Erik Marcus has been podcasting Oprah's 21-day vegan challenge. Today's segment is on staying motivated, and commodity animal products. After a little while, it's really not that hard to stay motivated: the non-vegan food is out of your house, your friends know, and you have a stable of vegan restaurants where you can get good food. (Particularly recommend, in the vicinity of U Street, Queen Makeba Ethiopian, Rice (thai food), Asylum, Sticky Fingers bakery, and Meiwah chinese. But there is a hump when the novelty has worn off, but the routine is not yet comfortable. That's when a little motivation helps a lot.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
But you still haven't answered the big question, which is what is the point?
I understand the desire to become a vegitarian or to only eat crulty-free mean products. But why avoid organic, free range eggs? Just for the benefit of being altruistic? Same with organic, free range butter? Why would you willingly choose to no longer eat cake? (and don't tell me that vegan cake is just as good...it's not and any vegan who says otherwise is a liar. It may taste good, but it does not taste like cake.)
I just don't get it.
No thank you...
I'm all for not eating "commodity" anything, like bad farmed seafood or chicken raised in industrial warehouses or corn-fed beef. But no meat = no deal for this guy.
No thank you...
I'm all for not eating "commodity" anything, like bad farmed seafood or chicken raised in industrial warehouses or corn-fed beef. But no meat = no deal for this guy. And I think I'd rather die than never be able to eat cheese again.
I don't really understand the point, either... eating a mostly vegetarian diet with a little meat is a lot healthier than eating either a vegetarian diet or a high-meat diet.
Veganism seems like more of a moral diet than a health diet... which is fine, I guess, if that's how you roll.
>But why avoid organic, free range eggs? Just for the benefit of >being altruistic? Same with organic, free range butter?
Hi Kate,
A quick and partial answer to your question. In my opinion, there's really no such thing as cruelty-free egg or dairy products. Every single layer hen and every single dairy cow, even under the best commercial systems, inevitably ends up in the slaughterhouse once their egg or milk yield declines. The only way this doesn't happen is if the animal dies prematurely of disease.
The only difference between meat and milk/eggs is that meat comes from animals that have been killed, where as milk and eggs come from animals that will be killed, guaranteed. And this dynamic applies to free range eggs and organic milk as well.
The issue is far larger than this but I think this quick comment mostly answers your question. I've devoted chapter 3 of my book Meat Market to covering this issue in detail.
One final comment. You've obviously had crappy vegan cake. The great stuff is indistinguishable from the best non-vegan cake. Try a cake recipe in Veganomicon and email me if you don't agree.
Erik
Earnest wrote:
>I don't really understand the point, either... eating a mostly
>vegetarian diet with a little meat is a lot healthier than eating
>either a vegetarian diet or a high-meat diet.
Source, please?
You won't find a reputable source within the nutrition literature for the above claim. You can make a strong argument that a well-planned diet with a small amount of meat is no worse than a well-planned vegan diet. But you're not going to find any source worth taking seriously that a diet containing "a little meat" is "a lot healthier" than a well-planned vegan diet.
Erik,
I know that if I had to eat a well-planned vegan diet, I would commit suicide.
Ergo, the diet with a little meat is "a lot" healthier for me.
>I know that if I had to eat a well-planned vegan diet, I would commit suicide.
>Ergo, the diet with a little meat is "a lot" healthier for me.
Yancey,
There's actually some logic to your argument. If your diet is atrocious, a small amount of meat or dairy can protect against some deficiencies.
By why would you want your diet to be atrocious? A diet filled with fruits, veggies, whole grains, beans, etc, is unbelievably delicious. Nevermind the health concerns, just in terms of flavor and overall deliciousness and everything that a diversity of foods brings to your life you are missing out, big time.
Plus, you'll feel vastly better on a superb diet than on an inferior diet -- so why would you settle for anything less than having an excellent diet?
Hi Erik:
Obviously this is a passion for you. For me, the free range meats and cage free eggs are fine. The reason is that, biologically speaking, we are omnivores living in a world with carnivores and herbivores and omnivores. So eating an animal as such cannot be considered an immoral act.
However, it IS immoral to lock up animals in cruel circumstances, like chickens in tiny cages with no movement and debeaking them. Or the Hallmark beef plant. However, a free range chicken does not live a life of "dead man walking" - if it has a good chicken life and then becomes dinner for another animal, that would seem to me to be the most moral type of diet. That is also why Chipotle is my favorite fast food restaurant.
I respect vegans, but I'm just not one of them. Since I don't eat any meat unless I know it has been humanely raised, it makes me almost a de facto vegetarian. But I do love meat too.
The only difference between meat and milk/eggs is that meat comes from animals that have been killed, where as milk and eggs come from animals that will be killed, guaranteed.
Are our livestock and chickens otherwise immortal? In the end, every animal dies, either from natural or manmade causes. To not eat eggs because eventually the hen will be turned into soup seems beside the point. I mean, if they're going to kill the chicken anyway, why not enjoy its eggs?
SZR wrote:
>Obviously this is a passion for you. For me, the free range meats and cage free eggs are fine.
>The reason is that, biologically speaking, we are omnivores living in a world with carnivores
>and herbivores and omnivores. So eating an animal as such cannot be considered an immoral
>act.
I don't think a tiger eating meat has any choice in the matter, so it would plainly be silly to say that, for tigers, eating meat is an immoral act.
For affluent people with access to Western supermarkets, it's a different story. Given that we can enjoy superb health on a vegan diet, the choice of whether to deprive an animal of her life is based mainly on whether we value how the animal tastes more than we value the animal's life.
I'm not interested in debating whether or not meat eating is immoral. But certainly, given what I've written above, there are compelling philosophical frameworks within which eating meat can certainly be considered immoral. See Peter Singer's Animal Liberation or Tom Regan's Empty Cages if these arguments are of interest to you.
Matt wrote:
>To not eat eggs because eventually the hen will be turned into
>soup seems beside the point. I mean, if they're going to kill the
>chicken anyway, why not enjoy its eggs?
This argument is based on a faulty premise. In modern animal agribusiness, meat chickens are a totally different breed from layer hens.
I think an omnivore diet with modest (rather than gigantic) portions of meat and dairy products is healthier than vegan. After all, it's much less likely to give you rickets:
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article4087734.ece
Michael wrote:
>I think an omnivore diet with modest (rather than gigantic)
>portions of meat and dairy products is healthier than vegan. After
>all, it's much less likely to give you rickets
Deficiencies can arise on poorly-planned vegan diets, just as they can on poorly-planned omnivorous diets. It's certainly possible to get in trouble on a vegan diet by, say, not taking in any vitamin D. But a bit of reading on the subject can give you everything you need to stay out of trouble.
I wouldn't point to a random meat-eater who has developed a deficiency and say, "see, eating meat can give you rickets."
If you compare well-planned omnivorous diets to well-planned vegan diets, there doesn't appear to be any compelling reason -- apart from having grown up accustomed to eating animal products -- to include these foods in your diet. Indeed, being vegan can substantially lower your risk of several common diseases, including heart disease.
Given that heart disease is a leading cause of death, talking about something obscure like rickets introducing a red herring into the discussion.
Erik:
I'm not sure about veganism, which is much rarer than regular vegetarianism and not as well-studied, but it's my understanding that the elleged health benefits of vegetarianism arise from the fact that it's correlated with high SES and factors known to be beneficial, like not smoking, exercising regularly, better health education, etc.
I know of two studies which attempted to control for "health-consciousness," and neither found any benefit from vegetarianism. If you know of any studies with contrary results, I'd be interested in seeing them.
I would also like to add to my above comment that there are numerous controlled interventional studies showing health benefits from increased dietary protein. While vegetarians are correct in asserting that the typical American eats more protein than is necessary to avoid severe malnutrition, it does appear that we do not, on average, eat enough for optimal health.
Granted, animal products are not the only source of dietary protein, but aside from plant protein isolates they're far and away the richest sources.
One of the virtues of an omnivorous diet (for me) is that it requires far less planning than any of the alternatives.
I think vegetarianism/veganism are fine legitimate choices that require no justification beyond the desire of the individual (preferably adult) involved. But they're not for everyone.
Children have a lot less leeway in terms of nutrition than adults do and parents who want to impose a non-traditional diet on their kids better do their homework very thoroughly.
And parents who don't notice/care that their kid is getting farking rickets (and doing something about it a long time before it becomes a crisis) are simply unfit.
Erik,
I never said fruits, veggies, and whole grains aren't delicious- they most definitely are, and I have been known to happily scarf down orchards and plantations of each. However, a good flame-broiled t-bone steak is also delicious, as is cheese and crackers, or peanut butter sandwiches and an ice-cold glass of milk.
Some of my friends no longer beat their children. They say that their wrists and knuckles are much less sore since they've stopped. I respect their decision. But it's not for everyone. Personally, I could never give up beating children. It gives me so much pleasure. I've heard the arguments of those who choose not to beat their kids. But we have to remember that it's a choice. What I can't stand is those smug, holier-than-thou children's advocates who want to shove their morals down the throats of the rest of us. Humans are naturally aggressive, and child-beating is part of it. But not too much. Moderation, folks, that's the answer. Everything in moderation.
mijnheer,
I was wondering when someone would try to argue that humans and animals have a moral equivalence.
Thanks for posting comments, Erik!
>One of the virtues of an omnivorous diet (for me) is
>that it requires far less planning than any of the
>alternatives.
But if there were more veg*ns, it would be a lot easier, since grocery stores and restaurants would cater to vegetarians. I work on a college campus (something like 30% of college students regularly eat vegetarian) and virtually every campus restaurant has vegan options. It is harder to eat vegan away from campus. I'd like it to be much easier, and you can help by demanding vegan options!
>Children have a lot less leeway in terms of
>nutrition than adults do and parents who want to
>impose a non-traditional diet on their kids
>better do their homework very thoroughly.
I take issue with this! In the US, two thirds of adults are overweight. The "traditional" diet you speak of is very unhealthy, and it's not the vegetarians that are the problem. Why then, do only vegetarians have to do their homework? You single out neglectful vegetarian parents, but you fail to mention neglectful omnivore parents? Parental neglect makes me sick, regardless of who makes the infractions. You can't judge all vegetarians by the actions of a few at the fringes.
As a parent of young children, I think everyone needs to do their homework. I see the crap that omnivores routinely feed their kids and it makes me very, very sad. There are lots of exceptions, of course, but I think everyone can make some improvements in this department.
You won't find a reputable source within the nutrition literature for the above claim. You can make a strong argument that a well-planned diet with a small amount of meat is no worse than a well-planned vegan diet. But you're not going to find any source worth taking seriously that a diet containing "a little meat" is "a lot healthier" than a well-planned vegan diet.
Easy: If the industrial food economy collapsed tomorrow, the person who is willing of necessity to both kill and eat the rabbit in the backyard, wins. Animals are the only source of balanced protein intake that are available in every habitable climate.
Ethical vegans are entitled to whatever diet they like, for any reasons they like. But it would behoove them to be much more humble about the fact that the complete avoidance of all animal products is not a sustainable lifestyle in most parts of the earth without the benefit of industrial food processing.
Meanwhile, you referenced Peter Singer. Singer can write whatever he likes about the cute little animals. Since he also favors post-birth abortion within the first year (no word on his position regarding eating the remains), I wouldn't exactly regard him as a source of consistent philosophical positions regarding the value of life.
"Some of my friends no longer beat their children"
But I bet they can still beat up strawmen pretty well.
"I take issue with this! In the US, two thirds of adults are overweight. The "traditional" diet you speak of is very unhealthy"
What precisely is "very unhealthy" about grains, and some starchy vegetables (for bulk), lots of color vegetables (preferably not canned or frozen), some legumes and modest amounts of meat and dairy?
I'll agree that massive amounts of muscle meat and processed sugar and a few over-processed vegetables do not a good diet make but that's not "traditional".
aMouseforallSeasons: You're wrong about Singer. Singer is rigorously consistent in applying his preference-utilitarian philosophy to all life, human and non-human. Like many, I have problems with his utilitarianism, not with his degree of philosophical consistency. And, by the way, Singer has no interest whatsoever in "cuteness"; he has even said that he's not an "animal-lover". His only concern is: where does the logic of his principles lead?
Yancey Ward and Michael Farris: My point was that the arguments of those in favour exploiting animals typically beg the question of their moral status (i.e., assume without argument that the basic interests of animals can be trumped by the non-basic interests of humans) and resort to assertions that would immediately be seen as blatantly inadequate or wrong-headed if applied in other situations.
mijnheer,
Fair enough on the issue of inadequacy, but the wrong-headedness rests on a moral equivalency.
In any case, someone that can actually spell my first name correctly is OK by me.
His only concern is: where does the logic of his principles lead?
Toward a shortage of compatible women, I would reckon. Which would then give him that much more time, frustration, and lack of perspective to divert into crassly mechanized thinking. Viscious cycle, that.
Please recognize that the human body has evolved or was created (whichever you believe) to be OMNIVOROUS.
Physiologically, our dental structure has incisors designed specifically for tearing flesh. We also have stomachs that produce hydrochloric acid.
These are physiological traits that are ONLY found in omnivorous and carnivorous species on the planet. Therefore, it requires no morality judgment or contention to say that consuming animal protein is quite natural and healthy, provided the source animals are natural and healthy.
Therefore, whether you believe in a religion based on the worship of an Omnipotent Deity or Deities as your source for moral principles, or if you are a Darwinist evolutionary atheist/agnostic/humanist, understand that you were designed to eat, digest and live off of animal protein. The physiological facts are indisputable.
Equating animals to humans or the predation of prey species as some kind of moral question is UNNATURAL.
Even if you cannot bear the idea of an animal dying to promote your own subsistence, there are still plenty of means of obtaining the vital animal protein's YOUR OMNIVOROUS BODY REQUIRES - humanely raised, free range organic chicken's allowed to eat their natural, omnivorous diet provide high quality eggs full of protein and essential fatty acids. Milk and milk fat produce derived from free range, pastured cows NOT PASTEURIZED, also provide a whole range of beneficial food products that your body will thrive on. And neither require cruelty or "exploitation." In fact, both sources require excellent husbandry of these animals to provide the highest quality foods that promote health and vitality.
On the question of environmentalism - the modern large scale industrial methods of producing meat and produce are harmful to the environment, inhumane to the animals, and provide substandard and even harmful "food."
Cows were not meant to be confined to feed lots, wallowing in their own offal and eating grains. They were designed/evolved to eat grass on pasture land - in which they exist in perfect symbiosis with their natural environment. They're eating the food they were designed/evolved to, and their offal fertilizes the land they just grazed, promoting new growth of the grass they just consumed. Also, naturally pastured cows provide milk and meat with high levels of Vitamin D, Conjugated Linoleic Acids and Omega-3 fatty acids...as well as Vitamin B12 - the one Vitamin your body absolutely needs, but cannot obtain through strict vegetarian diets.
Vegans and Vegetarians will often point to the produce of the Big Corporation Meat Production industries, their environmentally degrading feedlots and unhealthy reliance on preservatives and chemicals to extend shelf life and maximize profits as an indictment of all carnivorous dietary practices. This is akin to saying one should avoid eating all Spinach, simply because some unethical farmers spray neuro-toxic pesticides and use cholera-infected human feces as fertilizer on their Spinach crops.
There is a huge distinction in health and environmental benefits/detriments when discussing ANY food production techniques. But to say one's entire diet should be based on avoiding an entire class of food simply because SOME sources of that food are produced in an inferior and harmful manner is to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.
Another physiological point of consideration is the bodies requirement of proteins and fats.
Vegans and Vegetarians think plant based substitutes are adequate and/or superior to animal sources of proteins and fats. Soy is the most popular.
What they often do not know is that Soy for the most part is full of estrogenic isoflavones that upset the bodies hormonal balance and can lead to a whole host of health problems.
This site, Soy Online Service offers a very comprehensive but easy to understand explanation to back up what I just claimed about Soy. There are plenty of other sites dedicated to the health dangers of Soy foods. Google it yourself.
Finally, many vegans and vegetarians are under the mistaken assumption that avoiding animal derived foods is the healthiest diet possible. But even the modern feed lot, preservative laden denatured animal products are healthier for you than the primary culprits of the modern, industrial societies degenerative diseases that are found in abundance in the typical Western societies diets - simple carbohydrates (refined grain products & sugar), trans-fats, chemical preservatives and taste enhancers and the proliferation of vegetable oils that oxidize easily and upset the optimal ratio of Omega 6 and Omega 3 fatty acids.
Here's another article on the Omega 6 and 3 ratio and how modern manufactured foods have it completely out of whack: Why Omega-3s Were Removed from the Western Diet and What We Can Do to Replace Them.
Veganism and Vegetarianism is based on emotional appeals (how you FEEL about the animals treatment) rather than an objective look at the scientific facts.
It relies on propaganda and scare tactics to try and convert people into adopting their own dietary practices...because anyone that truly and objectively researches the facts of the matter will come to realize that veganism is not a natural or health-optimizing diet.
I'll second the notion that Singer is deranged... he may be rigorously logical about his ethics, but he comes up with some horribly evil conclusions. Ergo, he has screwed up somewhere. Personally, I'm thinking he's either a sociopath or he's just abstracted his logic from reality so much that he's wandering off in the clouds.
Either way, his conclusions are so obviously evil that he shouldn't be taken seriously.
Check these links out if you think that a lack of Vit. D intake causes Ricketts.
TrevorMarshall.com/BioEssays-Feb08-Marshall-Preprint.pdf
bacteriality.com/2007/09/15/vitamind/
There's good reason to believe that the association between low vit 25D3 and ricketts is correlation rather than causation (though causation is still the mainstream hypothesis.) Vitamin D3 increases blood levels of calcium but not bone density. Calcium alone improves bone density just as effectively as Calcium + Vit. D3
Low Vit D3 may be caused by certain infections which disrupt the Vitamin D receptor in order to evade the human immune system.
Correction, low levels of 25D3 may be caused by certain infections.
(Dysregulation of the Vitamin D3 receptor causes excessive 25D3 to be converted to 1,25D3, which causes numerous problems of its own. The second is typically not tested for clinically.
I'll second the notion that Singer is deranged... he may be rigorously logical about his ethics, but he comes up with some horribly evil conclusions. Ergo, he has screwed up somewhere.
I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the logical theorem that allows you to ignore sound reasoning because the conclusions clash with your intuitions.
Dave from Hawaii: Admittedly, I'm no expert in anatomy, but from what I've read our dental structure is basically that of herbivores (nice rabbit teeth up front, plus plenty of flat teeth for grinding up vegetable matter). Our jaws also have the side-to-side capability of herbivores. Then there's our long herbivore intestines.
Clearly, humans can eat meat, but insofar as they are omnivores, they seem to be not true middle-of-the-spectrum omnivores, but close to the herbivore end -- not suprising, given that our closest relatives are either powerful herbivores (gorillas) or else fructivores (chimpanzees) who predominantly and preferentially eat fruit but will opportunistically eat some meat.
So, by nature, we should eat mostly plants. As Michael Pollan says, "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants."
For anyone who hasn't seen this video of a talk by food-writer Michael Bittman, here's the link:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/263
Of course, just because by nature we CAN eat some meat, doesn't mean we ought to. Morality is largely about deciding to refrain from doing certain things that we can do.
Sorry, that should be Mark (not Michael) Bittman. His talk is still worth watching.
mijnheer - Chimps eat meat.
I'm vegetarian myself. But you still need to be careful about where you get your information. Some people do have an agenda, unfortunately.
Ryan W.: As I said, chimpanzees will sometimes eat meat, but are primarily fruit-eaters.
http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/chimpanzee
Nevermind the health concerns, just in terms of flavor and overall deliciousness and everything that a diversity of foods brings to your life you are missing out, big time.
Right, but you're talking about reducing the diversity of food in your life by cutting out all meat.
I mean, as great as the advances in fake vegan food have been, there will never be vegetarian barbecue. There simply won't. Vegans will never have anything to compare to the taste of a half-rack of ribs, dry-rubbed and slow-smoked until they just fall off the bone.
I'm no expert in anatomy, but from what I've read our dental structure is basically that of herbivores (nice rabbit teeth up front, plus plenty of flat teeth for grinding up vegetable matter). Our jaws also have the side-to-side capability of herbivores.
"Plenty"? I'd say about half. The rest are shearing, tearing teeth for meat.
And it's interesting what we don't have; any capacity to digest cellulose, which is the bulk of any plant. (That's why fiber is good for the colon; nothing along the way can digest it.)
And then there's the human capacity for endurance running, far superior to any herbivorous mammal; clearly a hunting strategy. You don't need upright gait, binocular vision, and an advanced evaporative cooling mechanism to run a tuber to exhaustion. For that matter, you don't need much of a brain, either. But the eating of meat was what provided the dietary fats necessary to support such a large brain.
Meat was the key to human sentience.
If you compare well-planned omnivorous diets to well-planned vegan diets, there doesn't appear to be any compelling reason -- apart from having grown up accustomed to eating animal products -- to include these foods in your diet.
How about the fact that they're deeelicious?
I'll admit that there is such a thing as good vegetarian food, and even good vegan food (I actually had a vegetarian, nearly vegan, meal last night, and it was quite tasty). But that doesn't change the facts that 1.)vegan options are limited, and I would get bored of them, 2.)animal products taste good and, if consumed in proper proportions, are perfectly healthy, and 3.)some vegan/vegetarian versions of meat dishes just do not taste that good. Don't tell me vegan cake is good - I've had it. To me, it tasted like crap.
You're entitled to make moral judgments about me for choosing to eat meat if you please. I don't care - I'm just going to enjoy this rib-eye. But it wouldn't hurt to recognize that opinions on the morality of meat consumption vary widely and neither yours nor Peter Singer's are conclusive.
I have a serious question for vegans concerned about animal cruelty - would you eat a Kobe steak?
Brandon,
When you are applying logic to areas of morality and value of human life, then it's quite reasonable to decide that your logic is flawed if it leads to an evil conclusion. Morality, compassion, etc... are not quantifiable nor are they "logical". So he can come up with some axioms and rigorously derive an ethical framework from them... and be dead wrong when his conclusions are evil.
Or maybe he's not "wrong" he's just evil.
Somewhere he had to make assumptions since there are no fundamental measurable laws of morality or quality of life.
It is a great thing to eat vegan. Preferably with some fava beans and a nice chianti.
The real reason vegans won't eat eggs: because that dastardly chicken are some cute little insects and worms! There are all these mass murdering species running around. Won't someone think of them?
Megan and vegans all - do you refrain from taking antibiotics or washing your hands? There's no difference between killing a chicken so that you can live and killing a protozoa. What about th value of a plant's life? Real ethical people would not kill any other organism or potential organism and would learn to survive off of leaves. Should actually be the law - you can't talk about your ethical foodways until you have survived 6 months of not killing any organism.
Hey - Also, there is no difference between speeding and murder. If you break the law, you get life in prison. Period.
Furthermore, nothing magical happens when a girl turns 18. If it's illegal to give consent when you're 12 it should be illegal to have sex when you're 25 or 50.
Back in college, a friend told me that dairy was rape. I told her that the cow was asking for it. She saved a special scowl for me ever afterwards.
In my opinion, there's really no such thing as cruelty-free egg or dairy products. Every single layer hen and every single dairy cow, even under the best commercial systems, inevitably ends up in the slaughterhouse once their egg or milk yield declines. The only way this doesn't happen is if the animal dies prematurely of disease.
But then every animal in the world, including humans, dies. And there are worse ways to go than slaughterhouses. General tradition in the wild is that you get a bit slow with the start of old age and a hunter species tracks you down and eats you. Having had to separate the family cat from a fair few mice in my time, a well-run slaughterhouse strikes me as a nicer way to go, assuming that you have to go.
Also, depending on where you are in the world, the vegetarian diet can easily be dependent on killing animals too. In NZ, introduced species like possums and rabbits have no natural predators, so the odd vegan commune has discovered that they have to take up killing animals the hard way.
I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the logical theorem that allows you to ignore sound reasoning because the conclusions clash with your intuitions.
Sound reasoning says that since I cannot hear, see, taste, touch, or smell Brandon Berg, nor have I ever, Brandon Berg cannot be claimed to exist. Moreover, anyone could have written posts signed by "Brandon Berg."
Obviously, Brandon Berg might have some problems with this reasoning, as do I; your posts, like those of most other regular commenters, bear the uniqueness of a signature, and probably come from a specific person who most likely does use the name "Brandon Berg". But that's just my intuition speaking, since I can't logically quantify any consistent traits in your posts that would definitely isolate them from posts made by other parties.
And that's before getting into the issues of morality that EI noted, above.
Earnest Iconoclast:
When you are applying logic to areas of morality and value of human life, then it's quite reasonable to decide that your logic is flawed if it leads to an evil conclusion.
Well, no. It's reasonable to double-check your logic (and premises) if it leads you to a conclusion that seems wrong. But at some point, if you can find no flaw in the chain of reasoning, you have to consider the possibility that your intuititions may be wrong. If you already know what conclusion you intend to arrive at, there's no point in pretending to reason.
So long as you choose your own diet, for whatever reasons you care to believe are important, I say more power to you.
What irks me is the "holier than thou" missionary-like zeal that the vegan, and to a lesser extent the other special diet practitioners tend to flaunt.
To my way of thinking, there is no superiority to not eating meat, or not eating fish, or not eating eggs, or what have you. I suspect that a balanced diet is healthier than any extreme, but so long as it is your informed choice, fine. Just don't think that gives you the right to lecture me about morality, ethics, or anything else on a related subject. That disgusting tendency shows just as big a personality flaw and moral deficit as being a willing carnivore.
The truly moral person doesn't have to go around lecturing others or blowing their own horn.
As for my take on the morality issue ... every living thing does so because of natural cycles of life, death, consumption and reproduction. It isn't the meat, or the egg that is the problem, it's how it was raised and produced. So long as it was done without needless cruelty and pain.
Anything more extreme and made public is just posturing.
ruralcounsel says, "It isn't the meat, or the egg that is the problem, it's how it was raised and produced. So long as it was done without needless cruelty and pain."
It's holier-than-thou types like you who really irk me. What right do you have to tell me not to inflict needless cruelty and pain? Stop trying to shove your morals down other people's throats. I say everyone should be free to do whatever they want. First it's "Don't inflict needless cruelty and pain", then it's "Don't rob banks", then it's "Don't run red lights", then it's "Don't lie, cheat, and steal", and before you know it, it's "Help the needy", "Give to charity", "Be kind to strangers." Enough, already with the moralizing. What are you -- some sort of smug, uptight killjoy?
It's a tiny step from "Don't inflict needless cruelty and pain" to "Don't inflict unnecessary harm." The former probably already commits you to veganism; the latter certainly would.
mijnheer - You selectively chose one aspect of my argument and ignored the rest in terms of Human Physiology.
While you can say our dental structure makes lean more towards herbivore, you completely ignored my other point and actually pointed to long intestines as indicative of humans being more herbivorous - yet you completely ignored my most relevant point...the fact that human stomach's produce hydrochloric acid. This is a physiological feature that ONLY occurs in other species that are also Omnivorous or Carnivorous. Herbivores do NOT have this feature.
The key issue is that while certain fruits and vegetables DO contain vitamins and nutrients beneficial to Human physiology...much of the vitamins and nutrients found in vegetable matter cannot be digested and absorbed by our digestive systems...nutrients like the Omega-3 fatty acids found in green grass.
But Ruminants have digestive systems designed specifically for that very purpose. All of that Vitamin D, A, K, the various B's and Omega 3's are all extracted from the grasses by ruminants, and stored in their fat tissue.
For Chickens and other fowl, they get those nutrients from eating the insects that get those same nutrients from the greenery they eat.
When the human consume the meat or eggs or the milk produce that is not de-natured through pasteurization and homogenization, we get the literal mother-load of nutrients in the form we can best use it...via FAT.
We are omnivores by design. Denying this physiological FACT does not make you morally superior to anyone else. It just means you are in denial of your natural place in the food chain that is the prime directive of life on this planet.
Good old Google brings up many sites claiming that herbivore stomachs do produce hydrochloric acid and that with its weak acidity the human stomach is more like the stomachs of herbivores than of carnivores or omnivores. Of course, these sites may well just be propaganda organs of evil vegetarians like Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, and Shania Twain.
Dave, if you are responsible for the wonderful "Vegetarians Are Evil" site, I congratulate you. Everyone else: click on Dave's name; you're in for a treat.
It's a tiny step from "Don't inflict needless cruelty and pain" to "Don't inflict unnecessary harm." The former probably already commits you to veganism; the latter certainly would.
Not everyone thinks animals are deserving of the same moral consideration as humans, or that killing them for food constitutes "unnecessary" harm. Since I like meat and suffer from anemia and other problems if I don't eat at least some, I certainly don't. I don't want cows to suffer pain excessive to what's necessary to kill them, but I have no problem - zero - with killing them. You may think this makes me a horrible person, which is fine. As I said, I'm going to go right on enjoying my rib eye, perhaps while thinking about how much of a sanctimonious, self-righteous d-bag you seem to be as I do. But wild-eyed slippery slope arguments don't make you sound any more reasonable.
What about all the insects and vermin that are killed in growing the crops you eat? What about the suffering of bean stalks when they are raped for their seeds?
Unless you can subsist on a diet of fruit which has fallen from the vine and dead leaves (which humans can't), or photosynthesize, you cannot survive without causing other organisms pain. Deal with it.
Nah, I'm not responsible. I just used it cause I find it a hilarious site. It also does contain some serious, factual info...but it's a much needed "counter" to the often vitriolic attacks used by vegan activists against meat eaters.
That being said, I just googled "hydrochloric acid+herbivores" and came up with an EXCELLENT site that details the major differences between herbivores, carnivores and omnivores...and it actually goes into much more detail than simple incisors and stomach acid as the defining differences between the two....and also WHY humans are not herbivores.
Whether you want to fool yourself into believing we "lean" towards herbivores or not, the fact remains, we are NOT cud-chewers, and we certainly have the capacity to eat and digest meat. A true herbivore simply cannot eat meat at all.
Oh...here's the website: Comparison Between the Digestive Tracts of a Carnivore, a Herbivore and Man