It's pretty clear that humans are biological omnivores. Our teeth and digestive systems are obviously able to handle both.

Milk is an odd thing, because we are the only species that regularly consumes milk into adulthood. And the parts of the human population that have been doing so the longest seem to be the best adapted to it.

I saw a nutritionist not long ago (not related to my vegetarianism, though she happened to be vegetarian), and she and I talked about why some people seem to do better on veg*an diets than others. She thinks that geographical heritage probably has a lot to do with it. It can't be the whole picture -- for instance, I'm one of those people with mostly western/northern euopean heritage who does great on a vegan diet. Could my little bit of native american ancestry account for that? Who knows.

SeattleInvasion said:

It might sound a bit far fetched but, in a weird and complicated way, the Native North Americans are somehow related with the Turks ( I´m not making this up, I have a book about this), which would mean they have Central Asian ancestry ....todays Turks are pretty much very Mediterranean in their looks, but some still look more Central Asian, and the theory is that the Native Americans traveled to North America (from the steppes of Central Asia ) centuries ago. That would mean that there might be similarities between the diet, and even the looks ( and it would mean that meat and dairy products are / were part of their diet). Even some of the old shamanistic, pre-Islamic rituals and legends have a lot in common with certain aspects of Native American culture..I´ll look it up one day, but I guess I´m going a bit off topic here.

I don´t think the Native Americans were vegans, quite on the contrary, eating meat is part of their diet, right ?

Again, we´re just discussing here, I don´t want to sound like a pro-meat advocate...this is all just theory.

KoolEaze said:

No, of course the native Americans weren't vegans, but dairy wasn't a staple of their diets the way that it was for some northern European people.

And I think the idea is that the adaption to somewhat different diets (ie. more or less dairy) happened over relatively short periods of time, making the Turkish connection less than entirely relevant.

Anyway, it's just a theory.

That´s actually what I was wondering about, dairy in the Native American diet, because I´ve never heard of it and was wondering whether it is/was a part of their diet, all I know is that certain fruits and vegetables and meat, especially dried meat, was an important part of the diet.

The theory I mentioned was mentioned because of that question, because dairy has been a part of the diet in Central Asia for ages, but I don´t exactly know how long, and I was wondering about dairy in the Native American diet...which obviously wasn´t a part of it, so thanks for clearing that up.

Anyway, I´m out.

Interesting discussion by the way.
bye

KoolEaze said:

I don't know that dairy was completely absent from the native American diet. Probably not. A lot of my knowledge is about Pacific Northwest native life. The diet here was mostly fish and plant based. I don't think there were a lot of eggs or milk being consumed.

SeattleInvasion said:

Sorry I disagree - it's pretty clear that we are in fact not. Our teeth are not adaptable to predatorous behaviour (there is no way to hunt animals without the aid of tools or even consume them as nutrition without sharp artificially-made objects - and that has nothing to do with what is considered "natural") and our digestive systems do not resemble any other omivorous species' (and for that matter if humans would be by such definition be omnivores - that our digestive systems are able to handle meat - then also horses and cows should be considered omnivores). From a pure biological standpoint humans are plain plant-eaters with a restrained capacity to consume carcasses if nothing else is available. The age-old argument about chimpanzees is not valid, because we are dealing here with social constructions. This can happen in any community of animals that are socially somewhat developed, there is not even a need for a semantic language. They develop a culture of their own, and once a culture is established anything can happen. All natural behaviour becomes secondary in symbolic order.

So basically meat-eating is only about adaption, no matter what. It's a bit silly for myself naming some things "natural" and other things "unnatural" of course. But that's how language operates - there are no widely-accpted concepts for these kind of discussions. Like I've said, people just aren't ready. Hell, and I might be wrong anyway.

Novabreaker said:

Sorry, wrong. Our teeth and digestive systems are neither like pure carnivores or pure herbivores. They are like other omnivores.

And you're right that it doesn't really matter. "Natural" for humans is whatever we do, and clearly, as a species, we consume animal products.

SeattleInvasion said:

Actually, they are not. These are the "facts" (they are just from the web, so take them however you like):


Carnivores and omnivores:
- has claws
- no pores on skin
- sharp, pointed front teeth to tear
- perspires through tongue to cool body
- no flat back molar teeth to grind food
- small salivary glands in the mouth (not needed to pre-digest grains and fruits)
- acid saliva; no enzyme ptyalin to pre-digest grains alkaline saliva
- strong hydrochloric acid in stomach to digest tough animal muscle, bone, etc.
- intestinal tract only 3 times body length, so rapidly decaying meat can pass out of body quickly

Herbivores:
- no claws
- perspires through millions of pores on skin perspires through millions of pores on skin
- pointed front teeth
- has flat, back molar teeth to grind food has flat,
- well-developed salivary glands, needed to pre-digest grains and fruits
- much ptyalin to pre-digest grains
- stomach acid 20 times weaker than that of meat-eaters
- intestinal tract several times body length (plant foods decay slowly so can take their time to pass through the body)

In which group do you think we humans would belong? In fact, by suggesting that humans and chimpanzees would be omnivores it would make basically humans and chimpanzees the only two species of omnivores on the planet that have flat herbivore's teeth and no claws to hunt (as far as I know, there wouldn't exist others). Not very likely, a different explanation is definitely needed - this is what most people refuse to accept when discussing this issue. Other omnivores such as bears, are still physically predatorous. Like I said, the digestive systems of cows and horses are adaptable to consuming prepared meat just as ours, but nobody is calling them omnivores. The fact that humans eat cooked meat is basically the tricky point here, since cooked meat isn't genuinely meat in its essence anymore. In a way, it's being transformed in the process of cooking into a "plant" for us to consume.

If somebody wants to prove me that they are natural omnivores please go to the woods, catch an animal with your bare hands and eat it raw - and tell me afterwards did it taste genuinely good. It's not about adapting to any higher standards inside civilization, because our omnivorous pet animals will gladly still eat raw meat from day to the end of their life archs. We humans simple are not that, we are taught to eat prepared meat (in fact the whole thought of eating those animals raw and having to hunt them down is rather disgusting, only a sign of what we find natural) and other animal products through the use of language. This isn't even a new discovery, theories such as these have existed since the Ancient times. Even Jean-jacques Rousseau in the 18th Century pointed out these characterizations, so they've been well-known in the science world for ages. People just refuse to accept them, or at least take into consideration. It's there for us, right in front of our eyes to see, but people still do not want to.

If you believe in evolution.

It is one of the most commonly accepted theories that we became the consciously thinking creatures that we are now by an over abundance of animal proteans in our diet.

Novabreaker said:

Does this apply to the t-shirts you choose to wear too? Are they all produced by people under ethically sound conditions?

I'm not just trying to be critical. I think vegetarianism has obvious health benefits, but when it comes to the ethical issues I don't quite get it sometimes. I would consider it for my health, but not for ethical reasons. One person can only do so much and spread his concerns so wide, and to be honest in my situation now it's not something I can viably do.

I ate a vegetarian once.

She asked what I felt like for dinner that day.

I told her I felt like eating out.

She misunderstood.

Which raises the question,
if one only dates herbivores,
does eating 'em make one a carnivorous vegan?
Or does that only apply if one 'milks' 'em?
How about those who date of the same sex? Are they considered meat-hungry fruit-cakes? Or if that's too derogertory, a carnivore on Atkins ( mostly for the carbs, maybe some nut protein )?

Y'know, I'm gonna e-mail Oprah's website. She oughtta do a show.....

Novabreaker said:

Great points...I´m sure I will rethink my diet again in the near future, though I´m not sure if I´ll ever be a 100% vegetarian again, simply because of the things I experienced on myself over the years...I never thought about the chimpanzees merely eating meat as the result of an adapted culture.
So, if I understand you correctly, you´re basically saying "Yes, some chimpanzees eat meat, but it´s an aqquired culture." ??

That would make sense,since they´re quite intelligent. I mean, I wasn´t even necessarily thinking about them eating meat ( though, as I mentioned before, there are even cannibalistic chimpanzees or chimpanzees who hunt down other species), I was mainly thinking about the fact that a lot of chimpanzees search for fruits with insects/worms in them.

And then there are the infamous bonobo chimpanzees, probabbly the most wellknown meat eating chimpanzees.


Speaking about raw meat..there are indeed humans who do eat raw animals, for instance raw fish, or even live fish. I´m sure you know what I mean, there are many examples for this...again, I´m not advocating meat consumption here, I´m merely trying to get a bit closer to something that´s been bothering me for years now.

Another thing....eversince I started eating fish again I feel stronger, have more power and visibly stronger muscles, but when I was a vegetarian I was skinny and had a little belly, see my profile pic. But that´s probably just a matter of a well balanced vegetarian diet.....as I said, I had an enormous craving for carbs and salted stuff back then.
Anyway, your contributions are highly appreciated and will definitely make me reconsider my diet.
I like these kind of discussions, you have a very good way of debating things.
Respect.

WOW, a meaty topic in GD (if you will excuse the pun)

To clarify the world of vegetarianism as I see it there are several classes. Vegetarian is an oft misused umbrella term for people who don't eat meat. When in fact if you take the term more literally people who only eat vegetation you would be closer to the mark.

There are 4 distinct classes in my mind

Vegans - the hardcore vegetarians who neither eat nor use any product that is derived from another living organism - I have enormous respect for these folks who manage to eat a healthy vegan diet.

Lacto-ovo vegetarians - don't eat meat but will still nibble a bit of cheese, have a glass of milk or partake of the odd egg or two. Fair enough, the idea of eating the flesh of another living creature repulses me (for whatever reason) but I am still prepared to eat/use the products of animals.

Pescatarians - don't eat meat in the true sense of the word but will happily munch on a tuna sandwich or king prawn dopiaza. I think this has something to do with fish not having any feelings or nervous system. Proven wrong recently so I quite happily bung these folk into category 4.

Fussy eaters - The "I am a vegetarian, I don't eat red meat but I eat chicken" erm, no, you aren’t vegetarian you just don't eat red meat. I can’t stand fussy eaters, we are blessed with the choice of many, many foods and we should explore all flavours presented to us and be glad we are not starving.

Shit, I got carried away, just for clarification, these are my own summations, I am sure BItch will pick me up on any mistakes (She is a clear Category 1 Veggie and has all my vegetarian respect )

Oh, I love meat and I firmly believe that as humans we are built to both masticate and digest meat, and no other natural diet can completely substitute that.

brownsugar said:

rice milk is actually alot like human milk. little kids generally love it.

Like Novabreaker alludes to it's a shaky premise regarding humans being "Natural" omnivores. Our few sharp teeth needn't be used for flesh and are used just as much for tough plant matter. You cannot bring down a cow by hand nor can you bite through their hide as a proper carnivore could, for example a lion.

Also humans require artifical technology and tools to kill, prepare and eat the most of the said flesh. With fire being necessary to make it edible. None of this suggests a "natural" affinity with meat.

Dairy promotion as a staple for all humans is downright racist. The vast majority of Asians and specifically African derived people have not evolved to tolerate the sick habit of drinking a cow's lactations. Yet there are The William Sisters and Spike Lee in "Got Milk?" ads forever shackling people to a lifetime of lowered health.

Kooleaze what specifically is offered within fish that you supposedly benefit from? For they contain nothing that isn't already found in plant matter. If it's the much publicised omega oils then they are in nuts and seeds as well as olive and sunflower oils what have you. It's worth always looking at these things purely scientifically.

MickG's point is moot. Whether or not meat proteins produced the human brain or not it doesn't deal with whether we need them now. High levels of meat protein produce free radicals in the body afterall.

Other factors in shaping the human animal include opposable thumbs and the subsequent destruction of predators and rival species with tools. This and farming (eliminating the need to hunt and gather) gave a relaxed lifestyle in which thinking rather than reacting was now possible. Time to spend creating gods and the like.

Fauxie said:

In the US at least there are serious ethical issues, the least of which is the slaughter of animals. Overall the meat industry here is corrupt and evil. The animals are bred and slaughtered in awful conditions, workers suffer awful conditions, politicians are in the palm of the meat lobby's hands, etc. I truly started to slow my meat intake when I learned what a corrupt industry I was supporting.
Of course, there are a handful of ethical farms, you can buy certified free-range and naturally-raised products... but the vast majority is truly horrifying to comprehend.

Illustrator said:

PREDOMINANT said:

oh, man... thank you!

i've been thinking about this thread quite a bit, and i love all the interesting, non-judgmental discussion.

i guess we all just have to make a conscious decision about how much violence and death we want in our lives. a bacon-egg-and-cheese breakfast sandwich costs the lives of 3 different animals. add a tuna salad sandwich at lunch and a steak for dinner, and 5 sentient beings have given their lives for one person for one day. i just can't justify that for myself, but if somebody has given this some thought and finds it acceptable, there's not a whole lot i can say.

then there's that whole water resource situation - i listened to Terry Gross' show on NPR yesterday, and she had Fred Pearce on, an environmentalist who wrote a book entitled "When the Rivers Run Dry". http://www.npr.org/templa...Id=5303396

Fascinating stuff - one thing he mentioned sticks out to me: he was talking about the water use involved in raising livestock, including the irrigation of the crops fed to the animals, the water the animals consume themselves, and the water used to in the slaughter process. he said that it takes 500 gallons of water to produce one gallon of milk. we need to be aware of the impact our everyday lives have on the environment (and don't even let me get into labor law violations in the meat processing industry, illnesses from meat and other animal products, the leather processing chemicals polluting our rivers... argh!)...

anyway, i hope NPP has found some interesting answers to her questions on this thread!

I like your signature..and I think that´s the bottomline of it all, when you think about it.

More compassion and love, in a universal sense, not the selfish sense, would help a lot.

I mean there are numerous ways to reduce the problems mentioned by you, and it´s not just some utopian dreams but real concepts, whether it be overpopulation, need for water, starving people, energy resources or whatever.

If people were less greedy and more compassionate on a global level, thinks would look different.

I read an article in the German PM magazine the other day where scientists presented serious solutions to most of the problems mentioned in your post.

( There are even ways to produce artificial meat by using a meat sample and using it as a starter... ...to breed and cultivate meat like some sort of plant.)

Being concerned is one thing, being too pessimistic another, and being naive or ignorant is what most people prefer. Without wanting to sound too gullible or naive, I really, strongly believe that one day all these problems and many other challenges will be solved if we could make use of our brain, hearts and sanity.

Whether our generation will witness it is another story, maybe mankind needs more disasters before it wakes up and realizes its true potential.

IrresistibleB1tch said:

NPP found out WAAAAAY more than she thought she would


but, she still cant give up the cheese

IrresistibleB1tch said:

Water is a big issue facing SE England at the moment, and I think the point you rais is significant but how much water would be required to grow and process soya beans to yield the same quantity of protein as say a glass of milk or a ham sandwich.

Just to be argumentative, you understand

Who the hell eats a bacon egg and cheese sandwich for breakfast?

I ate no animals for breakfast
I had no time for lunch
I will probably eat tomato and basil pasta for dinner

I ate no animals today

Shit.....milk in my coffee - 2 cows

KoolEaze said:

Did you see my comment on fish?

"Kooleaze what specifically is offered within fish that you supposedly benefit from? For they contain nothing that isn't already found in plant matter. If it's the much publicised omega oils then they are in nuts and seeds as well as olive and sunflower oils what have you. It's worth always looking at these things purely scientifically."

SpecialEd said:

I´ve just lost a reeeeal long reply to your question, I ´m at the same time preparing myself for an important exam tomorrow, so please be a bit patient.


Maybe I´ll post it again later if I can recollect all the info again, and perhaps you also want to check out my previous posts further above.
Of course you are right when it comes to nutrients alone, believe me, I was also in a strictly vegetarian state of mind up until I added fish to my diet again ( just like singer Kate Bush after almost twenty years as a vegetarian, wonder why)..

To make it short, I read something from vegetarian Shaolin monks while studying the pros and cons of tofu, then I saw this interview with a famous , supposedly vegetarian chef and owner of a macrobiotic restaurant in Hamburg/Germany, then my personal experience and experimenting, then the factor stress and time, and the incident I mentioned further above to illustrate my worries ( that singer Imentioned, how she kept forgetting her lyrics, Prince forgetting his lyrics eversince he became vegan etc.)

I really don´t want this to turn into a heated argument because of ideologies, as I said before, I pretty much agree with most of the points and concerns of the vegetarians on this site.

Hope this helps for now, I might give you a real answer a bit later , OK ?

I´ll stay logged in and get back to this if I can find the time, but I´m very busy over here.

That´s it , in a nutshell...too bad the other reply got lost...was very long, ran out of time, happens quite often here.

KoolEaze said:

PS: forgot to mention, the vegetarian/macrobiotic chef admitted that he does indeed eat fish at least twice a month for health reasons, long story, but was very insightful, just like the points made by the Shaolin monks....there´s a reason for my scepticism....will get back to this later, OK?

KoolEaze said:

excellent points!

by the way, i just realized the other day that you're German. i grew up in Kassel and moved to the States when i was 20.

do you happen to have a link to the article you mentioned?

PREDOMINANT said:

actually, a great percentage of soy crops is fed to livestock - so the higher one eats on the food chain, the more water one consumes.

congrats on your flesh-free day! try some soy milk in your coffee tomorrow!

p.s. - bacon-egg-and-cheese biscuits (biscuits in the US sense, not cookies - not that i'm sure that that would be any less gross! ) are a Southern breakfast staple. go figure!
[Edited 3/28/06 9:54am]

IrresistibleB1tch said:

Hi !

Whether I am German or not lies in the eye of the beholder

But I was born here and I´m a citizen, but unfortunately not by birth...the immigration policies in the 1970s-1980´s were a bit humiliating and unrealistic, but it´s much better now. My parents came here in 1969/70 ( Germany called them, by the way).

Anyway, I don´t have a weblink, but it was in PM Magazin-Welt des Wissens, Ausgabe September 2005, 3 Euros...they have quite a lot of scientific articles , mostly wellbalanced and less pessimistic than the average magazines...the authors are often scientists themselves, so therefore not very emotional, less panicky and very matter-of-fact.


Kassel.....I´ve been to Kassel two times during the Documenta art exhibition.

KoolEaze said:

cool, i understand - i had a lot of Turkish friends growing up, so i have an idea...

thanks for the info on PM Magazin, i'll see what i can find.

i was in Kassel for the last Documenta, but we ended up not seeing much since the tickets were just outrageously expensive. but i love the vibe the festival brings to town!

nakedpianoplayer said:

that's cool - she's making an informed decision, which is great!

KoolEaze said:

Sure. I don't really understand your overall point though because mathematical facts are that fish contains no unique nutrients unavailable from plant based diet. As long as you do a little research yourself, shaolin monks and macrobiotic chefs could all eliminate fish from their diets without any loss in nutrients.

As for Prince suffering memory loss on going vegan that sounds tenuous at best. More likely he was introducing older 80s songs after only playing modern material during the symbol era and needed refreshers course. The man has a lot of songs lest we forget. Not that I can remember any of them.