eating morality

[brokeman]

I have went though a thread about eating meat and that some people justified eating meat due to the fact that those said animals ( cows for example) don't display emotions and therefore are unable to know whats happening to them. However upon further research that obviously isn't the case as all animals have a nervous system and therefore are able to feel pain. Does one not think that if you placed a cow on a bunch of hot coals it would NOT try to get off of them? Of course it would. it feels pain just as we do. This test can be expanded to all animals...

Now this essentially makes us all vegans at this point. However, we have another issue. Some plants within the plant kingdom have developed defenses to animals. We have drugs such as marijuana that if one eats it, they become high. One could say the plant does this because it wants us to eat it however that can't be the case. I doubt poision ivy "thinks" that way otherwise it wouldn't evolve to the point of having defenses that makes it poisous in the first place right? 

 

now we are left in the situation of picking certain fruits and vegetables that have not evolved to the point of having defenses. If the case is to eat plants that are defenseless then does that rule apply to animals too or just plants? This is where I have a hard time understanding how it is moral to eat plants or animals. 

 

 this where the logic of self perservation comes into play so one thinks that they must eat something to survive... this is why some people are vegans mainly because they believe that killing a defenseless plant ( lettuce for example) would be less harmful to the plant than to the animal? In that case then I understand the reasoning but is there another logical and rational reason I missed? 

[PatrickC]

With all the caveats up front that I have a great fondness for animals. I rarely eat meat these days as I have embarked on a vegan diet myself of recent months. I have drifted towards this diet more out of good health than for ethical reasons. Although the mistreatment of animals is something I personally do not like.

However, humans can negotiate with each other in complex ways we can never do with animals. Animals may well experience pain and whilst different species may vary, it's difficult to know whether animals understand the causes of pain. Humans are unique in their ability to understand that they will eventually die one day. This is not the case for animals.

Trying to attach morality to animals who are unable to share or even understand that morality back is the most obvious conundrum facing any philosopher trying to assert universal ethics towards animals. We have a very unique relationship with each other, insofar as we have the ability to communicate and have empathy for each other and that empathy is reciprocal and well understood.

Therefore choosing a diet is not a moral choice, it is a subjective one. Agreed that someone’s choice to eat meat may make for unpleasant company for some vegans who find the idea abhorrent. This may appear to be a moral conclusion they are making of the meat eater and indeed they may even suggest it is one. But it really isn't in the 'objective' sense of the word. They are free of course to disassociate from meat eaters if they so desire.

Anecdotally mind, I have noticed that as I've developed my empathy for myself and others that I began to experience empathy for animals. Whereas in the past I never gave animals much interest or any harm either. I now consider (in part) my relationship with animals as emblematic of my relationships with other people. However, that is an entirely subjective and personal conclusion I have come to, which may have no bearing on how others experience it.

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

The only rational excuse for eating meat is that we are a carnivorous species. Animals eat other animals, insects and some will eat a human if the situation presents itself. Thus, there is no moral consideration to be made, biologically speaking. Since we are capable of empathy, we tend toward anthropomorphising creatures that react to sensations in a similar manner to us. For instance, most people won't kick a dog but they will not think twice about stepping on a bug. There are a number of reasons for this but mostly (imo) it is because bugs don't express themselves in a similar manner to humans. We can't empathize with a cockroach because there is little of nothing similar between them and us.

 

All that said, I do empathize with animals and even with insects. As for the insects, I'm mostly concerned with the fact that they are a part of our ecosystem and as such they perform a much needed function. For that reason, I don't kill any insects unless not doing so could endanger my family. i.e., cockroaches carry disease, black widow spiders can cause painful bites, et al. As anumals go, I'm a meat eater and have no interest in changing my diet, although I have cut down my consumption of meat because we simply don't need as much meat as we have available to us. So for me, its a dietary consideration and not an empathy situation. Although, I do make it a point to purchase meats that are raised and slaughtered in the most humane manners possible. I won't touch veal or any other meat that's produced in a clearly inhumane manner. However, the truth of the matter is that to the lamb, being skinned alive by a butcher isn't any different than being chased down by a group of wolves and eaten alive right there on the spot. In both cases, it is suffering pain and it is being killed.

 

If the wolves aren't being immoral, how am I? I'm not. I just choose to treat animals with as much respect as possible while still living my life like the animal that I am.

[SimonF]

 

The only rational excuse for eating meat is that we are a carnivorous species. 

 

I would agree with this logic if it were based on scientific facts. However, there is no evidence that humans are carnivorous. The evidence is all indicative of a frugivorous evolution much as Darwin proposed. That and the fact that animal products are poisonous to humans pretty much seals the deal.

For supporting evidence of the claims above I suggest you read the scientific literature.

[SimonF]

As to the issues raised by the OP, the question is what constitutes the rules we use to assign moral status? When we answer this we can see if the same rules are relivant to non-human animals.

Eating is also in general morally neutral, that is unless you are biting someones living ear off for your supper. In contrast, for example, consuming some road kill is morally neutral assuming you did not yourself kill the animal concerned but instead just happened upon it.

Morality means taking the interests of other into consideration. This requires the thing of moral concern to have interests (non-living objects fail this test) and to be an "other" that is a sentient being aware of itself (many non-human animals pass this test, plants do not).

The above rules work for humans as below.

foetus - non-sentient, no moral status

live human cancer cells in a petri dish - "human" but non-sentient, no moral status

human neurons alive in a petri dish - human non-sentient, but like a plant reacts to environmental stimuli, no moral status

living human with insignificant brain function (vegetative state) - alive, human but non-sentient, no moral status

new born human child  to adult and other than above - sentient, has moral status

So I submit that the criteria for moral status are sentience (meaning self awareness), and this applies to many other animals but not to plants, and probably not to insects either.One can also consider that non-human animals homestead their body just as we do ours and are therefore the only legitimate owners of their being.

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

I'm sorry, I should have said omivorous. However, I do see what you're saying. I hadn't thought about food consumption as yet another myth we are told in school. At first glance, the most scientific (as opposed to religious or pro vegan) website I've found suggests that we are indeed suited to consume minimal amounts of flesh. That makes sense, given the similarities we have with carnivores (canine teeth, forward facing eyes) as opposed to those we have with herbivores.

"That and the fact that animal products are poisonous to humans pretty much seals the deal."

 

Not at all. Everything we consume can poison us, including oxygen.

 

In any event, thanks for bringing that to my attention.

[SimonF]

 

I'm sorry, I should have said omivorous.

 

There's no science to support this idea either, all the human anatomy and physiology indicates that we are plant eaters.

 

...At first glance, the most scientific (as opposed to religious or pro vegan) website I've found suggests that we are indeed suited to consume minimal amounts of flesh. That makes sense, given the similarities we have with carnivores (canine teeth, forward facing eyes) as opposed to those we have with herbivores.

 

What are these adaptions to "minimal amounts of flesh"? The argument that humans can only tolerate animal products in minimal amounts is data indicating that we are not "omnivores", yes?

Like a creationist, I think you're making this up as you go from some common myths you are attached to. Obtain some decent books and read the primary literature. If you can't be bothered to do this, spare everyone your uniformed opinions.

 

 

"That and the fact that animal products are poisonous to humans pretty much seals the deal."

Not at all. Everything we consume can poison us, including oxygen.

In any event, thanks for bringing that to my attention.

 

Tell me about this when you discover that oxygen is atherogenic or can refute that animal products cause endotoxic inflammatory reactions after consumption.
 
[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh8fzqucizQ]

[SimonF]

 

 given the similarities we have with carnivores (canine teeth, forward facing eyes) as opposed to those we have with herbivores.

 

Human canine teeth are "incisiform", a trait found in herbivores and frugivores, please look this up. Human teeth are entirely useless for rending flesh. Our canines are much reduced even compared to chimps (which are omnivores) and gorillas (which use them for threat display, not flesh eating).

Our forward facing eyes go way back to our putative miocene ancestors who were thought to be frugivorous, same for our dental pattern.

Eyes on the side of the head are helpful to terrestrial mammals that are predated and don't need to locate food items because they are highly abundant (i.e. vegetation). Our ancestors were probably arborial and having eyes on the front of the face is argued to be an adapatation to help locate fruit, same for our colour vision.

[J Ham]

"That and the fact that animal products are poisonous to humans pretty much seals the deal."

How do you account for Inuits and similar cultures who consume copious amounts of fatty animal meat? What about the scientists who have gone and lived with them, consumed their traditional diets, and manage to have all of their nutritional needs met?

You may be confusing overly processed, cooked, hormone-added, lean meats with the fresh and fatty meat that has sustained robust individuals for centuries.

[brokeman]

 

 

 

With all the caveats up front that I have a great fondness for animals. I rarely eat meat these days as I have embarked on a vegan diet myself of recent months. I have drifted towards this diet more out of good health than for ethical reasons. Although the mistreatment of animals is something I personally do not like.

However, humans can negotiate with each other in complex ways we can never do with animals. Animals may well experience pain and whilst different species may vary, it's difficult to know whether animals understand the causes of pain. Humans are unique in their ability to understand that they will eventually die one day. This is not the case for animals.

Trying to attach morality to animals who are unable to share or even understand that morality back is the most obvious conundrum facing any philosopher trying to assert universal ethics towards animals. We have a very unique relationship with each other, insofar as we have the ability to communicate and have empathy for each other and that empathy is reciprocal and well understood.

Therefore choosing a diet is not a moral choice, it is a subjective one. Agreed that someone’s choice to eat meat may make for unpleasant company for some vegans who find the idea abhorrent. This may appear to be a moral conclusion they are making of the meat eater and indeed they may even suggest it is one. But it really isn't in the 'objective' sense of the word. They are free of course to disassociate from meat eaters if they so desire.

Anecdotally mind, I have noticed that as I've developed my empathy for myself and others that I began to experience empathy for animals. Whereas in the past I never gave animals much interest or any harm either. I now consider (in part) my relationship with animals as emblematic of my relationships with other people. However, that is an entirely subjective and personal conclusion I have come to, which may have no bearing on how others experience it.

 

 

we still have the essential question that must be asked. Is it truly difficult to know if animals can understand the causes of pain? Sure, they might not know if they will eventually die but they might know that if they have seen death of a parent or something like that. For example, the only way we know that we will die is because others have died before us right? Would one think he will die if he never seen anything die?  

 

we can't communicate with an animal in the correct manner to find out if it has empathy for each other therefore we can eat that said animal due to it becoming subjective is highly flawed thinking. It's basically saying that if one can't communicate with their young, they have a subjective choice in eating that said animal. Need I give the example of a baby and its parents deciding on eating that child because the parents don't have the ability to communicate with the baby within the correct manner? Of course not. There are many examples within the animal kingdom itself where this falls flat on its face and one can observe all sorts of animals to see that your logic is flawed. 

 

 

The only rational excuse for eating meat is that we are a carnivorous species. Animals eat other animals, insects and some will eat a human if the situation presents itself. Thus, there is no moral consideration to be made, biologically speaking. Since we are capable of empathy, we tend toward anthropomorphising creatures that react to sensations in a similar manner to us. For instance, most people won't kick a dog but they will not think twice about stepping on a bug. There are a number of reasons for this but mostly (imo) it is because bugs don't express themselves in a similar manner to humans. We can't empathize with a cockroach because there is little of nothing similar between them and us.

 

All that said, I do empathize with animals and even with insects. As for the insects, I'm mostly concerned with the fact that they are a part of our ecosystem and as such they perform a much needed function. For that reason, I don't kill any insects unless not doing so could endanger my family. i.e., cockroaches carry disease, black widow spiders can cause painful bites, et al. As anumals go, I'm a meat eater and have no interest in changing my diet, although I have cut down my consumption of meat because we simply don't need as much meat as we have available to us. So for me, its a dietary consideration and not an empathy situation. Although, I do make it a point to purchase meats that are raised and slaughtered in the most humane manners possible. I won't touch veal or any other meat that's produced in a clearly inhumane manner. However, the truth of the matter is that to the lamb, being skinned alive by a butcher isn't any different than being chased down by a group of wolves and eaten alive right there on the spot. In both cases, it is suffering pain and it is being killed.

 

If the wolves aren't being immoral, how am I? I'm not. I just choose to treat animals with as much respect as possible while still living my life like the animal that I am.

 

 

That isn't rational simply because we aren't a carnvorous species. Ever ate anything besides meat? I'm sure you have even if we ate mac donalds or seasoned a steak. Meat doesn't taste very good without any type of herbs or spices on it to begin with so....  

[brokeman]

 

As to the issues raised by the OP, the question is what constitutes the rules we use to assign moral status? When we answer this we can see if the same rules are relivant to non-human animals.

Eating is also in general morally neutral, that is unless you are biting someones living ear off for your supper. In contrast, for example, consuming some road kill is morally neutral assuming you did not yourself kill the animal concerned but instead just happened upon it.

Morality means taking the interests of other into consideration. This requires the thing of moral concern to have interests (non-living objects fail this test) and to be an "other" that is a sentient being aware of itself (many non-human animals pass this test, plants do not).

The above rules work for humans as below.

foetus - non-sentient, no moral status

live human cancer cells in a petri dish - "human" but non-sentient, no moral status

human neurons alive in a petri dish - human non-sentient, but like a plant reacts to environmental stimuli, no moral status

living human with insignificant brain function (vegetative state) - alive, human but non-sentient, no moral status

new born human child  to adult and other than above - sentient, has moral status

So I submit that the criteria for moral status are sentience (meaning self awareness), and this applies to many other animals but not to plants, and probably not to insects either.

One can also consider that non-human animals homestead their body just as we do ours and are therefore the only legitimate owners of their being.

 

 

The case between road kill that someone for the most part hit on accident and eating meat that has been put their for your consumption is two different things.  Are you suggesting that eating the roadkill is the same as eating meat from the supermarket? if so, why?

Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or be conscious, or to experience subjectivity. from wikipedia... 

sen·tience

1. The quality or state of being sentient; consciousness.

2. Feeling as distinguished from perception or thought. 

 

from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Sentience

so in that case sentinence is the ability to feel or perceive or be conscious. 

A newborn baby can feel so it is indeed sentinent. However, obviously a newborn anything can pretty much feel also so... that newborn sheep is sentinent just as much as that newborn human is also. 

 

Do you not think that if you pinched a newborn it wouldn't cry or if you hit a newborn sheep it wouldn't try to run away from getting hit again? Of course it would. The newborn sheep has a nervous system just like we do. If it didn't then we can state its not sentinent.

 

[brokeman]

 

"That and the fact that animal products are poisonous to humans pretty much seals the deal."

How do you account for Inuits and similar cultures who consume copious amounts of fatty animal meat? What about the scientists who have gone and lived with them, consumed their traditional diets, and manage to have all of their nutritional needs met?

You may be confusing overly processed, cooked, hormone-added, lean meats with the fresh and fatty meat that has sustained robust individuals for centuries.

 

sounds self explainatory to me... 

an inuit: A member of a group of Eskimoan peoples inhabiting the Arctic from northern Alaska eastward to eastern Greenland, particularly those of Canada. ( right from the online dictionary)

One only has to only think about it for a few moments to see that the artic/northern alaska/canada/greenland are very very cold places. they have a good reason for eating meat. simply for the fact that finding plants are very sparse within those areas. also, the fatter you are, the more heat you tend to hold and being in a cold climate like that.. I'd say thats an adventage. 

the near opposite would be being in the "garden of eden" without any animals.

[SimonF]

 

"How do you account for Inuits and similar cultures who consume copious amounts of fatty animal meat? What about the scientists who have gone and lived with them, consumed their traditional diets, and manage to have all of their nutritional needs met?

 

Why don't you account for the scientific data I presented above that demonstrates that even game food is cytotoxic?

But in answer to your point:

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoAflQdc3CE]

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6j75BDq6DQ]

 

You may be confusing overly processed, cooked, hormone-added, lean meats with the fresh and fatty meat that has sustained robust individuals for centuries.

 

That is myth unsupported by scientifc facts, see sources reported above in the videos.

[SimonF]

 

The case between road kill that someone for the most part hit on accident and eating meat that has been put their for your consumption is two different things.  Are you suggesting that eating the roadkill is the same as eating meat from the supermarket? if so, why?

 

I am not saying this at all. Purchasing from a supermarket means a direct financial choice to support the killing. An accidental road kill taken as a meal involves no immorality.

I think we agree on what sentience is and that newborns are sentient and thus worthy of moral consideration.

 

[Existing Alternatives]

For supporting evidence of the claims above I suggest you read the scientific literature.

 

Can you be a little bit more specific? I spent an hour looking for “scientific literature” in the library and saw nothing remotely related to the subject.

 

I'm sorry, I should have said omivorous.

 

There's no science to support this idea either, all the human anatomy and physiology indicates that we are plant eaters.

 

Let me throw in my two cents concerning biological terminology (but not ethics).

Living organism (animals and plants) are classified into a number of categories based on their feeding behaviour. Carnivores eat primarily flesh, Herbivores – plants, Omnivores – a bit of both. (There are many other categories, of course). There is also an order in Animal Kingdom called Carnivora, which includes primarily carnivores that possess many characteristics that Bbeljefe described. The two overlap, but not completely. There are Carnivorans that are not Carnivores and vice versa. Anatomy has less to do with this then ecology. What’s around – gets eaten. Having certain teeth or eyes on the back of one’s head may predispose one to a certain feeding behaviour, but won’t necessarily exclusively result in it.

Having said that, Homo Sapiens (aka those who read FDR) are not Carnivorans, but rather Primates as far as order is concerned. However, because they consume both plant and animal matter they are classified as… Omnivores.

 

"That and the fact that animal products are poisonous to humans pretty much seals the deal."

How do you account for Inuits and similar cultures who consume copious amounts of fatty animal meat?

 

That seals it… again!.. So, now we have… double-seal!…

 

"That and the fact that animal products are poisonous to humans pretty much seals the deal."

Not at all. Everything we consume can poison us, including oxygen.

In any event, thanks for bringing that to my attention.

 

Tell me about this when you discover that oxygen is atherogenic or can refute that animal products cause endotoxic inflammatory reactions after consumption.

 

Actually, I don’t think he meant that Oxygen causes Atherosclerosis (i.e. atherogenic). But, you can get poisoned with oxygen. It’s called… um… Oxygen Poisoning

[PatrickC]

we can't communicate with an animal in the correct manner to find out if it has empathy for each other therefore we can eat that said animal due to it becoming subjective is highly flawed thinking. It's basically saying that if one can't communicate with their young, they have a subjective choice in eating that said animal. Need I give the example of a baby and its parents deciding on eating that child because the parents don't have the ability to communicate with the baby within the correct manner? Of course not. There are many examples within the animal kingdom itself where this falls flat on its face and one can observe all sorts of animals to see that your logic is flawed.

Well I disagree, a parent knows only to well that their baby will develop into a fully grown human with all the capacity for communication, empathy and knowledge. It would be up to you to provide a moral consistency that both animals and humans would abide by. Perhaps that is possible, but I've yet to hear a cogent argument for it.

[SimonF]

 

Having said that, Homo Sapiens (aka those who read FDR) are not Carnivorans, but rather Primates as far as order is concerned. However, because they consume both plant and animal matter they are classified as… Omnivores.

 

This is an unsupported assertion based on circular logic in a non-trivial field of scientific enquiry. If you have evidence from someone with scientific credentials then tell us about it. If you want to continue making these unsupported claims, of course you are free to, but I won't engage you further,

I've spent perhaps thousands of hours and a considerable sum of money researching scientific literature around food and nutrition and my findings are strongly at varience to yours. Calling a creature an :omnivore" because it eats animal matter is simply restating the claim with different words, it proves nothing.

 

The line about oxygen being toxic is just a straw-man distraction. Nobody is dying of oxygen poisoning, but nearly 100% of meat eating Westerners are suffering from atherosclerosis.

[SimonF]

 

Well I disagree, a parent knows only to well that their baby will develop into a fully grown human with all the capacity for communication, empathy and knowledge. 

 

How is that, some form of precognition? A child could grow to be the next mass murder or develop brain damage and totally fail to become a moral actor.

Future possibilities tell us nothing about the moral status we should assign in the present.

[Existing Alternatives]

This is an unsupported assertion based on circular logic in a non-trivial field of scientific enquiry. If you have evidence from someone with scientific credentials then tell us about it. If you want to continue making these unsupported claims, of course you are free to, but I won't engage you further,

I don’t think it’s an assertion or claim at all, left alone logic of any kind. It is simply a definition. Living organisms are categorized based on many characteristics, one of them being feeding behaviour, i.e. whatever the organism regularly consumes. If they eat primarily flesh – they would be carnivores, plants – herbivores, fungus – fungivores, all of the above – omnivore (hence, the “omni” + “vore”). Because we (as species) eat a diverse cuisine, we are classified as “omnivores”. If we start eating nothing but mushrooms as species, we will get reclassified as fungivores, etc. This classification is independent of anatomy, biology or even the amount of money you spent, but rather behaviour and ecology only! It is also fairly generally accepted – as in by anyone with “scientific credentials.” Although, I am not sure why “credentials” as so important for stating anything at all…

Calling a creature an :omnivore" because it eats animal matter is simply restating the claim with different words, it proves nothing.

You call it “claim,” I call it “definition”. Yes, in definitions both sides of the equation mean the same, where is the break down?

I've spent perhaps thousands of hours and a considerable sum of money researching scientific literature around food and nutrition and my findings are strongly at varience to yours.

I have not put forward a single finding. So, you can’t possibly be at variance with me. But I sincerely wish you all the best in your research, although, I would suggest you either put your definitions upfront or use generally-accepted ones.

Ultimately, I don’t disagree with your research or findings. I would love to learn more about it, for that matter. But just because something is not healthy, we can’t just change the definition.

The line about oxygen being toxic is just a straw-man distraction. Nobody is dying of oxygen poisoning, but nearly 100% of meat eating Westerners are suffering from atherosclerosis.

Well, that was your discussion with another member, which I hijacked – apologies. Btw, as a matter of clarification, Oxygen Poisoning is deadly.

[J Ham]

 

 

"How do you account for Inuits and similar cultures who consume copious amounts of fatty animal meat? What about the scientists who have gone and lived with them, consumed their traditional diets, and manage to have all of their nutritional needs met?

 

Why don't you account for the scientific data I presented above that demonstrates that even game food is cytotoxic?

But in answer to your point:

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoAflQdc3CE]

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6j75BDq6DQ]

 

You may be confusing overly processed, cooked, hormone-added, lean meats with the fresh and fatty meat that has sustained robust individuals for centuries.

 

That is myth unsupported by scientifc facts, see sources reported above in the videos.

 

I used your original quote to simply show that if all meat was poison to human beings, many Inuit people would not be living into old age at all. Considering their diet is almost exclusively meat, if meat was as poisonous as you claim, would they be able to live into old age at all? Regardless of how cold and harsh the environment is, if meat is poison to humans, logically it would follow that these people would deteriorate rapidly, let alone participate in the extremely hard labor that is required to live in those conditions. 

Additionally, I think you are neglecting the effect of western dietary trends mixing in with traditional Inuit foods. Do a simple web search of accounts of Inuits who moved away from the culture and how this has changed things significantly. Some claim that many of their friends and family back home have a 50/50 traditional Inuit/western diet. In regards to the mummies, I' am aware of the presence of Atherosclerosis but as I understand it, this is not necessarily the cause of CVD or heart attacks, but rather inflammation is the primary cause. This inflammation is primarily due to PUFA's, trans fats, and generally a high consumption of vegetable oils and refined carbohydrates.

It is definitly interesting seeing how these different diets play out with friends and family. My relationships are a sort of laboratory for dieting. I can say without a doubt that my friends and family who had high carbohydrate consumption, including a multitude of 'healthy' grains, were more obese, had more acne and skin issues, worse sleeping problems, and were generally lethargic. On the other hand, people consuming the high saturated fat and low carbs were leaner, had better skin, more energy, and seemed to be in all around better health. I know it's no double blind study but why deny my senses? 

Oh, and I looked for studies regarding the cytotoxic effect in wild game and didn't find anything. Could you post the link for me?

 

 

[SimonF]

 

I used your original quote to simply show that if all meat was poison to human beings, many Inuit people would not be living into old age at all.

 

Meat is poison because it causes toxic reactions in the body that eventually lead to a premature death becaus ethey promote atherosclerosis. There is science to support these claims. Arguing that it isn't a poison because it doesn't kill very quickly is missing the point. 

So far as I am aware Innuit average life expectancy is into the 40s largely because their lungs are damaged by the harsh climate.

 

 

Additionally, I think you are neglecting the effect of western dietary trends mixing in with traditional Inuit foods.

 

400yo innuit mummies have been found with atherosclerosis.

 

 

This inflammation is primarily due to PUFA's, trans fats, and generally a high consumption of vegetable oils and refined carbohydrates.

 

That's not what the science says.

 

 

It is definitly interesting seeing how these different diets play out with friends and family. My relationships are a sort of laboratory for dieting. I can say without a doubt that my friends and family who had high carbohydrate consumption, including a multitude of 'healthy' grains, were more obese, had more acne and skin issues, worse sleeping problems, and were generally lethargic.

 

The populations with the greatest health and longevity live on a carbohydrate plant based diet.

 

 

On the other hand, people consuming the high saturated fat and low carbs were leaner, had better skin, more energy, and seemed to be in all around better health. I know it's no double blind study but why deny my senses? 

 

Are you serious?

 

 

Oh, and I looked for studies regarding the cytotoxic effect in wild game and didn't find anything. Could you post the link for me?

 

In which part of the program "Modern Meat Not Ahead of the Game" in my post above did you not see the primary research clearly being displayed along with the citations?

[SimonF]

 

You call it “claim,” I call it “definition”. Yes, in definitions both sides of the equation mean the same, where is the break down?

Classification is pretty irrelivant to the discussion I suppose, it's just misleading use of a scientific sounding word. Grazing cattle probably consume the odd dead field mouse, this does not cause them to be classified as omnivores, nor does feeding cattle the rendered remains of sheep and chickens. So it seems this term omnivore is not applied consistently or has any specific and useful meaning.

Creatures can sometimes eat things to which they are not biologically adapted, it's not particularly useful information.

[J Ham]

 

 

I used your original quote to simply show that if all meat was poison to human beings, many Inuit people would not be living into old age at all.

 

Meat is poison because it causes toxic reactions in the body that eventually lead to a premature death becaus ethey promote atherosclerosis. There is science to support these claims. Arguing that it isn't a poison because it doesn't kill very quickly is missing the point. 

So far as I am aware Innuit average life expectancy is into the 40s largely because their lungs are damaged by the harsh climate.

 

 

Additionally, I think you are neglecting the effect of western dietary trends mixing in with traditional Inuit foods.

 

400yo innuit mummies have been found with atherosclerosis.

 

 

This inflammation is primarily due to PUFA's, trans fats, and generally a high consumption of vegetable oils and refined carbohydrates.

 

That's not what the science says.

 

 

It is definitly interesting seeing how these different diets play out with friends and family. My relationships are a sort of laboratory for dieting. I can say without a doubt that my friends and family who had high carbohydrate consumption, including a multitude of 'healthy' grains, were more obese, had more acne and skin issues, worse sleeping problems, and were generally lethargic.

 

The populations with the greatest health and longevity live on a carbohydrate plant based diet.

 

 

On the other hand, people consuming the high saturated fat and low carbs were leaner, had better skin, more energy, and seemed to be in all around better health. I know it's no double blind study but why deny my senses? 

 

Are you serious?

 

 

Oh, and I looked for studies regarding the cytotoxic effect in wild game and didn't find anything. Could you post the link for me?

 

In which part of the program "Modern Meat Not Ahead of the Game" in my post above did you not see the primary research clearly being displayed along with the citations?

 

It might seem trivial, but I keep hitting the point that it seems like a rash conclusion to dismiss an entire category of food as poison, when it provides an entire people enough sustenance to live and perform physical tasks that most of us couldn't handle. It isn't just Inuits that consume copious amounts of fatty animal matter. What about the infamous french paradox? Do they not have a lower incididence of cardiovascular problems while consuming significantly higher levels of saturated fat? I' am not saying that all of this is 100% concrete, but does it not leave you slightly hessitent to dismiss a food group as vast as meat, at least on human biological grounds?

Directly from the Wikipedia page of Atherosclerosis: "Because fat and cholesterol are the substances of which plaque consists,
they are both considered to be contributors to the cause of
atherosclerosis, though this remains unverified" It briefly goes on to explain how Atherosclerosis is believed to be caused or worsened by many factors including infections, stress, drug use, tobacco use, and even genetic factors. "The assumption that artherosclerosis is predominantly lifestyle-related has been challenged by the detection of the disease in mummies.
In 2011, CT scans of Egyptian mummies revealed the presence of
artherosclerosis suggesting that the disease was present in people who
had a different lifestyle than modern people.
While this study was limited to members of the Egyptian upper class,
findings were extended in a study in 2013 examining 137 mummies from
Egypt, Peru, southwest America, and the Aleutian Islands with
individuals of various ethnic and social backgrounds.
Artherosclorosis was seen in over a third of the subjects. It was
suggested that our current understanding of the disease is incomplete
and that emulation of pre-modern lifestyle patterns may not avoid its
problems. It is possible that artherosclerosis is part of the human
condition reflecting some inherent inefficiency in breaking down and
processing fats." The ancient egyptian diet was notoriously carbohydrate based, yet these mummies show a similar condition to the Inuit mummies. I would say there is no scientific consensus on this issue. The science says many things.

I apologize for not viewing the first video you posted. I only watched the two you posted in response to me. Now, after watching it and looking into the study myself, I' am a little weary. At least from my knowledge, this is the only study of its kind. The inflammation is tested after only one meal for only two hours. What is are the results from a week of this diet? a month? Does this become chronic? Could we consider the higher caloric density of the fattier wagyu beef for the higher spike in inflammation? Another factor that I haven't seen discussed is human interference. The wagyu or 'modern' beef is a hybrid with extremely high levels of monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat with low levels of saturated. If you are going to claim that more natural or even wild, highly saturated fat containing meat, is akin to poison and chronically inflammatory, this study is flimsy ground at best. If there are similar studies with more extensive tests and results, please post.

[SimonF]

 

It might seem trivial, but I keep hitting the point that it seems like a rash conclusion to dismiss an entire category of food as poison

 

It's been known for some years that only herbivorous species suffer from atherosclerois when they consume too much fat or cholesterol. The scientific evidence that these substances are dangerous for humans to consume is immense.

 

, when it provides an entire people enough sustenance to live and perform physical tasks that most of us couldn't handle. It isn't just Inuits that consume copious amounts of fatty animal matter. What about the infamous french paradox? Do they not have a lower incididence of cardiovascular problems while consuming significantly higher levels of saturated fat? I' am not saying that all of this is 100% concrete, but does it not leave you slightly hessitent to dismiss a food group as vast as meat, at least on human biological grounds?

 

There are numerous lifestyle factors that accelerate the progression of atherosclerosis. The disease is however reversible once the cause (excess fat) is removed.

There may be a couple of outliers, but the trend is the more significant observation.

 

Directly from the Wikipedia page of Atherosclerosis:

 

Wikipedia, not always the most credible source on complex scientific issues.

 

"Because fat and cholesterol are the substances of which plaque consists,
they are both considered to be contributors to the cause of
atherosclerosis, though this remains unverified" It briefly goes on to explain how Atherosclerosis is believed to be caused or worsened by many factors including infections, stress, drug use, tobacco use, and even genetic factors. "The assumption that artherosclerosis is predominantly lifestyle-related has been challenged by the detection of the disease in mummies.
In 2011, CT scans of Egyptian mummies revealed the presence of
artherosclerosis suggesting that the disease was present in people who
had a different lifestyle than modern people

 

Did the Egyptians eat meat or not?

While it is difficult to believe that certain meats, such as fish and wild poultry did not show up fairly frequently on the tables of common people, we are told by Egyptologists that it was for the most part only the rich who regularly feasted on most meat. The poor ate geese, ducks, quails, cranes and other species, and from the New Kingdom onward raised domesticated fowl. Most edible fish from the Nile were consumed, though some fish, such as the genera Lepidotus and Phragus and a few others were forbidden because of their connection with the myth of Osiris.

Read more: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/diet.htm#ixzz2OLS5K8Cm

YES.

 

It is possible that artherosclerosis is part of the human
condition reflecting some inherent inefficiency in breaking down and
processing fats."

 

Yes, that's a big part of the problem. Humans are not adapted to consume concentrated fats. This is why intervention where total fat intake is lowered beyond a threshold reverses the disease.

 

I apologize for not viewing the first video you posted. I only watched the two you posted in response to me. Now, after watching it and looking into the study myself, I' am a little weary. At least from my knowledge, this is the only study of its kind. The inflammation is tested after only one meal for only two hours. What is are the results from a week of this diet? a month? Does this become chronic? Could we consider the higher caloric density of the fattier wagyu beef for the higher spike in inflammation? Another factor that I haven't seen discussed is human interference. The wagyu or 'modern' beef is a hybrid with extremely high levels of monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat with low levels of saturated. If you are going to claim that more natural or even wild, highly saturated fat containing meat, is akin to poison and chronically inflammatory, this study is flimsy ground at best. If there are similar studies with more extensive tests and results, please post.

 

It's credible evidence and not evidence that favours meat consumption as being healthy for our species. It's part of a lot of other data that points to this conclusion, so it is not a particularly contraversial finding. There are numerous studies linking animal product consumption to inflammation.

[Rick Horton]

Fun facts.  

Humans (whether or not you admit it) EAT MEAT. I do. My friends do. Hell, there are restaurants everywhere that serve it, so I guess people do eat it. Aside from arguments about the benefits of eating meat (which bore the shit out of me) it seems pretty obvious by looking around that humans eat meat. Not all, but most. So...... Humans are omnivores (at present time at lest) This is FACT. Spending thousands of hours studying nutrition to find out what is best for humans to eat is so pointless to me that I can't understand the angle there.

   One look around and the answer is clear. Humans "are" and "do" eat meat, so humans "are" omnivores. Hello......

Now, "morally" speaking, I could have some "Arius" fun and distort the shit out of the argument. Here it goes. Mind you, this is how Arius tries to fraudulently win arguments.....

I'm sorry I know this is offensive. Bare with me for the sake of the exercise, and remember that I do eat meat.

With all the caveats up front that I have a great fondness for you. I rarely eat meat from humans these days as I have embarked on a vegan diet myself of recent months. I have drifted towards this diet more out of good health than for ethical reasons. Although the mistreatment of you is something I personally do not like.

However, I can negotiate with myself in complex ways I can never do with you. You may well experience pain but it's difficult to know whether you understand the causes of pain. I am unique in my ability to understand that you will eventually die one day. This is not the case for you.

Trying to attach morality to you who is unable to share or even understand that morality back is the most obvious conundrum facing me when I  try to assert universal ethics towards you. I have a very unique relationship with myself, insofar as I have the ability to think and have empathy for myself.

Therefore choosing whether or not to eat another human is not a moral choice, it is a subjective one. Agreed that my choice to eat yuou may make for unpleasant company for some vegans who find the idea abhorrent. This may appear to be a moral conclusion you are making of me and indeed you may even suggest it is one. But it really isn't in the 'objective' sense of the word. You are free of course to disassociate from me if you so desire.

Anecdotally mind, I have noticed that as I've developed my empathy for myself and others that I began to experience empathy for humans. Whereas in the past I never gave humans much interest or any harm either. I now consider (in part) my relationship with you as emblematic of my relationships with myself. However, that is an entirely subjective and personal conclusion I have come to, which may have no bearing on how you experience it. 

 

[Rick Horton]

Interestingly, my girlfriend is a Vegan, and her and I have this debate once in a while. She's quite compelling, and a great vegan cook.

[Rick Horton]

 

Fun facts.  

Humans (whether or not you admit it) EAT MEAT. I do. My friends do. Hell, there are restaurants everywhere that serve it, so I guess people do eat it. Aside from arguments about the benefits of eating meat (which bore the shit out of me) it seems pretty obvious by looking around that humans eat meat. Not all, but most. So...... Humans are omnivores (at present time at lest) This is FACT. Spending thousands of hours studying nutrition to find out what is best for humans to eat is so pointless to me that I can't understand the angle there.

   One look around and the answer is clear. Humans "are" and "do" eat meat, so humans "are" omnivores. Hello......

Now, "morally" speaking, I could have some "Arius" fun and distort the shit out of the argument. Here it goes. Mind you, this is how Arius tries to fraudulently win arguments.....

I'm sorry I know this is offensive. Bare with me for the sake of the exercise, and remember that I do eat meat.

With all the caveats up front that I have a great fondness for you. I rarely eat meat from humans these days as I have embarked on a vegan diet myself of recent months. I have drifted towards this diet more out of good health than for ethical reasons. Although the mistreatment of you is something I personally do not like.

However, I can negotiate with myself in complex ways I can never do with you. You may well experience pain but it's difficult to know whether you understand the causes of pain. I am unique in my ability to understand that you will eventually die one day. This is not the case for you.

Trying to attach morality to you who is unable to share or even understand that morality back is the most obvious conundrum facing me when I  try to assert universal ethics towards you. I have a very unique relationship with myself, insofar as I have the ability to think and have empathy for myself.

Therefore choosing whether or not to eat another human is not a moral choice, it is a subjective one. Agreed that my choice to eat yuou may make for unpleasant company for some vegans who find the idea abhorrent. This may appear to be a moral conclusion you are making of me and indeed you may even suggest it is one. But it really isn't in the 'objective' sense of the word. You are free of course to disassociate from me if you so desire.

Anecdotally mind, I have noticed that as I've developed my empathy for myself and others that I began to experience empathy for humans. Whereas in the past I never gave humans much interest or any harm either. I now consider (in part) my relationship with you as emblematic of my relationships with myself. However, that is an entirely subjective and personal conclusion I have come to, which may have no bearing on how you experience it. 

 

 

It's actually pretty amazing what can be done with Tofu.

[wobbles]

I think this thread got off track. Whether or not humans evolved to eat meat is irrelevant. Many of us choose to because it gives us pleasure. I'm not convinced that eating meat is slowly killing me, but if it was I would not stop. BBQ is too good to deprive myself of, and I'll damn well trade a few years of my life to enjoy the food I eat for the rest of them.

The question the OP raised is not "Are humans designed to eat meat?" but rather, "Is it moral to raise and slaughter animals for sustinence?"