don't think anyone suggests that nobody ate meat in those periods - that's a different discussion which nobody seem to be interested in.
Quote:
I have a theory that before the paleolithic ages, we (or our ancestors) ate less meat because we hadn't yet developped as many tools and skills to catch and kill it.
There's of course a link between the two, but what you write almost suggests that 'if you have guns/tools, use them'. Maybe it was the other way round: some humanoids developed weapons for a reason - maybe the needed meat to survive (they certainly did in some periods), they though they did - or looked at (some) animals and copied what they did.
Quote:
Our digestive systems are completely different to either that of an herbivore or a carnivore.
We have some threads about this already... :)
Quote:
We are specifically evolved to be able to eat either, depending on what environmental circumstances we have to adapt to.
We are able to eat mud as well. Does that make us natural mud eaters?
I posted five questions about 'being able to' used as an argument that potentially supports the idea that we are natural omnivore in an earlier post in this thread:
Question 9: Humans are capable of dancing foxtrot (with no known unwanted side effects). Do you suggest that humans are 'natural foxtrot dancers'? Or would 'we may or may not dance foxtrot' be more accurate?
Question 10: Does it make sense to you to look at stuff "we can digest" (vague term, I know) and use that as a reference for terms like 'natural ******** eaters', terms normally used to describe what would be considered a good diet for humans ?
Question 11: If you do not see 'capable of' as a relevant criterion for what's to be considered natural for us, why should we consider humans 'natural omnivores' or 'natural animal product eaters'?
Question 12: We have many other threads with links between health problems on an omnivorous diet, and many more will come. Looking at our Cancer, adaptation and the vegan diet, would you say that humans are 'perfectly capable of eating meat and thriving'?
Question 13: Are you sure it wouldn't make more sense to claim that a plant based diet (containing many nutrients known for reducing/preventing serious diseases like cancer - nutrients NOT existing in animal products*) is a diet we are "perfectly capable of eating and thriving on" to a larger extent than an omnivorous diet?
*meaning that we'll get less of them for every piece of animal product we consume)[/list]
Since I don't understand your humans are omnivores-argument, can you please answer these questions for me? I need your help to understand what you are talking about! :)
Re: Vegan/non-vegan: Does 'natural' matter?
Quote:
Korn
Why, then, claim that we are 'natural omnivores', which basically means that eating animal products is natural for us?
I think this claim can just mean that we are capable of deriving nourishment from animal products and can eat them without (immediate) ill effects, not that we have to eat them.
Re: Vegan/non-vegan: Does 'natural' matter?
Quote:
I think this claim can just mean that we are capable of deriving nourishment from animal products and can eat them without (immediate) ill effects, not that we have to eat them.
Sure, but there's a huge difference between claiming that we don't get (immediately) ill from eating X than to claim that we are 'natural X-eaters'.... We are capable of deriving nourishment from almost everything including soil and cow dung, but we're not 'natural soil/cow dung eaters'.
Describing humans as 'natural omnivores' suggests that it's natural for us, to eat animal products - that it's a more natural solution than other diets (eg herbivorous or carnivorous diets), or that we are somehow designed to eat that diet. Mothers are now warned against using cow's milk as a substitut for mother's mil (diabetes risk), is it still correct to suggest that cow's milk is natural foodstuff to babies? If not, are babies 'natural omnivores'?
I know well agree that we don't 'have to' us animal products, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument claiming that it's more natural for us to drink milk or eat meat than it is to kill each others or to march - all of which we 'ar capable' of doing. We may march, but that doesn't make us natural marchers or back up an idea about marching being 'natural' for humans to march. It's a lot easier to just walk... :) I'd say that we are natural walkers, but that we may march instead if we really want to.
Re: Vegan/non-vegan: Does 'natural' matter?
Quote:
Korn
Sure, but there's a huge difference between claiming that we don't get (immediately) ill from eating X than to claim that we are 'natural X-eaters'....
Not necessarily, I think saying humans are naturally omnivorous can just mean that we can do well enough to perpetuate our species (i.e. live long enough to rear children) on a range of diets including ones involving animal products.
To me "naturally omnivorous" (ETA as applied to humans) implies that it can be natural for us to eat meat and also natural for us not to eat it; there is no implied judgment that one or the other is better in any way (though obviously many of us have concluded for separate reasons that not eating it is better).
In contrast, cats aren't naturally omnivorous because they can't derive adequate nourishment from a vegetable-based diet (though they may from diets synthesised from vegetable matter and additives). Cattle aren't naturally omnivorous because they can't derive adequate nourishment from animal products (though again humans try to feed them on processed animal products, in some cases with disastrous results).
Re: Vegan/non-vegan: Does 'natural' matter?
Quote:
Not necessarily, I think saying humans are naturally omnivorous can just mean that we can do well enough to perpetuate our species (i.e. live long enough to rear children) on a range of diets including ones involving animal products.
I don't think most people who claim that we are natural omnivores only mean that 'we can survive long enough to reproduce' - or that this is their criterion for what is 'natural'. If that would be the criterion, we would all be natural junk food eaters!
Re: Vegan/non-vegan: Does 'natural' matter?
People often use the term "natural" to imply a value judgment, but it's up to them to explain why things that are "natural" are "desirable", it doesn't automatically follow since theft, rape and so on seem to occur in nature.
People also make the invalid inference that because we can process particular dietary elements we need those elements, but it's easy enough to point out the flaw in that logic.
Re: Vegan/non-vegan: Does 'natural' matter?
Quote:
Korn
What does 'process animals' mean? If we eat a mushroom and it makes us ill, would you say that we are capable of processing it?
I mean, we have the digestive enzymes (though I'm happy to point out to omnivores who like to eat looooads of meat that it's only 1/200 of the enzymes for processing meat that a carnivore has) to be able to break down and use meat for nutritional value. As for the toxic mushroom, well either we can't process it and die, or we barely can and hallucinate and become very ill but live :) Either way I don't see us as being capable of processing it in the way that I'm talking about, which is for a food source.
Quote:
Korn
Those eskimos who lived on almost only animal products, had a lifespan at least ten years shorter than those who didn't. That they didn't die immediately, but diedeaslier on a almost raw-flesh diet tells us something, doesn't it?
It most certainly does :) We also have to appreciate the fact that their environment was overall much more harsh than their cousins to the south. But yeah, as I said up there, we have only a small fraction of the enzymes to break down meat that carnivores do, so it's no wonder that a culture living on primarily meat would have a shorter life span than those of us who eat more plants (who have more plants available to us).
Quote:
Korn
There's of course a link between the two, but what you write almost suggests that 'if you have guns/tools, use them'. Maybe it was the other way round: some humanoids developed weapons for a reason - maybe the needed meat to survive (they certainly did in some periods), they though they did - or looked at (some) animals and copied what they did.
I didn't mean that if we have them we should use them, I just meant that because we have them, we could and did use them. Yes I agree that it works the other way too, that we developed them for those reasons, because they either needed or thought that they needed to for survival. I think both ways are true, using the tools because we had them and having the tools because we wanted to use them.
Quote:
Korn
We are able to eat mud as well. Does that make us natural mud eaters?.
hehehe, well babies certainly seem to think that they are. Seriously though? I think mud has more stuff in it that would make us sick than give us nutritional substance, and I think that we figured that out over time and that that's why we don't continue to eat mud. I think that's also why the more educated and questioning people are (not counting the people who have no choice), the more potential they have for eating more vegetation and less meat.
Quote:
Korn
I posted five questions about 'being able to' used as an argument that potentially supports the idea that we are natural omnivore in an earlier post in this thread:
Question 9: Humans are capable of dancing foxtrot (with no known unwanted side effects). Do you suggest that humans are 'natural foxtrot dancers'? Or would 'we may or may not dance foxtrot' be more accurate?
I think it's different with dancing and food, because dancing is a developped cultural thing and not an absolute need, like eating food
I think that both statements are accurate, and you are right in that they are not the same:
- we are naturally omnivores.
- we may or may not eat meat.
The part that is important for me is the fact that we now have the choice when (I believe) our ancestors either did not or did not know that they had the choice.
Quote:
Korn
Question 10: Does it make sense to you to look at stuff "we can digest" (vague term, I know) and use that as a reference for terms like 'natural ******** eaters', terms normally used to describe what would be considered a good diet for humans ?
I don't consider the omnivore diet a good diet for humans. I consider it the diet we have had (in varying ratios).
To expand on that, I don't think that we should do things just because they're "natural" or instinctual. I think we have evolved past needing, or thinking that we need, to be omnivores. We are evolving from primarily instinct into primarily reason, and many people are still stuck on the primarily instinct side. Some are making the transition still, while I think that some are deciding not to advance any further. I actually believe that we're presently splitting into at least a couple new species (evolution has not come to a standstill, it continues on).
Quote:
Korn
Question 11: If you do not see 'capable of' as a relevant criterion for what's to be considered natural for us, why should we consider humans 'natural omnivores' or 'natural animal product eaters'?
I do see "capable of" as being related to what we naturally do, because our capabilities are reflections of things that we naturally evolved towards or from.
I think we're only capable of eating animal products because we developped to be able to eat the animals themselves, though since we have only recently begun to eat the products in those forms, they don't sit well with us and that's why dairy sits much harder on our systems than meat itself.
Quote:
Korn
Question 12: We have many other threads with links between health problems on an omnivorous diet, and many more will come. Looking at our Cancer, adaptation and the vegan diet, would you say that humans are 'perfectly capable of eating meat and thriving'?
Well I think that no matter how much we thrive while eating meat, we would thrive better still without it. I think that might be my opinion though as much as I want to say it's a fact. It depends on your definition of thriving I suppose.
Personally I feel (and want to say that I know) that the only way that we can make the major positive changes that will save our planet and come to harmony with one another and all that, is if we first learn to love and respect all the other sentient beings as well. That means not torturing and killing them.
So IMO, to really truly and completely thrive in the purest sense of the term, I think that means evolving away from eating meat and I think that we're consciously doing that now (but not fast enough, grr!) (and strangely enough the technological advancement that has helped us multiply and destroy the planet is what's helping us achieve our evolution into conscious veganism with full nutritional value and everything).
Quote:
Korn
Question 13: Are you sure it wouldn't make more sense to claim that a plant based diet (containing many nutrients known for reducing/preventing serious diseases like cancer - nutrients NOT existing in animal products*) is a diet we are "perfectly capable of eating and thriving on" to a larger extent than an omnivorous diet?
*meaning that we'll get less of them for every piece of animal product we consume
I do claim that! Just because I acknowledge that we are capable of eating both plants and animals and have been doing it for countless millenia doesn't mean that I think it's better!
We don't have longer life expectancies than meat eaters, though. Vegans can live off of junk food and be unhealthy just as much as omnivores can. I don't think we thrive better simply by being vegan. Although, I hope that as the new generations of vegans and health conscious vegans age, the statistics will change in our favor based on the fact that we have new nutritional information at our fingertips now that we did not have when the concept of veganism was first consciously forming.
My own definition of thriving might be different than someone else's. My thriving includes the thriving of the other life on earth, and the thriving of my future generations. Thriving to me doesn't mean senseless and needless murder. I feel incredibly fortunate and now that I think of it, special, to be the first in my looooong line of ancestry to be part of a set of generations that have mentally evolved enough to scientifically discover enough about nutrition to be able to consciously provide all of our nutritional needs in plant based form. This is huge. I am incredibly grateful to everyone, specifically scientists, who have laid out the groundwork for this transition. If I've ever been proud of anything in my imperfect self, it's that I'm one of the first of a species to evolve into a new.. species! This is like sealife crawling out of the water for the first time and developing lungs instead of gills. Well... it's not that huge but it's still pretty significant.
I see myself as being connected to everything else around me. I see myself as a part of a whole, moving independantly but nonetheless within it all. I'm a socialist. To be a true socialist, and not just a speciesist socialist, I think it's a given to also be a vegan and an environmentalist.
Someone else's definition of thriving could mean power and greed, for them, right now, without concern for their future generations or the mutual thriving of everyone and everything else around them.
I think your definition of thriving will vary based on your degree of respect for life around you, and how much the wellbeing of everything around you affects your own personal environment. Also if you believe that not eating meat is benefitional for you personally and outweighs the flesh addiction.
So I think now I'm realising that the word "thriving" will sound like something different to different people and I see why some people are of the opinion that they could thrive as an omnivore.
Re: Vegan/non-vegan: Does 'natural' matter?
Quote:
songlife
it's only 1/200 of the enzymes for processing meat that a carnivore has) to be able to break down and use meat for nutritional value.
Well... what does say about our ability to 'process' meat? And - we can't only look an 'nutritional value', we have to look at long time side effects of meat consumption as well - not only life threatening diseases but all kinds of negative effects.
Quote:
Either way I don't see us as being capable of processing [mushrooms] in the way that I'm talking about, which is for a food source.
I wasn't mentioning mushrooms that killed us - but mushrooms that made us ill. Is the criterion for not 'not capable of processing' that it makes us ill?
Quote:
it's no wonder that a culture living on primarily meat would have a shorter life span than those of us who eat more plants (who have more plants available to us).
Sure - which is why I don't see the existence of tribes living solely on meat is relevant as an example in this discussion.
Of course you could say that humans need a mixed diet, not only a meat based diet, but that's where cannibalism comes in: Even if cannibals are capable of living on a mix of plants and human meat, eating humans aren't 'natural' for us. We may 'process' human meat, we have done it as a species, we can 'survive' on it, we are 'capable of'... and so on. Do you agree that it's not correct to claim that 'humans are natural cannibals'.
Quote:
I think mud has more stuff in it that would make us sick than give us nutritional substance, and I think that we figured that out over time and that that's why we don't continue to eat mud.
Mud was just a random example... insert any other example (like human meat, bark, larvae, earthworms...). They all fit into what seems to be your criterions for when we can define ourselves as 'natural ****** eaters'... Are we 'natural larvae eaters'?
Quote:
I think it's different with dancing and food, because dancing is a developped cultural thing and not an absolute need, like eating food
But my point is that in order to kill/eat eg. a cow, we need exactly that: a 'developed, cultural thing'.
Quote:
I think that both statements are accurate, and you are right in that they are not the same:
[LIST][*]we are naturally omnivores.[*]we may or may not eat meat.
What do you mean by 'natural'?
Natural as in 'A''natural choice for humans'?
Something which is 'in accordance with nature'?
Something we just 'may' do or have done, without getting immediately sick?
And... what do you mean by 'omnivore'?
Someone who 'may eat' meat and milk without getting sick or dying immediately?
That an omnivorous diet is 'suitable' for them?
Or simply someone who is eating both plants, meat, eggs, milk etc.?
To me, eating meat doesn't only seem un-natural, I also agree with Donald Watson that one of man's biggest mistakes was to try to turn himself into a meat eater. And I'm not talking about those life/death situations where some people may have eaten meat to survive here...
Quote:
I don't consider the omnivore diet a good diet for humans.
Normally, when we talk about what's 'natural' for eg. a bird or animal to eat, it implies that this is a good, natural choice; it's good or at least suitable for them. If a diet isn't good for us, it isn't suitable for us, and I believe most people will agree that a diet that isn't suitable for us isn't a natural choice for us.
Quote:
I consider it the diet we have had (in varying ratios).
Again - our ancestors weren't only capable of processing human meat - they also also had human meat. Is a human growing up on an isolated island with a long, "cannibalistic" tradition a 'natural cannibal', or is it only 'normal' to eat human meat where he lives?
Quote:
So IMO, to really truly and completely thrive in the purest sense of the term, I think that means evolving away from eating meat and I think that we're consciously doing that now (but not fast enough, grr!)
Well... one reason I'm eager to kill the 'we're natural omnivores' myth is that I've heard non-vegans say things like "I have read something on internet that supported the idea that it was natural for humans to eat meat - and the guy who wrote it was a vegetarian! They even admit living on a diet which isn't natural for humans!"
But maybe I get you wrong, songlife. Maybe you think that the term 'natural herbivores' suits us better than 'natural omnivores' - since you suggest that a plant based diet is more suitable for us...
Personally, I think that the 'humans are natural omnivores'-statement is moot based on the simple fact that more than half of the human population have a problem with digesting cow's milk alone.
Quote:
I don't think we thrive better simply by being vegan.
LIke you more or less say, vegan food can be popcorn and Fanta. But if we eliminate the junk food aspect, what's your comment to all these studies showing that animal products are linked to cancer, diabetes etc?
Is a patient dying of a disease caused by his diet 'capable' of surviving on that diet?
Quote:
I do see "capable of" as being related to what we naturally do
But we don't 'naturally' kill eg. cows. My whole point is that we do it 'culturally'.
We have an omnivorous culture (in Europe), but aren't naturally 'designed' to kill animals or thrive on a typical omnivorous diet.
IMO, ALexiconOfLove made some valid points I haven't had time to respond to yet. One of them is that studies showing the negative effect our current degree of meat (etc) eating has on us doesn't tell much - if anything - about how we would thrive on a diet with only, say 5% animal products. Not that vegans would eat 5% animal products even if they wouldn't harm our health...
Re: Vegan/non-vegan: Does 'natural' matter?
I'm gonna start off by saying that natural does not equal good, or right, or the way things should be etc. I can't remember if I said that already.
Quote:
Korn
Well... what does say about our ability to 'process' meat? And - we can't only look an 'nutritional value', we have to look at long time side effects of meat consumption as well - not only life threatening diseases but all kinds of negative effects.
It says that we don't have the ability to process meat as efficiently as a carnivore, but we still are able to when a herbivore cannot.
I wonder if the diseases from eating meat come from eating meat itself or because of all the drugs in it or because it's cooked or not cooked or too old.
Just because there are negative effects of eating meat, doesn't mean that we're not capable of using it for food. I think that we are able to process meat as a last resort if we can't find any suitable plant-based nutrition around us. I think our ability to process meat is probably a survival adaptation... either that, or our poor ability to process meat is from perhaps once eating a lot more meat, and then moving into climates where plant food was everywhere and easy to gather, so we ate more of that instead and over time and lost our ability to effectively process great quantities of meat (from lack of use of those enzymes required for it).
Quote:
Korn
I wasn't mentioning mushrooms that killed us - but mushrooms that made us ill. Is the criterion for not 'not capable of processing' that it makes us ill?
I think the criterion for "not capable of processing" is that being full on it would make us die. Say, if I ate enough magic mushrooms to make my belly full, I would die. Therefore I'm not able to process it. However, if I made myself full on meat, I would not die.
I don't think it's black and white. I think that we can process some things better than others. We can't process cellery very well for example, or other things that only herbivores' digestive systems are evolved to break down. Walls in the cell structures of plants. That doesn't mean that we can't process it.. it just meant that we can't process it as well as we can process... seeds, say.
Quote:
Korn
Sure - which is why I don't see the existence of tribes living solely on meat is relevant as an example in this discussion.
I think it's relevant though, because they adapted to eat that way since they had to. If there had been more plants around they would have eaten more plants. As natural omnivores, we are able to adapt to climates where plants are scarce and there are more animals, though when we have the opportunity to eat only or mostly plants, that's what we do because it's ideal for our systems. Given that opportunity.
Quote:
Korn
Of course you could say that humans need a mixed diet, not only a meat based diet, but that's where cannibalism comes in: Even if cannibals are capable of living on a mix of plants and human meat, eating humans aren't 'natural' for us. We may 'process' human meat, we have done it as a species, we can 'survive' on it, we are 'capable of'... and so on. Do you agree that it's not correct to claim that 'humans are natural cannibals'.
I don't know. I think we are capable, naturally, of being cannibals. Many species are capable of cannibalism. It's a natural occurance. So why aren't we naturally cannibals? At least, we're capable of cannibalism, and it's not unnatural. That doesn't mean we SHOULD be cannibals. Once again, I think we should move away from associating the terms "natural" with "good" and "should".
Quote:
Korn
Mud was just a random example... insert any other example (like human meat, bark, larvae, earthworms...). They all fit into what seems to be your criterions for when we can define ourselves as 'natural ****** eaters'... Are we 'natural larvae eaters'?
I think it's natural for humans to eat larvae, why not? Just because it seems gross to modern "civilized" society doesn't mean that it's not something that was... naturally part of our diet. Grubs n bugs make up good portion of the diet of some people living in tropical places.
I didn't know we can eat bark though, can we brocess bark? What type of bark, all bark? Not that we should of course, poor trees :faint_smilie:
Quote:
Korn
But my point is that in order to kill/eat eg. a cow, we need exactly that: a 'developed, cultural thing'.
Why? Why aren't we capable of chasing it down and killing it like another animal would... chase, catch, smash, etc. Even without tools we're able to do it. We're not fast enough to chase gazels and stuff but I can see us in a river full of fish (like it used to be, in abundance) and grab them, hit their heads on the rocks, or just bite in :umm_ani:
We have different practices on how to kill animals and how to prepare them that are cultural, but I don't think the killing of the animals themselves is cultural... I think humans just eat whatever they can when they're hungry, so of course it's easier to pick berries if they're everywhere around you. But what if there are no berries? and we're able to eat that fish in the water. We'll go eat the fish.
Quote:
Korn
What do you mean by 'natural'?
Natural as in 'A''natural choice for humans'?
Something which is 'in accordance with nature'?
Something we just 'may' do or have done, without getting immediately sick?
When I say natural, I mean occurs in nature. I also see compassion as a natural occurance. I don't act on it because it's natural though, I act on it because I've consciously decided to. Although you could say that conscious decision is also a natural occurance. It doesn't matter to me whether it's natural or not though. Something being natural isn't a reason for me to do it.
Quote:
Korn
And... what do you mean by 'omnivore'?
Someone who 'may eat' meat and milk without getting sick or dying immediately?
That an omnivorous diet is 'suitable' for them?
Or simply someone who is eating both plants, meat, eggs, milk etc.?
No I think an omnivore is someone who does eat both plant and animals (including eggs). Not dairy though, that's something else... whether or not it's good or bad, it's completely unnatural (does not occur in nature).
I wouldn't say that an omnivorous diet is suitable for humans, I'd say it's possible. I would even say it can be natural. I would not, though, say that it is good.
Quote:
Korn
To me, eating meat doesn't only seem un-natural, I also agree with Donald Watson that one of man's biggest mistakes was to try to turn himself into a meat eater. And I'm not talking about those life/death situations where some people may have eaten meat to survive here...
I believe that it is only natural for us to eat meat when we have to, i.e. when we're in an environment where we can easily survive off of plants. I don't know for sure though, it's an educated theory.
I don't believe that it's natural to eat meat right now because we easily have the capabilities to fully thrive on only plant-based foods. Why would we kill when we don'y have to?
On the other hand you could argue that animals toy with and kill other animals all the time, even when they're not hungry/eating. I don't think humans are the exception. Obviously (to us) it's wrong and we don't have to do it, even though it's natural. I think we are capable of rising above what is natural. We've done it in other ways, why not this one as well?
I know that it was much harder to survive in the wild and we took what we could get. Now we live in abundance. We have the luxury of only eating plants. Maybe the growing number in vegans shows that humans are beginning to cotton on to that fact.
Quote:
Korn
Normally, when we talk about what's 'natural' for eg. a bird or animal to eat, it implies that this is a good, natural choice; it's good or at least suitable for them. If a diet isn't good for us, it isn't suitable for us, and I believe most people will agree that a diet that isn't suitable for us isn't a natural choice for us.
Well, like with a lot of other issues, most people are wrong :)
Natural does not mean good. I think it's a very misused term. I also laugh at every advertisement that states that something is "natural". It's getting people to buy it because it says it's natural. It can still suck, but people buy it because they're under the misguided impression that natural is good.
Quote:
Korn
Again - our ancestors weren't only capable of processing human meat - they also also had human meat. Is a human growing up on an isolated island with a long, "cannibalistic" tradition a 'natural cannibal', or is it only 'normal' to eat human meat where he lives?
I think it's both normal where he lives, and natural, but whether it's good or not is a matter of opinion.
Quote:
Korn
Well... one reason I'm eager to kill the 'we're natural omnivores' myth is that I've heard non-vegans say things like "I have read something on internet that supported the idea that it was natural for humans to eat meat - and the guy who wrote it was a vegetarian! They even admit living on a diet which isn't natural for humans!"
Well it's not truth's fault that some people are mentally disadvantaged and base all of what they should and should not do off of what is natural.
Quote:
Korn
But maybe I get you wrong, songlife. Maybe you think that the term 'natural herbivores' suits us better than 'natural omnivores' - since you suggest that a plant based diet is more suitable for us...
I think that we are both natural herbivores and natural omnivores, since we are capable of being both, have been both, and currently are both. Nobody can say that those humans living in the mountains as complete vegans aren't herbivores, just like it would be silly to say that the Inuit aren't omnivores.
Yes a plant based diet is more suitable for us, regardless of whether or not we're naturally omnivores.
None of us, with the exception of the Inuit who still live off blubber in the north and the vegan tribe who that still secluded in the mountains, are living naturally. I don't think what's natural matters anymore. I think what's suitable, or good, matters.
Quote:
Korn
Personally, I think that the 'humans are natural omnivores'-statement is moot based on the simple fact that more than half of the human population have a problem with digesting cow's milk alone.
Cow's milk doesn't have anything to do with omnivores, herbivores, and carnivores though. It's a whole different ball game since the consumption of other species' milk is unnatural, as is the consumption of any milk once you're weaned. Of course we can't process it well, we've only been forcing ourselves to consume it for a few thousand years (a blip on the evolutionary scale).
Quote:
Korn
LIke you more or less say, vegan food can be popcorn and Fanta. But if we eliminate the junk food aspect, what's your comment to all these studies showing that animal products are linked to cancer, diabetes etc?
I really don't know. I don't know how much of the diseases are linked to dairy and the drugs in meat and eggs, and how much of it is meat itself. I prefer to be free of it altogether, although I have the advantage of being a vegan primarily for ethical reasons and the health benefits are a cherry on top of the (rice milk) sundae. I suppose even if my choice of diet was solely for personal health reasons, I would never consume dairy and might possibly decide to eat meat if it was completely free range and organic, plus no seafood since it can't be organic with all the pollution, which means that since I'm not rich I would be one of those "vegan-most-of-the-time" people. I don't know of anyone who went and stayed vegan entirely for health reasons. Those people are much more selfish and would probably cave to treating themselves with some meat at least on the rare occasion. The reason I never craved meat when I stopped eating it isnt because of the taste, or the personal health, but because the thought of poor creatures being tortured and murdered needlessly turned me off it.
Quote:
Korn
Is a patient dying of a disease caused by his diet 'capable' of surviving on that diet?
I guess not eh? I've never heard of anyone getting a disease simply by eating lean, organic free range meat as part of their diet though. Which is what the meat would be in nature. How many people do we know like that though? Do the omnivore tribes in the jungle die of heart disease?
Quote:
Korn
But we don't 'naturally' kill eg. cows. My whole point is that we do it 'culturally'.
please see my comment above.
And does our current breed of cow exist in nature?? Also if you're talking about the methods of livestock "production" today, of course they're unnatural. Therefore it has no bearing on the question of natural omnivoreness.
Quote:
Korn
We have an omnivorous culture (in Europe), but aren't naturally 'designed' to kill animals or thrive on a typical omnivorous diet.
What is a "typical" omnivorous diet? I don't think there's a typical one. It's varied depending on era, climate, and geographical location.
Quote:
Korn
IMO, ALexiconOfLove made some valid points I haven't had time to respond to yet. One of them is that studies showing the negative effect our current degree of meat (etc) eating has on us doesn't tell much - if anything - about how we would thrive on a diet with only, say 5% animal products. Not that vegans would eat 5% animal products even if they wouldn't harm our health...
I agree. I think that many studies would have to be done for many years to give reasonably conclusive evidence on whether or not it's good for us to have 5% of our diet as meat as opposed to veganism, assuming that the rest of our diets are the same and complete and not overly processed etc.
Holy moley that was my longest post ever and I think that's saying something! Good thing I type faster than I talk, eh.
Re: Vegan/non-vegan: Does 'natural' matter?
Hi songlife, thanks for your answer.
A couple of comments:
Quote:
I don't know. I think we are capable, naturally, of being cannibals. Many species are capable of cannibalism. It's a natural occurance. So why aren't we naturally cannibals?
I think my main focus on claiming that humans are natural omnivores is that if one claims that we are, and not at the same time also claims that we are 'natural herbivores' or 'natural cannibals', is that it easily can be misunderstood as 'it's natural for humans to eat meat, but I still choose another diet, which may not be 'as natural'.
Quote:
When I say natural, I mean occurs in nature.
Again - then rape and murder is 'natural' as well, but those (loads of people) who use the 'eating-animals-is-natural-for-humans-so-why-not-do-it' argument actually do use 'natural' about something which is a natural, good choice for us, not about something which 'occurs in nature'.
Quote:
I believe that it is only natural for us to eat meat when we have to
...which confirms that it seems that discussions like these often aren't about the actual topic itself (eg. 'are humans natural omnivores?') - but about the definitions of the words we use; about how we use these words - eg. 'natural' can be used about a product, but also about what a natural reaction would be in a non-typical life/death situation would be.
Quote:
the consumption of other species' milk is unnatural
Milk drinking humans 'occur in nature' - if at least if use of manmade tools and methods (eg. traps) to catch and kill animals should be seen as 'natural', then methods to catch wild goats or yaks and take their milk easily also could be seen as natural.
Anyway - as we all know, there are no lacto-carnivorous or lacto-vegetarian non-human animals in nature.
I could comment other stuff you wrote as well, but I think I have commented most of what you write in earlier posts already.
The bottom line for me isn't 'everything that occurs in nature is good' or that 'everything that's manmade is bad' - it's more that 'eating meat is natural' as an argument for eating meat IMO is invalid (for humans), which I guess we all agree in. I guess we also agree in that if we should use our brains or our advanced abilities to 'cultivate', we do have the choice between harming animals, ourselves and the environment or not - and also, that even if we wouldn't get sick if we included 5% meat from wild animals (or animals from factory farms, or human meat), we still wouldn't do it.
Here's a kind of funny perspective (from Bizarro) on the natural/unnatural discussion:
[YOUTUBE]05zhL1YUd8Q[/YOUTUBE]
Re: Vegan/non-vegan: Does 'natural' matter?
Right. I read a bit into this thread, but I don't have time to read the whole thing. I did, however, search through it to see if this point has been brought up yet, and it seems not:
"Natural" and "Unnatural" are terms that I feel come from the old religious belief that Man is somehow "above" nature, that we have some sort of "divine purpose", or that we were made in the image of "God". Any way we look at it, anything an animal does is natural, right? They follow their instincts and do their stuff. Natural. The way man operates is slightly more complex, and we do a lot more stuff, but this is not "unnatural". It's simply what we do, following our genetic programming.
Natural and Unnatural are pretty outdated terms. We're animals, same as all other animals, and we came into existence through the process of evolution. Evolution being a natural process, and our achievements being the natural result of what the goal of our species is (pass on our genes to the next generation, prevent next generation from getting killed before they can defend themselves, same as everything), one can hardly say that what we do isn't natural.
Right?
I'd really just like to see both terms abolished, because they don't actually mean anything.