Humans are herbivores.

^ I have to agree; the 1st article--while intelligent & sensible--is published by a biased source. So even though I mostly agree with it, I can't help wondering if I'm getting the whole picture.

jim_w's article is pretty fair. Ironically, it presents an even more compelling argument for vegetarianism, imo. It shows that humans, over the millenia, have been evolving from a 100% carnivorous state to an herbivorous state (with the appearance of molars and the diminution of bicuspids and incisor teeth).

I read that to say: "Look where evolution is going. Are you with it or not?"

Good information all around. Thanks, I love reading this sort of anthropological/philosophical crap.

 

A great aunt once said to me "the way I see it is, if we didn't breed these animals for food then they wouldn't have any life at all."

I wonder if she'd feel happy about farming human babies...well okay, so there is a difference.

 

from that second article:
"Finally, you need to look at nutritional requirements. There are some
B-complex vitamins that are available only by eating other animals. The
human body requires this nutrient, but does not synthesize it the way some
other animals do. Therefore, if humans truly ate no animal foods, and had
no artificial vitamin supplements, they would sicken and die. In nature,
there are no true "human vegetarians.""

this isn't quite true, bacteria produce B-12 and the reason cows have B-12 in their system is because the eat grass and shit - the bacteria is in the dirt so that gets ingested as well when they eat. - so basically we'd get it too if we didn't wash all of our food and cover it in pesticide and all that.
you can also get enough B-12 from things like seaweed as well

sorry, but i still can't buy the whole 'slicing teeth' in humans, atleast not for the argument that we were supposed to, or still are supposed to, eat animals like cows, there is no possible way you could tear through a cow - maybe very small things, but come on, you can't point to your little 'slicing teeth' and think that you can do that.

this article was also pretty short, i expected a lot more

~Dan

 

This whole discussion is based on the notion that humans were designed to eat a certain diet and that it is best if we follow that design. (We were designed?? Hmm, I wonder if the designer was intelligent?)

In rebuttal to the argument that "God made animals, so we could eat them", some folks look at teeth and say "God made us to eat plants, so thats all that we should eat."

People are using the supposed intent of some outside force (God, nature, evolution) to both justify their actions and denegrate those who act otherwise.

I think that drumminmama has it right. Diet is our choice. It is not a matter of pleasing God (or nature or our destiny or ..).

 

Yes I remember you made a thread about it?
quite frankly I don't see the difference between eating a cow and a eating a human......dead flesh is dead flesh. We all have fat and we all have meat. i probably taste like chicken!

Anytime anyone says "god said it was OK to eat animals" it's always a LAMEASS attempt to justify their lifestyle. On the notion then that God created us all......I am sure he loves animals just as much as us humans.....and even IF he did say it was OK to eat them...perhaps he meant for survival purposes????? Why would a LOVING GOD condone killing when it is unnecessary???? It doesn't make sense that he would. What would make sense is that if you have a choice between harming and killing or living without doing so, God would want you to choose the latter......and we do have a choice. Bah!

 

Hell, that's what high-grade power tools are for. Cut that puppy up and thow it on tha fire.

 

I am a human, I am not a cow. There is a difference between me eating human flesh and me eating cow flesh.

 

what is the difference? I realize you are of a different species.......but how does that make it really different? Beef, pork and chicken are all of a different species (one being more intelligent than the other) but I assume you eat those, no?

 

Yep, I am a different species. That is a big difference.

I will be more concerned with members of my species than I will with other species.

When a dog is bitting a child, I will not concern myself with whether the kid was teasing the dog (i.e. whether the dog was justified in bitting) until after the kid is safe from harm.

I will stop and help a wounded human. Wounded animals, maybe, maybe not.

When looking for social interaction, I will see out humans.

There is one boss in my house and it is human. The cat comes third.

When looking for a mate, I look to my own species. I mention this in case you need a biological reason for my seeing a difference between humans and non-humans.

Yes, human/not human is a very important difference.

 

Ok well that is where you and I differ. I see all species on this earth of equal importance. Of course if I see a dog attacking a child I will help the child first....but only because she is the one being attacked. If I see my cat attacking a mouse out in the yard I rush out and bring my cat inside and help the mouse to the brush where it will be safe. I do realize that there are biological differences in different species...I was just making the point that a rotting carcuss is...well... a rotting carcuss whether it be human or cow. I wouldn't want to harm a cow any more than I would want to harm a fellow human being. I do understand your point of view......we just don't agree I guess.

edit: the part I don't understand is why does a human being get to decide which species on earth are important or less important? We only do it because we can.....because animals are defenseless against us. Does that make it ok? We are not the end all be all on this earth. We share it......and appharently don't do a great job at it.

 

Yeah, we differ on the equivilance of humans and animals. The quote above proves that you see a cat and a human as equivilants. To stop a cat from its normal hunting behaviour because of your moral stance on killing truely shows that you make small any distiction between human and non-human.

I'd like to explore the cat/mouse thing, but need some time to get my words right ("interspecies arrogance" gives the right idea but not the tone that I want.) Later

EDIT: reply to edit: Who besides us should assign our priorities? As you noted, humans have the power, thus our decisions are the ones that count. That does not mean that all human decisions are wise. Nor am I claiming that we have the ability to control anything that we want to. I'm not making a moral argument, just a factual observation.

Other species are part of the planet that we try to control. The effect of our actions on those species is one of the factors we should consider when deciding how to use the planet.

You ask if that makes it OK. The question implies that there is a non-human entity that could either give or deny humans the authority to assign interspecies rankings. I know, it was rhetorical. You were trying to convice another human that to agree with your individual ranking system. It seems that your argument is not that humans should not control, but rather how that control should be used.

 

Simply put I just see it as if we are to have any sort of control over anything on this earth it should be in way of helping and not harming....and I see the unnecessary killing of animals for the sake of our taste buds (because we do not need to do so for survival) as harming. As far as stopping my cat from hunting....I realize that this is a natural behavior for him. If I didn't want him killing anything or hunting anything then I would just not allow him outside.....I do allow him outside whenever he wants and I am sure that he kills mice....however it is a rare occurance that I catch him in the act so, yes, if I see a opputunity to spare the life of a mouse then I do so.....my cat will be just fine having been brought back in for a few seconds and by the time I let him back out the mouse has been helped to safety and he has a hell of time trying to find it It's not that I see my cat and myself as biological or moral equals....whereas if I don't hunt then neither should he.......I do see us as equals in the sense that we are both sentiment beings and both deserve the same good quality of life, and that my greater intelligence and morality gives me a greater responsibility and not necessarily an "upper hand".....I provide my cat the best life possible. I think all animals derserve a great and natural life.

 

Read both articles. Not convinced by either.

Whilst I don't always stop off to pick up roadkill it doesn't mean I daydream of eating grass either.

 

i DO agree with MikeE to a point but not to his extent anyway...
I agree that for a human to eat a human is different, because in no species of animal is it normal for a creature to eat one of it's own species [that is unless it's in highly desperate situations]... so to that extent I see where he is coming from.

However, the point, MikeE, that most of us are trying to get across is the fact that we view all creatures equally...not directly meaning it the way you may take it [as you referred to about the dog biting a child]...I, and others on here, simply feel that to kill any living creature is wrong. I can't quite explain it...

Simply, how I and many others feel, is that we are not above any other creature, therefore we shouldnt have any kind of "power" to decide their fate... and use them for food, clothing...or whatever else. ...Instead of comparing it to a human eating a human, I guess...think of it as if another animal were to kill us, eat us...and wear us as a coat... I suppose you wouldn't be to thrilled about that...would you?

 

The thread started with a link to an article of questionable accuracy.

My original contribution was an attempt to show that arguments in favor of veg*ism based on how humans are designed are as religous in nature as "God made animals for eating."

Later, I disagreed with a statemtent about eating humans and explained that, as a human, I regard humans and their welfare more important than non-humans.

That led to a confusing exchange where I was talking practicality (humans have so much control over nature that we do control all other animals) and was being spoken to about morality.

To try to wrap this together, I think that the only valid reason to be vegetartian is that the vegetarian want to be. Appeals to "nature's intent" are suspiciously religious in nature.

I should mention two other things. First, choice of diet is a luxury enjoyed by the rich. In much of this world, that choice is not avaliable.

Secondly; in the long term, a high meat diet is not sustainable. If we look at the sunlight needed for a calorie of meat vs veg., vegetables win every time.

 

(quote)
I see all species on this earth of equal importance.
(end quote)

Bollocks. You might like to think that, but you can't actually see other animals as being as important as us. If a dog was killing a child, you'd kill the dog to stop it, regardless of who 'started' the fight. It's simply not possible for us as humans to treat other animals as being equivalent to us - that's not how we work. You can repeat it to yourself all you like, but it's not true.

 

I agree with drumminmama and MikeE on this one. To be a vegetarian is a choice people can make and has nothing to do with how we are "designed" or what we are supposed to do or not to do.
And the point MikeE was making about that choice being a luxury is very important. Not everybody has the choice and it is very arrogant to say eating meat is wrong. What is right and what is wrong anyways?
Looking at some tribes in Africa or the Eskimos, who have to eat meat to get enough nutrition, it is obvious that our bodies are very well capeable of digesting and staying healthy with a meat based diet.
The reason why people in our society are unhealthy and suffering from diseases that are related to meat consumption has to do with the amounts they are consuming and with the low quality of the meat they are eating and low quality of food in general.
Vegetarians are generally more concerned about their diet, to eat balanced and higher quality food. That is why they are often more healthy than the average meat eater and not because they don't eat meat.
Death is a part of life and killing an animal to eat it is part of nature. To stop a cat from eating a mouse and in the same time saying one sees all living beings as equal is a contradiction, because by interfering you are placing yourself and your morals above those of nature.
I am certainly against mass production of meat and don't agree with the way the animals are kept and treated, how they get killed and how the meat is prosessed and I also think that the amount of meat people are consuming is unhealthy and out of balance, but I am not opposed to eating meat in general.
My two cents

 

I liked that article, even though I have to raise some questions about it. It makes sense that our early ancesters not only did not have the teeth, nails, or digestive track to consume meat, we also simply don't have the speed to catch most animals. We would have had to have figured out tools to do this, which means we must have done it fairly recently.

However, we would have been able to consume raw insects, larvae, grubb, and poss. fish with little help for speed, cutting, or digestion at all. In fact, if you look at our primate relatives, they eat insects all the time. It is not too big of a philosophical leap to go from insects to birds, mammals, etc.

Also you can't really use the arguement that since all living things are equal, why don't we just eat human flesh? Humans eating human flesh literally causes insanity because of some oddly digested protein (i can't remember exactly what it is). It is the same reason cows are supposed to eat ground cow meat, etc.

my two cents.

 

i dont think that is what she means though i could be wrong.
when I state that all creatures are equal, I simply mean that I would not kill an animal at my own discretion ...as I would not a human. However, you're right if a human were being attacked by a dog, I'd save the child...that doesnt mean i see animals less important...if I saw a dog being attacked by a child/or other human...id save the dog....