HUMANS....better off as omnivores or herbivores??

That rings disturbingly true.

After you watch Ravenous, you should all go check out “Cannibal Holocaust”
Interesting if not overly graphic movie about a south american cannibal tribe.

Could also be because of the increase in cardiovascular problems, obesity, diabetes, high cholesterol, etc…

Inaddition, it is not necessary for humans to be muscular because they are not faced with the task of hunting and fighting off preditors. It made sense for our ancestors to be muscualr because they needed that extra strength and abilty to store energy. Atleast, I think today we have others means of protecting our selves (technology and weapons, etc).

There are other vegetarian products that are good sources of protein e.g soya, tofu, wheat proteing, bulgur wheat, lentils, quinoa, rice, seitan, tempeh, etc…

Vegetarian meals rich in iron include:
pulses, bread, green vegetables, fortified breakfast cereal, soya milk, dried beans, spinach, chard, beet greens, blackstrap molasses, bulgur, prune juice, and dried fruit, etc

Inaddition, there are vitamin supplements.

You ask me to read membrain’s post and you didn’t even read mine properly :unamused: . I said,

I said I am better off, not society is better off, as onmivores. And I know the tradition of hinduism is all about being vegetarian and is especially strict about not eating beef (it’s a sacred animal, although it is not written in the holy Bhagavat Gita, it is still considered sacred. Someone told me it was influenced by Ghandi, a well respected individual). Anyways, I meant that it doesn’t affect me because I am not restricted by any religious rules, hence my reason for choosing to eat meat.


So caring about the pain felt by other animals is “emotional rethoric”?

I guess you’re not as intelligent as I thought you were. Sorry.

curious_rina, First of all, sorry for misreading the part - you’ll have to excuse my English from time to time, as I’m not quite fluent.

Increasing sexual attraction is the main reason why people are trying to maintain a good physique nowadays. Your point about hunting and techonology are obvious, so don’t worry, I understood perfectly.

About religion… if you base your decision about meat eating on your religion, then I’m not really the cruel one here.

Dr S, You’re pouring gas on a fire… For why?

ftheNaysayers, I’d really like to hear your definition of the term, ‘sentient’.


Yes, that’s exactly what it is. Pain and death are factors of nature. The food chain is nessesary for life on earth. How very arrogant to disregard hundreds of millions of years of evolution because of a ‘warm fuzzy feeling’ for no-one and nothing in particular.
Reality is hard, deal with it.

Try as I might, I can’t bring myself to care about your personal opinion of me.
I call em like I see em, political correctness be damned.

Remember you are talking to a meat-eater here. Where did I say that pain and death aren’t factors of nature? I don’t remember saying that. However, if it is possible–and it is now–to reduce pain and suffering by not eating meat, why continue to eat meat?

Is your only argument that it would be arrogant to the million of years of evolution? Well, I didn’t know evolution had feelings. Maybe we should be more careful around evolution, we don’t want to upset it.

Furthermore, your argument doesn’t even hold up. The same argument could have been used as a reason to not starting eating meat; humans were once herbivores. A person could have argued that to start eating meat and disregard the millions of years of evolution would be very “arrogant”.

So is it safe to assume that you also see nothing wrong with killing another human for personal gain? If you do, what would be the reason.

My argument has nothing to do with political correctness. It is no longer necessary for humans to eat meat and a result of not doing so would reduce much of the pain and suffering of other species.


For the issue we are discussing here, I’d define sentient life as any life-form that can feel pain.

We’re scavengers and omnivores, that much is made obvious by any biology class. “Should” comes down to personal ethics/beliefs/etc.

I personally believe it’s far healthier to eat vegan than it is to include meat in your diet. I also sleep a little easier knowing I’m helping in a very modest way to stop the suffering of organisms that feel pain and fear very much the same way I do. They didn’t do anything to me, so I’m not going to do anything to them. :smiley:

One thing that is clear is that drinking milk from bovines is absolutely disgusting by any stretch of my imagination… I kind of find it hard to believe that so few people share that opinion, but oh well.

Because it tastes good.

You’re really knocking the stuffing out of that straw man.

Humans were never herbivores. Some of our biological ancestery was, but never homo-sapiens.

Right and wrong are subjective. As with everything, it is a matter of weighing the cost against the benifit.

Yes, it does. It has everything to do with PC.
Where do you think you got that ‘paper compassion’ for ‘all life’
REAL compassion is earned on an individual level, not handed out wholesale by society.
I think it is demeaning to those you feel true compassion for to devalue it like that.
Just like money, if you print too much it becomes worthless.

And that is fine. However, who in the hell do you think you are to say that noone can actually have a respect for all sentient life–that it is nothing more than emotional rhetoric? I am not saying you should respect all sentient life, but how can you say that noone else can? That is pretty close-minded.

That is your argument. You are the one who said it would be very arrogant to disregard the millions of years of evolution.

Yes humans were once herbivores. I guess I missed the memo that only homo-sapiens were humans. I think most people would claim that humans existed before homo-sapiens.

So you don’t even respect human life. That sure is telling.

It is not “paper compassion”. I’m sorry it is out of your comprehension that one could geniunely value all sentient life, regardless of species.

According to you, and that is your opinion. But you have said that it is basically impossible for someone to genuinely care about all life. You say that anyone who cares about all sentient life is just buying into “emotional rhetoric”.

Oh, true compassion, you say? Funny that you would use that term considering it is akin to religious fundies aruging about “true” christians vs “untrue” ones. What the hell is “true” compassion?

Besides, who made you the authority on what constitutes compassion? Get off your high horse and realize that people can actually have a genuine respect for all sentient life.

That is clearly a false analogy. Comparing compassion to money? Give me a break.

All I am saying is that someone can geniunely have respect for all sentient life, and it is not just “emotional rhetoric”. You are entitled to believe in natural law, and thus not respect all life; But you are not entitled to tell others that they can’t genuinely respect all life, which is what you are arguing.

With Dr. S on this one. It is only the availability of meat that’s changed, and its consequent overconsumption that is harmful.

  • mind you, if they ever manage to manufacture a perfect-taste/texture copy, non-acute/chronic toxic, meat substitute… I’ll stick that in my burger instead.

That’s a bit of a pesimistic definition there… If I dose myself up on enough painkillers - do I lose my sentience…? If I take so many happy pills I smile until it gives me wrinkles - do I lose my sentience…?

How about we genetically engineer congenitally happy cows with defective nervous systems…? Would it be okay to exercise our incisors then…? :evilfun:

Are you really going to split hairs over that definition? “Cannot ever” and “cannot at a specific instant” aren’t quite the same. Kind of like, if I murdered Dr. S in his sleep, what the hell? He didn’t see it coming, right? So no harm, no foul. :wink:

Truthfully, I think the people who roll their eyes at others for compassion need a reality check. The genes for most species are such that (at least partial) empathy is the norm, not pure selfishness. Would you squirm over killing your own parents? I see no particular reason for not branching out across other families, other races, even other species to show empathy. Do I hate lions because they kill gazelles? Of course not.

When it comes down away from the theoretical and back into reality, I wouldn’t eat human flesh if I could get away with it, and I’m not going to eat animal flesh even though I can get away with it.

Dr. S,

This is very true. Life feeds on life. To live is to choose to murder.

I originally went veggie for the moral reasons. ‘If we don’t have to live on meat anymore, why should we?’… And continue doing so partly because of morality (though the reasoning is entirely different and not something I would impress upon others)

But more than that are the health and ‘economic’ (I suppose) reasons.

Veggetarianism is pretty much healthier for you no matter how you look at it, as long as you’re smart about it. The health pros and cons of beef, pork, and chicken (to a lesser extent though) clearly lean to the negative. Fish is the one big exception. Fish is healthy for you; really healthy for you… besides that, any deficiency in protein, etc. are fairly easily made up for with soy products and such.

As for ‘economic’ reasons, a society with meat as its staple food source wastes huge amounts of grain (and other food, but grains especially), land, etc. This, too, is a pretty one-sided argument… I’ve heard the “what about the animals we have right now?” and the “all those poor farmer/workers…” arguments, but these are just generic arguments against the altering of any status quo…

Membrain’s first post summarizes it all quite well.

As for the evolution argument,

Guess what? we evolved empathy too. we evolved sympathy for animals.

You can’t fuck with evolution, it simply isn’t possible. Its just how things work. If vegeterians are “antievolution” then we will die out… you can’t use evolution as a justification for anything…
Besides which, from a evolutionary perspective, it would be much more advantageous to eat what is most healthy. Meat consumption most likely came about because of the abundance of meat…
“meant to eat meat”, please… we are ‘meant to’ try different things, that’s why evolution works the way it does…

If we’re not supposed to eat animals, then why are they made out of meat?

heh heh…

Absolutely right - we evolved the ability to get into other animals heads, sense their state of mind, from a distance, and to an extent predict their movements…

All the better to throw a length of fire-hardened wood into them… :wink:

Anyway - Some of you seem to be serious about this, so I’ll put my serious head on for a while (better eat a bit of meat - to generate some brain-food. :blush: sorry)

Okay - you’re right, we can survive without meat these days, it’s harder, takes more discipline, but do-able. It’s an ethical choice. But that’s all it is. To argue about the subject on any other grounds is wrongheaded - evolution (def: an artifact of the dynamic equilibrium between an organism and the enviroment it inhabits - a consequence of the processes of random mutation, procreation and death) ‘encourages’ the exploitation of any resource: meat is, pound for pound, more energy rich than vegetation - ie: less chewing/digesting time is required to reap the same energy reward - so carnivores have an advantage over herbivores, as long as they minimize the risks of the hunt (predatory pack scavengers, hyenas for example, do better than lions - though they are weaker one on one) and omnivores have the advantage over both, as they are more flexible nutritionly, again, as long as they minimize the risks - become a pack-animal.

Evolution doesn’t care about health. As long as the animal stays functional long enough to breed - that’s it. Health-consciousness is an artifact generated by our artificially extended lifespan, and our awareness of death.

Yes - but not to ignore tried and tested resources.

Vegetarians would die out if society collapsed, or at least be put under severe strain - they are artifically supported by modern culture.

It’s simply a personal, ethical choice: meat is murder… It can’t be - you don’t go to jail for it.

Plants devour the sun - heliocide…? Cows devour plants - vegecide…? We devour cows - rhuminantocide…? Where would you stop…?

Animals and pain - agreed, it is ethically unsound to cause unnecessary pain - but that can be got around technologically.

The only arguement of value is the energy innefficiency one - each step in the food chain away from photosynthesis involves around a 90% loss of energy (if I remember correctly) - but by that reasoning, we should start genetically-engineering ourselves to function on sunlight.

Okay - don’t eat meat if you don’t want to, but don’t go hitting your fellow omnivores with a bag of lentils because they don’t choose the way you do… We’re entitled, as are you.

Horray you are correct sir… With the state ment that we all need to learn from

“Okay - don’t eat meat if you don’t want to, but don’t go hitting your fellow omnivores with a bag of lentils because they don’t choose the way you do… We’re entitled, as are you.”

Horray you are correct sir… With the state ment that we all need to learn from

“Okay - don’t eat meat if you don’t want to, but don’t go hitting your fellow omnivores with a bag of lentils because they don’t choose the way you do… We’re entitled, as are you.”

click submit only once dude…