"Eating meat isn't natural'

[Korn]

Eating meat isn't natural

Why humans are primarily plant-eaters by design

by Michael Bluejay,
August 2006

A little excerpt:

Humans lack a desire to eat whole animals

True carnivores (and omnivores) get excited about eating whole prey animals when they see them. Humans do not. We're interested in eating the body parts only because they've been removed from the original animal and processed, and because we grew up eating them, making it seem perfectly normal. It's amazing how much of a disconnect we've been able to learn about the difference between animals and food. As GoVeg puts it:
While carnivores take pleasure in killing animals and eating their raw flesh, any human who killed an animal with his or her bare hands and dug into the raw corpse would be considered deranged. Carnivorous animals are aroused by the scent of blood and the thrill of the chase. Most humans, on the other hand, are revolted by the sight of raw flesh and cannot tolerate hearing the screams of animals being ripped apart and killed. The bloody reality of eating animals is innately repulsive to us, more proof that we were not designed to eat meat.
Ask yourself: When you see dead animals on the side of the road, are you tempted to stop for a snack? Does the sight of a dead bird make you salivate? Do you daydream about killing cows with your bare hands and eating them raw? If you answered "no" to all of these questions, congratulations - you're a normal human herbivore - like it or not. Humans were simply not designed to eat meat. Humans lack both the physical characteristics of carnivores and the instinct that drives them to kill animals and devour their raw carcasses.

[RubyDuby]

My boyfriend found this awesome video on youtube. I searched vegan forum and didn't see it talked about anywhere. I wasn't sure where to post it but I HAD to share. If there's somewhere better to put it please let me know.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tt72EPHpS_U

[RubyDuby]

Sorry, I just found an original thread with this video in it


http://veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9931

[sandra]

What Michael Bluejay says is very true, I particularly like the table comparing humans with other animals.

[harpy]

I don't actually find the article very persuasive myself. For one thing, no-one is saying that humans are carnivores; the usual position is that they're omnivores. For another, the claim that people get ill from eating meat is weak in the context of an evolutionary discussion since people don't normally develop these illnesses until they're old enough to have reproduced and reared their young (if they reproduced at a "natural" age). Also it seems plausible that these diseases arise from eating the wrong kind of meat in the wrong quantity, rather than from meat-eating per se.

I think it's much better to argue for veganism on the grounds that eating animal products is unnecessary and cruel, rather than from the idea that it's not natural.

[Heartsease]

I think it's much better to argue for veganism on the grounds that eating animal products is unnecessary and cruel, rather than from the idea that it's not natural.

There are a huge amount of people who don't care about animal welfare...or who are indifferent about it. It is only 'cruel' if a person actually believes animals have feelings. But yes...I'm sure most people agree it is unnecessary....but then, by the same token...so are computers...and we want them.

If someone can help to point out other reasons why eating non-humans is not such a good idea then I think that is a good thing.
I don't mind the motives behind a person's 'veganism'...all of us (people, non-humans, the planet) are better off as a result of their veganism,whatever brought them there.

[harpy]

Yes, Heartsease, I agree that in one sense any reason for being vegan is a good reason , but I don't think there's any point in using arguments that don't stand up to scrutiny, because people are going to scrutinise them.

It would be fine to use health arguments but personally I haven't seen any convincing arguments that eating some meat is bad for you, though obviously eating a lot of poor-quality meat is. Ecological arguments are good too.

[Heartsease]

Yes, Heartsease, I agree that in one sense any reason for being vegan is a good reason , but I don't think there's any point in using arguments that don't stand up to scrutiny, because people are going to scrutinise them.

Yep, true enough. Becuz I am already unquestionably vegan I did'nt actually read the article myself. And.....yes.... you're right.... to spout one's opinion as if it is a widely accepted 'fact' can make one look foolish....which can have a ripple effect on an entire movement (so tempting to say 'bowel' there!)

[sandra]

I believe eating meat isn't natural..........if it is, then we as vegans are all 'un-natural'. I don't see how meat can be 'good' for you whatever quality it is. It still rots in your colon and causes cancer.
Also, I believe arguing for veganism on any grounds is a good thing, whether it be from a health point of view or cruelty aspect.

[harpy]

I believe eating meat isn't natural..........if it is, then we as vegans are all 'un-natural'. I don't see how meat can be 'good' for you whatever quality it is. It still rots in your colon and causes cancer.

If you put it that way it certainly doesn't sound good for you , but I haven't yet seen any scientific evidence that eating small amounts of meat causes cancer.

Also, I believe arguing for veganism on any grounds is a good thing, whether it be from a health point of view or cruelty aspect.

Agreed, but any argument needs to be strong enough to convince people who don't already think the same way.

[sandra]

I still think even eating 'small' amounts of meat can have an accumulated effect and cause harm...............there is scientific evidence that meat stays in the intestines for long periods of time and can lead to cancer.
I also think his arguments are strong enough to convince people........but then that's just my opinion!

[harpy]

there is scientific evidence that meat stays in the intestines for long periods of time and can lead to cancer.

Do you have any refs, Sandra? It would certainly be useful if there were evidence that eating any amount of meat is bad for you, but all the stuff I recall seeing seen is about people who eat more than x ounces of meat/week.

[sandra]

I don't have any examples to hand but I'm sure Korn does.
The very fact that eating ANY amount of meat is bad for you should be enough to put people off it, even if it is only over x ounces.
After all meat is flesh in the first stages of decomposition.
The thought of the flesh of another once living animal lying in your stomach rotting is just too horrible to comprehend...................I know instinctively it has got to be bad for you!

[RubyDuby]

is this helpful? It's a couple of years old, but must still be relevent.

http://www.pcrm.org/news/archive050112.html

Meat Raises Colon Cancer Risk
posted 01/12/05

A report in tomorrow’s Journal of the American Medical Association confirms the findings of earlier studies linking meat consumption to colon cancer. In the Cancer Prevention Study II, involving 148,610 adults followed since 1982, the group with the highest meat intake had approximately 50 percent higher colon cancer risk, compared with those with lower intakes.
The study found no relationship between white meat and colon cancer among men and found a negative relationship in women. The study did not report results for vegetarians within the cohort. Such data are of interest because earlier studies have indicated that those consuming white meat, particularly chicken, have approximately a threefold higher colon cancer risk compared with vegetarians.
Editorial comment:
We hope that the study’s sponsor, the American Cancer Society, will be encouraged by these findings to discontinue its beef-promoting Cattle Barons’ Ball fundraisers, held annually in cities throughout the U.S.

or this?...

http://www.cancerproject.org/surviva...facts/meat.php

The Cancer Project- Cancer Prevention and Survival

The World Health Organization has determined that dietary factors account for at least 30 percent of all cancers in Western countries and up to 20 percent in developing countries. When cancer researchers started to search for links between diet and cancer, one of the most noticeable findings was that people who avoided meat were much less likely to develop the disease. Large studies in England and Germany showed that vegetarians were about 40 percent less likely to develop cancer compared to meat eaters.1-3 In the United States, researchers studied Seventh-day Adventists, a religious group that is remarkable because, although nearly all members avoid tobacco and alcohol and follow generally healthful lifestyles, about half of the Adventist population is vegetarian, while the other half consumes modest amounts of meat. This fact allowed scientists to separate the effects of eating meat from other factors. Overall, these studies showed significant reductions in cancer risk among those who avoided meat.4 In contrast, Harvard studies showed that daily meat eaters have approximately three times the colon cancer risk, compared to those who rarely eat meat.
A number of hypotheses have been advanced to explain the connection between meat consumption and cancer risk. First, meat is devoid of fiber and other nutrients that have a protective effect. Meat also contains animal protein, saturated fat, and, in some cases, carcinogenic compounds such as heterocyclic amines (HCA) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) formed during the processing or cooking of meat. HCAs, formed as meat is cooked at high temperatures, and PAHs, formed during the burning of organic substances, are believed to increase cancer risk. In addition, the high fat content of meat and other animal products increases hormone production, thus increasing the risk of hormone-related cancers such as breast and prostate cancer.
In 1997, the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) published a review of the major studies on food, nutrition, and cancer prevention. For cancers of the breast, prostate, kidney, and pancreas, it was determined that red meat (beef, pork, or lamb) consumption possibly increased cancer risk. For colorectal cancer, a review of the literature determined that red meat probably increased cancer risk and that processed meat, saturated/animal fat, and heavily cooked meat possibly increased risk.5

[RubyDuby]

back to that adorable video... hehe... I find it especially interesting that humans do not have the enzymes in our stomach to kill the bacteria in rotting meat. Because of this we have to cook the meat, which causes it to be carcinogenic. How could that be natural???

[sandra]

Thank you RubyDuby.

[harpy]

The trouble with the sites Ruby mentioned is that they're both connected with the PCRM. People who are anti-vegetarian will quickly point out that the PRCM is a pro-vegetarian organisation and will be inclined to dispute its interpretation of the studies quoted.

IMO what would really be a "magic bullet" to convince people (people of a scientific bent anyway) that veg*nism is healthier is a peer-reviewed study showing that any amount of meat reduces mortality from all causes (not just one cause, cancer, because it could be a swings and roundabout thing, with meat causing some diseases and preventing others). Maybe something like this will emerge from the EPIC study. Stephen Walsh's "Plant Based Nutrition and Health", published by the Vegan Society, (page 9) has quite an interesting discussion of earlier life expectancy studies, which appear to put occasional (<once a week) meat-eaters on a par with vegetarians. (Vegans don't seem to do as well as vegetarians in these studies, which he puts down to sub-optimal vegan diets.)

Sorry to sound like a troll but I think one should put oneself in the position of people who don't already think like one does. Personally all I needed to make me go veg*n was to be convinced that it could be as healthy as the alternative, since I had already been convinced that it was preferable in other respects (i.e. less cruel).

ETA here's a summary of the EPIC findings to date which seem to be a bit of a "win some, lose some" situation from a vegan point of view http://www.iarc.fr/epic/Sup-default.html though doubtless some of the findings are subject to re-interpretation.

[frank language]

Sorry to sound like a troll but I think one should put oneself in the position of people who don't already think like one does. Personally all I needed to make me go veg*n was to be convinced that it could be as healthy as the alternative, since I had already been convinced that it was preferable in other respects (i.e. less cruel).

On a board like this one, where you can only be a member of the forums if you agree with everyone else, I think it's vital to have "trolls" to point out potential opposing viewpoints.

When I first came here, I complained to someone about how it reminded me of the part of Life on the Mississippi (Mark Twain) where someone is at a séance and a spirit is contacted who is asked, "So what do you all talk about in heaven?"

"About how happy we all are," replies the spirit.

I get kind of tired of having long threads of agreement and patting one another on the back. That can be useful to a point, but it gets old fast.

That said, eating meat is as natural as it gets for most people in the world; most people love the taste of meat, and even if it's bad for them--and even if they aren't able to get it easily or at all. Eating meat is clearly not decimating the population; the population is continuing to explode, and probably will until the world burns itself out.

People love leather, too; when the "fad" of polyurethane shoes and belts burns itself out, people will still be wearing leather--which is only a by-product of the meat industry. Most vegetarians wear leather, I notice.

[Korn]

On a board like this one, where you can only be a member of the forums if you agree with everyone else, I think it's vital to have "trolls" to point out potential opposing viewpoints.

Lots of people disagree with each other on various topics here... the only requrement we have is that people agree in being vegans (and are vegans). Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a vegan board...

That said, eating meat is as natural as it gets for most people in the world; most people love the taste of meat

When you talk about 'most' people, are you sure you don't confuse 'natural' with 'normal'? The fact that lots of people do this or that doesn't make it 'natural', it only makes it normal.

[Korn]

The trouble with the sites Ruby mentioned is that they're both connected with the PCRM. People who are anti-vegetarian will quickly point out that the PRCM is a pro-vegetarian organisation and will be inclined to dispute its interpretation of the studies quoted.

This is a tricky one... if a physician examines all the facts he has access to about nutrition, health and biology, and comes to the conclusion that he is in favor of recommending a 100% plant based diet, he would probably be interested in join Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) or something similar, but this wouldn't make the facts they make their decision on unvalid. To not trust some pro vegan argument from someone who is vegan/pro vegan, would be silly, because it would more or less equal not being willing to listen to anyone's arguments - or trust any facts - unless the people who delivered these arguments/facts would disagree in them or find the facts unreliable.

Sorry to sound like a troll but I think one should put oneself in the position of people who don't already think like one does.

I agree - and it shouldn't be that that hard... after all, at least 99% of us were non-vegans before we became vegans, and most of us have been non-vegans for a much longer part of our lives than we have been vegans...

[sandra]

Hi frank language, I don't 'pat' ANYONE on the back if I disagree with what they are saying.

[harpy]

To not trust some pro vegan argument from someone who is vegan/pro vegan, would be silly, because it would more or less equal not being willing to listen to anyone's arguments - or trust any facts - unless the people who delivered these arguments/facts would disagree in them or find the facts unreliable.

Yes, a credible argument is a credible argument regardless of who's advancing it. However because they are open to accusations of bias, pro-vegan scientists need to demonstrate that they are applying the same logic and rigour as other scientists would, and to cite credible (i.e. objective, and not selective) data.

I think that's particularly true of the PCRM because they have already been criticised by the mainstream press on the grounds of their links with PETA, and also on the grounds that their name is not an accurate description of who they are (see for example http://www.activistcash.com/organiza...iew.cfm/oid/23 )

Obviously bias is all over the place and a lot of mainstream studies are funded by agribusiness, but two wrongs don't make a right.

[Korn]

I can see that their link to Peta (which are known for their links links to ALF) and PCRMs former link to Jerry Vlasak will hurt their credibilty.

It's a difficult situation, because it's so easy for outsiders to not trust any of these groups if they ever make a mistake, hire the wrong people or promote types of activism most people (and most vegans) don't participate in. As far as I know, people have been accusing Vlasak to have been representing PCRM in cases where both PCRM and Vlasak has denied that this has been the case, and even if PCRM to my knowledge have made an firm effort to distance themselves from Vlasak, there will always be people who blame them for having had connections with him in the past (didn't he even work for them at some point?). Rhere will always be people from the meat industry etc. who are against all kinds of activism or facts threatening their situation.

The best thing would probably be to always use sources that has no links to Peta - and definitely ALF and Vlasak - at all, because they have lost so much credibility already... maybe to such an extent that if eg. would 'straighten up their act', there's documentation about things they've done in the past. I would never use eg. Peta as a source.

I don't know enough about PCRM to know if they are considered being reliable. A separate group of physicians/nutritionists/researchers would of course be trusted by more people than anyone connected with ALF, Vlasak or Peta.

But then again, unless such an organization or research group would consist of both vegans and non-vegans, they would still be considered biased.

Luckily, there are lots of non-vegan experts that confirm that the studies eg. PCRM refer to aren't conducted by PCRM - eg. what they wrote about the link between eating meat and an increased colon cancer risk is based on a study originally reported in Journal of the American Medical Association - not a vegan source. The ironic thing is that if Journal of the American Medical Association at some point theoretically would conclude that eating vegan is more healthy than eating animal products, lots of people would stop trusting them.

Almost no studies are funded by pro-vegan organizations, they are only referred to in pro-vegan media.

[steven1222]

To not trust some pro vegan argument from someone who is vegan/pro vegan, would be silly, because it would more or less equal not being willing to listen to anyone's arguments - or trust any facts - unless the people who delivered these arguments/facts would disagree in them or find the facts unreliable.

That is not necessarily true because some people who provide arguments or interpretations could have had a neutral opinion on the subject before receiving the information. Most of the arguments and supposed 'facts' that vegans and vegan supporters use are true, but there is the possibility of ambiguous information being interpreted as evidence that [insert animal product here] is unhealthy. The meat and dairy industries need to distort the facts more in order to make a (false) claim of health benefits, but not all pro-vegan people are immune from such tactics. Skepticism of any potentially biased source is therefore reasonable.

[Korn]

That is not necessarily true because the people who provided the arguments or interpretations could have a neutral opinion.

If a person contacts a doctor or expert on nutrition for advice, he'll probably 'by default' consider him a neutral person - if he eats animal products - in other words, if he doesn't recommend a vegan diet. My point is that if he eats/uses meat, dairy and other animal products, he's just as biased as a doctor or expert who doesn't use animal products. Since you can't be both a vegan and a non-vegan at the same time, all these experts are either based in a vegan or non-vegan lifestyle, and therefore, not really unbiased - right? The only exception I can think of right now would be a non-vegan doctor who would recommend a vegan diet, or a vegan doctor that would recommend people to use animal products. But then again - how non-biased are a non-vegan doctor that recommends people to become vegans really? And how likely is it to find a vegan doctor recommending people to stay away from a vegan lifestyle?

[harpy]

When debating with non-vegetarians I find it's usually more persuasive to quote the original studies rather than an organisation like PCRM's gloss on them. Quite a lot of peer-reviewed articles are freely available on-line these days, at least as abstracts. Of course sites like the PCRM's can often point you to relevant studies.

The Walsh/Vegan Society book I mentioned earlier in the thread also has a helpful bibliography that points you to the papers he has referred to (although it doesn't have proper referencing from the text unfortunately).

[RubyDuby]

That is not necessarily true because some people who provide arguments or interpretations could have had a neutral opinion on the subject before receiving the information.

I'm not sure that too many scientists/doctors nowadays could have no pre-conceptions about a vegan lifestyle.

Most of the arguments and supposed 'facts' that vegans and vegan supporters use are true, but there is the possibility of ambiguous information being interpreted as evidence that [insert animal product here] is unhealthy. The meat and dairy industries need to distort the facts more in order to make a (false) claim of health benefits, but not all pro-vegan people are immune from such tactics. Skepticism of any potentially biased source is therefore reasonable.

I've definately been guilty of leaving info out, but mostly only before I've had a chance to look into arguments against that info. As far as veganism I have found that facts support it or are neutral... not too many arguments for eating meat/eggs/dairy... other than being too lazy/uninterested/stubborn or maybe some weird medical condition.

[RubyDuby]

When debating with non-vegetarians I find it's usually more persuasive to quote the original studies rather than an organisation like PCRM's gloss on them. Quite a lot of peer-reviewed articles are freely available on-line these days, at least as abstracts. Of course sites like the PCRM's can often point you to relevant studies.

The Walsh/Vegan Society book I mentioned earlier in the thread also has a helpful bibliography that points you to the papers he has referred to (although it doesn't have proper referencing from the text unfortunately).

If I talk about studies when debating with non-vegs I see their eyes gloss over.

[frank language]

I've definately been guilty of leaving info out, but mostly only before I've had a chance to look into arguments against that info. As far as veganism I have found that facts support it or are neutral... not too many arguments for eating meat/eggs/dairy... other than being too lazy/uninterested/stubborn or maybe some weird medical condition.

What, like B12 deficiency? It's not even just a question of laziness, but most omnivores will tell you that the higher-quality sources of calcium, protein, and B12 come from animal products.

For instance, flaxseed oil can provide the omega-3s that people take fish oil for, but at a lower potency and a much higher cost for a comparable potency. So how is an omnivore going to evaluate this? Only weird obsessive-compulsive people like vegans are going to split hairs and say, "Well, the vegi-caps cost more than the gel caps, but no animals were harmed..."

I still maintain that for most people, not eating meat is the most unnatural thing they can possibly contemplate; I guess this is because so many people (and this is New York City, not some backwoods hick town where they've never heard of a "vee-gun") look at me like I have an eating disorder if I say I can't have animal products. They say, "Well, what do you eat, then?"

[Korn]

I still maintain that for most people, not eating meat is the most unnatural thing they can possibly contemplate; I guess this is because so many people (and this is New York City, not some backwoods hick town where they've never heard of a "vee-gun") look at me like I have an eating disorder if I say I can't have animal products.

You still seem mix up the definition of natural with normal. Normal is a question of mathematics (** &#37; think/eat/do this, while only ** % think/eat/do that), while natural is about something completely different. SOme people perceives something as 'natural' only because a lot of people are doing it.

It's not even just a question of laziness, but most omnivores will tell you that the higher-quality sources of calcium, protein, and B12 come from animal products.

'Most omnivores' know nothing about vegan nutrition, so how interesting/valid are their opinions...?
Anyway, I'm closing this thread now, since it's all of a sudden covering a number of topics we already have long threads about, like Omega-3, how natural a vegan diet is, calcium, B12, protein etc.

[Nyx]

nothing is ever unnatural. Everything comes from the earth. I don't think using that argument is a good idea.

[sandra]

Human beings 'come from the earth'.............should we eat them too?

[Korn]

With all due respect - if people think everything is 'natural', or nothing is 'unnatural', they either shouldn't use the word or try to understand what others mean when they use the word. It's just like with any other words; if you think nothing is.... 'blue' or 'expensive' or 'old', then why bother about using these words in the first place? The reason these words exist, is that they have a meaning for some (most?) people (although not only the same meaning).


If we all would agree that everything is natural, the word wouldn't exist - right?



I googled the word a while ago, and here are some common ways of using 'natural':

• existing in or produced by nature; not artificial or imitation

• (used especially of commodities) being unprocessed or manufactured using only simple or minimal processes

• A substance that is derived from mineral, plant, or animal matter and does not undergo a synthetic process

• Produced or existing in nature; not artificial or manufactured.

• occurring in nature

• about material: Material found in nature, such as wood, stone, gases, and clay.

• Not altered, treated, or disguised

• in accordance with nature

• existing in nature or created by the forces of nature, in contrast to production by man; not made, manufactured, or processed by humans

We have a poll about common comments from non-vegans here: Top 50: Comments from non-vegans.

The most commonly heard comment (after the classical "But where do you get your nutrients from?") starts with "Humans have always been eating animals - eating meat is natural". If you communicate with non-vegans about your veganism, you'll most likely hear that 'eating meat is natural' or that 'it isn't natural for humans to live on a plant based diet'. Personally I think it's an important topic - although I of course agree that not everything that appears in nature is 'good' and everything else is 'bad'...

"Non-artificial", "real" (vs. imitation), "in accordance with nature", "non-processed"... all these are terms that often pops up when discussing food, environmental issues, medicine and what not. I guess some of us simply have deep respect for nature, and have observed that all the man-made attempts of copying nature aren't really impressing. No camera can fully emulate how the human eye behaves, artificial flavors can't measure up with the real thing, and nobody has ever managed to make a functional copy of eg. skin, the human heart, air or soil. For me it's not about worshipping nature, it's about seeing things as they are.

When it comes to people claiming that humans from nature are 'designed' to kill and eat animals, or to drink cow's milk, and this is used as arguments pro harming animals, why not think about the whole 'natural vs. non-natural' thing from another perspective, instead of just meeting them with statements a la 'everything is natural' or 'natural doesn't matter'?

I don't think using that argument is a good idea.

Don't use it then.

If 70% of all humans have problems with digesting milk from cows, if it causes allergies or other negative effects, is associated with some serious diseases and so on - and since most people intuitively may not feel attracted to sucking on a cow's udder (no other animals use mother's milk throughout life or use milk form other species)... isn't "It doesn't seem natural for humans to rely on cow's milk for nutrients" a reasonable statement? You could of course say "Nothing is ever unnatural" again, and maybe even claim that the nuclear bomb USA dropped over Hiroshima in 1945 also was a natural product because all it's ingredients originally "came from the earth", but then... wouldn't you just contribute to make the word totally meaningless?

'Natural vs. unnatural' isn't about not making tools or clothes or houses, it's about living on the planet in a way that harms it/us as little as possible. To quote one of the definitions above... "using only simple or minimal processes" is quite essential. Some synthesized matter may be quite harmless, but today we are seeing that eg. flame retardants have made their way into mother's milk, and harmful chemicals are found in bottled/tap water. Links have been found between cancer in animals and more than 200 common chemicals, many of which the governments don't regulate.

Spends a few years on monitoring news about links between some bad health condition and certain products, and you'll very often see that the product is synthesized ("unnatural"), while you'll find very few links documenting link between natural products (in natural/normal amounts) and eg. cancer or birth defects.

"More and more cancer looks like an environmental disease" according to an article I recently saw - with references to chemicals. If thousands of lives can saved by avoid harmful synthetic processes, and natural processes aren't harmful, 'natural' becomes a rather important parameter.



From another thread:

A study of free-range chicken eggs found the widespread presence of substances that should be added to the Stockholm Convention: lindane and brominated flame retardants. Twelve locations in nine countries were sampled for brominated flame retardants while 24 locations in 17 countries were examined for lindane. Lindane, beta-HCH and the PBDE flame retardants were found in all samples. Another flame retardant, HBCD, appeared in 80% of the samples. Lindane is a neurotoxin, probable carcinogen, suspected endocrine disrupter and banned in 52 countries. PBDEs resemble PCBs and cause long-term neurological damage. To our knowledge, these are the first sampling data on PBDEs in many of these countries.

Wearing clothes isn't 'natural' according to some definitions of the word (clothes are made by humans, not by nature) but what matters for me personally is if something... makes sense or not. If we can make clothes without harming the planet, causing a lot of pollution, without killing or harming animals or underpaid slaves in cotton fields in some distant country, the 'unnaturalness' of using clothes don't bother anyone, because we are cultivating natural sources in ways that doesn't destroy nature.

Non-harming shouldn't only apply to animals, or humans, but the planet we live on as well, and 'natural' substances are normally self-recycling and friendly with other natural natural substances.

Sorry for going a little off topic - what was the topic again? "Eating meat isn't' natural..." Natural or not, eating meat is harming nature, because animals are part of nature, and even if we would include "simple or minimal processes" in our definition of 'natural', eating meat still wouldn't be natural - because animals are part of nature. Killing someone is never 'simple' (from the animals' point of view) or a 'minimal' process...

[Nyx]

I think I was taken completely wrong here. I'm only being rational in terms that if people weren't meant to eat meat, they wouldn't (physically, they actually just wouldn't). Just like a giraffe doesn't even try to eat meat because it is a herbivore. Humans did decide to do this (eat meat) and yes some eat it raw (natural in your definition Korn). So if we look at your google definition, then eating meat is only unnatural when it is cooked, marinated or processed in some way. Again some people eat meat raw (sushi for example, or even ground beef).

What you are talking about is a moral dillema Sandra: Humans DO eat humans. Most don't, because of moral reasons. Same with eating other animals.

Using the definition provided we could say that humans eating meat is in fact naturally occurring in nature (existing in or produced by nature) since human behaviour is nothing but natural.

I want to stress that I am not opposed to the belief that human bodies do not do well with meat. You do however, need to consider the opposing argument especially if or when a meat eater brings this point up. I used to be pretty die hard too about this subject but there is always more to anything than just one side. Many people have lived for many many years eating meat and never got sick and went on to live long lives. I know that stuff like this makes you feel like you just lost an argument but you can also argue that many people have only lived till 30 because they ate so much meat and died of a heart-attack. My point is, it feels like I am being anti-vegan because that statement IS anti-vegan but in reality I am just bringing up a legitimate point.

[sandra]

I think I was taken completely wrong here. I'm only being rational in terms that if people weren't meant to eat meat, they wouldn't (physically, they actually just wouldn't).

I think you are being a little simplistic here Nyx............people 'aren't meant' to take drugs like heroine etc but they still do...........is that ok because 'it's natural?'

Humans are not physically made to chase, catch and kill other animals 'naturally' like say a lion would do. I think if a human had to chase a wildebeest for example (those poor creatures they always get it don't they?) and kill it using their nails and teeth (naturally) they would have a very hard job and probably starve.

You mentioned that my point was to do with morals..............well to be honest they are the only things that matter in my opinion. I couldn't care less about health reasons or the whys and wherefores.

If it's 'morals' that prevents humans from eating other humans, why shouldn't those morals extend to other living beings? Or are we, as humans not very intelligent and therefore not capable of spreading our morality around the rest of the earth's inhabitants.

[Korn]

I'm only being rational in terms that if people weren't meant to eat meat, they wouldn't (physically, they actually just wouldn't).

That's hard to understand, because the logical consequence of that statement would be that everything humans do is something they are 'meant to' do, otherwise they wouldn't do it. Try the same criterion in another context, eg. in the story from last year where a mother killed her baby in a microwave oven - would you say that if she wouldn't have been 'meant to' do it, she just wouldn't have done it?

What about rape, murderer, wars, disease, racism, speciesism, sexism... are humans 'meant to' be involved in all that - on the premise that if we wouldn't have been meant to be involved in all this, we simply wouldn't?

Just like a giraffe doesn't even try to eat meat because it is a herbivore.

I agree that the term 'meant to' can cause a lot of misunderstanding, but it would be easier to understand someone stating that 'giraffes aren't meant to eat meat' than 'humans are meant to eat meat'. Humans simply seem to have more choices, and seem to have been using our ability to choose in a very unsuccessful way throughout history. If you tell an environmental activist that humans are meant to pollute air and water, otherwise we simply wouldn't have done it, what do you think he would say? Try the same thing on someone who tries to save the whales.... "we are meant to kill whales, otherwise we wouldn't have done it"....

...if we look at your google definition, then eating meat is only unnatural when it is cooked, marinated or processed in some way.

The word 'natural' has different meanings when used about an activity and about a physical matter; things'. You could say that uncooked meat is the natural state of meat, while eg. a microwaved piece of meat is unnatural. But that doesn't make eating meat natural - or eating clay, mud or larvae, just like eating raw dog poo isn't a natural thing to do for humans.

Again some people eat meat raw (sushi for example, or even ground beef).

Even if we should use 'if lots of people do it/have done it, it's natural' (a criterion I disagree with), eating raw meat wouldn't be seen as 'natural'.

Imagine that you're taking a walk, you are very hungry, and you see a tree full of apples - and birds. I know that you are a vegan, and I also know that most of us has grown up in a culture where eating chicken is considered normal... but what about our instincts? A hungry cat would instinctively choose a bird over an apple, but wouldn't even the average non-vegan rather go for an apple? If there's a work in the apple, and you could choose to eat either the worm or the apple, what would you choose?

Since we don't have the speed, strength, teeth, claws, jaws etc. that eg. lions or tigers have, I think looking at eating larvae/insects is relevant. It would be easier to understand that someone would think it's 'natural' for humans to eat earthworms, because at we are at least capable of catching them and killing them if we really want to - without too much physical hassle.

Humans DO eat humans.

In extreme situations, and life/death dilemma, humans do a lot of weird stuff. That's where I think another misunderstanding easily can pop up, in that some people look at what an extremely small amount of people have done in extreme situations, and use this as a reference for what can be considered 'natural' for most people to do in 'normal' situations. Would you say that humans are 'meant to' eat humans because some people have done it to save their life, or in historical cannibal tribes? I wouldn't. I'd just say that it's.... possible for a human to kill and eat another human being, and leave it at that. 'Natural' or 'meant to' has nothing to do with it.

[Korn]

Take a look in the mirror, and compare your teeth with the teeth of meat eating animals...

[Korn]

Herbivorous dog?

[Korn]

...and here's how the teeth of grizzly bears look:



If what I've read is correct, only 20% of their diet is animal based, the rest is plants/roots.


Human teeth:



Now, which of all these teeth looks as they're not suitable for killing other animals or tearing apart their flesh, skin or fur?

[1gentlemaorispirit]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned in previous posts . . . if so, please forgive me repeating it!

Aside from the fact that human teeth are differnt to carnivores teeth, there is another factor that is not obvious. A carnivores digestive tract is smaller than that of a herbivore/omnivore. The reason being is that meat rots and ferments in the longer digestive tract, hence the high incidences of colon cancer in humans. A carnivores digstive tract is about 6x their body length, where as a herbivores/humans is 12x their body length.

The saliva of a carnivore is acidic, as is their stomach acid. A herbivores and humans saliva is alkaline, so the food starts it's digestion in the mouth. Also herbivore/human stomach acid is alkaline. Acid indegestion is caused by the meat fermenting in our bodies and producing acid!

A carnivores digestive tract is smooth so the waste can pass easily, where as a herbivores/humans digestive tract has little 'pocket' like texture for the plant foods to pass through slowly and therefore absorb all the nutrients.

Herbivore/humans need fibre to pass the 'pocket' like intestines to stop food blocking and causing stagnation, and disease. A carnivores intestines being smooth, means no fibre is needed in their diets.

[Buddha Belly]

Again it may of been said already,

I think humans were designed to cope with eating small amounts of meat that were carrion or occasional lucky hunts. Humans who live 'traditional' lifestyles now (Australian aborigines, Bushmen, Kumbe and some Amazonian tribes) Live as all humans did thousands of years ago. They eat little meat and survive on a higher ratio of fruits, veg and bulk carbo staples.
Found meats and seafood was necessary for survival when food was scarce and all food kept people alive. I am dealing with a time pre-farming.

My point is; it is not necessary now to eat any animal products and it is cruel to do so. To try to find a cast iron scientific reason not to eat meat is probably impossible. We should accept the fact that humans would not be where we are without eating meat but are in a position where we do not, and should not, have to.

Please ignore the cruel aspects for a moment.

A lot of the health issues surronding meat consumption is not only from overeating but also due to the poor animals so modified to grow large that any goodness they once may of contained is replaced by fats. Chicken was once a healthy option for a protein rich food but is now a walking ball of fat. They are filled with hormones and chemicals that react in the human body to create more health issues. I will not even begin on processed meats.

[xrodolfox]

An herbivore's teeth:



^in fact, I think that if gorillas have choice, then they could be classified as raw vegan fruititarians.

Jaw Muscularture

[Korn]

Gorillas aren't strict herbivores, are they? Anyway... what do you suggest that these pictures show (if anything)?

[Buddha Belly]

Sorry if this is a silly question.
Are there any mammals that are strictly vegan?

[xrodolfox]

That's the last of it. I'm just obfuscating this discussion.

I think that there is a case to be made about animal flesh not being healthy for humans. I think that there is a case to be made that humans as a whole are not adapted to eat meat regularly. (That'd be the "natural" debate)

I think that if those arguments work for you, then go for it.

In my experience, those arguments don't work so well in practice. I'd love to see them actually change someone's mind, though. I might just not be proficient enough to pass it off.

I do like to point out that gorilla's canine teeth are much larger than ours, but they are herbivores. Fruititarians no less! And they are 98% genetically similar to us to top it off.

[Korn]

Sorry if this is a silly question.
Are there any mammals that are strictly vegan?

The biggest and strongest ones, maybe? AFAIK elephants, moose, horses, zebras, giraffes etc. don't eat meat (or eggs, dairy products, of course) except that they, due to the nature of things, occasionally may ingest some insect poo or even insects.

[xrodolfox]

Sorry if this is a silly question.
Are there any mammals that are strictly vegan?

IMO, to be a "vegan", you have to have the option to eat meat/animal products and choose not to eat them.

Animals can be herbivores or omnivores or carnivores. And there are certainly many many herbivores that are mammals. Rudiments, like cows and horses and deer don't eat animals, and they only consume the milk from their own species for a short nursing period during infancy.

If cows had volition in the matter, they'd be vegan. But I think that it is absurd to suggest that. More accurate would be "herbivore"

[Buddha Belly]

IMO, to be a "vegan", you have to have the option to eat meat/animal products and choose not to eat them.

Animals can be herbivores or omnivores or carnivores. And there are certainly many many herbivores that are mammals. Rudiments, like cows and horses and deer don't eat animals, and they only consume the milk from their own species for a short nursing period during infancy.

If cows had volition in the matter, they'd be vegan. But I think that it is absurd to suggest that. More accurate would be "herbivore"

I am quite thick at times and did not think of cows and deer etc. In my head I just thought of big cats and whales and things like that.

[Korn]

I am quite thick at times and did not think of cows and deer etc.

In general, almost all animals that are eaten by carnivorous animals are plant eaters.

[Mahk]

Humans are omnivores. We are biologically capable of digesting both meat and vegetables. I've never seen anyone in the fields of biology dispute this.

If you force feed a true herbivore exclusively meat, for instance a horse, it will become quite ill and possibly die because their GI track isn't designed to handle meat, nor do they have the necessary stomach acids/enzymes/bile etc to digest meat. We do. If you force feed a obligate carnivore, like a cat, a diet of exclusively vegetables it will eventually get sick too due to a lack of certain nutrients it needs that normally are only found abundantly in meat (for example taurine). Sure you can find synthetically altered cat food which is vegan, but they've added various compounds turning the normal vegetable matter into a sort of "synthetic meat".