Rational case for Vegetarianism/Veganism?

[ponderingturtle]

From: The Paleolithic Diet and Its Modern Implications, An Interview with Loren Cordain:

I would question many of its assertions.

I don't think you can say that there is a specific diet for hunter gatherors. Because the diet you could have in the amazon vs the artic is so divergent as to be meaningless.

And this mistakes the idea that the diet people evolved on is in some way the best.

It also ignores relative populations.

 

[robinson]

I agree with the turtle.

Speaking of, extinction of species is a good reason to stop eating some animals.

 

[Herzblut]

I don't think you can say that there is a specific diet for hunter gatherors. Because the diet you could have in the amazon vs the artic is so divergent as to be meaningless.

Not really. I see two common aspects

1. Diat includes meat.
2. Diat excludes cereal grains.

 

[Roboramma]

I would question many of its assertions.

I don't think you can say that there is a specific diet for hunter gatherors. Because the diet you could have in the amazon vs the artic is so divergent as to be meaningless.

Good point. I do think, though, that it's likely that for most of our evolution, there are some things that we can say about diet, and that the selection pressures applied during those times, and thus the adaptations that arose from them, have not been swamped by post-agricultural changes (though these certainly have had some effect - see lactose tolerance, for instance).

I don't know that the authors mentioned have done so, however.

And this mistakes the idea that the diet people evolved on is in some way the best.

Agreed - for instance, increasing caloric intake to a minor degree over that present through much of our evolution is almost certainly better for health (say 5-10%).
Not going through periods of abundance followed by periods of near starvation is another thing that's probably good - yet such a rythm is typical of hunter-gatherers.

Nevertheless, I think that there are things to learn about how the human body functions in relation to diet by looking at the environment in which it evolved. Trying to mymic that environment, on the other hand, seems like a bad idea to me.

 

[Herzblut]

Wrong. Most Americans and Europeans several times more protein than they need. Protein is not a problem.

So, what's no problem for the rich, is no problem. Like Kwashiorkor. Very interesting standpoint, indeed.

A vegan diet is not contraindicated for growing children, it simply requires more effort to ensure proper nutrition.

A vegan diet is contraindicated for growing children.

And looking at American and Australian children, it's obviously that very few of them are eating anywhere near a healthy diet.

And looking at African and Asian children? Only if you don't mind to look away from the rich and beautiful for a moment, of course.

 

[Segnosaur]

All of us posters here who do eat meat should be willing to sponsor a vegetarian...

What does it mean to sponsor a vegetarian? It means that you have to find someone in your life who's a really big pain in everyone's *ss every time you want to go out to eat, and then you commit yourself to eating THREE times the amount of meat you'd normally consume to make up for all the meat that your vegetarian buddy isn't eating.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sponsor

 

[Roboramma]

All of us posters here who do eat meat should be willing to sponsor a vegetarian...

What does it mean to sponsor a vegetarian? It means that you have to find someone in your life who's a really big pain in everyone's *ss every time you want to go out to eat, and then you commit yourself to eating THREE times the amount of meat you'd normally consume to make up for all the meat that your vegetarian buddy isn't eating.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sponsor

Why?

 

[robinson]

Same reason you should drive extra miles to make up for those idiots riding bikes and walking and stuff.

 

[fishkr]

And @ fishkr and Hokulele: YES! Let's do a barbecue. That would be a lot of fun. I live so far out in the country, and have enough land, that we could do it here and never bother anyone, no matter how hard we tried.

Sounds extremely good. So you're inviting us to N.M? Can we, in turn invite selected friends from Jreff? Or forgo "selection" in favor of natural selection? Make it an open invitation, then . . . when the time comes for culling the herd . . . I hope Plumjam is on hand.

We shouldn't do it on a date that would compete with Burning Man though. Just a suggestion.

M

 

[fishkr]

And regarding the PETA nonesense, I invite anyone informed on the processes involved in the monoculture of vegatables to name a crop that can be grown, harvested, processed and consumed without the rampant killing of animals.

You can't, unless you are farming by hand, using no pesticides or fertilizers, displacing no wildlife, driving no vehicles or using motorized impliments. Probably not even then. While one may delude one's self into thinking no animals are killed for tofu, this is simply not the case. You may not be ingesting meat but you are still slaughtering fauna to put tofu on your table.

 

[fishkr]

sorry another double post

 

[trvlr2]

As to the topic, it is quite rational to not waste resources (which includes money) on feeding crops to animals then eating them. But most people don't base their choice of diet on rational reasons.

If we went by science and reason, meat would be avoided because of the increase in health risk associated with it.

If we went by science and reason, we would control our population.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

And regarding the PETA nonesense, I invite anyone informed on the processes involved in the monoculture of vegatables to name a crop that can be grown, harvested, processed and consumed without the rampant killing of animals.

You can't, unless you are farming by hand, using no pesticides or fertilizers, displacing no wildlife, driving no vehicles or using motorized impliments. Probably not even then. While one may delude one's self into thinking no animals are killed for tofu, this is simply not the case. You may not be ingesting meat but you are still slaughtering fauna to put tofu on your table.

Eh, I've never considered that to convincing.

I mean, from an ethical point, look at it utilitarianly (Yay for making up words!).

You are killing a lot less animals than you would from meat eating, and you are not raising a large number of animals in cages to suffer just to slaughter and waste resources.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

If we went by science and reason, we would control our population.

That is a rather different topic if you are referring to government mandates like China.

And a lot of people do try to control the population in their own personal way .

 

[trvlr2]

TB - No gummint intervention!
What I thought I was responding to,was the concept of individuals applying moral precepts to their reproductive behavior.
Having a whole lot fewer people here, makes this discussion wholly propositional.
Underlying global warming, starvation, deforestation, etc., is a large population of H. Sapiens?.

TB-"And a lot of people do try to control the population in their own personal way ."
Does this mean that you are a cereal killer?

 

[bokonon]

I think that eating meat is what nature intended for us, don't believe that animals- who regularly kill and consume each other- should be treated as being above the food chain and love food too much to give up half to two-thirds of it.

I don't think chickens, turkeys, cows, or pigs regularly kill and consume each other. Maybe you could make a case for fish...

I'm not a vegetarian, but the quest for more fiber and fewer calories means there is less meat and more plant products in my diet these days.

 

[robinson]

If we went by science and reason, we would control our population.

Not really. Having lots of offspring is better for survival than having one or two kids.

 

[Roboramma]

Not really. Having lots of offspring is better for survival than having one or two kids.

Not necessarily.

And what's survival got to do with how many children we should have?

 

[robinson]

In many countries, children still die with startling regularity. Having lots of them ensures some will survive. It also benefits the parents (and extended family) because in some countries children still take care of their parents, as well as each other.

Having lots of siblings is a survival trait. Even in industrial countries large families have an advantage, and not just for pure survival reasons.

 

[robinson]

Getting back to the topic, is a diet of mostly plant products rational for a large family?

If food is scarce, and there are many mouths to feed, what is the best use of limited resources of time, energy, and most importantly, land and water?

Could a country like India ever reach the population it has without a vegetarian diet? Or China? Both cultures depend on rice, not beef and pigs and chickens and maybe lamb. If you have a rice paddy to support your family, does it make any sense to try to raise cattle or pigs to feed everyone? I don't think it can even be done.

Animals, especially cattle, take a lot of land and water to raise. If resources are scarce, or just land is limited, eating dead animals makes little sense. Especially if you need the buffalo to pull the plow.