Vegan reply to 'We are at top of the food chain, thus we should eat meat'

What food chain? This “But” is another way of asking whether our power and ability to exploit animals makes it morally right to do so. We would immediately see the problem if this “But” were raised in a context involving humans. For example, it was once argued that white western Europeans were naturally superior to Africans because the former were able to enslave the latter. There is no such thing out there as a “food chain.” It’s a concept that we have devised so that we can make our exploitation of animals look as though it has some basis in the natural world . It doesn’t. The proclamation that we are at the top of the food chain is equivalent to a proclamation that we are capable of oppressing and exploiting all of the other species on the planet. That may be true but it carries no moral significance. Are humans different from nonhumans? Certainly. Do humans have abilities that nonhumans lack? Certainly. But animals have all sorts of abilities that humans don’t have. Yes , humans can write symphonies (although most don’t by the way). But birds can fly without being in an airplane and fish can breathe under water without an air tank. What, apart from our self-interested proclamation, makes animal abilities worth less as a moral matter than human abilities?

The answer: nothing. But at the outset, we promised you that we were not going to challenge that bit of conventional wisdom that holds that although animals matter morally , they don’t matter morally as much as humans do. Our conventional wisdom holds that even if animals matter less, they matter some, and hurting or killing them requires a justification. Responding to the need for such a justification by saying that we are at the top of some non-existent chain is a way of saying that it’s okay to hurt and kill animals without any moral justification. And that’s just a way of saying that you don’t think that animals matter at all morally and that we can make them suffer and kill them just because we are able to do so. Actually, if you stop and think about it for a minute, you’ll see that our power and ability to exploit nonhuman animals gives us the responsibility to protect them from exploitation!

Francione, Gary; Charlton, Anna (2013-06-24). Eat Like You Care: An Examination of the Morality of Eating Animals (Kindle Locations 1249-1253). Exempla Press. Kindle Edition.

Humans are herbivores, not omnivores/meat-eaters

First of all I recommend you to read this article: http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights

Reposted article:
To those saying that humans are ''omnivores'', just because they eat both plants and meat, you need to do some actual research, because what you choose to eat and what you are meant to eat are 2 completely different things. Actually, it's not even a choice. Humans eat meat because their parents shoved it down their throats when they were children, so they grew up thinking it's ''normal''. It's all due to indoctrination, social conditioning and lies coming from the meat industry.

We are not omnivores. The ''omnivorous human'' myth is based on ''observations'' that humans generally eat both plants and meat - it is not based on scientific or biological facts. Judging by anatomical design, and not by eating habits or traditions, humans are natural frugivores (a frugivore is a type of herbivore that's designed to eat and digest mostly fruits and greens).

All primates are natural frugivores. Yes, they sometimes eat meat, but that doesn't prove anything. Deer, hippos and horses also eat meat sometimes, and cats eat plant foods, but it would be silly to call them omnivores. In addition, according to some tooth enamel analysis of fossilized teeth of our ancestors, it appears that most of our ancestors had a mostly frugivorous diet (starch, fruits), while meat was just a small part of their diet, and our early ancestors did not have the ability to eat hard things, such as meat, so they were eating mostly soft fruits.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC17605

Natural omnivores are basically carnivores that are also adapted to eat plants. One would expect an omnivore to show anatomical features which equip it to eat both animal and plant foods. According to evolutionary theory, carnivore gut structure is more primitive than herbivorous adaptations. Thus, an omnivore might be expected to be a carnivore which shows some gastrointestinal tract adaptations to an herbivorous diet.

An omnivore has an intestinal tract 4 to 6 times their body length, while carnivores' is about 3 to 6 times their body length. A human's intestinal tract is 10 to 11 times their body length, therefore humans cannot be carnivores or omnivores.

In other words, one first must have been a natural carnivore, in order to become an omnivore, after many years of evolution. A natural herbivore cannot magically turn into an omnivore, no matter what. This single fact is enough to invalidate carnists' ''theory'' that humans are ''omnivores''.

We have multiple copies of a gene, called Amylase 1 (or AMY1), found in human DNA, which is evolutionarily designed for digesting tubers (starches, like potatoes). Ptyalin, a form of Amylase, is also found in our saliva, and in the saliva of other frugivorous animals, which proves that we are designed to eat carbs. The salivary amylase gene has undergone duplication during evolution, and DNA hybridization studies indicate that many individuals have multiple tandem repeats of the gene. The number of gene copies correlates with the levels of salivary amylase, as measured by protein blot assays using antibodies to human amylase. Gene copy number is associated with apparent evolutionary exposure to high-starch diets. For example, a Japanese individual had 14 copies of the amylase gene (one allele with 10 copies, and a second allele with four copies). The Japanese diet has traditionally contained large amounts of rice starch. In contrast, a Biaka individual carried six copies (three copies on each allele). The Biaka are rainforest hunter-gatherers who have traditionally consumed a low-starch diet. Perry and colleagues speculated the increased copy number of the salivary amylase gene may have enhanced survival coincident to a shift to a starchy diet during human evolution.

''Atherosclerosis affects only herbivores. Dogs, cats, tigers, and lions can be saturated with fat and cholesterol, and atherosclerotic plaques do not develop.''

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312295

Still think you're a natural omnivore? Try eating only raw meat (without any spices or seasonings, like true omnivores do) for at least 2 months and see if you can digest it and not get very, very sick. A true omnivore can live on an entirely plant based or an entirely meat based diet (without taking any supplements) and be healthy. True omnivores (and carnivores) can produce their own vitamin C. Humans can't. We would die from scurvy if we tried eating a meat only diet.


Facial Muscles
Carnivore - Reduced to allow wide mouth gape
Herbivore - Well-developed
Omnivore - Reduced
Human - Well-developed

Jaw Type
Carnivore - Angle not expanded
Herbivore - Expanded angle
Omnivore - Angle not expanded
Human - Expanded angle

Jaw Joint Location
Carnivore - On same plane as molar teeth
Herbivore - Above the plane of the molars
Omnivore - On same plane as molar teeth
Human - Above the plane of the molars

Jaw Motion
Carnivore - Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion
Herbivore - No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
Omnivore - Shearing; minimal side-to-side
Human - No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back

Major Jaw Muscles
Carnivore - Temporalis
Herbivore - Masseter and pterygoids
Omnivore - Temporalis
Human - Masseter and pterygoids

Mouth Opening vs. Head Size
Carnivore - Large
Herbivore - Small
Omnivore - Large
Human - Small

Teeth (Incisors)
Carnivore - Short and pointed
Herbivore - Broad, flattened and spade shaped
Omnivore - Short and pointed
Human - Broad, flattened and spade shaped

Teeth (Canines)
Carnivore - Long, sharp and curved
Herbivore - Dull and short or long (for defense), or none
Omnivore - Long, sharp and curved
Human - Short and blunted

Teeth (Molars)
Carnivore - Sharp, jagged and blade shaped
Herbivore - Flattened with cusps vs complex surface
Omnivore - Sharp blades and/or flattened
Human - Flattened with nodular cusps

Chewing
Carnivore - None; swallows food whole
Herbivore - Extensive chewing necessary
Omnivore - Swallows food whole and/or simple crushing
Human - Extensive chewing necessary

Saliva
Carnivore - No digestive enzymes
Herbivore - Carbohydrate digesting enzymes
Omnivore - No digestive enzymes
Human - Carbohydrate digesting enzymes

Stomach Type
Carnivore - Simple
Herbivore - Simple or multiple chambers
Omnivore - Simple
Human - Simple

Stomach Acidity
Carnivore - Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
Herbivore - pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach
Omnivore - Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
Human - pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach

Stomach Capacity
Carnivore - 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
Herbivore - Less than 30% of total volume of digestive tract
Omnivore - 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
Human - 21% to 27% of total volume of digestive tract

Length of Small Intestine
Carnivore - 3 to 6 times body length
Herbivore - 10 to more than 12 times body length
Omnivore - 4 to 6 times body length
Human - 10 to 11 times body length

Colon
Carnivore - Simple, short and smooth
Herbivore - Long, complex; may be sacculated
Omnivore - Simple, short and smooth
Human - Long, sacculated

Liver
Carnivore - Can detoxify vitamin A
Herbivore - Cannot detoxify vitamin A
Omnivore - Can detoxify vitamin A
Human - Cannot detoxify vitamin A

Kidney
Carnivore - Extremely concentrated urine
Herbivore - Moderately concentrated urine
Omnivore - Extremely concentrated urine
Human - Moderately concentrated urine

Nails
Carnivore - Sharp claws
Herbivore - Flattened nails or blunt hooves
Omnivore - Sharp claws
Human - Flattened nails

 Article from: Veganism Is The Future & Green Unity For Nature And Animal Liberation
I don't agree With everything on these websites.

Ethics: Love animals and eating animals - a moral oxymoron

Are you aware that there is as much suffering for the animal, caused by a glass of milk or for an egg, as there is for a steak of meat?: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/05/organic-milk-cheese-ice-cream-sour.html
Here are some other good, tasty recipes on the blog of my wife: http://veganviking.blogspot.com/

A vegan lifestyle is not a sacrifice, it is a joy.
As for taste, for me the desire of animal products went away when I realized that it is unethical to kill another sentient being for palatable pleasure. Dr. Neal Banard says: "You will find that your taste buds have a memory of about 3 weeks."

I don’t agree with the food chain-argument. Here is my reply to it: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/vegan-answer-to-humans-are-at-top-of.html
Can you explain to me, how would having the possibility to kill all other sentient beings on this planet justify us to inflict unnecessary suffering upon another being?

Why do you look upon omnivores as your role models, instead of herbivores – when you refer to the “food chain”-argument. We do have the anatomy of an herbivore, and we do have a moral concern for the animals. You wouldn’t for example kill a dog. You just have to be consistent and extend this same moral concern for all animals.
We do certainly have the choice to abstain from killing and eating animals for food. So when we choose to eat animal products, we act despite the lack of “necessity”. And doing so we are acting in contradiction to our moral belief which states that dog fighting and dog abuse is morally wrong, because it inflicts unnecessary suffering upon animals.

I highly recommend this book, ‘Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog by Professor Gary Francione?
‘: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/books/#.Ua5RpJxc18E

It really helps in ones understanding.