Vegetarians and Vegans

[Nina]

It may well be the case that eating meat was part of our evolutionary history and without it we would not have gotten to this point, however that doesn't necessarily mean that it serves us (generally speaking) to continue eating it

 

[Deleted Member 1643]

For me, the maximum taste, almost like making love, is a escarol salad with tomatoes and onions.

Thought of this while making love to another of those heirloom tomatoes. Might have to grow these with the cannabis plant.

Do you ever get frisee endive?

I quite like the idea of being vegan but I also really like blue cheese

Same here. Do you like beer? Lambics (lactobacillus plus yeast fermentation) like Cantillon are reminiscent of the funk.

Sometimes miss beer, another casualty of gout. Blue cheese, not as much.

Not that of the partner, I mean, in love effusions.

True story: once interviewed for a biology teaching job at a private school run by a religious cult. An exhortation to abstain from such perversions hung framed on the wall of the leader's office. Needless to say, refused the gig.

But really there are people who could not forbear to feel a lot of fat and nerves under their teeth?

It could be done - co-culture fat and nerve cells with the muscle cells. The resulting reconstructed tissue could even be "exercised" electrically to develop some texture. Other organs as well. Even whimsical new organs never eaten before. With time, truly interesting foods might be created that would appeal to some more than, or along with, meat. Anything to reduce the body count.

Just spit-balling. Could be a fun retirement career.

I believe there may be a superior goal in a man's life.

Like that scene from Idiocracy where the world's best minds shamelessly exploit orangutans developing hairgrowth and boner pills.

(As we know from Silicon Valley, they're really developing mobile apps.)

 

[TiSteamo]

Thought of this while making love to another of those heirloom tomatoes. Might have to grow these with the cannabis plant.

Do you ever get frisee endive?

Very tasty and crispy…



I believe that even food (like everything else around us) is above all Energy.
Also food is made of positive or negative vibrations.
Which types of vibrations can ever be those of the flesh of a dead animal killed?
In his flesh there are feelings like anger, fear, pain.
And we eat that stuff.
Quantum physics and Eastern religions are meeting on many points now.

 

[treeman]

I would very much like to see the sources indicating the link between quantum physics and eastern medicine. As well as the evidence of anger being in flesh if you don't mind.

 

[TiSteamo]

I would very much like to see the sources indicating the link between quantum physics and eastern medicine. As well as the evidence of anger being in flesh if you don't mind.

(i hope translation is good)

There are many similarities between the basic principles of quantum mechanics and Buddhist (and Hindu) philosophy,
one of these states that one can not study a system apart from the observer. The object can not
be isolated from the rest of the world and its observation modifies the object itself. We can not say
that a system exists until we look at it, this process causes the wave function to collapse into
state in which we see it. In short it is the observer who creates the reality that observes and this depends
from the way he chooses to observe. In Buddhism there is the concept of Maya, everything is illusory and reality
the last can be perceived by placing oneself in a state of profound meditation. When changing the way of
looking at an object then also changes the object itself.
Some visions of Buddhism on the phenomenal world are strikingly similar to the notions that underlie those of modern physics - especially its two major and imposing theories: quantum mechanics, which is the physics of the infinitely small, and relativity, the physics of infinitely great. Although Buddhism and science have methods of investigating the nature of radically different reality, this does not lead to insurmountable opposition, but rather to harmonious complementarity. This is because they are both searching for the truth and because they both use criteria of authenticity, rigor and logic.
Take for example one of the central points of Buddhism, the Interdependence of phenomena. Nothing exists inherently or by its own cause. An object can only be defined in terms of another object. Interdependence is essential in the manifestation of phenomena. Without it, the world would not be able to function. Thus a given phenomenon can only happen if connected to others. Reality can not be localized and subdivided, but considered as holistic and global.
Currently, many physics experiments have authoritatively imposed this global vision on us. In the atomic and subatomic world, experiments such as the EPR (N.d.R. Electron Paramagnetic Resonance) have shown us that reality is indivisible. Two interacting light particles continue to act as part of a single reality. As far as they are distant, they act instantly in a related way, without any exchange of information being necessary. As far as the macroscopic world is concerned, its global nature is demonstrated by the Focault pendulum, whose behavior does not depend on its environmental location, but on the entire universe. What happens on a small planet is determined in the vast immensity of the cosmos.

The notion of interdependence leads us directly to the idea of emptiness / space, which means nothing, but the absence of inherent existence. Since everything is interdependent, nothing can define itself and inherently exist. The idea of intrinsic properties that exist by themselves and by themselves must therefore be completely discarded. Again, quantum physics has something extraordinarily like to say. In agreement with Bohr and Heisenberg, we can no longer speak of atoms and electrons as real entities with clearly defined properties, such as velocity or position; now we must absolutely consider them as part of a world composed of potentiality and not of objects or events. The true nature of matter and light becomes subject to relationships of interdependence. It is not intrinsic at all, but can change due to the interaction between the observer and the observed object. Such a nature is not at all unique, but dual and complementary. The phenomenon we call particle becomes a wave when we are not observing it. But as soon as a measurement or observation is made, it begins to appear again as a particle. To speak of an intrinsic reality of a particle, or of the reality that it possesses when it is not observed, would be meaningless because we could never seize it. As in the Buddhist notion of samskaras - or Event -, quantum mechanics has radically relativized our concept of an object, making it subordinate to the measure or, in other words, to an event. What's more, the quantum classifies with uncertainty a precise limit on how accurately we can measure reality. There is always a degree of uncertainty both on the position and on the velocity of a particle. Matter has lost substance.
The Buddhist notion of interdependence is synonymous with emptiness / space, which is in turn synonymous with impermanence. The world is like a vast flow of events and dynamic currents, all interconnected and constantly interacting. This concept of perpetual change, omnipresent, is in accord with modern cosmology. The immutable paradises of Aristotle and the static universe of Newton make no sense. Everything moves, mutates and is impermanent, from the tiny atom to the entire universe, galaxies, stars and mankind included.

 

[mephisto]

Thought I would be turned away from your views because I am a carnivore, but your dissertation above is an interesting read at the very least. Thanks for taking the time to contribute @TiSteamo.
Have a great, meat-free day!

 

[Deleted Member 1643]

As well as the evidence of anger being in flesh if you don't mind.

Don't know about anger specifically, but regarding the effects of animal stress on meat, an extensive literature exists going back decades. In animal agriculture (not just animal advocacy), such effects appear to be generally accepted and they are studied because they make meat less desirable.

Not an expert, but below is an example from 1980, which is frequently cited.

The Effect of Stress on Livestock and Meat Quality Prior to and During Slaughter
Temple Grandin

Abstract

The effects of stress on cattle, pigs and sheep prior to slaughter are reviewed. Long-term preslaughter stress, such as fighting, cold weather, fasting and transit, which occurs 12 to 48 hours prior to slaughter depletes muscle glycogen, resulting in meat which has a higher pH, darker color, and is drier. Short-term acute stress, such as excitement or fighting immediately prior to slaughter, produced lactic acid from the breakdown of glycogen. This results in meat which has a lower pH, lighter color, reduced water binding capacity, and is possibly tougher. Psychological stressors, such as excitement and fighting, will often have a more detrimental effect on meat quality than physical stressors, such as fasting or cold weather. Fighting caused by mixing strange animals together is a major cause of dark cutters in cattle and deaths in stress susceptible pigs. The physiology, causes and prevention of the porcine stress syndrome and dark cutters, is reviewed. Methods for detecting genetically stress susceptible breeding stock are reviewed. The effects of stunning method on meat quality are also covered.

The perception that stress makes meat less desirable may be cultural. For example, in the dog meat festival described below, stress is perceived to make meat more desirable, leading to handling and slaughter practices that increase stress.

From Wikipedia

Since 2009,[68] Yulin, Guangxi has held an annual festival of eating dog meat (purportedly a celebration of the summer solstice)... Estimates of the number of dogs eaten during the festival range from 10,000-[56][71] 15,000.[72] Festival organizers claim that only dogs bred specifically for consumption are used, but others claim that some of the dogs purchased for slaughter and consumption are strays or stolen pets, as evidenced by their collars.[55] Some of the dogs eaten at the festival are burnt or boiled alive[73] and there are reports that the dogs are sometimes clubbed[56] or beaten to death in the belief that the increased adrenaline circulating in the dog's body adds to the flavor of the meat.[55]

 

[hinglemccringleberry]

If we accept Darwin's evolutionary theories we realize that the human being has made real progress BEFORE eating meat. What in fact allowed man to differentiate himself from the monkey? Why did the monkey continue to live bliss by jumping from branch to branch and the man was already beginning to build the first tools and the first weapons for hunting?
What event has given to him this intelligence?
This is a good question, no?
But that seems to never be done.


The development of the human brain has therefore occurred BEFORE the consumption of meat, BEFORE the hunt, because without having those extra skills, it would have been very difficult.

Source please?

 

[TiSteamo]

I would very much like to see the sources indicating the link between quantum physics and eastern medicine. As well as the evidence of anger being in flesh if you don't mind.

I wrote "religions", not "medicine", however it is the same.


​

Thought I would be turned away from your views because I am a carnivore, but your dissertation above is an interesting read at the very least. Thanks for taking the time to contribute @TiSteamo.
Have a great, meat-free day!

Thank you mate!

Source please?

Why "source"?
I think I just made an argument using my logic.

the dog meat festival

DOG MEAT!


I've already got a mouth watering...​

 

[hinglemccringleberry]

Why "source"?
I think I just made an argument using my logic.
​

So your logic states that we were never omnivores and that meat consumption played zero role in the brain development of early humans, despite the well established evidence to the contrary? Gotcha.

 

[TiSteamo]

So your logic states that we were never omnivores and that meat consumption played zero role in the brain development of early humans, despite the well established evidence to the contrary? Gotcha.

I never said that "we have never been omnivorous".
I made an argument, which may be plausible or not, but it is a reasoning.
On the other hand, to say that there is solid evidence without thinking about it makes me understand that you have not read what I have written.

How you can eat meat if you do not yet have the ability to hunt and you are not a natural predator, but you can only rely on your intelligence? Which, however, can not reveal itself because you ate meat, because you have not eaten it yet, not having the skills to hunt.
I do not think it's so difficult to understand.
If something is still not clear to you, tell me.

 

[Tranquility]

I never said that "we have never been omnivorous".
I made an argument, which may be plausible or not, but it is a reasoning.
On the other hand, to say that there is solid evidence without thinking about it makes me understand that you have not read what I have written.

How you can eat meat if you do not yet have the ability to hunt and you are not a natural predator, but you can only rely on your intelligence? Which, however, can not reveal itself because you ate meat, because you have not eaten it yet, not having the skills to hunt.
I do not think it's so difficult to understand.
If something is still not clear to you, tell me.

No one can really "answer" a koan. But, the science would say the eating of nuts required a lengthening of the small intestine in order to take advantage of the full food value from those rich sources. We became able to eat meat because we were able to use some of nuts nutritional value and bodies changed to take more advantage of that food source. This gave us enough small intestine to take advantage of meat.

Since much of early tool use by hominins that survived (us, not australopithecus) is evidenced by scraping marks on the bones of animals killed by other animals, there's at least one source of meat that does not require hunting skills.

 

[Deleted Member 1643]

How you can eat meat if you do not yet have the ability to hunt and you are not a natural predator, but you can only rely on your intelligence? Which, however, can not reveal itself because you ate meat, because you have not eaten it yet, not having the skills to hunt.

Not switching sides, but always felt the evolutionary "argument" for veganism does more harm to the cause than good.

We can also look to chimpanzees for clues into possible hunting behavior in early humans.

The Predatory Behavior and Ecology of Wild Chimpanzees

Chimpanzees are largely fruit eaters, and meat composes only about 3% of the time they spent eating overall, less than in nearly all human societies. Adult and adolescent males do most of the hunting, making about 90% of the kills recorded at Gombe over the past decade. Females also hunt, though more often they receive a share of meat from the male who either captured the meat or stole it from the captor. Although lone chimpanzees, both male and female, sometimes hunt by themselves, most hunts are social. In other species of hunting animals, cooperation among hunters may lead to greater success rates, thus promoting the evolution of cooperative behavior. Such cooperation has also been posited as important in our own evolution (Washburn and Lancaster 1968).

Since much of early tool use by hominins that survived (us, not australopithecus) is evidenced by scraping marks on the bones of animals killed by other animals, there's at least one source of meat that does not require hunting skills.

There are also many animals that are relatively easy to catch - insects, molluscs, etc.

The more important point, IMO, is that we, correctly, don't look to the behavior of chimpanzees and early humans for moral guidance. Whether they kill other animals is irrelevant to our own choices.

 

[TiSteamo]

No one can really "answer" a koan. But, the science would say the eating of nuts required a lengthening of the small intestine in order to take advantage of the full food value from those rich sources. We became able to eat meat because we were able to use some of nuts nutritional value and bodies changed to take more advantage of that food source. This gave us enough small intestine to take advantage of meat.

Since much of early tool use by hominins that survived (us, not australopithecus) is evidenced by scraping marks on the bones of animals killed by other animals, there's at least one source of meat that does not require hunting skills.

I do not know guys ...
If sucking bones would make us smarter, it would be enough to frequent mcdonald daily instead of university.

The more important point, IMO, is that we, correctly, don't look to the behavior of chimpanzees and early humans for moral guidance.

Instead it seems that prehistoric man has become the main model to follow for the evolved, hyper-technological man of 2019.


However, let's assume it's true: meat consumption has made us smarter.
We ate so much meat and we became so smart to understand that we can do without it.

 

[hinglemccringleberry]

How you can eat meat if you do not yet have the ability to hunt and you are not a natural predator, but you can only rely on your intelligence? Which, however, can not reveal itself because you ate meat, because you have not eaten it yet, not having the skills to hunt.
I do not think it's so difficult to understand.
If something is still not clear to you, tell me.

I don't think it's so difficult to understand that meat was initially obtained through scavenging carrion from dead mammals. Then we combined this activity with hunting.

"One study, published last month in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, examined the brain sizes of several primates. For the most part, larger bodies have larger brains across species. Yet humans have exceptionally large, neuron-rich brains for our body size, while gorillas — three times more massive than humans — have smaller brains and three times fewer neurons. Why?

The answer, it seems, is the gorillas' raw, vegan diet (devoid of animal protein), which requires hours upon hours of eating only plants to provide enough calories to support their mass.

Researchers from Brazil, led by Suzana Herculano-Houzel, a neuroscientist at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, calculated that adding neurons to the primate brain comes at a fixed cost of approximately six calories per billion neurons.

For gorillas to evolve a humanlike brain, they would need an additional 733 calories a day, which would require another two hours of feeding, the authors wrote. A gorilla already spends as much as 80 percent of the tropic's 12 hours of daylight eating.

Similarly, early humans eating only raw vegetation would have needed to munch for more than nine hours a day to consume enough calories, the researchers calculated. Thus, a raw, vegan diet would have been unlikely given the danger and other difficulties of gathering so much food."

"meat — from arachnids to zebras — was plentiful on the African savanna, where humans evolved, and is the best package of calories, proteins, fats and vitamins B12 needed for brain growth and maintenance.
'The bottom line is, it is certainly possible to survive on an exclusively raw diet in our modern day, but it was most likely impossible to survive on an exclusively raw diet when our species appeared,' Herculano-Houzel told LiveScience."

I do not know guys ...
However, let's assume it's true: meat consumption has made us smarter.

Luckily we don't have to assume, since we've already studied it and know it to be true.

If sucking bones would make us smarter, it would be enough to frequent mcdonald daily instead of university.
We ate so much meat and we became so smart to understand that we can do without it.

Whatever helps you sleep better at night.

 

[Deleted Member 1643]

The article you quote extensively has already been discussed, but the conclusion bears repeating.

With supermarkets and refrigeration, humans today can and increasingly do eat a vegetarian or vegan diet year-round. And given the amount of heart-stopping saturated fats in factory-produced animal products, a plant-based diet can be healthier.

 

[TiSteamo]

I'm just trying to honor the memory of the intelligence of our primordial ancestors: I use my brain. You may be right for many things. Human nutrition, before the industrial revolution, has always been generally based on fruit, vegetables, cereals and only rarely meat (except the Eskimos).
In the last century, however, we had an exaggerated increase in meat consumption.
The point is: not in prehistory, but now, in 2019, do we need to kill animals to eat? I do not think so.
Many people are becoming aware of this, there is more sensitivity to the condition of other beings. Probably someone will see their income drastically fall but this is a money's issue.
Here instead it is a question of humanity.

 

[hinglemccringleberry]

The article you quote extensively has already been discussed, but the conclusion bears repeating.

Oh gosh, sorry. And here I was thinking I was being original! And yes you're absolutely right about plant diets. But there's no evidence that adding a small amount of wild game meat to that otherwise plant based diet is doing any harm to the body.. sure makes it alot tastier though

 

[Deleted Member 1643]

But there's no evidence that adding a small amount of wild game meat to that otherwise plant based diet is doing any harm to the body.

As long as it's cooked long enough.

If everyone had to kill their own meat, we'd probably have many more vegans. Hunted and fished as a boy. Even if it's debatable whether that was wrong, it still seems kind of mean, considering I didn't need to. Does that harm us as well, in other ways?

 

[TiSteamo]

As long as it's cooked long enough.

If everyone had to kill their own meat, we'd probably have many more vegans. Hunted and fished as a boy. Even if it's debatable whether that was wrong, it still seems kind of mean, considering I didn't need to. Does that harm us as well, in other ways?

When true awareness arrives, You'll have to trouble your conscience and you can not escape, nor go back. But if you perfectly realized what you did and regretted it, a real regret and concrete actions to go "in the opposite direction", that is to do good, means that you are on the right path.

 

[Tranquility]

I do not know guys ...
If sucking bones would make us smarter, it would be enough to frequent mcdonald daily instead of university.

I guarantee you, you will gain more smarts from eating McDonald's than a dog would attending university. The issue is not how "smart" one is, but one's capability to think. There, it seems the larger the brain to body ratio is, the "smarter" the animal. (See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-to-body_mass_ratio ) Brain size in our ancestors rapidly increased in relationship to our ability to use omega fatty acids. We still study the relationship to brain development today. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18789910) The source of those Omegas to the smaller of our ancestors came from nuts as I've already mentioned. Early consumers of nuts did not get much advantage of the Omegas there until some mutation started a successful branch of our ancestors that got a longer small intestine. That intestine gave those ancestors more ability to extract the Omegas from nuts. Which was then available for neurogenesis giving them larger brains to then figure out they also can use meat as an extremely efficient source of nutrients. Giving them evolutionary advantage over those without the longer small intestine.

 

[TiSteamo]

As the poet says, "Nothing is known, everything is imagined."

 

[Tranquility]

As the poet says, "Nothing is known, everything is imagined."

I bet Fellini ate meat.

Edit:
Maybe, I imagined it. While it does not say HE was a vegetarian, he did respect others who were.

http://www.adherents.com/people/pf/Federico_Fellini.html

Fellini once more dredged up The Voyage of G. Mastorna and also City of Women, the script he, with Zapponi, had written for the abandoned project with Ingmar Bergman.

Which to make? Ramakrishna Sarathy, an astrolger and palm reader form New Delhi, claimed that in 1976 Fellini had shown him the scripts for both these films, and asked his advice on which to do. Sarathy, who said he often dvised film-makers, chose Mastorna. Fellini had been most kind to him; invited to lunch with him at the studio, Sarathy was touched by Fellini's sensitivity in preparing a delicious vegetarian meal for him.​

 

[TiSteamo]

I bet Fellini ate meat.

I do not know, I do not think so.
Very good, you took the quote. You surprised me!
Film culture or google?

 

[Deleted Member 1643]

Telling you - Italians are way ahead of the curve on this one. Can you identify the author of this quote?

The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men.