Is it time to stop eating meat?

freshpopcorn · 04-02-2017 5:35pm

Angel Crow wrote: »

I was saying that the modern consumer would most likely find it gross, upsetting or traumatic to slaughter themselves. The meat industry relies on delegation and an out of sight out of mind approach.

I'm sure when pushed people would kill an animal to survive but that has no relevance to our modern society, neither do the activities of cavemen.

I've known plenty of people to work in meat factories and slaughter house from teenage girls to big men and the first few days they might be a little upset by it but it takes them no time to tuck back into their meat in my experience!

Angel Crow · 04-02-2017 5:36pm

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I've known plenty of people to work in meat factories and slaughter house from teenage girls to big men and the first few days they might be a little upset by it but it takes them no time to tuck back into their meat in my experience!

Teenage girls using the bolt gun?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 04-02-2017 5:38pm

Angel Crow wrote: »

Quick Google will sort that. Your field of study should also tell you that to say veg and fruit sources would have varied dramitcally in different parts of the world.

You haven't answered a civil question. What tribes are you referring to by 'ancient tribes'?
Very few vegetable food sources provided year round supplies in any part of the world for archaic societies. Of course plants vary around the world. That wasn't at issue.

I genuinely would like to know what ancient groups did not have a hunter element.

04-02-2017 5:39pm

Angel Crow wrote: »

There's plenty of evidence of ancient tribes that lived solely on a vegetarian diet. It's also debatable if people got most of their nutrition from meat, as veg and fruit was far more readily available. You can't suffer from a vegetarian diet. To say otherwise is implying vegetables are only useful when combined with meat, which makes no sense.

The study of paleofaeces says otherwise apart from anything else. Ancient humans may have gone long periods without meat, but meat was definitely on the menu. There's evidence that we started eating bone marrow (at least) 2.5 million years ago, several hominin species were knocking around at the time gnawing bone marrow and butchering meat.

The reason we're sitting on our butts writing rubbish on a forum on the internet is because our diets eventually included long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids - found in meat and especially fish, leading to the kind of brain development that eventually took us to the cognitive revolution. Humans have been omnivores for a very, very, long time. The length of our energy consuming intestines shortened to adapt to the eating of flesh, allowing the other high calorie burning machine - the human brain - to access the energy and it's growth and development accelerated accordingly.

Plant matter may have made up the bulk of the archaic human diet, but meat was also consumed - and without it it's doubtful we'd be here. Meat eaters thrived, early vege humans didn't.

freshpopcorn · 04-02-2017 5:40pm

Angel Crow wrote: »

Teenage girls using the bolt gun?

Maybe not bolt guns but they've being involved in various jobs in meat production and they still eat meat!

cnocbui · 04-02-2017 5:42pm

Angel Crow wrote: »

Why are paleolithic communities the benchmark for what's deemed natural? Are rape and murder natural?

Because of the choice of the word 'natural.'

If you take the human species as being around (edit) 2.8 million years old, then I think most people would consider that 'natural' would be the composition of our diet that has existed for the majority of that time period.

Agriculture is roughly considered to have pertained for about 10,000 years. So having a significant proportion of our diet being of plant origin has only existed for (edit) 0.36 % of human history. An almost exclusively plant-based diet therefore is clearly 'unnatural' from a historical perspective.

Yes, rape and murder are perfectly natural.

Angel Crow · 04-02-2017 5:56pm

Candie wrote: »

The study of paleofaeces says otherwise apart from anything else. Ancient humans may have gone long periods without meat, but meat was definitely on the menu. There's evidence that we started eating bone marrow (at least) 2.5 million years ago.

The reason we're sitting on our butts writing rubbish on a forum on the internet is because our diets eventually included long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids - found in meat and especially fish, leading to the kind of brain development that eventually took us to the cognitive revolution. Humans have been omnivores for a very, very, long time. The length of our energy consuming intestines shortened to adapt to the eating of flesh, allowing the other high calorie burning machine - the human brain - to access the energy and it's growth and development accelerated accordingly.

Plant matter may have made up the bulk of the archaic human diet, but meat was also consumed - and without it it's doubtful we'd be here. Meat eaters thrived, early vege humans didn't.

The debate is whether or not a vehetarian diet is unnatural based on ancient diets. No one is denying meat was consumed. But there were certainly tribes ( you'll find on google if you want) that lived on fruit and veg, it just depends on your definition ofor ancient.

I fail to see to see how a group with no access to meat would be deemed suddenly as living an unnatural lifestyle. It's natural to eat meat and veg, how is it unnatural to eat only one or the other?

Angel Crow · 04-02-2017 5:57pm

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Maybe not bolt guns but they've being involved in various jobs in meat production and they still eat meat!

Again I was asking how many people would kill an animal comfortably. Packaging rashers isn't killing.

Angel Crow · 04-02-2017 6:00pm

cnocbui wrote: »

Because of the choice of the word 'natural.'

If you take the human species as being around (edit) 2.8 million years old, then I think most people would consider that 'natural' would be the composition of our diet that has existed for the majority of that time period.

Agriculture is roughly considered to have pertained for about 10,000 years. So having a significant proportion of our diet being of plant origin has only existed for (edit) 0.36 % of human history. An almost exclusively plant-based diet therefore is clearly 'unnatural' from a historical perspective.

Yes, rape and murder are perfectly natural.

So the definition of what's natural can never change?

freshpopcorn · 04-02-2017 6:02pm

Angel Crow wrote: »

Again I was asking how many people would kill an animal comfortably. Packaging rashers isn't killing.

Well anybody I know involved in any form of meat production would have no issue with eating it! I've never heard of a butcher or abattoir worker being afraid to eat or have any issue with eating meat!

04-02-2017 6:03pm

Angel Crow wrote: »

The debate is whether or not a vehetarian diet is unnatural based on ancient diets. No one is denying meat was consumed. But there were certainly tribes ( you'll find on google if you want) that lived on fruit and veg, it just depends on your definition ofor ancient.

I fail to see to see how a group with no access to meat would be deemed suddenly as living an unnatural lifestyle. It's natural to eat meat and veg, how is it unnatural to eat only one or the other?

I'm trying to make sense of what you're saying here. Let me be clearer.

There were certainly archiac vegetarian iterations of humans. They did not survive. They didn't survive because the metabolic requirement to digest plant matter meant that evolution and adaptation was so slow that these early humans didn't cope with environmental changes, like bad years when foraging didn't throw up enough/the right plant matter.

The humans who thrived ate omnivorous diets, our iteration of humanity (homosapiens) are omnivorous. No question about it. We thrived because of meat and fish in our diets which gave us the nutrients that led to the brain and physical development that enabled us to outsmart and outadapt other species.

There are plenty of valid reasons to adopt a vegetarian diet. Claiming 'we' used to be vegetarians and that's how we're meant to be is not one of them.

Angel Crow · 04-02-2017 6:08pm

Candie wrote: »

There are plenty of valid reasons to adopt a vegetarian diet. Claiming 'we' used to be vegetarians and that's how we're meant to be is not one of them.

I haven't said that at all? I even acknowledged in the previous post that 'we' ate meat.

Edit. I also acknowledge that meat was pivotal in our development. I've never once stated otherwise.

cnocbui · 04-02-2017 6:09pm

Angel Crow wrote: »

So the definition of what's natural can never change?

Of course not.

04-02-2017 6:11pm

Angel Crow wrote: »

I haven't said that at all? I even acknowledged in the previous post that 'we' ate meat.

You claimed there were ancient humans who ate nothing but plant matter.

I agree, there were. They no longer exist.

Holding up extinct species of humans as an example of how a person can thrive as a vegetarian seems somewhat faulty logic in light of that.

Vegetarianism is a valid and healthy choice for many people, but it's not our default setting.

Angel Crow · 04-02-2017 6:12pm

cnocbui wrote: »

Of course not.

I guess that's a philosophical debate for another day

Angel Crow · 04-02-2017 6:16pm

Candie wrote: »

You claimed there were ancient humans who ate nothing but plant matter.

I agree, there were. They no longer exist.

Holding up extinct species of humans as an example of how a person can thrive as a vegetarian seems somewhat faulty logic in light of that.

Vegetarianism is a valid and healthy choice for many people, but it's not our default setting.

I was refuting a post that said they they didnt exist at all if you read back a few pages. And again it depends on your definition of ancient, I was more referring to tribes of developed humans like us. You can survive just fine on a vegetarian diet, be 5000 years ago or today.
I've never once said it's our default setting either. I'm not even vegetarian myself as I stated early. My only issue is that it's being termed as an unnatural lifestyle choice.

04-02-2017 6:17pm

Angel Crow wrote: »

I was refuting a post that said they they didnt exist at all if you read back a few pages. And again it depends on your definition of ancient, I was more referring to tribes of developed humans like us. You can survive just fine on a vegetarian diet, be 5000 years ago or today.

What tribes of ancient - according to your definition - humans are we talking about?

Also, natural is something that occurs in nature. It's not open for interpretation.

cnocbui · 04-02-2017 6:18pm

Angel Crow wrote: »

I guess that's a philosophical debate for another day

Yes, it would involve a philosophical approach if you want to arrive at a definition of 'natural' that doesn't have science or history as it's basis.

Angel Crow · 04-02-2017 6:20pm

Candie wrote: »

What tribes of ancient - according to your definition - tribes are we talking about?

Also, natural is something that occurs in nature. It's not open for interpretation.

There's evidence of vegetarian tribes in India. I can't post loads of links at the moment.

And eating vegetables is as natural as it comes no? Or only combined with meat?

Peregrine · 04-02-2017 6:21pm

Angel Crow wrote: »

The debate is whether or not a vehetarian diet is unnatural based on ancient diets.

No. The debate is the effect of animal agriculture on climate change.

04-02-2017 6:21pm

Angel Crow wrote: »

There's evidence of vegetarian tribes in India. I can't post loads of links at the moment.

And eating vegetables is as natural as it comes no? Or only combined with meat?

Nobody claimed the latter and you'll need to name the former.

I don't need links, just name the 'ancient' tribes.

Angel Crow · 04-02-2017 6:23pm

Peregrine wrote: »

No. The debate is the effect of animal agriculture on climate change.

I was talking about the debate I was having with the other poster when Candie quoted me.

Angel Crow · 04-02-2017 6:26pm

Candie wrote: »

Nobody claimed the latter and you'll need to name the former.

I don't need links, just name the 'ancient' tribes.

Yes they did? That's the debate I was having when you waded in. So is a vegetarian diet unnatural or not?

The Brokpa tribe.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 04-02-2017 6:33pm

Angel Crow wrote: »

Yes they did? That's the debate I was having when you waded in. So is a vegetarian diet unnatural or not?

The Brokpa tribe.

They are believed to be no more than 2500 years in existence and their religious adherence to vegetarianism is less than 2000 years old. That's not an ancient tribe.

Angel Crow · 04-02-2017 6:36pm

Christina Uptight Mimicry wrote: »

They are believed to be no more than 2500 years in existence and their religious adherence to vegetarianism is less than 2000 years old. That's not an ancient tribe.

Ah right. So ancient Egypt isn't ancient.

And shouldn't they have died out by now?

04-02-2017 6:44pm

Angel Crow wrote: »

Yes they did? That's the debate I was having when you waded in. So is a vegetarian diet unnatural or not?

The Brokpa tribe.

I'm not sure what debate you were having, you made this claim:

Angel Crow wrote: »

I don't get the argument that we need meat or are designed to eat it. I know people that have been vegetarians for 10 and 20 years and are perfectly functioning intelligent adults. It's such a lazy attitude that because our ancient ancestors relied on meat for survival that we simply must eat it. It's not relevant to a society with a food surplus.

I don't know if anyone insisted we must eat meat, but if you don't understand that we were designed to eat it then there's no point in discussing it. The only reason we're here talking about it is because we evolved to eat it.

The Brokpa are a living tribe and on other occasions I notice that sites devoted to vegetarianism/veganism claim that they're supposed to have been vegan for 5k years, but the reality is more like 2k. It's not relevant to whether or not homosapiens as a species have evolved eating meat or not.

As I've said, there are lots of great reasons why a person might choose to be a vegetarian, people not being designed to eat meat or ancient peoples being vegetarian is not one of them.

Angel Crow · 04-02-2017 6:46pm

Candie wrote: »

I'm not sure what debate you were having, you made this claim:

I don't know if anyone insisted we must eat meat, but if you don't understand that we were designed to eat it then there's no point in discussing it. The only reason we're here talking about it is because we evolved to eat it.

The Brokpa are a living tribe and on other occasions I notice that sites devoted to vegetarianism/veganism claim that they're supposed to have been vegan for 5k years, but the reality is more like 2k. It's not relevant to whether or not homosapiens as a species have evolved eating meat or not.

As I've said, there are lots of great reasons why a person might choose to be a vegetarian, people not being designed to eat meat or ancient peoples being vegetarian is not one of them.

We werent designed to eat anything. You're changing your approach. Is vegetarianism unnatural?

04-02-2017 6:47pm

Angel Crow wrote: »

Ah right. So ancient Egypt isn't ancient.

And shouldn't they have died out by now?

They're modern humans, as evolved as any of us.

Other species of humans, who only ate plant matter, have died out.

The term Ancient Egypt refers to the civilisation.

04-02-2017 6:48pm

Angel Crow wrote: »

We werent designed to eat anything. You're changing your approach. Is vegetarianism unnatural?

Where did I say it was? My only approach is to point out that eating meat was necessary to human development.

Eating meat is natural. That doesn't make vegetarianism unnatural. People have all kinds of choices now that didn't apply in the past.

Angel Crow · 04-02-2017 6:55pm

Candie wrote: »

Where did I say it was? My only approach is to point out that eating meat was necessary to human development.

Eating meat is natural. That doesn't make vegetarianism unnatural. People have all kinds of choices now that didn't apply in the past.

But that's exactly what I've being saying? You just assumed I said it's wrong to eat meat and we should only be vegetarian. I've never once said that, I eat meat myself but I was refuting a posters claim that it was unnatural to be vegetarian. You made up an argument for yourself.

You also said the word natural is not debatable so how can you think vegetarianism is natural is if they all died?

Angel Crow · 04-02-2017 7:01pm

Candie wrote: »

They're modern humans, as evolved as any of us.

Other species of humans, who only ate plant matter, have died out.

The term Ancient Egypt refers to the civilisation.

That's also why said it depends on your definition of the word ancient, it's a hugely broad term.

osarusan · 04-02-2017 7:01pm

All the recent posts started from this post, and frankly I don't see what relevance the paleolithic lifestyle has to anything.

cnocbui wrote: »

Vegitarianism is unnatural. There has never been a human population with a paleolithic lifestyle that didn't get most of it's nutrition from non-plant sources.

04-02-2017 7:07pm

Angel Crow wrote: »

But that's exactly what I've being saying? You just assumed I said it's wrong to eat meat and we should only be vegetarian. I've never once said that, I eat meat myself but I was refuting a posters claim that it was unnatural to be vegetarian. You made up an argument for yourself.

It is 'unnatural' in the sense that vegetarianism would have led to the probable extinction of early homosapiens.

You also said the word natural is not debatable so how can you think vegetarianism is natural is if they all died?

Natural means occurring in nature.

I don't see what relevance a modern persons dietary choices have to do with that.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 04-02-2017 7:12pm

Angel Crow wrote: »

Ah right. So ancient Egypt isn't ancient.

And shouldn't they have died out by now?

2000 years is nothing in evolutionary terms. It's fine. It just piqued my interest when you referred to ancient tribes.

Ancient Egypt was gone by the time this tribe emerged and was replaced by Ptolemaic Egypt.

Angel Crow · 04-02-2017 7:13pm

Candie wrote: »

It is 'unnatural' in the sense that vegetarianism would have led to the probable extinction of early homosapiens.

Natural means occurring in nature.

I don't see what relevance a modern persons dietary choices have to do with that.

And again that was exactly my point. I only mentioned the existence of ancient vegetarians to counter a poster that said they never existed. I never said which way was right or wrong. I do believe what happens in nature is always changing. And I also said it has no relevance on the modern human. It's all there in my previous posts. You invented points I never made and argued against them. Anyway, thanks for the debate.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 04-02-2017 7:13pm

Angel Crow wrote: »

That's also why said it depends on your definition of the word ancient, it's a hugely broad term.

It's not actually.

Angel Crow · 04-02-2017 7:15pm

Christina Uptight Mimicry wrote: »

It's not actually.

So not a lot happened between the stone age and Ancient Egypt. Ok...

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 04-02-2017 7:15pm

Angel Crow wrote: »

And again that was exactly my point. I only mentioned the existence of ancient vegetarians to counter a poster that said they never existed. I never said which way was right or wrong. And I also said it has no relevance on the modern human. It's all there in my previous posts. You invented points I never made and argued against them. Anyway, thanks for the debate.

Ah here. I'm out. The tribe you referenced are modern humans. They were modern humans when the tribe formed. You are arguing for the sake of it, so farewell.

So not a lot happened between the stone age and Ancient Egypt. Ok...

Eh, actually Ancient Egypt was in 'the stone age'.

Angel Crow · 04-02-2017 7:19pm

Christina Uptight Mimicry wrote: »

Ah here. I'm out. The tribe you referenced are modern humans. They were modern humans when the tribe formed. You are arguing for the sake of it, so farewell.

Homo sapiens are modern humans. You need more experience in "your field."

There's no difference between them and the first emerging homo sapiens. But they should have died out by your logic.
You also thanked posts acknowledging vegetarian tribes existed so I guess it's you arguing for the sake of it.

Angel Crow · 04-02-2017 7:20pm

Christina Uptight Mimicry wrote: »

Ah here. I'm out. The tribe you referenced are modern humans. They were modern humans when the tribe formed. You are arguing for the sake of it, so farewell.

Eh, actually Ancient Egypt was in 'the stone age'.

Yeah, no metal artifacts have come out of Ancient Egypt, but think you know I meant the beginning of the stone age.

cnocbui · 04-02-2017 7:31pm

osarusan wrote: »

All the recent posts started from this post, and frankly I don't see what relevance the paleolithic lifestyle has to anything.

My post was in response to the one it quoted which stated that there was nothing 'unnatural' about vegitarianism. A statement I disagrred with and responded to.

I also explained the relevance of the paleolithic lifestyle in the context of defining the term 'natural'.

Spot the sabre-toothed carrot and the salad tongs.

Mountainsandh · 04-02-2017 8:02pm

I find this timeline brilliant for putting things in perspective.

Wait but why is the website.
Not being narky, sarcastic or patronizing. It genuinely helps me anyway.
Scroll down to "anatomically modern humans" (and before. Look for purple and pink).

http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/08/putting-time-in-perspective.html

Angel Crow · 05-02-2017 4:08am

cnocbui wrote: »

I also explained the relevance of the paleolithic lifestyle in the context of defining the term 'natural'.

Recent studies have shown that a paleolithic diet can be unsuitable for modern humans. So I would more or less deem it quite irrelevant.

Sam Kade · 05-02-2017 10:18am

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Mainly vermin running around the place!

So vermin won't go near plastic wrapped vegetables?

cnocbui · 05-02-2017 11:45am

Angel Crow wrote: »

Recent studies have shown that a paleolithic diet can be unsuitable for modern humans. So I would more or less deem it quite irrelevant.

Gee, A PC biased study to try and push inconvenient facts concerning cholesterol and fats back into the ideal diet for you box the medical profession has carefully constructed from wet tissue paper. How surprising.

Angel Crow · 05-02-2017 12:43pm

cnocbui wrote: »

Gee, A PC biased study to try and push inconvenient facts concerning cholesterol and fats back into the ideal diet for you box the medical profession has carefully constructed from wet tissue paper. How surprising.

Yeah, maybe I'll stick to the advice from someone that thinks rape is still a natural practice.

Sam Kade · 05-02-2017 12:48pm

Angel Crow wrote: »

Yeah, maybe I'll stick to the advice from someone that thinks rape is still a natural practice.

What rape are you referring to?

osarusan · 05-02-2017 1:26pm

cnocbui wrote: »

I also explained the relevance of the paleolithic lifestyle in the context of defining the term 'natural'.

That is your argument alright, but it doesn't convince me at all.

I still don't think that the lifestyle of Paleolithic humans has any particular relevance at all in the definition of natural.

cnocbui · 05-02-2017 2:05pm

Angel Crow wrote: »

Yeah, maybe I'll stick to the advice from someone that thinks rape is still a natural practice.

Bailey, R.O.; Seymour, N. R.; Stewart, G.R. (1978). "Rape behaviour in blue-winged teal"

Barash, D. P. (1977). "Sociobiology of Rape in Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos): Responses of the Mated Male". Science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_coercion

My saying rape is 'natural' is completely separate from what I think about it from a moral or ethical standpoint in the context of human behaviour.

Cancer is natural. My saying that does not mean I want cancer, like it or think it's great.

freshpopcorn · 05-02-2017 2:44pm

Sam Kade wrote: »

So vermin won't go near plastic wrapped vegetables?

Well no but it sort of stops them from pissing on things a little!

Is it time to stop eating meat?

Comments