Vege

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hey, share the credit. We're all pwning him here.

Sorry, got carried away

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by GePap


Yes, we need tools to hunt large game or fish..

But tool use is a natural human behavior-the genus Homo has been using tools for at least 1 million years, our species is only about 100,000 years old-we came into existance using tools.

First of all, sorry. I missed that post of yours and thought Imran was talking about another.

But you need to be more specific of what sorts of 'tools' we are talking here. I have never heard of homo-sapiens being born with spears and knives before.

Where we banging stones together and stuff? sure.. but I don't know if you can really compare that to spears and knives... otherwise many animals, such as chimps (as Azazel points out) are just as 'advanced' (and possesing of the almighty 'REASON') as we are.


Which isn't neccisarily something that I wouldn't consider.

The developement of tools by humans is a part of evolution.

That is one way of viewing it, yes. But it is no longer what I would call natural evolution, it is a sort of 'self-made' evolution that takes place independant of it's surroundings, and does not maintain the 'natural balance' (which is what this tangent stems from). You can argue that spears are natural, and farms, and factories too, but it's contradictory to the purpose of the word which is to distinguish between a technological world and a world without.


But we seem to have drifted from vegetarianism again, and back to a more environmentalist argument.

And we're starting to lose alot of context, too. Picking at a termite mound or eating the scraps of an antelope carcass is a world away from the practices of modern day meat eating.

If we lived the omnivorous diet of 100,000 years ago, vegetarianism probably would not be an issue. But we don't. Not even remotely close.



I see that this argument has progressed as expected, however. Despite me saying that I would not respond to absurdities intended to trivialise my belifes it has, infact, happened. With argument after argument being thrown at me, while each one that I disprove is ignored, and another even more trivial one is given in it's place.


Remind me again how the eating habits of chimps and lions, or the progress of evolution (oh.... damn, that stems from me answering that obvious troll bait lorizael gave, doesn't it? I even predicted it at the time. ) has to do with an ethical argument for vegetarianism?


And yet there's still people going on about "carrots have feelings too!" Despite me pointing out, how many times, that a vegetarian diet kills less plants then a meat eating diet.

[GePap]

Originally posted by General Ludd
First of all, sorry. I missed that post of yours and thought Imran was talking about another.

But you need to be more specific of what sorts of 'tools' we are talking here. I have never heard of homo-sapiens being born with spears and knives before.

And beavers are not born with logs, and birds with sticks-yet in order to give birth, birds use sticks and other materials to build homes...behavior is part of our nature-it is created evolutionary-bad behaviors are as likely to get you killed as being weak or sickly. A strong animal that is stupid enough to carry on a fight too long, get weakend and then get culled dies not becuase of innate physical weakenesses but for bad behavior.

Man is born with the ability to create tools-the intelligence to do it, and the physiology that allows us to take advantage of it- man can digest meat-such a biological fact, which requires a lot enzymes and other proteins to be created (hence is right in the genome) does not develop out of the blue-if men could not eat meat, they would not hunt-if men were "naturally vegeterian" then why would "nature" waste the time in giving man the enzymes to digest meat? (while not giving him the enzymes to digest grass?)

Where we banging stones together and stuff? sure.. but I don't know if you can really compare that to spears and knives... otherwise many animals, such as chimps (as Azazel points out) are just as 'advanced' (and possesing of the almighty 'REASON') as we are.


Which isn't neccisarily something that I wouldn't consider.

We were banging rocks, yes, to make cutting surfaces! You don't really need very sharp cutting tools unless you are going to go after very hard nuts, or other animals. The fact we can digest BOTH is pretty good evidence we were using it for both, long before th genus Homo became Man.

[Cruddy]

Hmm... I guess I'm a low intake omnivore. I'll eat meat, and I'll eat veggie food... it just depends what I feel like at the time.

By the way, I don't classify junk food as food. To me it's just junk.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by General Ludd
That is one way of viewing it, yes. But it is no longer what I would call natural evolution, it is a sort of 'self-made' evolution that takes place independant of it's surroundings, and does not maintain the 'natural balance' (which is what this tangent stems from). You can argue that spears are natural, and farms, and factories too, but it's contradictory to the purpose of the word which is to distinguish between a technological world and a world without.

This is patent nonsense in the context of this debate, however, as you've yet to establish a definition of natural that requires humanity to be vegetarians. There is NOTHING in biology that dictates what animals should or shouldn't be eating beyond their physical ability to do so without dying. To say there is such a thing is, in essence, relying on rank mysticism that is no different than religious belief. It certainly has nothing to do with logic or science.

[GePap]

If mankind NEVER lived what you call man's "natural ways", then either:

1. You are wrong

2. Humankind has existed for 100,000 years without "living naturally"- if this is so, then again:

a. You definition of natural is way off
b. mankind is an inatural species, and thus, who cares about our "nature"

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


This is patent nonsense in the context of this debate, however, as you've yet to establish a definition of natural that requires humanity to be vegetarians. There is NOTHING in biology that dictates what animals should or shouldn't be eating beyond their physical ability to do so without dying.

Alright, let me take back that humans are natural vegetarians, because I didn't meant that in the most litteral of senses, and say instead that humans naturally had a plant-centric diet. I didn't once try to claim that we where not omnviorous, only that we are not natural hunters and killers.

Which is obvious from our biology.

[Last Conformist]

Why do we want a word to distinguish a world with technology from one without? And where, exactly do you draw the line between technology and non-technology?

[General Ludd]

By the way, it was not my argument that vegetarianism is natural, it was Imran's argument that meat eating is natural.


Perhaps, you can say that is right in the most litteral sense, but not for what he is justifiying. Because (again) it is completely out of context - Picking at a termite mound or eating the scraps of an antelope carcass is a world away from the practices of modern day meat eating.

[Boris Godunov]

It doesn't matter, though, as evolution is partly built upon animal species making changes to their way of life and trying new things. We call it adaptation, and humans have adapted to being big meat eaters (in certain parts of the world).

We're not "naturally bipeds" if you think about it, as our ancestors "naturally" walked on all fours. This is obvious from our biology as well. And it's not so good for us--it's probably the root cause of much human back problems. But I don't see any movement for a return to quadrapedism.

Imran is right in that we are naturally meat-eaters, but we're also naturally vegetable-eaters. Our system can handle both. Our role as being natural omnivores is simply based on the niche we currently occupy in the biological world.

[GePap]

Originally posted by General Ludd


Alright, let me take back that humans are natural vegetarians, because I didn't meant that in the most litteral of senses, and say instead that humans naturally had a plant-centric diet. I didn't once try to claim that we where not omnviorous, only that we are not natural hunters and killers.

Which is obvious from our biology.

Our behavior is part of that biology-becuase our behavior is based on our biochemistry and brain functions. Our hands are tool making hands-our eyes are great at depth perception-why on earth do vegeterians need accurate depth perception? If your meal is not going to be moving much, it does not matter to be able to quickly track it-and if you want to cliam for self defense, then why on earth do most herbivores not have depth perception but instead like to extend their field of vision?

Certainly man is not meant to be carnivorous, so we are not purely hunters-but hunting is definitely part of our livestyle-hell, when man arrived in N.A., it did a serious number on the large prey species here-whole human societies have formed around hunting and those people are not somehow less human or sickly or weak or whatever.

Man is most definitelly a proud omnivore-anything and everything we can digest and is not poisonous gets into our bellies.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by General Ludd


Alright, let me take back that humans are natural vegetarians, because I didn't meant that in the most litteral of senses, and say instead that humans naturally had a plant-centric diet.

So do most modern omnivores, at least where I come from. But we infer that the diets of arctic hunter-gatherer peoples are/were unnatural?

I didn't once try to claim that we where not omnviorous, only that we are not natural hunters and killers.

Which is obvious from our biology.

I wouldn't be so sure - chimps don't have much more in the way of natural weapons than do we, yet they are hunters and killers (assuming "killer" to refer to the killing of other animal species). Or perhaps they to are indulging in unnatural activities?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Our role as being natural omnivores is simply based on the niche we currently occupy in the biological world.

Our success is based on not having a niche, but like Coyotes being an all around creature, able to do all sorts of things.

I mean, we climb OK (not great)
We run OK (not great)
We are proficient swimmers (far form great)

this and that- we have our hand in everything, which is what makes us so succesful.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by GePap
Our success is based on not having a niche, but like Coyotes being an all around creature, able to do all sorts of things.

Everything has a niche in biology, ours happens to be extraordinarily broad, broader than any other species in the history of the world. "Niche" isn't a predetermined quality. We have made much of our own niche, but that's still part and parcel with Darwinism.

[Last Conformist]

I mean, we climb OK (not great)
We run OK (not great)
We are proficient swimmers (far form great)

As one of my ol' biology books said: Man is the only animal that can swim a km, walk a mile and climb a tree. It's perhaps not technically true, but certainly close enough - we're in most respects great generalists.

(That would, BTW, be a Swedish mile of 10km.)