Vegan

[Rule]

Besides, that's a stupid comment from Crazed.  Natural does not mean good for you.  Can you explain yourself?

[iago]

Besides, that's stupid comment from Crazed.  Natural does not mean good for you.  Can you explain yourself?

That's a good point, too. There are tons of poisonous substances in nature. Rattlesnake venom comes to mind, for some reason.

[Rule]

Also, is it "natural" to cook meat?  At what point did it become "natural"?
Is it natural to pasturize milk? etc.

[Newby]

Let me re-state this for the 100th time: NOTHING you eat is natural!

And it's true -- do some research if you don't believe it.

So if I ate a brand-new baby....

[Towelie]

The first is health. Meat isn't good for you. Meat consumption has been linked to various forms of cancer, heart disease, and other nasty stuff. Not to mention that the majority of saturated fats, cholesterol, and other bad stuff come from dairy and the like. The main benefit to meat and dairy is the vitamins and minerals you get from them, but those can be consumed in different ways that, although they aren't as efficient, they are healthier.

That made me lol. It is like saying that breathing has been linked to cancer, or drinking water has been proven to cause death.

I can't really argue that, because it doesn't really make sense. But maybe I'll talk a bit about risk management.

It really comes down to risk levels (which I can talk about all day, because managing risk is essentially my job). Everything you do carries a certain level of risk and a certain level of "return" (pleasure? utility? call it what you want). The first step to risk management is to identify and understand the risks, and the second step is to evaluate whether or not the risk is worth taking, based on your understanding of it. That's how all of our decisions are made, basically, only we don't really think of it that way, it's built in.

Now, to look at breathing and drinking water, perhaps there is some risk involved. You can inhale something dangerous, or drink too much water. But the return on taking the risk is continuing to live, so that's a risk that everybody accepts without even thinking about it. Smoking cigarettes, driving cars, walking outside at night, and drinking pop are also risks, but each can also have associated returns for taking them. Cigarettes relax people, cars speed up transportation, walking at night could save money, and people enjoy the taste of pop. That's another example of a risk-return analysis -- some people lean one way, some people lean the other.

So apply that to meat -- when you eat meat, you're raising your risk of heart disease and cancer. The benefit is that you get to enjoy the taste/texture of what you're eating. That's the very simplest way to look at it. Is the benefit worth the risk? I personally don't think it is, but that's my personal evaluation.

Admittedly, there's more to it than that, which you can see from my other post. But I wanted to make this a fairly simple risk-benefit analysis.

And incidentally, because breathing and drinking water don't even correlate with cancer or death, your argument makes no sense to begin with. Unless you can provide the "link" you speak of? But really, I suspect that this whole post won't mean a thing to you. (Also, what Sidoh said while I was typing. :) )

Yeah, that is true. But did we evolve depending on cigarettes, soda, and cars?

[iago]

Yeah, that is true. But did we evolve depending on cigarettes, soda, and cars?

Nope, nor did we evolve depending on meat. The first humans before they had tools/weapons were gatherers, eating berries and vegetables and stuff. We aren't built like meat-eaters, and we didn't evolve like meat-eaters, and we couldn't possibly have eaten meat until we knew enough to invent tools to kill them.

[Rule]

Yeah, that is true. But did we evolve depending on cigarettes, soda, and cars?

Nope, nor did we evolve depending on meat. The first humans before they had tools/weapons were gatherers, eating berries and vegetables and stuff. We aren't built like meat-eaters, and we didn't evolve like meat-eaters, and we couldn't possibly have eaten meat until we knew enough to invent tools to kill them.

I don't think this line of discussion is relevant at all to whether it's a good choice to become vegan or not, but I doubt what you are saying.  We are omnivores, and we did evolve while eating meat.

[iago]

Yeah, that is true. But did we evolve depending on cigarettes, soda, and cars?

Nope, nor did we evolve depending on meat. The first humans before they had tools/weapons were gatherers, eating berries and vegetables and stuff. We aren't built like meat-eaters, and we didn't evolve like meat-eaters, and we couldn't possibly have eaten meat until we knew enough to invent tools to kill them.

I don't think this line of discussion is relevant at all to whether it's a good choice to become vegan or not, but I doubt what you are saying.  We are omnivores, and we did evolve while eating meat.

I agree that it's totally irrelevant.

However, I have trouble believing that our ancient ancestors, without tools or weapons, had the intelligence or ability to kill an animal. We have never had claws or sharp teeth or speed or anything necessary for that type of lifestyle. I suppose we could have been scavengers, but I can't see us actually killing an animal.

Either way, we don't know for sure, but that's just my stand. Whatever the case, the original point still stands. :)

[Rule]

It's obvious that we have undergone significant evolution as a species while eating meat.  There are many physiological attributes that suggest this, but here's a quote from wikipedia:

Early Homo sapiens employed a hunter-gatherer method as their primary means of food collection, involving combining stationary plant and fungal food sources (such as fruits, grains, tubers, and mushrooms) with wild game which must be hunted and killed in order to be consumed. It is believed that humans have used fire to prepare and cook food prior to eating since the time of their divergence from Homo erectus.

Humans are omnivorous, capable of consuming both plant and animal products. The view of humans as omnivores is supported by the evidence that both a pure animal and a pure vegetable diet can lead to deficiency diseases in humans. A pure animal diet can, for instance, lead to scurvy, while a pure plant diet can lead to Vitamin B12 deficiency.[37] However, properly planned vegetarian diets have been found to completely satisfy nutritional needs in every stage of life,[38] significantly reduce risks of major diseases, including cancer,[39] promote a healthier body mass index, reduce excess body fat,[40] and increase longevity.[41][42][43] In particular, non-lean red meat eaten over a lifetime has been found to increase the risks of several forms of cancer by 20 to 60 percent, while possibly causing adverse mutations in DNA.[39]

But even from the Wiki article, it's clear that natural does not necessarily mean better for you.  It suggests that becoming vegetarian is a healthier choice. :).

[iago]

It's obvious that we have undergone significant evolution as a species while eating meat.  There are many physiological attributes that suggest this, but here's a quote from wikipedia:

Early Homo sapiens employed a hunter-gatherer method as their primary means of food collection, involving combining stationary plant and fungal food sources (such as fruits, grains, tubers, and mushrooms) with wild game which must be hunted and killed in order to be consumed. It is believed that humans have used fire to prepare and cook food prior to eating since the time of their divergence from Homo erectus.

Humans are omnivorous, capable of consuming both plant and animal products. The view of humans as omnivores is supported by the evidence that both a pure animal and a pure vegetable diet can lead to deficiency diseases in humans. A pure animal diet can, for instance, lead to scurvy, while a pure plant diet can lead to Vitamin B12 deficiency.[37] However, properly planned vegetarian diets have been found to completely satisfy nutritional needs in every stage of life,[38] significantly reduce risks of major diseases, including cancer,[39] promote a healthier body mass index, reduce excess body fat,[40] and increase longevity.[41][42][43] In particular, non-lean red meat eaten over a lifetime has been found to increase the risks of several forms of cancer by 20 to 60 percent, while possibly causing adverse mutations in DNA.[39]

But even from the Wiki article, it's clear that natural does not necessarily mean better for you.  It suggests that becoming vegetarian is a healthier choice. :).

Well, I was talking about before we used tools, so that would be before we diverged from Homo Erectus. But in any case, that article does support what I said rather well.

For anybody who's curious, this is the article Rule quoted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#Diet

Just in case you want to check references. :)

[Rule]

Well, at some point when we didn't have tools, we likely consumed less meat, but it's even vaguely wrong to refer to whatever species that was as "we" at that point.  It's more that some ancestor of ours didn't eat meat.  But that's true of nearly any animal. 

A great deal of our evolution took place while we ate meat.  Ancestors of ours that didn't eat meat would hardly be recognizable.  This is evidenced in part by the fact that we are omnivores.  Also through the fact that even Neanderthals used hunting tools.  Also, I believe, through the structure of our teeth, and just in general, the structure of our body and digestive system.  And most primates, tools or no tools, are omnivores.

[Towelie]

I love you Rule.  :-*

[Sidoh]

I love you Rule.  :-*

He's already said what we were in the past is pretty much irrelevant to the choice of your eating habits today.

[iago]

I love you Rule.  :-*

He's already said what we were in the past is pretty much irrelevant to the choice of your eating habits today.

Perhaps Towelie likes people who disagree with him? *shrug*

[Towelie]

I love you Rule.  :-*

He's already said what we were in the past is pretty much irrelevant to the choice of your eating habits today.

Perhaps Towelie likes people who disagree with him? *shrug*

I wasn't arguing that it was relevant to today's eating habits. My intentions (even if what I said said otherwise) was to point out why I thought that statement was funny, in a way.