Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 101 to 107 of 107

Thread: A rational critique of: Humans are Omnivores

  1. #101
    Mahk
    Guest

    Default Re: A rational critique of: Humans are Omnivores

    Originally Posted by Mahk View Post
    Even more perplexing for you is that the Vegan Society completely agrees with me for the exact same reason: science.
    Quote Korn View Post
    Except that one person has written something about that, once, one their site, I haven't seen any official statement from them about that.
    You are inncorrect that it appears only once. Here is another example, beyond the one you already linked to previously which said "Humans are omnivores, which doesn't mean we HAVE to eat both plants and animals. It means we can survive on either" {link}", taken from the Vegan Society pages :

    "Answers to Some of Those Tricky Questions/Challenges

    "Eating meat is natural"

    Vegan Society response: "Human beings are omnivores and don't need to kill other beings in order to live healthily - eating meat is no more natural than not eating meat."


    [emphasis mine] Both are equally natural, then.

    This, above, is from their most recent Winter 2009 newsletter, The Vegan, and is also linked to from their site directly, so it is quite up to date in reflecting their current stance.

    Not enough? OK, here's yet another:

    "Vegan Basics - FAQ's

    Question: Aren't humans naturally meat eaters?

    Answer: Human nature includes traits such as stealing and lying - this doesn't make these morally right."
    [emphasis mine]

    Bingo! We have a winner! They nailed it right there. Rather than denying that humans steal, lie, kill etc they simply just admit it. The reason we shouldn't do these things is because of morals, not because it is against human's natural biological design.

    that statement could be seen only as the same kind of slip they had a while ago where they defined 'vegan' based on what people ate only.
    It's no slip, Korn, it's them accepting current scientific wisdom. Humans can and do sometimes eat animal matter making them omnivores, not herbivores. Every single person in this thread, I believe, has at one point done so for that matter. [Unless there is a vebra here. (vegan since birth)]
    Last edited by Mahk; Jan 23rd, 2010 at 02:59 AM.

  2. #102
    Mahk
    Guest

    Default Re: A rational critique of: Humans are Omnivores

    Quote Korn View Post
    But at least I know now that you think humans are 'natural cannibals' as well as 'natural omnivores'.
    That's interesting that you think you know my view on the matter considering I've never uttered the words cannibal, cannibals, or cannibalism anywhere in this thread, excluding this very sentence. Again, please do an Advanced search on those three words searching on forum member Mahk posts only and you'll see the only occurrence is this very post. [I also know very little about the topic, for that matter.]
    Last edited by Mahk; Jan 23rd, 2010 at 01:05 AM.

  3. #103
    Mahk
    Guest

    Default Re: A rational critique of: Humans are Omnivores

    Quote Korn View Post
    Or maybe you can comment on the 'natural murderer' aspect of the human species? Are humans 'natural murderers'?.
    Yes. Everyday and almost everywhere there many murders. This has been true since forever. In fact 27 different governments around the globe, including (unfortunately) my own, are currently practicing a systematized version of humans murdering other humans by the thousands which often goes by the name "war". Other species do it as well.
    Last edited by Mahk; Jan 23rd, 2010 at 01:20 AM.

  4. #104
    Prawnil
    Guest

    Default Re: A rational critique of: Humans are Omnivores

    Quote Mahk View Post
    Humans can and do sometimes eat animal matter. Every single person in this thread, I believe, has at one point done so.
    This discussion isn't a true discussion while this is still treated as contended, or even relevant. It hasn't been contended. By anyone.
    Treating omnivorism as simply the physiological capacity to digest animal matter and plant matter is a mistake. Typically, 'general-consensus' herbivores are smallish, novelty-averse creatures whose gut bacteria are most efficient at generating an energy source from plant matter. That is not mutually exclusive with animal-matter digestion: You can feed a guinea pig a (supplemented) diet of almost total animal protein without deleterious effect, but the efficiency of digestion is lowered (because of this, the animal will actually tend to eat more animal protein than it would plant protein).

    Our species and ancestors are highly innovative, and relative to 'lower' animals will take advantage of what works, being novelty-adaptive (like Korn has said, & I totally agree that the adaptation-to-catastrophy diet alteration idea is likely). 'Lower' creatures than Hominids have a closer relationship between physiological need/adaptation and intake - like the sodium/salt-hunger. Humans may enjoy salt, but do not develop the urge to take in sodium during sodium deficiency that, say, a rodent does. As such, the hominid exploitative character allows greater 'deviation' from physiological adaptation - essentially, that's our human-ness. And also as such, the terms for feeding behaviour and 'design' are relatively meaningless.

  5. #105
    Mahk
    Guest

    Default Re: A rational critique of: Humans are Omnivores

    Quote Prawnil View Post
    This discussion isn't a true discussion while this is still treated as contended, or even relevant. It hasn't been contended. By anyone.
    Good, then you agree an omnivore is a kind of animal that eats either other animals or plants; humans, as a species, are omnivores, not herbivores, not carnivores. Like the millions of other omnivores, like our nearest living relative the chimpanzee which we share over 92% similar DNA, we have a choice. True carnivores and true herbivores don't have this choice.

    You can feed a guinea pig a (supplemented) diet of almost total animal protein without deleterious effect, but the efficiency of digestion is lowered
    Supplements don't count and are cheating. If you force feed a guinea pig a diet of just pork, beef, and chicken it will die. [and if you force feed a lion a diet of just hay, it will die too.]
    Last edited by Mahk; Jan 23rd, 2010 at 06:59 AM.

  6. #106
    CATWOMAN sandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The Emerald Isle
    Posts
    2,506

    Default Re: A rational critique of: Humans are Omnivores

    Quote Mahk View Post
    Yes. Everyday and almost everywhere there many murders. This has been true since forever. In fact 27 different governments around the globe, including (unfortunately) my own, are currently practicing a systematized version of humans murdering other humans by the thousands which often goes by the name "war". Other species do it as well.
    Other species go to war?

    The more I read this thread the more I despair of humans. They kill and eat other animals and human animals not because they were designed to do so but just because they can.

    They are aggressive, argumentative and hostile to each other. They go to war and commit other atrocious acts. They rape and torture and generally treat the earth like a dustbin.

    I don't really like being human.
    I like Sandra, she keeps making me giggle. Daft little lady - Frosty

  7. #107
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default Re: A rational critique of: Humans are Omnivores

    Quote Mahk View Post
    That's interesting that you think you know my view on the matter considering I've never uttered the words cannibal, cannibals, or cannibalism anywhere in this thread, excluding this very sentence. Again, please do an Advanced search on those three words searching on forum member Mahk posts only and you'll see the only occurrence is this very post. [I also know very little about the topic, for that matter.]

    Here's my question to you, posted earlier in this thread:


    Based on your "free will" criterions for 'natural omnivores', Mahk, should the human species be considered 'natural cannibals', if the humans that have been observed 'in nature' eating other humans claim that nobody forced them to do it?
    Yes. Eating one's own species is found in many species. It occurs in nature so it is natural by my definition of the word.
    Your "Yes" to that questions means that you think humans are natural cannibals if humans have been observed 'in nature' eating other humans and nobody forced them to do it.

    The discussion about what human behavior that is derived from our 'nature', and what behaviors that is a result of cultural influence, neurosis, emergency situations, learned or forced habits etc. has been going on for ages, which anyone only vaguely familiar with eg Zen or Taoism will know. This topic has also been discussed between Christians and non-Christians a lot ("Are humans natural born sinners"). Likewise, in discussions about psychotherapy/child psychology, a similar been discussed for a long time: Are children aggressive/violent by nature, or does such behavior occur only as a result of childhood traumas or in extreme situations?


    "Vegan Basics - FAQ's

    Question: Aren't humans naturally meat eaters?

    Answer: Human nature includes traits such as stealing and lying - this doesn't make these morally right." [emphasis mine]

    Bingo! We have a winner! They nailed it right there. Rather than denying that humans steal, lie, kill etc they simply just admit it. The reason we shouldn't do these things is because of morals, not because it is against human's natural biological design.
    Many claim that human behavior (and the planet in general) is way off it's original, natural state. This is the reason for a lot of inter-human, environmental and animal rights related conflicts. However, I don't TVS' answer that way. It looks more like a smart way to say that "even if humans, in some/many situations may eat meat, steal or lie, this doesn't mean that it's right to do it". They simply skip the question and goes directly to the important part.

    When you write "Rather than denying that humans steal, lie, kill etc they simply just admit it", I really wonder why this discussion exist, because nobody has been denying that members of the human species have been stealing, killing, eating meat etc.

    But you are right that humans as omnivore has been mentioned one or a couple of times their pages I haven't seen, so let's see if this is something they have discussed and have an official opinion about or not.

    The difference between claiming that "humans have been eating meat", "humans have been stealing/lying", "humans have been murdering/raping" on one side, and to claim that we are natural (born) murderers/rapers/thieves/liars/meat eaters is extreme.

    The main disagreement seems to be around the use of the word 'natural', which in my not so humble opinion often is confused with 'normal'.

    One misunderstanding seems to happen if we don't distinguish between the different ways of using the word 'natural'. What's considered a natural (as in reasonable) response to an extreme situation doesn't have to be part of human nature - when discussing normal behavior, in "non-extreme" situations.

    The fact that it's 'natural' for humans to create and follow habits (transferred from generation to generation) also adds to the confusion. If humans nowadays eat synthetic food, synthetic sweeteners etc., that doesn't make these products 'natural'.

    Some people don't think that while cannibalism, rape, murder and violence against other humans/children/animals have been observed among humans, such behavior isn't necessarily part of our 'natural state'. Luckily, where most of us live, its' not even part of the 'normal' state for most humans. Humans aren't natural born murderers/cannibals/meat eaters/rapers/thieves etc even if we as a species have the potential to harm and kill others.

    I'm closing this thread know. Many of the questions haven't been responded to, the discussion isn't only going nowhere, but as Prawnil suggests, it's debatable if we are even having a real discussion about at least one of the central topics involved.

    If someone wants to follow up on the unanswered topics and questions brought up in this thread, please start (a)new thread(s).
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

Similar Threads

  1. "Are humans omnivores?" (John Coleman, 2008)
    By Korn in forum Human evolution and environmental issues
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: Jun 23rd, 2010, 04:34 AM
  2. Why do you think omnivores don't turn vegans sooner ?
    By vegetarian_cat in forum VEGANISM - THE MAIN TOPICS
    Replies: 114
    Last Post: Feb 23rd, 2010, 12:24 AM
  3. "Humans are Omnivores" statement - ugh!
    By vtveg in forum Human evolution and environmental issues
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: Feb 17th, 2010, 09:12 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •