tisdag 23 juli 2013

Counter-arguments to 'Humans are carnivores and must eat meat'

This is my reply to this erroneous comment: "I hope all U vegans and vegetarians realized we would still be monkeys in trees if the climate hadn't changed in Africa & we were forced out of the trees & in to the grasslands then started to incorporate large amounts of red meat into our diet which was needed and that was in why & how our brains developed the to the point of where we are now the dominant species and dominant mind on the planet ! we carnivores could not should not and will not give up meat eating because we are genetically predisposed to needing wanting and eating meat !!

My reply:

1. First of all, we don't need meat:
"“It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.” — Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Association)"

Thus, we are not carnivores.

2. It wasn't the meat, that caused us to evolve: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0PF5R0ywp4

3. Do you think it’s wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death on animals? Of course you do.

Here’s the problem: at least 99.99% of animal use, which results in the suffering and death of animals, is unnecessary! At least 99.99% of animal use is for food, but humans can easily get their nutrition from plants.
If so, go vegan: http://abolitionistvegansociety.org/tavs-initiatives/tavs-articles/why-veganism/#.Ue484W34V5s

4. Even if what you said was true, that it was meat that caused us to evolve. Think of this:
Question 6: If we did not exploit animals, we would not have society as we now know it. Does this fact not prove that animal use by humans is morally justified?Answer: No. In the first place, the question assumes that we would not have devised alternatives to animal use if that were necessary either because nonhuman animals were not available or because we made a moral decision not to exploit them as resources. Second, even if animal use were necessary for society as we presently know it, the same argument could be made with respect to any human activity. For example, without wars, patriarchy, and other forms of violence and exploitation, we would not have society as we now know it. The fact that a given activity was a necessary means to what some of us regard as a desirable end does not prove that the means were morally justified. Present-day Americans would not enjoy the level of prosperity that they now enjoy were it not for human slavery; that does not mean that slavery was a morally acceptable practice. Third, there is at least an argument that our present-day society, with its violence, pollution, inequitable distribution of resources, and various forms of injustice is less desirable an end than some think, and that we ought not be so eager to endorse the means that got us where we are today.
Quote: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/faqs/#.Ue4_kG34V5s

5. We are definitely not carnivores anatomically.
Humans have no known anatomical, physiological, or genetic adaptations to meat consumption.
We have many adaptations to plant consumption.
Vitamin C is found in plants. We can’t make it ourselves such as carnivores.

Or digestive tract is longer than carnivores, so that our food can stay in the body longer so we can digest plant matter. We need more surface area and we need more microbes.
Quote from: http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/Debunking-the-Paleo-Diet-Christ;search%3Adebunking%20paleo

More information gathered here: http://bloganders.blogspot.se/2013/06/humans-are-herbivores-not-omnivoresmeat.html


Inga kommentarer:

Skicka en kommentar