|
PETA and Their Ongoing Insanity (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| NeoPhono |
I disagree that we aren't "supposed" to eat animals.
Our digestive system is designed to eat mostly meats with some plant products. Our ancenstors got the bulk of their calories as well as essential nutrients through meat products.
Children born to vegetarian parents are born in altered boy/girl ratios (much more females born than statistically normal) as well as having five times the likelyhood of birth defects. Furthermore, meat is the only natural source of vitamin B12, pre-formed vitamin A as well as riboflavin and many essential fatty acids.
Going back to our digestive system, it is easy to see why evolutionarily speaking roughly 3/4 of our caloric intake should be through meat by comparing our gut size to herbivores and carnivores. Proportionally speaking, our gut size is related most closely to that of carnivores. If you take a look at herbivores, they have proportionally large digestive systems to make up for the digestion of plant materials that are both inefficient to digest and contain few calories and nutrients. With our large brains, requiring a high amount of "fuel", we evolved to be primarily meat eaters in order to make up for our small digestive system.
Anyway, I'll back all of this up with sources if you wish, and I'd love to go on about how lectins (beans) and glutens (wheats and grains) have been shown to cause a variety of common diseases, but I'll cut myself off here, and congratulate you if you've made it this far. |
|
|
| MrSquirrel |
| quote: | Originally posted by dj adagnitio
the big difference is that animals only eat other animals out of necessity. Lions couldnt survive if they didnt eat other animals. We can survive better. As so there is no reason to do it, except that people are conditioned to by society. |
No actually...humans are biologically speaking, omnivores. It is why we have both cutting/tearing teeth in the front (inscisors and canines) for eating meat and grinding teeth in the back (molars) for eating cellulose. Sure we can survive eating only plants, but biologically speaking, humans are meant to eat both flesh and plant matter.
MrS |
|
|
| occrider |
Yes we were "conditioned" to eat meat long before society was even formed. :)
Pass some more peta over here. |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Children born to vegetarian parents are born in altered boy/girl ratios (much more females born than statistically normal) as well as having five times the likelyhood of birth defects. Furthermore, meat is the only natural source of vitamin B12, pre-formed vitamin A as well as riboflavin and many essential fatty acids.
|
I was born to vegatarian parents, as was my brother. Not one female in the household :p
I don't appear to have any birth defects, nor do I stumble around due to lack of nuitrition ;) |
|
|
| dj adagnitio |
I actually find what your saying extremely hard to believe. I have read several sources that say our bodies are closer to that of a herbavoe due to our not that sharp teeth, long digestive track and the presence of some type on enzyme in our stomach which is more charecteristic of a herbivore then an omnivore.
And the naturalist arguement is complete crap, and rests on very shaky logic. To say that eating meat is in theory natural would be true. However to claim anything we do in this society is "naturaj" in that context of the word is simply not true. Also our most basic instinct is survival, superceding all else. Eating meat goes against htat in the way it threatens our survival by creating more powerful diseases, destroying the world in which we live and being very unhealthy for us. |
|
|
| DaveSaenz |
| quote: | Originally posted by dj adagnitio
And the naturalist arguement is complete crap, and rests on very shaky logic. To say that eating meat is in theory natural would be true. However to claim anything we do in this society is "naturaj" in that context of the word is simply not true. |
I see where you're comming from with that line of thinking, but if you follow it to its logical conclusion, you'd have to conclude that any form of agriculture is inherently "unnatural." So are you then advocating that we return to hunter/gatherer status? ;) Are you going to tell an Inuit who depends on hunting whale for his or her survival that they should stop because you consider it immoral?
| quote: |
Eating meat goes against htat in the way it threatens our survival by creating more powerful diseases, destroying the world in which we live and being very unhealthy for us. |
I'm having trouble thinking of an example of how the farming of animals for human consumption "destroy(s) the world in which we live" other than the obvious environmental impact caused by the concentration of animal feces which can runoff into creeks and rivers etc. This has become a problem mainly only in the past two or three decades though with the explosion of commercial livestock farming. In days gone by, when there was less livestock in a larger space, the land was better able to absorb the waste from the livestock. As for the argument that it "creates more powerful diseases," there is the danger of accelerating the process of creating antibiotic-resistant microbes from giving livestock antibiotics, but if this practice were abandoned it would become a non-issue. So in reality, the real problem is with the demise of small family-owned farms and the rise of powerful commercial livestock farms. You could also make the argument about the risk of new variant CJV (mad cow-like disease in humans) from eating meat, but this is extremely rare. In fact I don't believe there have been any reported cases of this in humans in the US (I have no idea about Canada or Mexico).
On the other hand, commercial farm or not, growing crops such as corn and wheat take up much more land (i.e. destroy more natural habitat) than is needed for purely livestock farming. In terms of "detroying the world" through environmental impact all agriculture is harmful, and you can't merely single out livestock farming.
I'm sure you've heard of the controversial "protein" diet made popular by the late Dr. Atkins. My dad has been following this diet for perhaps 6 months now, and he was recently able to go off of his high blood pressure medication completely after taking it for 20+ years. He's also lost quite a bit of weight and seems to be in great shape. I think the optimal diet for each individual will probably vary according to their body type, so it's a matter of finding what is best for you.
As a sidenote, I've gotten food poisoning twice from eating produce, but never meat. :wtf::toothless |
|
|
| dj adagnitio |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSaenz
I see where you're comming from with that line of thinking, but if you follow it to its logical conclusion, you'd have to conclude that any form of agriculture is inherently "unnatural." So are you then advocating that we return to hunter/gatherer status? ;) Are you going to tell an Inuit who depends on hunting whale for his or her survival that they should stop because you consider it immoral?
|
My argument was not that we shouldn't do unnatural things. Rather that killing is by nature immoral and can only be justified by true necessity. My point there was that the "natural" argument to justify eating animal is completely useless and rests on no basis of logic. Im really not going to get into a debate about natives right now. But I will say that they have much more of a necessity then people elsewhere do.
| quote: |
I'm having trouble thinking of an example of how the farming of animals for human consumption "destroy(s) the world in which we live" other than the obvious environmental impact caused by the concentration of animal feces which can runoff into creeks and rivers etc. This has become a problem mainly only in the past two or three decades though with the explosion of commercial livestock farming. In days gone by, when there was less livestock in a larger space, the land was better able to absorb the waste from the livestock. As for the argument that it "creates more powerful diseases," there is the danger of accelerating the process of creating antibiotic-resistant microbes from giving livestock antibiotics, but if this practice were abandoned it would become a non-issue. So in reality, the real problem is with the demise of small family-owned farms and the rise of powerful commercial livestock farms. You could also make the argument about the risk of new variant CJV (mad cow-like disease in humans) from eating meat, but this is extremely rare. In fact I don't believe there have been any reported cases of this in humans in the US (I have no idea about Canada or Mexico).
|
Firstly I will point to a few poignant examples of how habitat is being destroyed by animal farming. One good one is Central American rainforests. Since 1960 nearly a quarter of them have been cut down to support animal farming. Also in Mexico, a 7,000 square mile area of the Gulf of Mexico has become so polluted by animal waste from farming that it can no longer support most marine life.
those are just two examples, their are many many more.
As far as creating anti-biotic resistant bacteria, its true that it is almost exclusively a problem created by unnecesary antibiotic use. However we are using the practical example where this happens and it doesnt look like its going to stop. We can debate for hours about whether it is simply the methods or not, but regardless in this world right now and likely in the future this is a problem.
| quote: |
On the other hand, commercial farm or not, growing crops such as corn and wheat take up much more land (i.e. destroy more natural habitat) than is needed for purely livestock farming. In terms of "detroying the world" through environmental impact all agriculture is harmful, and you can't merely single out livestock farming. |
Actually this is VERY VERY wrong. To produce one pound of animal takes around 16 pounds of vegetables. One quote I like from the World Watch Institute, a think tank in Washinton was
“There are few more inefficient ways to produce protein than through beef production. The grain needed to provide a family of four with just one serving of hamburgers could feed someone in a developing country for over a week.”
I can clearly single out livestock farming simply because of the amount of land that is required. It also takes around 100 times the water that it takes to grow vegetables.
| quote: |
I'm sure you've heard of the controversial "protein" diet made popular by the late Dr. Atkins. My dad has been following this diet for perhaps 6 months now, and he was recently able to go off of his high blood pressure medication completely after taking it for 20+ years. He's also lost quite a bit of weight and seems to be in great shape. I think the optimal diet for each individual will probably vary according to their body type, so it's a matter of finding what is best for you.
As a sidenote, I've gotten food poisoning twice from eating produce, but never meat. :wtf::toothless |
This is one isolated example. Your odds of getting cancer, heart disease and so on are greatly increased by eating meat. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| Are beef, chicken, fish and pork really that carcinogenic?? Could you show me some studies, please? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSaenz
I'm sure you've heard of the controversial "protein" diet made popular by the late Dr. Atkins. My dad has been following this diet for perhaps 6 months now, and he was recently able to go off of his high blood pressure medication completely after taking it for 20+ years. He's also lost quite a bit of weight and seems to be in great shape. I think the optimal diet for each individual will probably vary according to their body type, so it's a matter of finding what is best for you.
|
I believe you are correct. I have known many people who have seen tremendous health improvements from higher concentration protein eating a la Atkins.
I'm sure the animal rights people will tell you to suck it up and stuff your face with tofu instead.
I remember back in my college days I took a philosophy class and we had a focus group that discussed 'the ethical treatment of non-human animals' oddly enough. It was a joke. The professor tried to get up and tell us that it has been scientifically proven that 'beef doesn't taste good.' Talk about subjective reasoning! HA! Don't tell me what I do and don't like, I can make that assessment myself, thank you very much. And I happen to love a nice, thick filet, medium rare, with a nice peppercorn crust on it. Bacon kicks ass too. That class was a joke. |
|
|
| Izzy |
| i had always learned from anthropolgy that it was meat that leap us from the hunter/gather ape-like being we were to the civilized society that we became. as soon as humans started making crude tools that allowed them to get to the marrow inside the bone, a delixucy with rich protien and fat content, that it allowed our speciecs to evolve forward and create even better tools to give us even more nutriance. once we discovered cooking meat on an open fire we started eating even greater amounts of meat which helped us evolve our brains even further. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Izzy
i had always learned from anthropolgy that it was meat that leap us from the hunter/gather ape-like being we were to the civilized society that we became. as soon as humans started making crude tools that allowed them to get to the marrow inside the bone, a delixucy with rich protien and fat content, that it allowed our speciecs to evolve forward and create even better tools to give us even more nutriance. once we discovered cooking meat on an open fire we started eating even greater amounts of meat which helped us evolve our brains even further. |
Not to mention better, more readily available sources of protein/amino acids which probably allowed for more advanced physical development as well.
Now that is an interesting counter-point! Let the debate continue! Down with PETA!!!
(And it's delicacy);) :D |
|
|
| dj_mdma |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Are beef, chicken, fish and pork really that carcinogenic?? Could you show me some studies, please? |
the meat itself is not carcinogenic, its the method of cooking/ length of cooking that causes the production of carcinogens. I listened to a lecture about it today in uni.
Something about PHiP or something :tongue2
basically, boiling the meat is the safest way ;) or so i remember :toothless |
|
|
|
|
