"Naturligt"/att vi har möjlighet innebär inte att någonting är rätt.
Anatomiska omnivorer dör inte av hjärt- och kärlsjukdomar som människan får p.g.a. konsumtion av djurprodukter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30gEiweaAVQ
Men oavsett om man tror att vi har evolverats till att kunna äta kött eller ej:
Även om vi skulle ha evolverats till att kunna hantera vissa djurprodukter om det behövs för vår överlevnad, så rättfärdigar inte det oss att äta dessa produkter när vi inte behöver det för vår överlevnad. Vi har knytnävar, men det innebär inte att vi kan använda dessa när vi vill och mot vem vi vill. Vi har evolverats till att kunna ha sex med andra, men det ger oss inget moraliskt rättfärdigande att ha sex när vi vill och med vem som vi vill. Att man har en biologisk funktion implicerar inte att det är moraliskt riktigt att använda sig av denna biologiska funktion.
Naturen eller evolution ger oss ingen rättfärdigelse för någon handling. Vårt förflutna avslöjar en lång historia av våldtäkter, stöld och mord – ger det oss något rättfärdigande att göra dessa handlingar nu?
Sker detta av en god anledning? T.o.m. extremt konservativa hälsoorganisationer, inklusive American Dietic Association, erkänner att vi kan leva ett optimalt hälsosamt liv på en vegansk diet [1]. Alltså så har vi ett val när vi är i mataffären. Vi kan antingen betala för att djur får genomgå emotionellt lidande i form av familjesplittringar, ofta annat lidande, och ta deras liv, för att vi ska få i oss näring genom konsumtionen av kött, mjölk, ägg, honung och andra djurprodukter (eller för att använda djur för kläder, underhållning och andra syften); eller så kan vi köpa och få vår näring från grönsaker, frukter, legymer, nötter och andra vegetabilier, alltså en plantbaserad diet. Mer om det lidande som djur går igenom i produktionen av mejeriprodukter och ägg: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/01/djur-lider-och-blir-dodade-for.html
Fler svar: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/08/veganska-svar-pa-motargumentursakterfra.html
Visar inlägg med etikett Evolution. Visa alla inlägg
Visar inlägg med etikett Evolution. Visa alla inlägg
lördag 24 maj 2014
måndag 19 maj 2014
Vegan/helvegetarian svarar på: Men "människans tarmsystem har utvecklat sig till att äta kött"
Bara för att vi har konsumerat något under en lång tid, så innebär det inte att vårt tarmsystem utvecklar sig efter det.
Köttkonsumtion är skadligt för människan, t.ex. orsakar dödsfall i hjärt- och kärlsjukdomar, men det sker först efteråt att människan har förökat sig. Så det påverkar inte evolutionen i det hänseendet.
Lyssna gärna på detta:
"Humans have evolved to eat meat and paleo-people consumed a lot of meat.
Quite the opposite is true.
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.
We have genera... We have bit molars there to shred fibers, plant tissue. We don’t have carnassials, the specialized teeth that carnivores have to shred meat. We do actually have some genetic mutations in some populations that are adapted to animal consumption, to milk not to meat. These arose in certain agricultural communities, primarily in Europe and Africa.
"
http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/Debunking-the-Paleo-Diet-Christ;search%3Adebunking%20paleo
Köttkonsumtion är skadligt för människan, t.ex. orsakar dödsfall i hjärt- och kärlsjukdomar, men det sker först efteråt att människan har förökat sig. Så det påverkar inte evolutionen i det hänseendet.
Lyssna gärna på detta:
"Humans have evolved to eat meat and paleo-people consumed a lot of meat.
Quite the opposite is true.
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.
We have genera... We have bit molars there to shred fibers, plant tissue. We don’t have carnassials, the specialized teeth that carnivores have to shred meat. We do actually have some genetic mutations in some populations that are adapted to animal consumption, to milk not to meat. These arose in certain agricultural communities, primarily in Europe and Africa.
"
http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/Debunking-the-Paleo-Diet-Christ;search%3Adebunking%20paleo
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 !!
END OF DISCUSSION !!!!"
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
----
END OF DISCUSSION !!!!"
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
----
onsdag 5 juni 2013
Vegan answer to 'Humans are omnivorous by evolution'/'eating meat is natural'
'Nilan,
“Human are omnivorous by evolution, morality doesn't even come into play here. As a species, criticizing us for consuming meat is as futile as calling bears or crows "immoral" for eating meat.”
No, humans have a choice and can thrive on a vegan diet. We’re eating animal products despite the lack of “necessity”. We are killing and hurting animals despite that we can live and thrive on a vegan diet.
Regardless of whether we have evolved to be able to eat animal products, doesn’t tell whether it is moral or not.
We have evolved to have the capacity to inflict unnecessary violence upon other beings e.g. humans, this doesn’t morally justify unnecessary violence.
Also the statement that we are “omnivores” is flawed. We eat animal products despite having the body of an herbivore.
Humans have evolved to eat meat and paleo-people consumed a lot of meat.
Quite the opposite is true.
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.
Quote:
http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/Debunking-the-Paleo-Diet-Christ;search%3Adebunking%20paleo
Some more links here: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/vegan-answer-to-humans-are-at-top-of.html
Body odor:
http://chemse.oxfordjournals.org/content/31/8/747.abstract
True human diet. Humans evolved on a starch-based diet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0PF5R0ywp4
"Dartmouth Associate Professor of Anthropology, Nathaniel Dominy PhD, talks about his research and why he believes the true human diet is one based in Starch. "
“Human are omnivorous by evolution, morality doesn't even come into play here. As a species, criticizing us for consuming meat is as futile as calling bears or crows "immoral" for eating meat.”
No, humans have a choice and can thrive on a vegan diet. We’re eating animal products despite the lack of “necessity”. We are killing and hurting animals despite that we can live and thrive on a vegan diet.
Regardless of whether we have evolved to be able to eat animal products, doesn’t tell whether it is moral or not.
We have evolved to have the capacity to inflict unnecessary violence upon other beings e.g. humans, this doesn’t morally justify unnecessary violence.
Also the statement that we are “omnivores” is flawed. We eat animal products despite having the body of an herbivore.
Humans have evolved to eat meat and paleo-people consumed a lot of meat.
Quite the opposite is true.
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.
Quote:
http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/Debunking-the-Paleo-Diet-Christ;search%3Adebunking%20paleo
Some more links here: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/vegan-answer-to-humans-are-at-top-of.html
Body odor:
The Effect of Meat Consumption on Body Odor Attractiveness
http://chemse.oxfordjournals.org/content/31/8/747.abstract
True human diet. Humans evolved on a starch-based diet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0PF5R0ywp4
"Dartmouth Associate Professor of Anthropology, Nathaniel Dominy PhD, talks about his research and why he believes the true human diet is one based in Starch. "
måndag 27 maj 2013
Should non-human animals be vegan?? Is it immoral for carnivores to eat animals?
Stephanie,
You
wrote: “Why are you holding other species to human-invented standards, as if we
are "better" than they are?”
I believe
‘“all breathing, existing, living, sentient creatures should not be slain, nor
treated with violence, nor abused, nor tormented, nor driven away.” is a
universal moral principle, not a ‘human-invented standard’. ‘Human-invented
standard’ sounds like postmodernism (i.e. morals are relative, not absolute),
and I know you don’t adhere to this.
But if we
believe in an absolute moral, why would we think that this moral would follow
arbitrary taxonomic concepts?
Why would
we think that that a universal moral principle wouldn’t apply on some species
that evolved to become carnivores? If humans would evolve to become carnivores,
then suddenly the universal moral principle would be invalid just because of a
change in DNA? Why would it??
You
wrote: “That's one of the causes of domestication, trying to make other species
into what we would have them be.”
The cause
of domestication is violence – using violence to exploit and enslave other sentient
beings. I am not advocating universal moral principles using violence. The
cause of domestication is the use of violence, instead of love, compassion and
nonviolence. I am not using violence towards anyone to act according to the
above belief of nonviolence.The end doesn’t justify the means.
“and
start doing things YOUR WAY.”
I argue
what I believe is a universal principle of not inflicting harm upon others. I
believe we are all consciousness. I think that claiming that the non-human
animals don’t have any ethical standard to keep is underestimating who they
are, their purpose, and that is focusing on their body and DNA instead of their
spiritual consciousness.
[Part 1
of 2]
Cannibalism
among the primates is a social behavior, as is eating other animal products.
Gorillas and many vegan humans are leading the way – showing how to eat in an
ethical way.
One quote: "The one historical constant in my field is that each time a claim of human uniqueness bites the dust, other claims quickly take its place. Meanwhile, science keeps chipping away at the wall that separates us from the other animals. We have moved from viewing animals as instinct-driven stimulus-response machines to seeing them as sophisticated decision makers. "
Another quote:
"Dale Peterson, one of the world’s leading chimpanzee researchers, once mentioned to me that he believes chimps given the opportunity to satisfy their hunger with plant sources may very well ponder the morality of eating other animals. Could they be evolving ethically, just as we humans are?"
From an interesting article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323869604578370574285382756.html
Another quote: ”Primatologist Jane Goodall became the first to describe such behavior when she witnesses a mother-daughter duo of chimpanzees kill and eat three chimpanzee infants in 1976 and since, it has been described by a number of other researchers. There are a number of possible explanations for such behavior. Due to human encroachment, food is becoming scarcer and more chimpanzees are being cramped into a smaller and smaller area which is a recipe for disaster. As this happens, different groups of primates will be forced into conflict with one another and are fighting territorial debates. Interestingly enough, a study of one group of chimpanzees found that only the aggressive females were involved in the cannibalism of chimpanzee infants. Male chimps were even spotted trying to separate the females from the infants, males that researchers believed to have fathered the infants in question which suggests that chimpanzees have more highly developed social and familial ties than once believed.”
[Related to this article: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Female-Chimps-Practice-Heavily-Infanticide-and-Cannibalism-54687.shtml ]
Who is doing the right thing??: The chimpanzee trying to save the baby, or the chimpanzee trying to kill the baby? Or does a moral universal principle not apply at all?? If so – why not?
One quote: "The one historical constant in my field is that each time a claim of human uniqueness bites the dust, other claims quickly take its place. Meanwhile, science keeps chipping away at the wall that separates us from the other animals. We have moved from viewing animals as instinct-driven stimulus-response machines to seeing them as sophisticated decision makers. "
Another quote:
"Dale Peterson, one of the world’s leading chimpanzee researchers, once mentioned to me that he believes chimps given the opportunity to satisfy their hunger with plant sources may very well ponder the morality of eating other animals. Could they be evolving ethically, just as we humans are?"
From an interesting article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323869604578370574285382756.html
Another quote: ”Primatologist Jane Goodall became the first to describe such behavior when she witnesses a mother-daughter duo of chimpanzees kill and eat three chimpanzee infants in 1976 and since, it has been described by a number of other researchers. There are a number of possible explanations for such behavior. Due to human encroachment, food is becoming scarcer and more chimpanzees are being cramped into a smaller and smaller area which is a recipe for disaster. As this happens, different groups of primates will be forced into conflict with one another and are fighting territorial debates. Interestingly enough, a study of one group of chimpanzees found that only the aggressive females were involved in the cannibalism of chimpanzee infants. Male chimps were even spotted trying to separate the females from the infants, males that researchers believed to have fathered the infants in question which suggests that chimpanzees have more highly developed social and familial ties than once believed.”
[Related to this article: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Female-Chimps-Practice-Heavily-Infanticide-and-Cannibalism-54687.shtml ]
Who is doing the right thing??: The chimpanzee trying to save the baby, or the chimpanzee trying to kill the baby? Or does a moral universal principle not apply at all?? If so – why not?
lördag 25 maj 2013
Vegan reply to '"So if the killing of animals is wrong why has the 'creator' designed them to kill each other to survive?'
Michael wrote
"So if the killing of animals is wrong why has the 'creator' designed them to kill each other to survive? A wild cat is never going to eat a salad.."
Here is my reply:
I don't know understand your argument.
Why do you think that evolution is a deterministic process controlled by a Creator?
Cats are also killing for pure enjoyment, just like many humans do. Do you think this is morally justified? Do you think that this is a behavior that a Creator put into the cat – to kill other beings for enjoyment?
Some species evolved to become meat eaters because of that they lived in areas with a scarcity of plant based foods, and that their genetic mutations combined with them choosing to kill other sentient beings, increased their survival rate.
That they got genetic adaptations for a certain behavior, doesn't morally justify their behavior.
As I asked,
Do you think that cannibalism is morally justified?
I argue that we are not morally justified to kill either humans, or other animals for our survival. See this blog post that I have written:
http://andersbranderud.thoughts.com/posts/are-humans-morally-justified-to-kill-a-human-or-another-animal-for-survival
Furthermore, as I said before, humans today in our culture are not killing for survival, we are killing for “pleasure” or convenience – for a trivial “taste experience”.
I agree with these quotes by Leo Tolstoy:
“A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is immoral.”
“Thou shalt not kill” does not apply to murder of one’s own kind only, but to all living beings; and this Commandment was inscribed in the human breast long before it was proclaimed from Sinai.”
"So if the killing of animals is wrong why has the 'creator' designed them to kill each other to survive? A wild cat is never going to eat a salad.."
Here is my reply:
I don't know understand your argument.
Why do you think that evolution is a deterministic process controlled by a Creator?
Cats are also killing for pure enjoyment, just like many humans do. Do you think this is morally justified? Do you think that this is a behavior that a Creator put into the cat – to kill other beings for enjoyment?
Some species evolved to become meat eaters because of that they lived in areas with a scarcity of plant based foods, and that their genetic mutations combined with them choosing to kill other sentient beings, increased their survival rate.
That they got genetic adaptations for a certain behavior, doesn't morally justify their behavior.
As I asked,
Do you think that cannibalism is morally justified?
I argue that we are not morally justified to kill either humans, or other animals for our survival. See this blog post that I have written:
http://andersbranderud.thoughts.com/posts/are-humans-morally-justified-to-kill-a-human-or-another-animal-for-survival
Furthermore, as I said before, humans today in our culture are not killing for survival, we are killing for “pleasure” or convenience – for a trivial “taste experience”.
I agree with these quotes by Leo Tolstoy:
“A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is immoral.”
“Thou shalt not kill” does not apply to murder of one’s own kind only, but to all living beings; and this Commandment was inscribed in the human breast long before it was proclaimed from Sinai.”
Vegan reply to "'creator of the world' has designed it in a way that suffering is caused in order for beings to feed"
“The only thing throwing the human eating of animals into doubt is the evolving of our mental thinking”
Ethics is the only reason why we are not being cannibals as well. If you are going to use your justification you have to disregard that there is an objective moral and you have to disregard what we intuitively know, that it is morally wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon human animals as well as non-human animals.
To state it again:
“We all agree that “unnecessary” animal suffering and death are morally wrong. If that means anything at all, it must mean that we cannot justify animal suffering and death by reasons of pleasure or convenience. But what is our best justification for imposing suffering and death on the 56 billion animals (excluding fish) we eat annually?
Pleasure. Convenience.
So the only justification we have is that which we agree cannot suffice. This is moral schizophrenia.
If you are not a vegan, you are participating directly in animal exploitation. Being a vegan is easy, better for your health, and the most powerful way that you, as an individual, can say “no” to animal exploitation.
“ Quote: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/unnecessary-suffering-and-death/#.UaB68Jxc18E
Reply to Michael, who wrote:
The point I'm trying to make is that the 'creator of the world' has designed it in a way that suffering is caused in order for beings to feed. Spiders eat flies, birds eat worms, cats eat birds and fish, wild cats eats other big animals etc etc etc and is a way of life.
The only thing throwing the human eating of animals into doubt is the evolving of our mental thinking
Ethics is the only reason why we are not being cannibals as well. If you are going to use your justification you have to disregard that there is an objective moral and you have to disregard what we intuitively know, that it is morally wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon human animals as well as non-human animals.
To state it again:
“We all agree that “unnecessary” animal suffering and death are morally wrong. If that means anything at all, it must mean that we cannot justify animal suffering and death by reasons of pleasure or convenience. But what is our best justification for imposing suffering and death on the 56 billion animals (excluding fish) we eat annually?
Pleasure. Convenience.
So the only justification we have is that which we agree cannot suffice. This is moral schizophrenia.
If you are not a vegan, you are participating directly in animal exploitation. Being a vegan is easy, better for your health, and the most powerful way that you, as an individual, can say “no” to animal exploitation.
“ Quote: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/unnecessary-suffering-and-death/#.UaB68Jxc18E
Reply to Michael, who wrote:
The point I'm trying to make is that the 'creator of the world' has designed it in a way that suffering is caused in order for beings to feed. Spiders eat flies, birds eat worms, cats eat birds and fish, wild cats eats other big animals etc etc etc and is a way of life.
The only thing throwing the human eating of animals into doubt is the evolving of our mental thinking
tisdag 14 maj 2013
Darwin and evolution does not justify humans hurting and killing animals for food
That there is evolution of species does in no way justify us inflicting unnecessary suffering and death upon animals. You have already recognized that animals have a moral value, since you are opposed to the abuse of animals. However, killing and hurting animals for "taste" is surely a transgression of their right to live as free and independent individuals, which they have being sentient beings with a moral value.
Humans having the body of an herbivore [see footnote 1], animal products are being bad for us [2], and we have no nutritional need at all for animal products [3]. Just like the gorillas, cows and horses and many other animals we are herbivores. Just like cows, we can eat meat, however it is not good for our body, and not good for us spiritually [4].
We can’t look at other species, and justify our behavior, just because there are predators that hurt and kill other beings. There are many behaviors that some predators do that we would never justify, and if we use this methodology almost any human behavior can be justified. Put a small bunny in the same room as a small child. She will not try to hurt and kill the bunny. Hurting and killing other sentient beings is something that is contradictory to our inner nature, our loving, compassionate and nonviolent nature; and is something that is only learnt by the indoctrination of our culture, which has reduced animals to being commodities. Doing this as a regular habit, we disconnect ourselves to the animals, and we lose some of our capacity to understand that it is wrong to take the life of another being - who is consciousness just like us. Just because they have been given another body than us, doesn't mean that there is any essential difference. This is also discussed in the wonderful book World Peace Diet by Will Tuttle [4]. If you visited a slaughterhouse you would see that the animals don’t want to die and that they suffer tremendously when someone is taking their precious life. See more movies about animals, their lives and their treatment at www.vegankit.com
Footnotes:
1.http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html; 2. http://www.adelicatebalance.com.au/ ;3. http://www.drmcdougall.com/ ; http://www.forksoverknives.com/
4. www.worldpeacediet.org ; good lecture here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PkQrJZYZN4&NR=1&feature=endscreen
----
Quotes Darwin:
"There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties ... The difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind."
"The love for all living creatures is the most noble attribute of man."
Humans having the body of an herbivore [see footnote 1], animal products are being bad for us [2], and we have no nutritional need at all for animal products [3]. Just like the gorillas, cows and horses and many other animals we are herbivores. Just like cows, we can eat meat, however it is not good for our body, and not good for us spiritually [4].
We can’t look at other species, and justify our behavior, just because there are predators that hurt and kill other beings. There are many behaviors that some predators do that we would never justify, and if we use this methodology almost any human behavior can be justified. Put a small bunny in the same room as a small child. She will not try to hurt and kill the bunny. Hurting and killing other sentient beings is something that is contradictory to our inner nature, our loving, compassionate and nonviolent nature; and is something that is only learnt by the indoctrination of our culture, which has reduced animals to being commodities. Doing this as a regular habit, we disconnect ourselves to the animals, and we lose some of our capacity to understand that it is wrong to take the life of another being - who is consciousness just like us. Just because they have been given another body than us, doesn't mean that there is any essential difference. This is also discussed in the wonderful book World Peace Diet by Will Tuttle [4]. If you visited a slaughterhouse you would see that the animals don’t want to die and that they suffer tremendously when someone is taking their precious life. See more movies about animals, their lives and their treatment at www.vegankit.com
Footnotes:
1.http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html; 2. http://www.adelicatebalance.com.au/ ;3. http://www.drmcdougall.com/ ; http://www.forksoverknives.com/
4. www.worldpeacediet.org ; good lecture here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PkQrJZYZN4&NR=1&feature=endscreen
----
Quotes Darwin:
"There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties ... The difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind."
"The love for all living creatures is the most noble attribute of man."
lördag 11 maj 2013
Vegan, vegetarian, evolution? Humans are herbivores
Nicolle,
I believed before what you do believe now.
“Being a vegan is something I would consider ..” Thanks!
“I don't mean to make people angry, it is just a personal opinion”
Don’t worry. I won’t become angry. I believed like you did for almost 28 years. We eat meat because of our cultural indoctrination. That we can justify killing another sentient being, who values his/her life as much as we value our own life, for “taste”, habit, tradition or convenience, is something that we do because we have been bombarded with this propaganda since we were born. Anthropology shows that our ancestors mainly ate a starch based-diet. Some hunted some of their food. At least some of our ancestors. At some point humans decided that it was right to kill another sentient being, maybe someone moved to a cold place and did it for survival. We don’t know. However, we do know, that humans to a large degree follow their ancestors behaviors based on our cultural indoctrination.
We can’t look at other species, and justify our behavior, just because there are predators that hurt and kill other beings. There are many behaviors that some predators do that we would never justify, and if we use this methodology almost any human behavior can be justified. We could justify cannibalism with the same argument, but we have evolved and do understand that it is morally wrong to kill other human beings.
Put a small bunny in the same room as a small child. She will not try to hurt and kill the bunny. Hurting and killing other sentient beings is something that is contradictory to our inner nature, our loving, compassionate and nonviolent nature; and is something that is only learnt by the indoctrination of our culture, which has reduced animals to being commodities. Doing this as a regular habit, we disconnect ourselves to the animals, and we lose some of our capacity to understand that it is wrong to take the life of another being - who is consciousness just like us. Just because they have been given another body than us, doesn't mean that there is any essential difference. This is also discussed in the wonderful book World Peace Diet by Will Tuttle (www.worldpeacediet.org). If you visited a slaughterhouse you would see that the animals don’t want to die and that they suffer tremendously when someone is taking their precious life. Can’t we respect this. Can’t we respect their lives, their purposes, their families and their friend relationships?
I believed before what you do believe now.
“Being a vegan is something I would consider ..” Thanks!
“I don't mean to make people angry, it is just a personal opinion”
Don’t worry. I won’t become angry. I believed like you did for almost 28 years. We eat meat because of our cultural indoctrination. That we can justify killing another sentient being, who values his/her life as much as we value our own life, for “taste”, habit, tradition or convenience, is something that we do because we have been bombarded with this propaganda since we were born. Anthropology shows that our ancestors mainly ate a starch based-diet. Some hunted some of their food. At least some of our ancestors. At some point humans decided that it was right to kill another sentient being, maybe someone moved to a cold place and did it for survival. We don’t know. However, we do know, that humans to a large degree follow their ancestors behaviors based on our cultural indoctrination.
We can’t look at other species, and justify our behavior, just because there are predators that hurt and kill other beings. There are many behaviors that some predators do that we would never justify, and if we use this methodology almost any human behavior can be justified. We could justify cannibalism with the same argument, but we have evolved and do understand that it is morally wrong to kill other human beings.
Put a small bunny in the same room as a small child. She will not try to hurt and kill the bunny. Hurting and killing other sentient beings is something that is contradictory to our inner nature, our loving, compassionate and nonviolent nature; and is something that is only learnt by the indoctrination of our culture, which has reduced animals to being commodities. Doing this as a regular habit, we disconnect ourselves to the animals, and we lose some of our capacity to understand that it is wrong to take the life of another being - who is consciousness just like us. Just because they have been given another body than us, doesn't mean that there is any essential difference. This is also discussed in the wonderful book World Peace Diet by Will Tuttle (www.worldpeacediet.org). If you visited a slaughterhouse you would see that the animals don’t want to die and that they suffer tremendously when someone is taking their precious life. Can’t we respect this. Can’t we respect their lives, their purposes, their families and their friend relationships?
söndag 30 december 2012
Humans have a body of a herbivore, early hominids were not pre-adapted to eating meat
- Interesting comment that I found:
- ....
- I have been researching this issue for a while now, and would like to 'pick a few bones' in the latter part of this article.
- 'Herbivore', 'omnivore' and 'carnivore' are not the only dietary biological adaptations. It was important to mention in the context of this essay 'Frugivores', which are species that eat primarily fruits.
- It is evident that early hominids were not pre-adapted to eating meat.- 'While comparable shearing crest length studies have not been conducted on early hominids, australopithecines certainly have relatively flat molar teeth compared with many living and fossil apes. These teeth were well-suited to breaking down hard, brittle foods including some fruits and nuts, and soft, weak foods such as flowers and buds; but again, they were not well-suited to breaking-down tough pliant foods like stems, soft seed pods, and meat. ..' http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/pungar/satalk.ht m
- But humans have increased consumption of flesh foods over time, probably in order to survive in poor environments when there was a scarcity of fruits and nuts, and it has been our reliance on flesh that has allowed metabolic relaxation in the synthesis of taurine, although humans can still synthesize it from cystein in the liver and from methionine (veg' sources- beans, garlic, lentils, onions, seeds, soybeans) elsewhere in the body, as long as sufficient quantities of B6 are present (veg' sources- brewer's yeast, carrots, peas, spinach, sunflower seeds, walnuts, wheatgerm, avocado, bananas, beans, blackstrap molasses, broccoli, brown rice and other whole grains, cabbage, cantaloupe, corn, dulse, plantains, potatoes, rice bran, soybeans and tempeh).
- The truly "essential" fatty acids are Linoleic Acid (LA) and Alpha Linolenic Acid (ALA). LA and ALA are used to produce other fatty acids, including; Gamma Linolenic Acid, Eicosapentaenoic Acid (EPA), and Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA), which in turn produce eicosanoids. We generally get an excess of Linoleic acid from foods containing vegetable oils, but very little of the omega-3s, Good plant food sources include flaxseed and walnuts. (Factors including the consumption of saturated and trans-fats, sugar, alcohol, the taking of prescription medications, viral infections, stress, and diabetes can inhibit the conversion of LA to GLA. Insufficient quantities of zinc, magenesium, Vit. c, B6 and niacin also slow the process.)
- Hydrochloric acid is necessary for the digestion of protein. Proteinous *nuts* require the hydrochloric acid of the stomach to provide an adequate medium for the enzyme pepsin to act on the protein. But true carnivorous (meat eating animals, and 'omnivores' are meat eating as well) have in their digestive tracts a highly concentrated hydrochloric acid, about 1100% more so than ours.
- Vitamin B12 is produced by bacteria. It is naturally present in a healthy natural environment, and consequently on healthy natural organic unwashed plant foods.
- I am mystified as to how John McArdle can state that humans are 'omnivores' and then go on to say; "the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain ecological, ethical, and health concerns (http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm). If humans have really adapted to eating animal flesh, as are true omnivores (pigs, bears), then why would there be any 'health concerns'?
- Sincerely, Lotus http://www.iol.ie/~creature/creature.htm
See also http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm
måndag 26 november 2012
Evolution, natural selection, veganism, counter arguments
Andy,
Animals are conscious and have a soul.
These are the claims of science: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528836.200-animals-are-conscious-and-should-be-treated-as-such.html ; and also the claims of millions of people being in touch with animals whom understand that the connection and relation they have with them is not the connection/relation with a non-conscious 'fur-robot'. Without any soul that is exactly what the animals would be.
Man and animals didn't miraculously pop up on earth. What you observe here today is the result of billion individual’s decision throughout hundreds of millions of years (and the resulting evolution of certain instincts, etc., based on choices made by animals); and it is not logical to blame the Creator of choices that His creations have made. The Creator created the universe, but didn’t control everything that occurred afterwards. Animals have a choice of what actions to make.
I don’t believe that the Creator sees any satisfaction or joy at all when a fox kills a rabbit; causing fear, suffering and death to the rabbit; and suffering to her family and potential human companions. I don’t think He approves of it.
You wrote: “As for empathy and cruelty, don't get me wrong, it is important for man to treat animals humanely, and in all honesty, we don't always do so.”
Good that you state so!!!!!
However, your meat eating states the opposite. You are preaching by your actions.
There is no secret that anyone’s meat eating is causing severe pain and suffering for animals: See e.g. this documentation: http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/factory-farming.aspx
Your lifestyle gives your silent approval of this.
You state: “Animals are not described as being created in God's image.”
And this is according to a book, which is written by human animals, and based on their misunderstanding.
Yet many animals are showing far more love and compassion to their fellow beings and humans compared to men themselves.
I believe that sentient beings all have attributes that resemble the nature of our Creator. However, most sentient beings are not showing love and compassion to all animals and are thus not living according to the image of our Creator.
I haven’t found any evidence that humans are ‘ABOVE’ animals. Surely man has attributes and brain capacities that other animals don’t have. However, a less complex brain/brain not using all of its potential functions in a human or another animal doesn’t make an individual of any less worth.
Animals are conscious and have a soul.
These are the claims of science: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528836.200-animals-are-conscious-and-should-be-treated-as-such.html ; and also the claims of millions of people being in touch with animals whom understand that the connection and relation they have with them is not the connection/relation with a non-conscious 'fur-robot'. Without any soul that is exactly what the animals would be.
Man and animals didn't miraculously pop up on earth. What you observe here today is the result of billion individual’s decision throughout hundreds of millions of years (and the resulting evolution of certain instincts, etc., based on choices made by animals); and it is not logical to blame the Creator of choices that His creations have made. The Creator created the universe, but didn’t control everything that occurred afterwards. Animals have a choice of what actions to make.
I don’t believe that the Creator sees any satisfaction or joy at all when a fox kills a rabbit; causing fear, suffering and death to the rabbit; and suffering to her family and potential human companions. I don’t think He approves of it.
You wrote: “As for empathy and cruelty, don't get me wrong, it is important for man to treat animals humanely, and in all honesty, we don't always do so.”
Good that you state so!!!!!
However, your meat eating states the opposite. You are preaching by your actions.
There is no secret that anyone’s meat eating is causing severe pain and suffering for animals: See e.g. this documentation: http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/factory-farming.aspx
Your lifestyle gives your silent approval of this.
You state: “Animals are not described as being created in God's image.”
And this is according to a book, which is written by human animals, and based on their misunderstanding.
Yet many animals are showing far more love and compassion to their fellow beings and humans compared to men themselves.
I believe that sentient beings all have attributes that resemble the nature of our Creator. However, most sentient beings are not showing love and compassion to all animals and are thus not living according to the image of our Creator.
I haven’t found any evidence that humans are ‘ABOVE’ animals. Surely man has attributes and brain capacities that other animals don’t have. However, a less complex brain/brain not using all of its potential functions in a human or another animal doesn’t make an individual of any less worth.
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)