just moving this here from globalhealth
First Some Facts you must accept:
1. no matter what you think mankind is not a herbovore
2. neither is mankind a carnovore
3. man is an omnivore we need meat and veggies to survive properly

Now there are medical reasons to not be a vegitarian. The major one is that some animals and a few nuts produce 8 amino acids taht our bodys need to run properly. Our bodys can not make these 8 amino acids that are out of 22 called the essential amino acids. You can get a few of these 8 amino acids from some nuts but not in abundance. Now animals do produce all 8 of these amino acids in large quanitys and they are very much needed by your body.

end result: to make your body as sound as possible
1. eat a balanced diet of fruits, veggies, meats and breads
2. get the RDA (reccomended daily allowance) of your nutrients (i.e. vitamins and minerals)
3. take a highly rated multi-vitmain
4. take a calcium supplement (especially the ladies among us take it now and prevent osteoperosis later ladies!)
5. exercise: play a sport or do something, anything at all just exercise!

*please note amp is only basicly trained all advice is subject to debate and amp is not responsable for any negative results incured from following his advice. This warning is in place as the advice above is medical in nature and amp does not need a law suit any time soon so amp's just being cautious even though the avdice above is perfectly sound and what you'd get from an actual nutrionest in a $2000 consultation.

quote:

I agree with most of the points you raised, hoofbeat. People go vegetarian for a number of reasons and to think that all vegetarians are bleeding heart animal lovers is inaccurate. Bottom line is a vego diet in comparison can be less environmentally impacting, as well as reducing the number of animals killed. I know that by me not eating meat won't stop the next cow or chook from being slaughtered, but at least it wasn't slaughtered for a passing taste sensation of mine. Simple. Less people eat meat the less animals killed.

Yeah. Agreed. Some kid at my school was mocking my vegiterianism and was like "Yeah Emily, you know you aren't saving any animals when by being a vegiterian, they are all killed any way! Ha ha ha!" think heing was all smart and clever.
"I know, this, but I am saving animals from needing to be bred to be slaughtered. A few less lives that have to go through that dreadful life."
That got him to be quiet and think for a while, LOL.

Wow, that whole BLA (nice intitails) is ridiculous. People have really gone down on the brightness scale if they believe that meat is the only source of protien.

I agree with most of the points you raised, hoofbeat. People go vegetarian for a number of reasons and to think that all vegetarians are bleeding heart animal lovers is inaccurate. Bottom line is a vego diet in comparison can be less environmentally impacting, as well as reducing the number of animals killed. I know that by me not eating meat won't stop the next cow or chook from being slaughtered, but at least it wasn't slaughtered for a passing taste sensation of mine. Simple. Less people eat meat the less animals killed.

I don't know what it's like in the U.S but here in Australia, it is pushed down the consumers' throats that everyone needs to eat meat. Beef and Livestock Australia (BLA) spent over 8 million dollars on a TV ad pushing meat as being the only source of protein. This was right after the whole Live Export Trade issue which caused red meat sales to decrease by 5%. Yet prior, when asked to improve the transport conditions of cattle and sheep heading to the Middle East, BLA claimed that they could not finance it.

Now they are gunning for the Chicken Federation in another ad that eating red meat is more beneficial than eating chicken, because chicken sales have increased. It comes down to the mighty dollar and its the meat buying consumers who are ignorantly unaware. It is also the consumer that has the power to do something about the cruelty issues of factory reared animals. I don't have a problem with people eating meat. I don't really give a damn what you shovel down your throats.....


at least try to do something to improve the conditions for those animals that are killed for you. Take some damn responsibility for it instead of thinking it is your given right.

It's the consumer that has the power to make changes.

The really sad thing is that the majority of pro meat eaters do not question the ads and believe Sam Neil (an actor) climbing down a tree and telling them to eat red meat, has to be true. What sickens me is the saturation of KFC, Hungry Jacks (Burger King to U.S), and Maccas tv ads during dinner times. No wonder Aussie kids are becoming frightengly obese, just like the adults. Where are the healthy, nutritional ads that should be promoting eating of veggies with your meal as well? Hungry Jacks also had a go at vegans once with an ad showing a tofu burger to be crap compared to a Whopper burger. (And I'm yet to come across vegans that eat tofu burgers). Yet the public will swallow their bullsh!t without any second thought. Just goes to show the mentality of the target audience.....

If you dig deep enough you'll find that the studies that put red meat on a pedestal are funded by the BLA, whereas studies that highlight the risks of high red meat consumption are independant bodies ( I should know because Sydney Uni is the one doing both types of research)

I often ask pro meat eaters to try alternatives and their instant reaction is a "Hell No!". In my experience, most aren't even willing to try soy alternatives. At least give it a go before condemning the diet. I know some veggies condemn diets consisting of meat, at least 99% of us have already tried and experienced it, and therefore know the differences, benefits and failures of both.

Ok, so I read some of these things and some have good arguments, but I'm a vegetarian and doing perfectly fine. Although I do eat seafood, dairy, and eggs, ( its some different kind of vegetarian.) But the thing is some people do it for environmental issues too. My cousin only eats free-roaming eggs because chickens in captivity are usually abused or stuffed full of chemicals. And I met another person, who is a vegetarian for environmental and animal treatment reasons. She only eats free-roaming things, such as if someone aught a fish or deer or something like that. I don't eat meat for those reasons, because the animals tend to be abused or mistreated when they are at these large companies. And I do admit that being a vegetarian can be dangerous if someone doesn't research properly. When I first became one I lost a too much weight and my hair got really thin because frankly I didn't know enough. But once I did some research and talked to some people I started getting the right nutrients and everything. It isn't easy being a vegetarian, you have to work at it and make sure you get all the nutrients by taking extra vitamins, eating nuts, even some vegetables like broccoli have lots of protein in them. So being a vegetarian isn't bad, I think people can decide that for themselves. You just have to do the research and be willing to think ahead and bring your own meals sometimes.

Quote EG

"I forgot to comment on this.

Since when are rabbits, horses, deer, antelope, and all other ungulates slow? If they were, they'd all be dead."


We are much more related to primates than anything. Koala bears, Pandas, sloths, and more are all vegetarian and very slow movers. And turtles in the WILD have the ability to live up to 100-200yrs. Obviously people want to live long and well, so why not slow reproduction rates? When it comes down to it, most people want to survive for as long as they can so long as they are healthy.

quote:

Get the fuck over it and bitch at the members of this site who truly don't care about the Earth (Bushsupporter, notsojoey, kibakun, etc...).

I do care about the Earth.

quote:

Like I said, it is true that modern humans don't need as much meat anymore.

Forgot to mention:

crux of it is this - humans would be able to survive without any meat.

Quote EG:

"No dude, I brought it up only to prove that the assumption that humans can not eat raw meat is false, as Eskimos and all other indigenous people are human."

I agree.... dude!. I can also repeat example of cultures that can and do survive on an ALL VEGGY diet too! Just using your reasoning to claim the opposite. So let's move on.

Quote EG:

"That wasn't meant to be taken literally... It's called sarcasm"

Ditto. Coming from you I wouldnt expect any different. I don't appreciate being referred to as a Nazi.

Quote EG:

"What's the point if I concur with most of what you said? All you did was reinforce my statements with big words and other theories. If you want an argument so badly, argue with yourself."

No. You made generalised statements whereas I corrected them. Furthermore, I also raised points which counter-argued yours. Read the post properly. We just happen to agree on SOME areas. Plain and simple. It wasn't a post in agreement.

Hmm..argument? Isn't that part of the reason for these discussions? To express ideas, theories from differing viewpoints. Sometimes it leads to discussions or arguments.Thats what we're here for. If you don't want to argue with me, then don't respond to my posts.

quote:

I agree with you on that point to some degree. Doesn't mean humans need to eat meat now which is the core of this whole diet issue. They also practised cannabilism and infantcide too. does that mean we should continue because it happened millions of years ago?

Like I said, it is true that modern humans don't need as much meat anymore.

quote:

That's bc you use an isolated example to represent the rest of the human population. Simple. If you are doing it for that reason, than no wonder some ppl can't figure it out.

No dude, I brought it up only to prove that the assumption that humans can not eat raw meat is false, as Eskimos and all other indigenous people are human. Asians eat raw fish. Fancy folks in the Western World like to eat Steak Tartar (raw ground beef). People in the Southern United States like raw oysters. Northern Europeans like rotten shark meat. The eating of raw and rotten meat is not rare in the human world, nor is it practiced by a small fraction of the human population. That simple. There's no need to over analyze it.

quote:

Are we trying to do that? News to me. I didn't hear about it on my last VegNazi meeting. Better bring it up with our Fuehrer.

That wasn't meant to be taken literally... It's called sarcasm.

quote:

Still waiting for EG's response to my previous post....

What's the point if I concur with most of what you said? All you did was reinforce my statements with big words and other theories. If you want an argument so badly, argue with yourself.

quote:

Our moving pace is very slow much like herbivores rather than carnivores.

I forgot to comment on this.

Since when are rabbits, horses, deer, antelope, and all other ungulates slow? If they were, they'd all be dead.

can we please move on from the evolutionary debate? the question shouldn't be whether evolutionary humanids were omnivores or not. they're long dead and with good reason.

the question should be on whether humans need to eat meat now and it appears that it is no.

By the looks of it the consensus on the topic as it stands now is in agreement that humans don't need to eat meat.

Unless ppl can come up with factual and scientific reasons supporting meat consumption in today's world.

I do agree in lowering birth rates. Bring in the whole one child policy internationally if that helps. Perhaps another world war is needed or another butonic plague.

Sooner this species disappears from this planet, the better for the animals and environment.

Quote EarthGoddess:

"I'm never in a million years going to go to GoVeg or PETA and read their fact sheets and parrot them as you so perfectly did without question."

I'm not a fan of PETA or the GoVeg thing either. I like science and facts, too.

However, vegetarians that spout GoVeg gospel are no different to the millions of meat eaters spouting and parroting their own acceptance of meat eating and without questioning it to boot.

Quote EG:

"Fossilized stool from Neanderthals and Cro Magnon have been found and analyzed, and science has discovered that humans were indeed omnivores for a very, very long time."

I agree with you on that point to some degree. Doesn't mean humans need to eat meat now which is the core of this whole diet issue. They also practised cannabilism and infantcide too. does that mean we should continue because it happened millions of years ago?

Quote EG:

"You guys will never figure out why I brought that up.... Sad. (aka Eskimo point)'

That's bc you use an isolated example to represent the rest of the human population. Simple. If you are doing it for that reason, than no wonder some ppl can't figure it out.

Quote EG:

"I wouldn't call little pygmy men dressed only in penis gourds selfish and ignorant. But hey, if you want to force them out of their beautiful forests and shove tofu and supplements down their throats, go for it."

Are we trying to do that? News to me. I didn't hear about it on my last VegNazi meeting. Better bring it up with our Fuehrer.
With the displacement issue, thought the missionaries did a banged up job at that already, plus the land clearing for crops and timber of today.

Quote EG:

"Get the fuck over it and bitch at the members of this site who truly don't care about the Earth (Bushsupporter, notsojoey, kibakun, etc...)."

Yeh, but they don't bite like you do.

*Still waiting for EG's response to my previous post....*

Just curious, has anyone read a book called "Nourishing Traditions" by Sally Fallon? It has some quite interesting ideas about meat in our diets and draws a lot of examples from research about the diets of pre-industrial societies from around the world. If you have strong feeling either way on the meat/vegetarian argument, I definitely recommend reading it.

quote:

Originally posted by paulachanga91:
I'm sorry EarthGoddess, but to me your viewpoints are totally rediculous. (No hard feelings).

No. They're realistic. You just don't like real life. You'd rather live in your hippie fantasy land. Good for you, but don't expect me to be a part of it you Nazi.

quote:

Man was much more the hunted than the hunter. We only ate meat rarely to survive and battle through starvation when needed. When you see a dead dog on the side of the road, do you want to run over and eat it blood, guts, and all?

You answered your own question. If I had to keep myself from starving to death, I would eat a dead dog, blood, guts and all.

Humans did live in a harsh world millions of years on the African grasslands where there was no fruit or veggies to eat, just grass and shrubs. As a result, we gained the habit of eating ANYTHING. Especially carrion. We also learned how to break open the bones of dead animals to suck out the nutrient rich marrow. The question is not whether humans are meant to eat meat, because we are, the question is whether we need it now since most of us aren't on the brink of starving. The answer to that is no. Is it so ridiculous for me to have that view?

I'm starting to get the feeling that all you animal-rights fools are here simply to get into an argument with SOMEONE. Even if that someone agrees with you. I totally agree that humans don't need meat anymore, but don't attack me because my reasoning for believing that is different. I'm never in a million years going to go to GoVeg or PETA and read their fact sheets and parrot them as you so perfectly did without question.

I like hardcore scientific fact. It is not a scientific fact that humans are herbivores. And it never will be. Science has advanced far further than GoVeg's horribly biased fact sheets. Fossilized stool from Neanderthals and Cro Magnon have been found and analyzed, and science has discovered that humans were indeed omnivores for a very, very long time.

quote:

One thing I'd like to point out is our jaw moves in a side to side motion. In carnivores AND omnivores, they have evolved to a restricted up and down motion of the jaw for tearing and swallowing meat. No chewing. For us, it is much different. We have evolved to break down fiberous foods such as fruits and vegetables. Chewing side to side helps us greatly to crush down those types of foods.

Again with your GoVeg bull. That implies that all carnivores, herbivores, and omnivores have the same physical traits respectively. When they don't. The great apes have huge jaw muscles perfect for chewing those fibrous foods, we don't. Also, nature gave us small, weak teeth. If we still lived in nature, without the benefit of modern dentistry, our teeth would be worn down completely before the age of 50 from chewing so much. No teeth, can't eat, you die.

quote:

We don't have predatory responses such as meat eaters.

You would, if you haven't eaten anything in 2 weeks. Like all predators. They don't get to eat as much as we do because hunting is terribly hard. That is what triggers that response in predatory animals, being starved. Full lions don't hunt, they sleep.

quote:

Another thing is that I totally disagree with your live and die fast reasoning. Some turtles can live over 200 years.

Only in captivity or if they're really, reeeeeally lucky.

quote:

Also, people in my opinion are having way too many children. Because death rates are lower now then ever, we should also have reproduction rates lower. If you have over 2 kids, it is overpopulating the Earth in my opinion.

So, it's okay for people to live forever and not okay for people to reproduce? That makes no sense whatsoever. Two things contribute to overpopulation: Low mortality rate and high birth rate. Lowering the birth rate won't have any impact if all the old people of the world are still alive and taking up space. Both is what is needed.

quote:

Why contribute to ruining our beautiful planet only for the sake of taste?

The Earth can take care of itself. It's not a fragile little fairy the media likes to make it out to be. When the Earth has reached its limit, it'll let us know. Most likely by killing us all with Global Warming, if it exists. When a population is too high, nature has its way of thinning it out. Once we all die from Global Warming or something equally metal, the Earth can heal. That is all I care about.

quote:

We need to do all this because the Eskimos eat raw meat?

You guys will never figure out why I brought that up.... Sad.

quote:

People in my opinion who eat meat are selfish and ignorant. There is no need, we have other alternatives besides meat. We need to speak out.

I wouldn't call little pygmy men dressed only in penis gourds selfish and ignorant. But hey, if you want to force them out of their beautiful forests and shove tofu and supplements down their throats, go for it.

Anyway, like I said. I agree with you all, as I am an tree hugging, Earth worshiping, eco-tard (with the soul of a Wolf and an appetite to match). But I have gotten to my opinions through different means. Sorry if that bothers you. Get the fuck over it and bitch at the members of this site who truly don't care about the Earth (Bushsupporter, notsojoey, kibakun, etc...).

I'm sorry EarthGoddess, but to me your viewpoints are totally rediculous. (No hard feelings). Man was much more the hunted than the hunter. We only ate meat rarely to survive and battle through starvation when needed. When you see a dead dog on the side of the road, do you want to run over and eat it blood, guts, and all? One thing I'd like to point out is our jaw moves in a side to side motion. In carnivores AND omnivores, they have evolved to a restricted up and down motion of the jaw for tearing and swallowing meat. No chewing. For us, it is much different. We have evolved to break down fiberous foods such as fruits and vegetables. Chewing side to side helps us greatly to crush down those types of foods. We don't have predatory responses such as meat eaters. Our moving pace is very slow much like herbivores rather than carnivores. Another thing is that I totally disagree with your live and die fast reasoning. Some turtles can live over 200 years. That doesn't seem like a very fast life to me. We have the capability of living a very long life. And the population is skyrocketing because of our knowledge. Mortality rates are much lower now because of our medical. Now days, if you become paralyzed, you can still survive. In nature, you would be dead within days. In the human world, both the strong and the weak survive, where as in nature, it is survival of the fittest. There are people that are very strong and at a suprisingly high age. Jack LaLanne is in his 90's and is probably in better shape than most 20 year olds. Also, people in my opinion are having way too many children. Because death rates are lower now then ever, we should also have reproduction rates lower. If you have over 2 kids, it is overpopulating the Earth in my opinion. My one question is why eat meat when the body does more than better without it. Why make another living thing suffer through a life of neglect and abuse in the slaughterhouse only to look forward to a horrible death? Why make something suffer when it is totally unecessary? Why contribute to ruining our beautiful planet only for the sake of taste? But let me guess. We need to do all this because the Eskimos eat raw meat? Wow! You totally convinced me. People in my opinion who eat meat are selfish and ignorant. There is no need, we have other alternatives besides meat. We need to speak out.

Quote EarthGoddess:

"Completely wrong."

So you’re claiming that there was not a causal relationship between any form of development in early man’s brain and the use of his hands? I wasn’t claiming that it was the cause, but a significant attribution towards different areas of brain development.

Quote EarthGoddess:

"The reason man stood upright: In Africa during the Pliocene epoch, the climate was changing. Forests began shrinking and grasslands began to take over. As a result, our ancestor Australopithecus had to stand upright to see over tall grass to keep an eye out for approaching predators."

Yes, the primary reason Australopithecus Africanus stood upright was the need to travel further distances to the forests, through the dwindling lake and river margins, woodland, bushland, and savanna. And since it took more energy, started to eat meat along the way and only when he came across it (also supported by the primary tools found being scraping tools). It wasn't because he had to look out for predators, that came as a survival benefit.

Quote EarthGoddess:

"Last time I checked, an animal doesn't need to be bipedal to gather fruit."

True. But if referring to land mammals, those that aren’t bipedal are either large in size and height, or more suitably adapted to climb and move through trees, as an example, to reach the fruit. In the case of man (who was at this point primarily a scavenger), since vegetation was easier to come by than coming across carcasses or dying animals.

Quote EarthGoddess:


"Also, there isn't much fruit in grasslands anyway."

I know. Mistake on my part giving an impression that A. africanus ate a lot of fruit. It was just an example of the types of foods he ate.

Stable carbon isotope analysis of A. africanus from Makapansgat Limeworks, South Africa, demonstrates that this early hominid ate not only fruits, but also some leaves and also large quantities of carbon-13-enriched foods such as grasses and sedges, roots and flowers. Also, studies into the tooth development of the australopithecines found that the heavy C3 signature found in A. africanus greatly reflects the consumption of underground storage organs of C3 plants rather than meat.

"there's no such thing as a true carnivore"

Sorry, I should’ve used the term obligate carnivores, and more specifically
hypercarnivores. And these animals only eat vegetation specifically as an emetic. Don't argue with a veterinarian.

"there is another theory that says Neanderthals simply interbred with Cro Magnons, and that we're all hybrids of both."

That’s the thing about anthropology. It is largely based on theories and there is still anthropological debate as to the interbreeding of Cro Magnons and Neanderthals, and as to whether diet played a large part in the Neanderthal’s demise is still a debate among anthropologists, and a theory, just like the interbreeding. I know they had to compete with Cro Magnon, it doesn’t negate the fact that they were an evolutionary dead end.

quote:

Originally posted by EarthGoddess:


So, you're saying Eskimos aren't human? I only bring them up because you guys like to say, "Humans are not meant to eat meat, especially raw meat, therefore it's not natural!", Then I say, "Well, what about Eskimos? They eat raw meat." Then you all say, "WE'RE NOT ESKIMOS!"

That's a stupid response. I responded to your theory by bringing up something that punches a major hole into it, and then you all give me a retort fit for the debate team at a school for special children. I know we aren't Eskimos. I fucking get that. But Eskimos are human. Therefore, that argument that humans aren't meant to eat meat, raw meat, whatever, is INCORRECT. That simple.

quote:

theres also cultures in the world that have survived only on vegetables etc for thousands of years, too.

Most of them are dead.

First point: Not all of us claim that humans aren't suppose to eat meat. I agree with your point about humans needing to eat meat in the evolutionary periods, but as of now? there isn't really a need to eat so much meat, or any meat at all for that matter (see that you didn't respond to my last point....and don't claim some infantile response along the lines of it was ridiculous or stupid, as you seem like the type of person who revels in pointing out those things). Also, meat was only a small part of the evolutionary diet and didn't really make a large impact until the onset of the Industrial Revolution and the subsequent result of the use of intensive farming.

Second Point: I never claimed that Eskimos weren't human. So please don't misinterpret and jump to ridiculous assertions. I claimed that as a SPECIES, humans can survive without meat. As in the case of Eskimos, it's a cultural thing. Furthermore, sure cultures that survived on an all veggie diet have died out...glad that you wrote MOST and not all...same thing can apply to those that survived primarily on a meat diet. so what's your point there? Your Eskimo excuse only signifies a VERY small population and is representative of a culture that had adapted over hundreds of years, and should not signify the rest of the human population's ability to survive on an all-meat diet. You like to emphsise your argument based on a cultural point, I was concentrating on species.

quote:

perhaps an omnivore diet is the better diet. but, you can survive without meat, you cant survive without vegetables and fruit (yeh, i know about the eskimos, but we're not eskimos, are we?)

So, you're saying Eskimos aren't human? I only bring them up because you guys like to say, "Humans are not meant to eat meat, especially raw meat, therefore it's not natural!", Then I say, "Well, what about Eskimos? They eat raw meat." Then you all say, "WE'RE NOT ESKIMOS!"

That's a stupid response. I responded to your theory by bringing up something that punches a major hole into it, and then you all give me a retort fit for the debate team at a school for special children. I know we aren't Eskimos. I fucking get that. But Eskimos are human. Therefore, that argument that humans aren't meant to eat meat, raw meat, whatever, is INCORRECT. That simple.

quote:

theres also cultures in the world that have survived only on vegetables etc for thousands of years, too.

Most of them are dead.

quote:

Originally posted by anneke:

quote:

Originally posted by EarthGoddess:

quote:

Alot of people don't want to face the facts, but our bodies are not geneticly evolved to handle meat.

Our ancestors have been eating meat for 2 million plus years. And now it's a problem? The problem is simply that we used to be on the move constantly, now we aren't.

The whole meat-evolution argument again. *sigh*
stop making it sound like meat was the cause of our advancement and evolution. it formed a large part of it.

A very large part of it.

quote:

It could also be argued that by walking upright (which would be needed for gathering of fruits and like), gave man the free use of his hands, which are in turn controlled by the brain, which helped a great deal in brain development.

Completely wrong. The reason man stood upright: In Africa during the Pliocene epoch, the climate was changing. Forests began shrinking and grasslands began to take over. As a result, our ancestor Australopithecus had to stand upright to see over tall grass to keep an eye out for approaching predators. It was also a way to easily carry their newborns while they were on the move. Last time I checked, an animal doesn't need to be bipedal to gather fruit. Also, there isn't much fruit in grasslands anyway.

And what helped in our brain development, was a combination of many things, including self-defense and consuming more and more protein and fat, because our thinking brains need the extra calories.

quote:

If you base it on meat consumption, then shouldnt true carnivores have developed superior brains as well?

Superior brains? Oh, I'm sorry. I thought it was wrong to to say humans had superior brains... Also, there's no such thing as a true carnivore.

I personally believe predatory animals do have superior brains, as hunting requires a lot of calculating, skill, and cooperation. But they aren't as smart as we are, simply because it's not necessary. They can defend themselves with claws, teeth and/or brute strength. We could not, so we had to rely on our brains to defend ourselves.

quote:

furthermore, it is argued that Neanderthals who relied primarily on a high meat based diet, were an evolutionary dead end - a species that became extinct about 30,000 years ago.

Because they had to compete with Cro Magnon (Modern man). Cro Magnon ate the same food that Neanderthals ate. Cro Magnon was smarter and better at making tools, therefore they were more efficient hunters. However, there is another theory that says Neanderthals simply interbred with Cro Magnons, and that we're all hybrids of both.

Don't argue with me about Anthropology, you will lose.

quote:

Also, based on your reasoning, since we aren't on the move as much, shouldnt humans as a species, reduce, even stop eating meat as it is no longer required as much?

Did I ever deny that? My problem is that, I don't want the Earth to be populated with humans that can live to be 100. That is too long. And it'll only put even more stress on the planet. You decrease the mortality rate and the human population will shoot up even higher. Not good.

quote:

I don't think anyone is saying that. What EG is saying, however, is that eating meat didn't hurt our ancestors. Why, then, would it hurt us?

Thank you.

quote:

paulachanga91:
The grain used to feed farm animals could be used to solve world hunger.

It could...if every location on Earth could support the growing of grain. It's impractical to grow grain in one part of the world and ship it to another. In certain places, livestock and poultry can survive while crops can't. So, for some people, eating meat is the only viable solution. Indeed, in the places where grain can be grown, people could stop eating meat, but then there wouldn't be much of an incentive.

quote:

anneke:
stop making it sound like meat was the cause of our advancement and evolution.

I don't think anyone is saying that. What EG is saying, however, is that eating meat didn't hurt our ancestors. Why, then, would it hurt us?

quote:

If you base it on meat consumption, then shouldnt true carnivores have developed superior brains as well?

True carnivores (the hunting kind) don't need such advanced brains. They're specialized animals, and thus their brain need only be adapted to a specific purpose. Humans, on the other hand, abandoned specialization for the ability to have relatively huge brains.