|
PETA and Their Ongoing Insanity (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
Are humans meat eaters or vegetarians by nature?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Cecil:
Is man a meat-eater or a vegetarian by nature? According to the enclosed clipping from a vegetarian magazine, "The intestinal length of carnivores (meat-eating animals) is three times the body length to allow for quick removal of flesh wastes that putrefy in the intestines. Man's intestine length, like other herbivores, is six times his body length and is designed for digesting vegetables, grains, and fruits." I'm not a meat-eater but my girlfriend is and she is not convinced man is a natural vegetarian. We decided to leave it up to you. (Why I agreed to this I don't know, it's obvious from your aggressive tone that you like your steak rare.) Please, don't embarrass yourself by quoting that garbage from the National Beef Council that meat is our best source of protein. Even high school kids know better than that. --L. Williams, Culver City, California
Cecil replies:
Listen, wimp--whoops, too aggressive. Gimme some of that tofu burger. Ah, I can feel the testosterone receding already. Now then, let us reason like gentlemen. There are some intelligent arguments for vegetarianism, but claiming that man is "naturally" herbivorous isn't one of them. The settled judgment of science is that man is an omnivore, capable of eating both meat and vegetables, much as certain four-year-olds might like to convince their mothers otherwise.
Like the hard-core carnivores, we have fairly simple digestive systems well suited to the consumption of animal protein, which breaks down quickly. Contrary to what your magazine article says, the human small intestine, at 23 feet, is a little under eight times body length (assuming a mouth-to-anus "body length" of three feet). This is about midway between cats (three times body length), dogs (3-1/2 times), and other well-known meat eaters on the one hand and plant eaters such as cattle (20 to 1) and horses (12 to 1) on the other. This tends to support the idea that we are omnivores.
Herbivores also have a variety of specialized digestive organs capable of breaking down cellulose, the main component of plant tissue. Humans find cellulose totally indigestible, and even plant eaters have to take their time with it. If you were a ruminant (cud eater), for instance, you might have a stomach with four compartments, enabling you to cough up last night's alfalfa and chew on it all over again.
Or you might have an enlarged cecum, a sac attached to the intestines, where rabbits and such store food until their intestinal bacteria have time to do their stuff. Digestion in such cases takes place by a process of fermentation--bacteria actually "eat" the cellulose and the host animal consumes what results, namely bacteria dung.
The story is roughly the same with teeth. We're equipped with an all-purpose set of ivories equally suited to liver and onions.
Good thing, too. I won't claim meat is the ideal source of protein, but on the whole it's better than plants. Sure, soybeans and other products of modern agriculture are pretty nutritious. But in the wild, much of the plant menu consists of leaves and stems, which are low in food value. True herbivores have to spend much of the day scrounging for snacks just to keep their strength up.
So make no mistake: we were born to eat meat. That's not to say you have to. There's no question that strictly from a health standpoint we'd all be a lot better off eating less meat (red meat especially) and more fruits and vegetables. But vegetarians aren't going to advance their cause by making ridiculous claims.
VEGETARIANS GO APE
Dear Cecil:
Your statement that "we were born to eat meat" is nonsense. In using comparative anatomy to determine what man was "meant" to eat, we should look at the species most similar to man, namely the anthropoid apes--chimpanzees, gibbons, gorillas, and orangutans. Of all animals, man's digestive organs and teeth most closely resemble these apes. In captivity, some of these animals will eat meat if forced to rather than starve to death. But in the wild, all eat a vegetarian diet.
Another strong clue that man is naturally a vegetarian is the fact that vegetarians in general are much healthier than omnivores. The American Dietetic Association has acknowledged that vegetarians are less at risk for a number of chronic diseases, including heart disease, some types of cancer, obesity, high blood pressure, and adult-onset diabetes.
Eating a healthy diet goes far beyond cutting back a bit on red meat. In a recent study of 6,500 Chinese, Dr. T. Collin Campbell of Cornell found that even though the Chinese overall eat only a fraction of the animal protein Americans do, those who ate the least animal protein nonetheless had lower risk of disease than the average Chinese. Dr. Campbell concludes, "We're basically a vegetarian species and should be eating a wide variety of plant foods and minimizing our intake of animal foods." --Glen Kime, president, Vegetarian Society of Washington, D.C.
Dear Glen:
I feel like I'm arguing that the Pope is Catholic. To clarify a point that eluded many who wrote me about this: the issue is not whether vegetarianism is healthier, better for the planet, etc., than the standard U.S. diet. I don't doubt it is. It's whether humans are naturally vegetarians.
Here it seems to me the best evidence is our history as a species. We have been happily eating meat for at least two million years, and probably much longer. The common view among anthropologists, in fact, is that increased meat consumption was a key element in the development of human culture, since getting and distributing the stuff requires cooperation.
Not all anthropoid apes are exclusively vegetarian. The primatologist Jane Goodall established more than 20 years ago that wild chimpanzees kill other animals once in a while and eat the meat with relish. Other primates (although apparently not gorillas) do so as well. It's true chimps and other apes eat a mostly veggie diet, but for that matter so do most humans. Hunter-gatherers today consume only about 35 percent meat to 65 percent vegetables (Lee and Devore, 1976). Anyway, we and the anthropoid apes diverged six to 14 million years ago--who cares what monkeys munch now?
Your argument that meat-eaters are more prone to chronic disease is irrelevant. Chronic disease typically strikes the old, not those of prime child-rearing age. Till recently most folks never got chronic disease because they died of the acute kind first. It's had minimal impact on our ability to reproduce ourselves, which of course is the basis of natural selection. In short, as we evolved, chronic disease did not "select out" for vegetarianism. I trust you see the significance of this.
There is much to be said for vegetarianism. I am at a loss to know why vegetarians cannot be content simply to say it, without taking the argument over a cliff.
THERE'S ONE IN EVERY CROWD
Dear Cecil:
In reading through your column "Vegetarians Go Ape," I noticed an unusual fact that you seemed to expose with great confidence. You stated that "Jane Goodall established more than twenty years ago that wild chimpanzees kill other animals once in a while and eat the meat with relish." I question the accuracy of this. Where would wild chimpanzees obtain relish? --Guru Singh Khalsa, Los Angeles
MAKE THAT TWO IN EVERY CROWD
Dear Cecil:
You obviously know everything. Is it true Stanley and Livingston penetrated darkest Africa wearing pith helmets because they knew they would find no plumbing there? --Eugene B. Vest, Chicago
Dear Eugene:
Oh, pith off.
--CECIL ADAMS
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_087.html
I'm never giving up meat :) |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
It's clear, Occ, that you're being a little biased here.
DAMNIT!!! DAMNIT!!! DAMNIT!!! I swore I wouldn't say that again.
As for PETA, they're kinda looney.
I do try to support local farmers as much as possible. The privatized farming corporations are atrocious. |
|
|
| dj_mdma |
rofl, that article is hilarious.
On the subject of vegetarianism and stuff, people should just let it be. Vegetarians will never be able to stop meat production for food, or convert people who eat meat to stop. instead they should just campaign to improve the conditions for those animals.
back to the subject,
PETA is an extremely biased animal activist group. I did do some research on them before, and all i can say is i'm pretty appalled about what they have done in the past. I can't back anything up right now, but i'm sure all of you guys have read about it.
One example of PETA's campaigns was about milk, and how it was actually bad for you :rolleyes: , and they were trying to indoctrinate schools with that propaganda. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by dj_mdma
PETA is an extremely biased animal activist group. |
DAMNIT! Must...resist.....can't.....hold it....... |
|
|
| dj_mdma |
:haha:
ok wrong choice of words!
um, lets just say that these contraversial methodss don't really help their cause or other animal rights groups, in the eyes of the public, and that is what counts.
I do think that moderate animal rights group accomplish a lot more by doing stuff in a more civil way |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by dj_mdma
One example of PETA's campaigns was about milk, and how it was actually bad for you :rolleyes: , and they were trying to indoctrinate schools with that propaganda. |
I vaguely remember this. It was a few years ago and involved some pretty offensive billboards or something. I think they went to colleges and promoted beer drinking over milk drinking or something as well, but I'm not able to recall it clearly so I can't be certain what it was.
Another thing they did do was put up a billboard of Rudolph Gulianni with a milk mustache and the caption read "Got Cancer?". Pretty tasteless and classless, but typical for PETA.
They used to drive around my city in these trucks broadcasting bullfights (not the exciting part, but the gory parts where the bull was basically being killed). I think they tried to claim that Coca-Cola was behind the slaughter of bulls. Anyway, it was quite a stretch, and more of an eyesore than anything. I think they'd find more people would take them seriously if they weren't so far out in left-field and their tactics less in-your-face.
I take them less seriously than I do the "Truth" campaigners and their anti-smoking ads. Seems more like a group of high-strung liberals with too much time on their hands. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
In order to determine what is "natural" for our diet, you merely have to look back in time and determine what our ancient ancestors would have eaten. For our species, with a relatively long generation time, the process of evolution is extremely slow. In contrast, bacteria with a short generation time have evolutionary changes that can literally be witnessed in our lifetimes (resistant strains to antibiotics, etc). Therefore, the diet we ate thousands of years ago is still the diet our bodies are most suited for, as we evolve very slowly in the accomodation of new foods.
With that being said, our technology leap during the agricultural revolution basically changed the diet that we had "evolved" with. We started consuming processed cereal grains (making breads, etc). This was a totally new product to our digestive system as there were no "bread" trees, or natuarally occuring processed grains for our consumption. We also began to consume other agricultural products that up to that point were not part of our diet. Another big example is the eating of beans. Letcins, which beans contain, are actually poisonous to our digestive system. (Think about it, what other food that gives you gas and diarrhea do we consider "good" for you?") (On a side note, this fact makes me cringe when people talk of the benefits of soy products, especially for children...if you'd like more info on the effects of these lectins, let me know).
With the onset of the agricultural revolution we also began to develop new diseases that further proved the inability of our digestive system to handle the new post-agricultural revolution diet. We began to develop tooth carries, easily shown by our fossil record. Futhermore, it was during this time that autism, multiple sclerosis, heart diesease, adult onset diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis entered the scene. Today it is believed all of these stem from our conter-evolutionary diet (I again will provide sources, if you wish). Several cancers have also been linked to our current diet by examining frequencies of these cancers found in other cultures with differing diets.
Our bodies evolved on a "paleo-diet" which is composed of 3/4 of our calories coming from animal protein and the other 1/4 coming from nuts, berries and other easily scavangeable plant products. This can be derived from our fossil record (trace elements found in fossilized bone marrow) as well as common sense. We merely need to think of what our ancesetors would have had available to eat to see what we should "naturally" be eating.
In case you're wondering I was an evolutionary biology major during my undergrad years, and I love the "process" of evolution. I've written many papers on it, and it still fascinates me how easily we dismiss it as a force governing our daily lives. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
speaking of which, where the hell did chickens come from?
Did we once fear the evil diabolic chickens of the ... where the hell would they live anyway?
They're almost as dumb as a turkey.. gee a bird that can't fly, no wonder they were captivated and eatten. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
They're almost as dumb as a turkey.. gee a bird that can't fly, no wonder they were captivated and eatten. |
You mean captured and eaten--big difference. I think it's hard to captivate turkeys.:D
Sometimes these boards seem more and more like a place to showcase highschool English papers. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
speaking of which, where the hell did chickens come from?
Did we once fear the evil diabolic chickens of the ... where the hell would they live anyway?
They're almost as dumb as a turkey.. gee a bird that can't fly, no wonder they were captivated and eatten. |
God put chickens on this Earth for us to eat. It must be some kind of sign that everything tastes like chicken .... not to mention the fact that the chicken is the butt of the lamest joke inventable to man. Therefore I believe that it is our christian duty to capture, farm, and eat chickens. Anything you say otherwise is clearly biased you hedonistic pagan :D
Dammit ... now misteropus has me doing it too. |
|
|
| occrider |
Additionally, for those of you unaware of the potential dangers chickens pose and why they demand our watchful oppression, I suggest you read this informative historical text:
And let us not forget the dangers of cows should that species go unchecked:
 |
|
|
| dj adagnitio |
I honestly dont see how what is "natural" for us to do has any relevence. as I stated before nothing we do now is natural so why would it matter?
The issue is that killing is at its base immoral UNLESS their is necessity, which clearly there is not. In fact their is the exact opposite. We are doing something immoral to hurt ourselves.
| quote: | Originally posted by dj_mdma
rofl, that article is hilarious.
On the subject of vegetarianism and stuff, people should just let it be. Vegetarians will never be able to stop meat production for food, or convert people who eat meat to stop. instead they should just campaign to improve the conditions for those animals.
|
Thats actually not true. When I was younger I had a going list of how many people who ate meat I got to stop. I think I got up to about 22 before giving up on counting. I agree that peta are quite extreme and their methods often hurt the cause. But I can understand how people can be pushed to take extreme measures sometimes when faced with so much suffering which seems almost uncontrollable. |
|
|
|
|
