THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT

Technically, evolution-wise, we are NOT more evolved than any other animal. Intelligence is a very positive adaptation, but it's no better than any other adaptation, it only gives us the benefit of sentience. Evolution doesn't notice whether we can acknowledge ourselves. It only notices what is successful, and what is not. The only separation between higher and lower forms in evolution is single-celled and multi-celled organisms.

Now, onwards. I honestly believe that SolSkye is out of line here. We're omnivorous, not carnivorous, and due to the benefits of intelligence, we have the ability, and therefore the responsibility, to choose whether we want to eat meat or not. We are very different from hyenas in this respect.

Also, the appendix was likely NOT used to digest bone. The esophagus and small intestine would be incredibly susceptible to injury from sharp protrustions. It's more commonly hypothesized that it was not for digesting bone, but red meat. We still abstained from eating bones, but we didn't have the ability to cook meat, so the appendix handled the raw meat. Still, it's only hypothesis, so it could be proved either way, or more likely neither at all.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwendolyn


Anyway, I hope that you understand that I am not trying to attack you or your personal preferences. I think that whatever you choose to do with your life is cool. I'm not opposed to vegetarians. I just don't think we should all have to become vegans. It's a matter of preference.

---

Did you read my posts? That's EXACTLY what I said. We DON'T all have to become vegans. It IS a matter of choice. I'd just like the process to change, and for the people who CAN go without meat, good for them. Right? So you and I agree but don't realize it! ;)

And don't worry, nothing taken personally :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SolSkye
If you must have a bleeding heart for some animals than why not turn that energy towards something more realistic like, deforestation or something?

---

Why do you think that support for multiple causes in the pursuit of the ethical treatment of all life forms and the protection of our planet and its natural resources is somehow forbidden? These causes are certainly not mutually exclusive but rather, as has already been out, are all generally founded upon a global perspective and awareness and for that reason, people who possess such an informed worldview are often involved in more than one. When someone says, “I support the ethical treatment of animals,” one cannot rightfully assume that they mean, “I support the ethical treatment of animals and don’t give a damn about deforestation, mass extinction, increasing pollution, habitat destruction, or global warming.”

Now, while I don't share Tolin's support of PETA and their often extreme and questionable methods of addressing the problems of animal cruelty, the way in which agribusiness treats animals raised for mass-consumption is truly despicable and not a worthy product of the human intellect. Of course, the way in which agribusiness treats its foreign workers who live in tent cities and use pesticide and fertilizer bags with holes punched in them as showers is also truly despicable. They are indicative of the same socio-economic philosophical malady – the existence of one does not negate the other, just as the prevalence of animal cruelty does not negate the importance of protecting this planet’s forested regions. The very opposite is true.

These are not distinct, isolated issues, and to see them as such is to perpetuate the destructive and dominant (although perhaps, hopefully this is starting to change) belief of our times that major alterations caused by human actions in the chaotically-linked system which is the global ecosystem and planetary dynamics can be contained and treated individually. They can't. Everything is linked – through damping mechanisms and feedback loops and nonlinear relationships – nothing in this world is isolated. Touch one and you touch them all.

(I've been getting this zoned-out, disconnected, floaty, swaying sensation for about the past hour that's made it a bit hard to concentrate, so I hope to hell that when I read this post in the morning, it still makes sense. If it doesn't, I'll fix it then.)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwendolyn


...I don't like to indulge myself in useless feelings of self importance. :wink:

---

And PS - it's not about self-importance. It's just about recognizing how evolved human beings are and what we're capable of. We've come a long way and done incredible things, there is a huge difference between us and animals. BUT, on the other hand I do think we are all animals with animal insticts, etc like you said, but I don't think that means we need to dismiss where our evolutionary path has taken us.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Peregrinus

...I've been getting this zoned-out, disconnected, floaty, swaying sensation for about the past hour that's made it a bit hard to concentrate, so I hope to hell that when I read this post in the morning, it still makes sense. If it doesn't, I'll fix it then.)

---

Don't worry, makes perfect sense.

Ack! We AREN'T different from animals evolution-wise!

Socially? Yes.
Differing in intelligent? Yes.
Differing in evolution? NO!

Evolution-wise, humans are just very bald, scrawny, intelligent APES.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tsen
Ack! We AREN'T different from animals evolution-wise!

Socially? Yes.
Differing in intelligent? Yes.
Differing in evolution? NO!

Evolution-wise, humans are just very bald, scrawny, intelligent APES.

---

But we evolved differently is what I'm saying. Our intelligence is different BECAUSE of evolution.

Yes. And I agree, we have the responsibility that comes with sentience, including the responsibility of considering the well-being and happiness of other races.

But we aren't MORE evolved, we're only differently evolved.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tsen
Yes. And I agree, we have the responsibility that comes with sentience, including the responsibility of considering the well-being and happiness of other races.

But we aren't MORE evolved, we're only differently evolved.

---

Isn't that the same thing?

Not at all. A rabbit and a human are equally adapted: Both fit well into the environment, and neither are in danger of extinction. Complexity and evolution are different things: Evolution tends to further complexity over time, but higher complexity does not necessarily entail higher evolution.

Quote:

---

I forget where I heard this, but I heard that our appendix was initially used to digest bone in a time where we ate the entire animal down to the marrow. MMM, sounds delicious.

Humans were meant to be omnivorous, period.[/b]

---

humans weren't "meant" to be anything as far as i can see. you would likely be irritated and call a veg*an on it if they said "humans were meant to be herbivores". if so, don't be a hypocrite. there are healthy omnivores and healthy vegans.

humans are have been shaped by evolution in such a way that they require certain elements in their diet. not one of which cannot be derived from plants.

Quote:

---

and while it tries to play to the bleeding heart of people with some gross moments (like the balls being cut off) I fail to see anything particularly wrong with what they were doing. I'm not quite sure how you expect animals that are bred to be food to be treated, anyway?[/b]

---

well hey, lets start breeding people for use as slaves again. i mean, what do those dumb niggers and nigger lovers expect for animals that are bred for exploitation anyways?

(i am not implying you are a racist, or endorse human slavery, merely showing how that same line of argument was used in the past. essentially it is the exact same reasoning, except non-human slaves are justified instead of human slaves. it is slavery either way..)

Quote:

---

Not only that, but you said 'cows/pigs/chickens lives are equal to human life and if one doesn't care for the animals they must not care for human suffering'?! [/b]

---

who said this? i cannot find it when i skim the posts.

Quote:

---

If you must have a bleeding heart for some animals than why not turn that energy towards something more realistic like, deforestation or something?[/b]

---

a main cause of deforestation is to clear grazing/crop land which is used to feed cattle which end up in western fast food outlets.


i find it interesting how some who defend the omnivore lifestyle as emphatically as others defend the vegan lifestyle invariably must resort to the past for justification..

"well, early humanity hunted out of neccessity"
"hey, animals have been domesticated for thousands of years..its one of the reasons we've made it this far as a race"
"there weren't any plant based supplements available in ancient times, and people would have gotten sick without meat"
and so on...

yeah, killing animals for food was neccessary in the past.

it no longer is. anyone who says so is ignorant, plain and simple.

i have no beef (pun intended :wink: ) with someone who fully accepts the fact their meat-eating is unneccessary and purely for pleasure.

but those who try to justify it as "natural", or "neccessary", or "healthier" are plain deluded.

namaste.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tsen
... Evolution tends to further complexity over time, but higher complexity does not necessarily entail higher evolution.

---

I don't get that at all. That makes no sense. What is your definition of evolution?

Evolution isn't a sentient entity.

Evolution is the idea that successful genes, those that enable survival and reproduction or enhance said functions, will succeed and eventually become plentiful. Simultaneously, 'weak' genes, that inhibit a creature's ability to survive and reproduce will see a net decrease in the gene pool. Survival and reproduction can be benefitted by intelligence, but they aren't completely reliant on it.
While sentience, and intelligence in general, is a very good adaptation (MASSIVELY increased our capability to survive alternating conditions), it is only that: a very good adaptation.
To say that sentience is a 'higher' form of evolution would imply that sentience is now, or will soon, be omnipresent in all living beings. It isn't so: A creature that isn't sentient can survive perfectly fine, for example, the rabbit. Even bacteria are quite capable of surviving and reproducing, though they don't even have brains, nerve cells, etc.

[quote]

Quote:

---

....

but those who try to justify it as "natural", or "neccessary", or "healthier" are plain deluded.

namaste.

---

Well, I would say uneducated or unaware. I know it's hard to stay positive, but I think it's important not to start attacking people because of lack of awareness or knowledge.

Tsen - I'll have to reply another day, I got sucked into this debate and now it's 10pm and I still haven't had dinner.

Back soon

Sorry if my posts aren't making much sense. It's hard to sum up shortly...
Here's a quote that might help, though it's pretty far from layman's terms.

Quote:

---

Natural selection occurs when individuals differ in reproductive output for functional reasons, i.e., when differences in reproduction follow from the fact that individuals differ from each other in their ability to tackle the challenges posed by their internal biology and by the biological and physical environment. This ability is a function of the physical structures (traits) of life forms and of how these structures affect their ability to tackle the aforementioned challenges.

Natural selection results in adaptive evolution when traits that enhance organismic abilities and thus the reproductive output of individuals that display them, are heritable. Such traits should become more frequent over the generations.[/b]

---

As for Wombing's quote, "but those who try to justify it as "natural", or "neccessary", or "healthier" are plain deluded. "

It's partially correct, partially incorrect.

Meat in humankind's diet IS natural. Very much so. We've been omnivorous for several million years of evolution. Omnivorous diets include meat, and humans have an inborn tendency, and a NEED for meat. BUT, because of sentience and intelligence, we have the ability to compensate for the nutrients in meat without eating meat. With knowledge, we found that by eating balanced amounts of different vegetables and fruits, we can make up for a lack of meat. That doesn't make eating meat unnatural, it just makes it unnecessary.
In that respect, you are correct. Eating meat is not necessary, though it is undeniably beneficial to an average person, since it provides a multitude of nutrients in a very small amount of food, nutrients that are compensateable only by eating two or more types of veg*an food. So not necessary, but easier. And it IS healthier to eat a balanced and conservative amount of meat and dairy with fruits and vegetables, though the benefit in health can be matched through a careful veg*an diet.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SolSkye


Humans were meant to be omnivorous, period.

---

Well, before Man became Man... before Homo Sapien... our predecssors may have been fruit and leaf eaters, but whatever forced them out of the Trees and onto the plains and into the grass-lands turned Humanity, or what would become Humanity, into omnivors.

Particularly to be mentions is our Symbiotic Species, the Dog. Many an anthropologist has put forth the notion that dogs came to us as scavengers, and that we tolerated dogs at our garbage piles. However, the Truth is probably that we were the one's who scavenged on what the dogs were able to kill. Dogs in a pack are so much more efficient killers then are men, that it was inexplicable that any intelligent Anthropologist would figure that the strong end of the Symbiotic Bargain was not the Dog. Man must have made himself useful as a Spotter. Standing on his hind legs the Man could see over the grass and spot far off Game out of the scent range of the Dog. Using Vocalizations, Man learned to entice the Dog to the Game he could more easily spot. Indeed, Language Skill probably first started out not as a means to communication with each other, but as a means of giving cues to a Species that necessarily had to be kept at some distance. We can see that Ages and Monkeys have no need of language to communicate with each other, as hand and face signaling conveys all necessary meaning. But dogs needed to be shouted at from a distance.

Then it is instructive that People Food and Dog Food are so similar.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kichu


Did you read my posts? That's EXACTLY what I said. We DON'T all have to become vegans. It IS a matter of choice. I'd just like the process to change, and for the people who CAN go without meat, good for them. Right? So you and I agree but don't realize it! ;)

And don't worry, nothing taken personally :)

---

I did read them. LOL. Sometimes I have a habit of reiterating the obvious. :P

And I do agree with you guys in the sense that the torture of animals unnecessarily is completely wrong.

Next time you post a topic , give a descriptive title that doesn't stink of bigotry.

My [subjective!] stance on animal rights is that humans are the 'special' superior species and inherited the world and all lower life forms from God; whilst we must still respect our Father, I believe that we may do as we desire to the world and it's other animals. So: I'm saying that I think animals deserve no rights whatsoever because they are not human.

P.S. Regarding evolution, I think that it served entirely as a process to create the human being, so it was sentient/intelligent in some regard, perhaps intelligent on a macro-scale even though the individual mechanisms are chaotic. I certainly don't disregard evolution or that evolution is ongoing, but I do think that humanity, or at least a superset of humanity, is as far as the process will go in terms of refinement. Ok I'm sounding like a nutter now so I'll stop but animal rights shouldn't need to exist in my opinion.

P. P. S.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Leo Volont
Then it is instructive that People Food and Dog Food are so similar.

---

Haha... pure gold. I'm beginning to wander what you eat / feed your dog :P

P.P.P.S. Removed 'flame', point taken (but I really don't like this topic's title)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Identity X
Next time you post a topic (I prefer you didn't), give a descriptive title that doesn't stink of bigotry, you hippie bastard.

---

Please try to refrain from calling people unnecessary names. Respect the opinions of others, even if you don't agree with them. This is a civilized conversation, and it needs to remain so. If you don't think animals deserve rights, that's alright. But if you flame, it's not acceptable.

You seem to be making the assumption that humans are the end of evolution. Just because we're on top doesn't mean we're more evolved. Unless I'm mistaken sharks and alligators are more evolved than us because they've been adapting to the same niche for an extra eon.

Anyway, if you're concerned about animals then vegitarianism isn't the most effective course of action. Remember passenger pigeons? You used to be able to shoot passenger pigeons until you were blue in the face and they'd still thrive. Once we destroyed their habitats, however, they disappeared off the face of the earth.

What I'm saying is that if you value the lives of animals, you should buy some rainforest land and join the fight to end our destruction of wild habitats. The cows that I eat come from farms, not from the wild, and so my eating less cow won't affect the wellbeing of the species I'm trying to help, it'll only save one mass-produced cow from dying. If I ate vegetables instead, it would still take just as much farmland to feed me as it would if I ate cow. It's the expansion of farmland and the reduction of wild terrirory that is the true threat to nature.

your critique of my statement was a apt tsen. i was speaking of those who designate the omnivorous diet as "natural" with "natural" used in an exclusive sense.

Quote:

---

If I ate vegetables instead, it would still take just as much farmland to feed me as it would if I ate cow. It's the expansion of farmland and the reduction of wild terrirory that is the true threat to nature.[/b]

---

actually, this is a common misconception. the biological process of the "energy pyramid" dictates that only about 10% of ingested food becomes part of an animals flesh and bone, the other 90% being lost mostly through heat.

what this means most simply is that growing food, feeding it to cattle (or sheep, pigs,etc), and then eating those animals is very inefficient compared to growing high protein legumes and grains on that same parcel of land and consuming those directly.

the main reason we are constantly extending farmland is to grow food for the hundreds of millions of animals which inefficiently utilize it to produce meat for the first world. this is particularly evident and documented in latin america.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Agri...re_Organization

the above link briefly describes the FOA's mandate through the uniited nations.

various studies conducted by the FOA and similar organizations show it takes hundreds of time more water, more energy imput (and thus grazing land), and often more human labour to produce meat. as well more fossil fuel is needed for transport.

an excerpt from the "environmental vegetarianism" article on wikipedia

Quote:

---

Animals fed on grain and those which rely on grazing need more water than grain crops [2]. According to the USDA, growing crops for farm animals requires nearly half of the U.S. water supply and 80% of its agricultural land. Animals raised for food in the U.S. consume 90% of the soy crop, 80% of the corn crop, and 70% of its grain. [3]. In tracking food animal production from the feed trough to the dinner table, the inefficiencies of meat, milk and egg production range from a 4:1 energy input to protein output ratio up to 54:1. [4] The result is that producing animal-based food is typically much less efficient than the harvesting of grains, vegetables, legumes, seeds and fruits, though this might not be largely true for animal husbandry in the developing world where factory farming is almost non existent making animal based food much more sustainable.[/b]

---

eating meat can be sustainable, just not at the present levels of consumption common in the first world.

the most conservative, widely accepted studies show that 8 vegans can healthfully live off of the same amount of land required by one omnivore. other studies put this number closer to 20.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kichu
What is your definition of evolution?

---

Evolution is the genotypic and phenotypic result of the process of natural selection.

<=== pwned :oops:

The diet of a human being naturally requires a balance between meat and veggies (I'm oversimplifying). Although I agree animals are kept in horrible tortuous situations, you don't just stop eating meat. I mean, that's ridiculous. If neccessary, buy your meat from organic farms you know or sheesh, go hunting yourself.

Most of these "vegans" don't think twice about smooshing cockroaches but I'm cruel for enjoying a steak? Damnit.

In Switzerland, where my family buys most of the meat we eat, battery farms are ILLEGAL. Farmers raise their cows, pigs and sheep with the utmost care and then humanely kill them. People say "well it's still a life taken". Well.. would you rather live an enjoyable life until you're 20 and be killed or would you rather be killed after a tortuous life? Yeah, thought so.

And I agree that people are morons for focusing only on problems with animal cruelty rather than on HUMANITY. We have many problems, folks, and we should be dealing with them. As harsh as it is, we come before cows on the food chain.