Going through the comments of some of my recent posts, I noticed the frequently stated notion that eating meat was an essential step in human evolution. While this notion may comfort the meat industry, it's simply not true, scientifically.
Dr. T. Colin Campbell, professor emeritus at Cornell University and author of The China Study, explains that in fact, we only recently (historically speaking) began eating meat, and that the inclusion of meat in our diet came well after we became who we are today. He explains that "the birth of agriculture only started about 10,000 years ago at a time when it became considerably more convenient to herd animals. This is not nearly as long as the time [that] fashioned our basic biochemical functionality (at least tens of millions of years) and which functionality depends on the nutrient composition of plant-based foods."
That jibes with what Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine President Dr. Neal Barnard says in his book, The Power of Your Plate, in which he explains that "early humans had diets very much like other great apes, which is to say a largely plant-based diet, drawing on foods we can pick with our hands. Research suggests that meat-eating probably began by scavenging--eating the leftovers that carnivores had left behind. However, our bodies have never adapted to it. To this day, meat-eaters have a higher incidence of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and other problems."
There is no more authoritative source on anthropological issues than paleontologist Dr. Richard Leakey, who explains what anyone who has taken an introductory physiology course might have discerned intuitively--that humans are herbivores. Leakey notes that "[y]ou can't tear flesh by hand, you can't tear hide by hand.... We wouldn't have been able to deal with food source that required those large canines" (although we have teeth that are called "canines," they bear little resemblance to the canines of carnivores).
In fact, our hands are perfect for grabbing and picking fruits and vegetables. Similarly, like the intestines of other herbivores, ours are very long (carnivores have short intestines so they can quickly get rid of all that rotting flesh they eat). We don't have sharp claws to seize and hold down prey. And most of us (hopefully) lack the instinct that would drive us to chase and then kill animals and devour their raw carcasses. Dr. Milton Mills builds on these points and offers dozens more in his essay, "A Comparative Anatomy of Eating."
The point is this: Thousands of years ago when we were hunter-gatherers, we may have needed a bit of meat in our diets in times of scarcity, but we don't need it now. Says Dr. William C. Roberts, editor of the American Journal of Cardiology, "Although we think we are, and we act as if we are, human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us, because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores."
Sure, most of us are "behavioral omnivores"--that is, we eat meat, so that defines us as omnivorous. But our evolution and physiology are herbivorous, and ample science proves that when we choose to eat meat, that causes problems, from decreased energy and a need for more sleep up to increased risk for obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.
Old habits die hard, and it's convenient for people who like to eat meat to think that there is evidence to support their belief that eating meat is "natural" or the cause of our evolution. For many years, I too, clung to the idea that meat and dairy were good for me; I realize now that I was probably comforted to have justification for my continued attachment to the traditions I grew up with.
But in fact top nutritional and anthropological scientists from the most reputable institutions imaginable say categorically that humans are natural herbivores, and that we will be healthier today if we stick with our herbivorous roots. It may be inconvenient, but it alas, it is the truth.
Click here for great-tasting recipes and meal plans, and here for tips on eating more vegetarian foods.
Kathy Freston: Flu Season: Factory Farming Could Cause A Catastrophic Pandemic
As for what diet's healthier, I spent years studying that too -EMPIRICALLY- so the opinions I've offered here have a considerable basis in my own experience,. and I arrived at the conclusions I reached in 1966.
Does anyone here think that I would have been able to apply those conclusions for over fifty years if the map didn't fit the territory? Even so, I'm not here to proselytize, I'm here to tell you what I know to be true from experience, and lots of it.
Admittedly, I haven't told you what I eat (just what I DON'T eat), but then, nobody's asked.
I did find an ironic item. She said that "I don't know you... but I love you"
Followed by you saying you had met her in person and had tried to hire her but she was tied up with University and family...
Today's input:
Fresh Pineapple & Sweet-Lime Juice
Seedling Mexican Thin-Skin Avocadoes
Paste-type Tomatoes
Mamey
Guamuchiles (fruit of a tropical leguminous tree)
White Sapote
Seedling Mangos
So far. I might have some seedling apples, pears, and maybe some dates.
"Sorry but I assumed based on your comments and support of Ms. Flynn that your diet was similar to hers."
Apparently neither of us eat meat, but I don't know what she eats. It would be impossible for me to maintain my diet in her location so I'm sure our diets are significantly different.
"I did find an ironic item. She said that "I don't know you... but I love you"
I'm sure she was relating to my post. The culture of death (and trying to build on it) makes interacting with other life forms practically impossible. There's no way for you (or anyone else) to comprehend this if you haven't lived it.
"Followed by you saying you had met her in person and had tried to hire her but she was tied up with University and family..."
Right - a beautiful sociologist here in Guadalajara that decided to be a vegetarian when she was 2 (that's right, TWO) after seeing a movie depicting a slaughter house - and her parents went along with it. Her name is Edith.
I don't know Eriyah except from her posts here this week but we're from the same state, not far from WV.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-ruxin/hungry-cows-hungrier-peop_b_217883.html
http://www.odemagazine.com/doc/64/fat-is-where-its-at/2
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/18/fat-can-be-good-for-you_n_217374.html
Meat available today, in the average market place, is contaminated with antibiotics, hormones and poisions. But a lot of the same arguments can be made about vegetables as well. Pesticides and chemical fertizilizers are used in agri-business and leech into plant matter today in large quantity and just because produce is sold at a higher price as "natural" dosen't make it so. It's hard to trace the history of a head of lettuce when it's on a grocers shelf. Geneticly altered plants are so common today that it's almost impossible to find produce that hasn't been bio engineered for better yield and disease prevention. You can grow stuff in your own garden but the origin of the seeds are questionable at best. Being a vegitarian dosen't guarantee you longer life or better health despite claims of the Vegans. Our food source has become dangerous through technology because of high demand for low cost food. I see no real evidence, supported by any accepted scientific fact that suggest we are all decendents of grazers.
If people had to kill animals themselves, the world would practically all be Veg. Slaughterhouses are literally hell on earth. If people saw them, they wouldn't eat meat for ethical reasons alone! Suicide rates are highest for slaughterhouse workers (many are illegal immigrants, released prisoners, and sadly the mentally ill -yes, it's true, I have seen it)
I can find "nutritional value" in anything, even the chair I sit on. What works best with the physiology and psychology of the human body is clearly a plant based diet. Ms. Freston responded well to many issues in her above article, but there is much more. You are right - we should grow our own food. Humans must get back on track. Returning to plant based eating is a part of it.
Pigs and chickens are omnivores and assassins - they also eat fecal material, as do dogs and so do you, if you drink milk (pasteurized fecal material, of course).
"consuming plant matter alone is [projecting] another wacky notion that those on the fringe like ..." to be groundless. There's nothing wacky about maintaining a diet that doesn't subject our bodies to the health problems eating meat entails and being on the cutting edge is hardly being "on the fringe".
In any case, as far as I'm concerned, the real issue is whether consuming meat is in fact required or even, advisable.
You claim:
"The human body requires a certain percentage of fat in it's system"
But this ignores the fact that there are plenty of non-animal sources for the lipids needed.
After more than forty years of meatless existence, I would have had problems if what you claim was really true.
You may feel you are the leaders of the next chapter of human evolution and feel you are superior to the rest of mere old world, tied to our ancient, and prehistory. But evolution is a physical change in a species, not a moral one. The moral majority is similar in its beliefs. Neither has the right to impose its beliefs on anyone, especially through law. Believe what you wish. I am personally an Objectivist, and classicist. And I am at peace with myself and accept all consequences for my actions and inactions.
I wish every one here peace and understanding of their place in the circle of life... eventually we all will be feeding the plants.
Where the biological, evolutionary, ethical, objective and subjective merge is here and now - at this moment, and the next.
Do you surf?
I live in WV on a farm. Not much time for traveling to the beach.
I grew up near Lake Michigan but did more body surfing, and beach volleyball (helped pay for college). Some wind surfing there but little board surfing.
So I guess the answer would be, no I do not surf. But I figure you knew that.
Lunch time over... time to get back to work.
WHOSE understanding?
"eventually we all will be feeding the plants."
For now the plants feed me, and do so with NO distress.
To follow your logic of believing that all life is precious and should not be destroyed is denying one the most basic laws of nature. To follow your thoughts to their logical conclusion would mean that humans should not eat anything lest they destroy life, for when you consume that aforementioned evolving seedling apple you are destroying life for the greed of your own material body. The only solution then would be to sew our mouths shut and die (wait then we would be killing ourselves and karma does not like that either).
Peace does not come from denying our place in the world or the purpose of the world around us, but rather from understanding our place in it and understanding why we exist in the first place.
Seeing that you like quotes... “since nothing is nourished which does not partake of life, what is nourished will be the ensouled body insofar as it is ensouled, with the result that nourishment (i.e. food) is related to the ensouled, and not coincidentally” (De Anima ii 4, 416b9-11) Aristotle
I'm sorry but i can't go into the details before this coming weekend.
But as I said, I'm not proselytizing, I'm informing - I've nothing to sell, just recommend - except I had to leave the USA to do it, year round.
The county is actually a very large valley. Due to this fact and its location on the eastern side of the Appalachians, there is about 180 days of growing season (most times 165 due to late or early frosts). Also we receive about 10% less sunlight due to the terrain than an area that is flat. It is close to the longest day of the year and the sun went down at 8:45.
My farm is located directly over the cave system (45 miles of mapped passages) with five entrances on my land alone. This is a Karst region with limestone rocks randomly jutting from the soil. Removal of these rocks is discouraged as that would create potential sink holes of which there are several on my land. Most of my land has 25% or greater slopes. The NRCS and Soil Conservation folks discourage plowing due to the fact that soil washes away so very easily. Again due to the underlying cave structure terracing is not an option. Matter of fact, I have to sign a paper every year stating that I will not till my land. Also tilling releases CO2 from the soil.
Yes, they feel, but they are not rational. Yes, if they are stressed at the moment of death, that affects the quality of meat (in cattle this is called a "dark cutter"). It is in the best interest of the industry that animals are not stressed or suffer at the moment of their death. Are factory farms wrong? Yes, you have no argument from me on that.
To claim to be morally superior and now more evolved than the rest of the rest of the human race is a basic flaw in your philosophy. To place the life of an animal, bred to be food, above the life of a potential human (fetus) is morally reprehensible in my opinion. To believe that you are outside the cycle of life is not being closer to god. Many cultures, philosophies, and religions believe that upon consuming, either plant or animal, that they are also consuming the spirit of that entity. Even modern religion believes this symbolically in the form of communion.
it has a really great analogy that covers this.
In short - Just because you brought it into the world for your purposes really doesn't matter to them in their consciousness.
Stop trying to evade the argument. I'm not talking about abortion here, its terrible, it should be prevented from being an option through responsible behaviors and birth control, and its irrelevant to this subject. We are talking about unnecessary killing of sentient beings for profit and a taste preference. Totally different.
I took foreign language in school (Latin for 5 years and a year of ancient Greek) I have read everything from Caesar to Homer in their original language.
Your arguments don't bear answering for the most part because they are based on propaganda. My arguments are based on historic fact and personal experience. Your philosophy is hypoc.ritical at best.
And your lofty goals of eliminating livestock production will be as successful as the war on drugs. If you want to fight against industrial farming, fine. Remember that the result will be world wide famine and economic collapse. If you are living on land and not producing something from it, you are wasting it and the resources that it takes to maintain it and yourself.
In the end your argument is religious, moralistic, and philosophical. So I will address this, as I have only touched on it. And having my degrees in Art, ancient history, and philosophy, I think I might be qualified to do so.
I would point out that humans are animals and in order to survive we must consume to sustain our lives. As human kind has evolved into a thinking, rational being, science has proven that this was due to the consumption of meat, what ever the source. For several thousand years humans have tilled the land and domesticated and bred livestock and plants to feed ourselves as our number flourished.
Denying the fact that you are human, and denying that everything has a purpose in life, makes you less enlightened not more. Aristotle, Plato, the Native American, and on and on. They understood that everything must die in order for things to live. They also understood that for all things there is a purpose. The purpose of livestock is to consume grass and convert it to something we can consume, thus supply humans with the nutrients that we have evolved to need.
How convenient. Lucky you, unlucky them; and with all that money tied up in livestock, how could you have it any other way.
I own my farm, not the bank. I owe nothing to anyone, financially. Pay cash as I go.
I work outside everyday.
I wake up in the morning and nature dictates what I do for that day.
I do not have to work in an office. Or for a boss.
I am not dependent on government hand outs or donations.
I get lots of exercise, and eat what we grow. Very few trips to the grocer.
I am not tied to a cell phone (don't own one, don't want one)
I have the most wonderful wife that cherishes me and our way of life. She is the female version of me. I get to spend everyday day with her instead of having to run off to a job that I come home tired and cranky from.
I will be able to take care of my mother, who lives with us in my grandparents house, as she gets older.
I am rarely stressed, but then again a daily dose of sitting in the pasture with the herd grazing around me is very peaceful. Or milking a cow.
Yup... I count myself as very lucky.
Seems like a HUGE waste of resources to feed grass to livestock just to eat the grass. Kind of like filtering water through a sewer and then drinking it. Or trying to get from Denver to Chicago via Texas. I'd prefer to eat the grass directly. You seem like an avid learner and have great taste in literature (which is odd that you haven't learned about the great vegetarian philosophers and intellects yet). You should take a nutrition class or a biochemistry class, I think you would learn a lot.
Humans have gotten WAY off track. this isn't a trend. We are simply getting back on track.
Oh look - a squirrel in my backyard! Funny how I have no desire to kill it with my "claws and fangs" and super fast bi-pedal movement (sarcasm) because I have a wonderful plant based meal prepared for our family. Now if we were in an ice age and there was nothing else to eat - then I'd think about it. Humans are herbivores by design, omnivores (actually scavengers) by CHOICE. and yes, eating MEAT is a trend of cultural affluence - this has been studied greatly.
I just thought of a book for you - read the China Study by Dr. T. Colin Campbell. Lots of "proof" in there.
I am not going back into the herbivore/omnivore argument. You may believe what you like, I will believe what I like. There is plenty of science supporting my point.
I would point out however that humans do not have the enzymes for digesting plant cellulose.
I have mentioned what is in my library, I do not have expendable resource to spend on books as such as you describe. Thank you, but I concentrate on literature that has stood the test of time. I am not trying to rude but, honestly, I do not have the money to invest in that sort of thing.
dhinds, you have told me that planting grafted fruit trees is wrong, sorry cant access my email at the moment for direct quote, but paraphrasing, it is an injustice to the plant and interrupting the natural evolution of an apple.
If all life is so very precious, how can you justify consuming anything, plant or animal.
Your scientific arguments for not eating meat, etc. have been frequently reputed, again I am not telling you what to put into your body.
Eriyah, you have claimed horses and camels have wolf teeth and they are herbivores and concluded that we also must be because we do not have the pronounced canines of a carnivore (you have not seen my step-son smile) Yet you dismiss the fact that both horses and camels (camels have the same family tree as pigs) descended from omnivores and their canines are carry overs from prehistoric ancestors...
I will not go into the rest, because of lack of time and space, and because the proof is in our biology, history, anthropology, etc.
The article's title: Indications of Metabolic Imbalance in Budded/Grafted Trees and their Fruit (California Rare Fruit Growers Yearbook, 1973)
And yes, the practice represents a failure to intervene in a manner that builds on the ability of the tree to produce life-giving substances without compromising the structural integrity (the physical and physiological identity) of what is after all, an individual organism much like you and me (except better).
You may feel you have the prerogative (if might makes right) and maybe you do, if and when you're willing to pay the price, if you are wrong - as I and others believe you in fact, are.
Incidentally, the USDA confirmed the existence of the imbalance.
Today (Wednesday) is a busy day for me here and I won't be replying further to this thread until late tonight or tomorrow.
Although this argument is an important consideration, I think the more compelling ones are having to do with the majority of people who are disturbed by killing. We are disturbed by violence. We are grossed out by rotting flesh and bloody dismembered carcass. Only cooking it makes it safe or even palatable to eat.
Only habit, the lack of critical thinking, ubiquitous presence and incessant onslaught of lies and brainwashing of animal protein/products by those with a stake in the interest of animal exploitation has maintained this abomination in our culture. Thankfully, millions are waking up, discovering how delicious, nutritious, peaceful, and sustainably and healthy plant-based foods are and are quickly modifying behaviors toward more peaceful and civilized living.
To remain stubbornly entrenched in the status quo is to risk greatly our evolutionary progress for a sustainable, peaceful people and planet.
Of course I am defensive of my lively hood and choice of diet. It is your intent to eliminate them by spreading false information and fear mongering. Using a moralistically superior attitude which does nothing but turn people off.
You have also described people like me as being akin to "mur.der.ers, rap.ists, and child mole.sters". But yet you support the killing of human fetuses for population control and things like mercy killings, capital punishment. I have yet to see where yours or anyone else has a right to preach your superior evolved morality to anyone. If anything you have changed my stance on the Pro life movement and how I feel about vegetarians in general.... You are no better than the Jerry Falwell or the man who shot Dr. Tiller.
I used to support g.ay rights... I now see that this was a mistake as well. Because if we are to evolve then depending on the argument you take: it is not a choice (then there is genetic deficiency), if it is a choice (then it is a crime against nature). So yes, you have influenced someone, negatively.
Evolved to the next stage, I don't see it.
Funny how we can influence people with our words and actions... Thank you for helping me see the light.
AttilatheHoney.com
As far as health matters go, alcohol is one of the worst poisons one can put into ones body. It destroys the liver which essential in processing foods and cleansing the blood. A couple martinis a night borders on alcoholism. And eliminating alcohol from ones diet would have more to do with ones miraculous recovery than anything else.
I am glad you are healthier.
http://www.grandin.com/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5271434/
1) The intestines in an elephant can be 19 meters and can weigh about 4500 kg. An adult male human wieghs about 80 kg with an intestine of about 6 - 8 meters. Thus the elephant intestine/mass is 0.004 (meters/kg). For a human has 0.09 meters/kg. So no, its not true that herbivores have longer intestines (relative to mass) than meat-eaters.
2) The Clovis Point, a spearhead used for hunting dates to 13000 - 14000 years ago.
3) Burnt bones started to appear around 40 – 100 thousand years ago when humans started to control fire. As soon as humans could control fire, they started cooking meat.
4) The oldest shell middens are about 140 thousand years old at sites like Blombos Cave.
5) Burnt bones in Swartkrans cave in South Africa dating to 1 million years ago appear to be from human-tended (but not controlled) fire.
6) Our closest relative, the Bonobo will eat invertebrates and small vertebrates such as flying squirrels and young forest duikers.
7) Our second closest relative, the Chimpanzee, regularly forages for ants and also hunts red colobus monkeys.
So, going back since we diverged from Chimpanzees, we’ve been meat eaters.
1) The intestines in an elephant can be 19 meters and an adult make elephant weighs about 4500 kg.
Could anyone explain to me how i am a natural vegetarian and I have prominent canines(teeth). That seems illogical. Is there another example in nature of a herbivorous animal with sharp canines throughout their life.
Also, I have read on vegetarian websites that humans don't have large canines. In my experience people vary. Some people's canines are barely distinguishable; others, like myself, have prominent canines that could easy tear flesh if needed.
"I have to disagree with [Susan] on the whole read meat stays in your system for months"
You're referring to the _Digestive System_. I assume Susan's reference included the rest of the Systems: Nervous, Circulatory, Respiratory, Reproductive, Muscular, Cartilaginous, etc.
The critical question of course is whether an animal's violent death affects the quality of the nutritional elements extracted from it, as well as the body's ability to eliminate the toxic and indigestible waste products not present in foods with a botanical origin.
In short: Does extracting the nutritional content of meat carry a high price in terms of the quality of life and overall health? Many of us that have walked both paths believe that this is in fact case and the opinions and insults of those that haven't paid that price carry little weight, here or elsewhere.
Since the body renews its cells over a seven year period, the presence of meat in an otherwise clean system is likely to last much longer than the periods you describe.
(Acquiring Genomes - p. 54 Basic Books, 2002)
(Symbiotic Planet - 1998)