Mountainvegan, here are some more quotes from the Scientific American article that I mentioned in another thread:

"Fossils, too, indicate that improvements to dietary quality accompanied evolutionary brain growth. All australopithecines had skeletal and dental features built for processing tough, low-quality plant foods. The later, robust australopithecines-- a dead-end branch of the human family tree that lived alongside members of our own genus-- had especially pronounced adaptations for grinding up fibrous plant foods, including massive, dish-shaped faces; heavily built mandibles; ridges, or sagittal crests, atop the skull for the attachment of powerful chewing muscles; and huge, thickly enameled molar teeth. (This is not to say that australopithecines never ate meat. They almost certainly did on occasion, just as chimps do today.) In contrast, early members of the genus Homo, which descended from the gracile australopithecines, had much smaller faces, more delicate jaws, smaller molars and no sagittal crests-- despite being far larger in terms of overall body size than their predecessors. Together these features suggest that early Homo was consuming less plant material and more animal foods.”

and "These changes in diet and foraging behavior did not turn our ancestors into strict carnivores; however, the addition of modest amounts of animal foods to the menu, combined with the sharing of resources that is typical of hunter-gatherer groups, would have significantly increased the quality and stability of hominid diets. Improved dietary quality alone cannot explain why hominid brains grew, but it appears to have played a critical role in enabling that change. After the initial spurt in brain growth, diet and brain expansion probably interacted synergistically: bigger brains produced more complex social behavior, which led to further shifts in foraging tactics and improved diet, which in turn fostered additional brain evolution."

So I would be interested in your references to show that my comment "when our ancestors started eating meat it went straight to our heads" incorrect and unscientific.

I would also be interested in how your diet makes you morally superior. And who you believe it makes your suprior to. Thanks...

But what is your point? That only meat eating can produce large brains? (i.e. vegan kids will have much smaller brains than omni kids?)

Or that meat played a role in our development? That may very well be the case, because hunting required thinking. But clearly, there were other things too that made us think: building shelter, culture, social interactions that got more and more complex.

And anyway, does it really matter? We're here and now, and we can think about and decide what we do. Meat does have nutritional value, and can improve a very poor diet. But we now can choose what we eat (at least we in developed nations), and there are nutritionally better choices available than meat (which is packed with cholesterol and saturated fat). Meat might have improved the diet of our ancestors (because their diet was very poor), but today, meat seems to be a bad choice in terms of health.

Is your justification for getting 60% of your calories from animal products (if you eat the SAD), that "modest amounts" of animal products, (along with other important changes, as pointed out by your quote!) helped to improve the diet of our ancestors a couple of million years ago?

What does one thing have to do with the other?

There were many things and behaviors in our development that were instrumental at the time, but were later recognized as bad and undesirable by us (such as aggression).

What is the point you are trying to make?

Stated by cac: "Scientists say when our ancestors started eating meat it went right to their heads. Our brains got bigger, our stomachs got smaller."

This statement alone (which is the only statement my previous comments were directed at) implies that eating meat makes your brain bigger. If that were the case, lions and tigers would have huge brains. I do not accept that eating meat makes your brain any bigger than eating a well balanced veg*n diet. In fact, eating meat, from everything I have read, is unhealthy in every respect compared to a well balanced veg* diet.

I am morally superior as a vegan to myself when I was an omni (about 1.5 years ago). It is also true that with respect to diet and the exploitation of animals only, any vegan is morally superior to any omni. This does not mean or imply that vegans are morally superior in other ways, just in ways related to the exploitation of animals.

Why? Before I waste my time in a long post, have you read any moral philosophy as applied to animal rights? If so, please state what. If you have read Tom Regan, Carl Cohen, or other philosophers involved in this topic, we can save a lot of time by getting to specific philosophical points. FYI, I have read a lot in this area, so if you have, please state your specific points against animal rights and I would be glad to respond.

cac-What does it matter what our ancestors ate?

cac-What does it matter what our ancestors ate?

One could just as easily ask what does it matter what anyone currently eats?

[/QUOTE]and there are nutritionally better choices available than meat (which is packed with cholesterol and saturated fat). [QUOTE]

Not all meat is packed with cholesterol and saturated fat.
Why make a blanket statement like that? :stinkeye:

There are good reasons people do not want other people to eat animals. This is a post of mine from another thread. Carl Cohen is the best philosopher the anti-AR side has, but he falls short of providing good reasons why we should not give animals the right not to be exploited.

Btw, if anyone is interested, there is a book called The Animal Rights Debate by Tom Regan and Carl Cohen. I'm sure many here are familiar with both, especially Tom Regan. They are both professional philosophers. Carl Cohen takes the anti-AR side and Tom Regan takes the AR side. I have not read the book but have read both authors and it is very unlikely that either one would bring emotionally difficult material to the debate. I would highly recommend this book, if only because both authors are good at logical debate and it would help anyone who has not studied the best reasons on both sides to at least be aware of the best reasons.

This is a review of that book (courtesy of Sevenseas*):

http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nobis/papers/Cohen_and_Regan_review.html

I have read enough of both Regan and Cohen to discuss specific issues about their debate. I maintain, based on Regan's argument, that it is morally wrong to eat animals. Further, I maintain that Cohen's speciesist argument is arbitrary and therefore invalid. We have good reason to accept Regan's argument and reject Cohen's.

*As Sevenseas notes below, he initially introduced the link to VB, but did not write the review.

One could just as easily ask what does it matter what anyone currently eats?

and there are nutritionally better choices available than meat (which is packed with cholesterol and saturated fat).

Not all meat is packed with cholesterol and saturated fat.
Why make a blanket statement like that? :stinkeye:


WEll just to chime in wild game is lower in cholesterol than chicken, adn much higher is good cholestorol.
Last note is who realy cares neither group is better than the other, it is a choice a person freely makes, and to the extent to which they make that choice. the only fair law of the land is that we get to make choices and we all continue to make the choice that is best for us. i have lived my life ignoring those who i do not like, listening all those who have something to say, adn deriving conclusions, adn doing what I feel is best for me. A little understanding(not agreeing) goes along way.

This is a review of that book (courtesy of Sevenseas)

(Making sure that nobody misunderstands: I haven't written that review but found the link to it.)

The Animal Rights Debate (which I, unfortunately, haven't yet read, although it would be so much fun) is indeed a good introduction for the issue, for it's closer to directly responding (from Regan's side) to the questions a sceptical reader might have in mind.

(Btw, that Nobis page from which I have mentioned some links, truly is quite a treasure niche - there seems to be an essay even about contractualism, which I have to check out when I have time).

I also have to find and read the article against AR which claims that animals have the "'special right' to be 'the object of the culinary arts of Chinese and French chefs.'" (???). This is something which somebody, it seems, truly claims, and it has even been published.

(Sorry for off topic.)


To the main issue:
Like many times stated in this thread, what our ancestors have eaten is neither relevant nor meaningful nowadays. Same applies to current conditions in some native tribes, for example. Moral issues are I think universal in the way that they are not dependent on some specific conditions - no "Africa human rights", "hot temperature human rights", "war human rights" but an ideal of human rights which is applied in such and such circumstances. Similarly, animal rights are an ideal, a moral system, which should be applied as well as possible. Another issue is what is understandable. I don't think moral obligations change when someone has just lost a child and is therefore in a very emotional state, or when someone is just about to lose a child and can therefore demand very unjust sacrifices - rather, the way people in those conditions behave is perhaps understandable. What native peoples do and what our ancestors have done is much more understandable than what we in current Western societies do.

We have very probably learned and benefited a great deal also from slavery and various forms of human oppression, but does this mean we should reflect our "gratitude" by continuing that oppression? The answer should be a firm 'no'. Same applies to animal rights.

One could just as easily ask what does it matter what anyone currently eats?

Because one lives currently.


Not all meat is packed with cholesterol and saturated fat.
Why make a blanket statement like that? :stinkeye:

Oh yes, compared to plant foods. Or show me numbers and tables.

the only fair law of the land is that we get to make choices and we all continue to make the choice that is best for us.

So, if killing someone is a choice that is best for me, why is it against the law?

Because the majority of society believes it's not morally o.k. to kill a human but morally o.k. to kill an animal to eat. But it's morally not o.k. to kill an animal out of anger. It's morally o.k. to kill an animal for enjoyment (such as sport hunting). No wonder we are a confused, effed up society.

Because the majority of society believes it's not morally o.k. to kill a human but morally o.k. to kill an animal to eat. But it's morally not o.k. to kill an animal out of anger. It's morally o.k. to kill an animal for enjoyment (such as sport hunting). No wonder we are a confused, effed up society.

This is one of the things Gary Francione goes into in Introduction to Animal Rights. He calls it our society's moral schizophrenia. The gross inconsistencies between 1) what we say we think about animals and what we do to them and, 2) what we say is totally wrong in some cases, but okay in relevantly similar cases. Gary goes into many details that I will avoid here because of sensitivity on a public forum.

Because one lives currently.


That doesn't mean we can't and don't learn from the past.

Oh yes, compared to plant foods. Or show me numbers and tables.

He didn't compare it to plant food
He made a blanket statement.
Why modify the original statement?

Chicken Breast
(skinless) 120 1.5 g .5 g 24 g 70 mg

Calories , total fat, sat fat,protein, cholesterol

That doesn't mean we can't and don't learn from the past.

Sure. In this case, we can learn from the past that meat can improve an othervise very poor diet. This is all the lesson I see here and I don't see how it applies in any way to the diet of the average person in a developed nation today. It does not in any way justify meat consumption, certainly not in the amounts people are consuming it.





He didn't compare it to plant food
He made a blanket statement.
Why modify the original statement?



Chicken Breast
(skinless) 120 1.5 g .5 g 24 g 70 mg

Calories , total fat, sat fat,protein, cholesterol

Ahh chicken. Every meat eater's favorite health food (http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/GM00SpringSummer/GM00SpSum2.html)...

Yeah, chicken and mercury laden fish. :rolleyes:

Like humans ever learn.

One could just as easily ask what does it matter what anyone currently eats?
Well to be more specific, why does it matter in terms of veg*nism? Argument from tradition, evolution, ethics, health, what? How is it relevent to someone considering a veg*n diet for a) health reasons b)ethical reasons c)environmental reasons?

That doesn't mean we can't and don't learn from the past.



He didn't compare it to plant food
He made a blanket statement.
Why modify the original statement?

Chicken Breast
(skinless) 120 1.5 g .5 g 24 g 70 mg

Calories , total fat, sat fat,protein, cholesterol

here are some numbers that us omnis like to see...ah natural products
TABLE 1
BUFFALO VS. BEEF
(RANGE OF PROTEIN AND FAT, CONTENT BY CUT)
(Grams per 100 gram serving)

BEEF(a)
* Chuck, braised - lean + fat - 24.9 protein, 33.6 fat
* Chuck, braised - lean only - 30.7 protein, 18.6 fat
* Bottom round, braised - lean + fat - 29.5 protein, 16.4 fat
* Bottom round, braised - lean only - 31.8 protein, 9.75 fat
* Beef rib. roasted - lean + fat - 20.9 protein, 33.2 fat
* Beef rib, roasted - lean only - 25.3 protein, 17.3 fat
* Sirloin steak, broiled - lean + fat - 26.8 protein, 20.2 fat
* Sirloin steak, broiled - lean only - 30.1 protein, 9.98 fat
* Beef roast, eye of round, roasted - lean + fat - 26.2 protein, 14.5 fat
* Beef roast, eye of round, roasted - lean only - 28.3 protein, 6.89 fat
*


BUFFALO(b)
* Loin - 29.6 protein, 5.4 fat
* Neck - 34.4 protein, 2.7 fat
* Flank - 34.5 protein, 2.0 fat
* Round - 35.6 protein, 1.4 fat
* Brisket - 36.4 protein, 4.1 fat
* Front shank - 33.7 protein, 0.7 fat
* Neck hump - 33.9 protein, 3.4 fat
* Shoulder hump - 34.7 protein, 1.7 fat
* Shoulder - 34.2 protein, 0.8 fat


a) Unpublished data from United States Department of Agriculture study on the Nutritive Content of Beef, 1980; sample representative of US cattle population.

b) Unpublished data, Human Nutrition Information Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 1979; various cuts from 47 animals from Custer State Park (range/grain fed), oven roasted to internal temperature of 165 degrees F.*

TABLE II
CHOLESTEROL CONTENT OF BUFFALO VS BEEF

Cholesterol (milligrams per 100 gram serving)
BEEF (a)
* Chunk, lean only - 106
* Bottom round, lean only - 96
* Sirloin steak, lean only - 85
* Rib roast, lean only - 76
* Eye roast, lean only - 66
*


BUFFALO (b)
* Round roast/steak (c) - 40.3
* Hind shank - 45.5
* Loin, neck (composite) (d) - 38.6


a) Unpublished data from US Department of Agriculture Study on the Nutritive Content of Beef, 1980; sample representative of the US cattle population.
b) Unpublished data, Human Nutrition Information Service, US Department of Agriculture, 1979; Data are reported for grass/range fed animals and for partially finished animals (90 day partial grain fed).
c) Range/grass fed.
d) Partial grain-finished*

TABLE III
COMPARISON OF CHOLESTEROL CONTENT:
BUFFALO, BEEF, EXOTIC MEATS, POULTRY, AND FISH

Cholesterol (milligrams per 100 gram cooked serving)
CARIBOU (a) - 111
BEEF (lean only) (b)
* Chuck - 106
* Sirloin - 85
* Rib roast - 76
* Eye roast - 66

BEEF (lean + fat) (b)
* Chuck -103
* Sirloin - 87
* Rib roast - 82
* Eye Roast - 70

CHICKEN - Dark + light meat (c)
* -with skin, roasted - 88
* -without skin, roasted - 94
* Thigh, roasted - 93
* Breast, roasted without skin - 85

ELK (a) - 81
VENISON (a) - 77
FISH (a)
* Tuna, canned in oil, drained - 65
* Cod, broiled in margarine - 57

BUFFALO
* Round roast/steak - 40
* Loin, neck composite - 39


a) Unpublished data, human Nutrition Information Service, USDA, 1979
b) Unpublished data from USDA Study on the Nutritive Content of Beef, 1980; sample representative of the US cattle population.
c) USDA Handbook 8-5, Composition of Foods, Poultry Products, 1979.*
TABLE IV
THIAMINE CONTENT OF BUFFALO VS. BEEF

(Milligrams per 100 mg. edible portion)
BUFFALO (a)
* Front quarter (b) - 0.13
* hind quarter (c) - 0.15
* Neck + loin - 0.21

BEEF (d)
* Chuck, lean - 0.09
* Sirloin, lean - 0.13
* Rib Roast, lean - 0.11
* Eye roast, lean - 0.10


a) Unpublished data, Human Nutrition Information Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 1979
b) Composite of front locations, edible portions, 47 animals grass/range fed.
c) Composite of hind quarter locations, edible portions, 47 animals, grass/range fed.
d) Unpublished data from United States Department of Agriculture Study on Nutrition Content of Beef, 1980.*
BUFFALO MEAT
THE HEART HEALTHY RED MEAT
* Bison - 2.42 grams fat, 82 mgs cholesterol, 143 calories
* Beef, Broiled, top loin, USDA Choice - 9.4 grams fat, 76 mgs cholesterol, 207 calories
* Chicken, roasted, light meat, no skin - 4.5 grams fat, 85 mgs cholesterol, 173 calorie
*

(Above data: all the values shown are for 100 grams (about 3 1/2 ounces) cooked portion with visible fat removed. Sources: USDA Handbooks No. 8.5, 8.10, 8.13, 8.17" per Mayo Clinic Nutrition Letter November 1989, page 7.)

the link
http://bigskybuffalo.com/buff-fac.htm

So, if killing someone is a choice that is best for me, why is it against the law?
I just saw that you posted this for me sorry i took so long

To kill a human is leagal
a: when out numberd and in fear for your life yoou can and leagaly kill and incompasitate assaliants provide yoou use nomore force than deemed needed. Ie the rule of thumb when they retreat you can not pursue, if render unconsious you can not attack
b. Any intruder in your home

c. any person caught in the process of burning a barn, farm equipment or crops

d. any person cought poaching fishing nets or lovster traps
theere are a few more but I will leave it at that.

[QUOTE=mountainvegan]Stated by cac: "Scientists say when our ancestors started eating meat it went right to their heads. Our brains got bigger, our stomachs got smaller."

"This statement alone (which is the only statement my previous comments were directed at) implies that eating meat makes your brain bigger. "

No, my statement says WHEN OUR ANCESTORS STARTED EATING MEAT (my caps). I never said eating meat makes your brain bigger. That would be stupid. I'm not stupid. You said I didn't know what I was talking about when I typed that statement. Now you seem to agree that I did know what I was talking about.

"If that were the case, lions and tigers would have huge brains. I do not accept that eating meat makes your brain any bigger than eating a well balanced veg*n diet. In fact, eating meat, from everything I have read, is unhealthy in every respect compared to a well balanced veg* diet."

Obviously you didn't bother to read the article.

"I am morally superior as a vegan to myself when I was an omni (about 1.5 years ago). It is also true that with respect to diet and the exploitation of animals only, any vegan is morally superior to any omni. This does not mean or imply that vegans are morally superior in other ways, just in ways related to the exploitation of animals."

You may be morally suprior to yourself, but ANY vegan is not morally superior to any omni solely because of their diet. That's pretty funny. Especially because we know you use items every day that contain animal products. And most of those items are not necessary, comfortable, yes, but not necessary to life.

"Why? Before I waste my time in a long post, have you read any moral philosophy as applied to animal rights? If so, please state what. If you have read Tom Regan, Carl Cohen, or other philosophers involved in this topic, we can save a lot of time by getting to specific philosophical points. FYI, I have read a lot in this area, so if you have, please state your specific points against animal rights and I would be glad to respond."

The only rights an animal has are the rights their owners give them. And if those "rights" interfere with a human's rights, the legal system can take those "rights" away.

ANY vegan is not morally superior to any omni solely because of their diet.

That's right, because veganism is about more than diet. So we are morally superior because of our whole lifestyle.

Because the majority of society believes it's not morally o.k. to kill a human but morally o.k. to kill an animal to eat. But it's morally not o.k. to kill an animal out of anger. It's morally o.k. to kill an animal for enjoyment (such as sport hunting). No wonder we are a confused, effed up society.

I think you're confusing legal and moral. While most people (I'm in the US, so that's where my bias is) think it's immoral to kill another human except under very special circumstances, it is also illegal. Only a few people think it's morally wrong to kill animals and it's not illegal anywhere that I know of, IF THE ANIMAL IS THEIRS. And I've never seen anything legally forbidding killing an animal out of anger. Would you elighten me, please? BTW, personally, I don't think our society is "effed" up.

cac-What does it matter what our ancestors ate?

Do you want to learn anything as you go through life? I think it's interesting to learn about our ancestors, prehistoric and otherwise. Today you can eat whatever you want. Thousands, even millions of years ago, our ancestors were much more limited. What they ate then resulted in the body and mind you have today.

Only a few people think it's morally wrong to kill animals and it's not illegal anywhere that I know of, IF THE ANIMAL IS THEIRS.

Are you serious?? You are wrong, there are laws and moral concerns against killing animals.

It just depends on what kind of animal it is. Most people (surely most if not all who have pets and many others) think it's morally wrong to kill pets like dogs and cats. They would have a legal problem if they would kill their own pets and the police would learn of it (ever watch Animal Cops?).

But the same people have no problem eating the flesh of a pig, which is proven to have similar intelligence to a dog. Curiously, farm animals are exempt from animal welfare laws. They have no legal protection whatsoever.

Why this separation? Don't ask me - vegans surely didn't invent it. Neither did scientists, because it just doesn't make sense scientifically. Such "selectiveness" in the legal system is always the best sign that something is f****d up.

Well to be more specific, why does it matter in terms of veg*nism? Argument from tradition, evolution, ethics, health, what? How is it relevent to someone considering a veg*n diet for a) health reasons b)ethical reasons c)environmental reasons?

a) health reasons - we're seeing more and more obese people in the US, while people have been eating a high carb diet. Meat consumption had been going down in the US for probably 20 years, while diabetis and obesity has been going up. A vegan diet is not healthier than a well balanced diet that includes meat. Recent studies on the Atkins Diet show that, at least short term, it actually improves cholesterol levels, especially the good cholesterol. While I wouldn't recommend such a radical diet to anyone, thousands of people are currently losing weight on it. There is a large, long term study of the Atkins Diet being done by the NIH. We'll know in a few years if it is dangerous.

b) ethical reasons - everyone should live according to their ethics.

c) environmental reasons - most of the environmental reasons given by vegans for not eating meat have no basis in fact. Take, for instance, the claim that it takes 40 lbs of grain for one pound of beef gain in the feedlot. And that people are starving while we feed livestock. Both those claims are ridiculous. IMO, if a group has to lie to make their point, it's not likely a valid point.