[GeneV]

For the political end of it, I think the fact that we are more than self sufficient in terms of our food supply, including meat, makes this a non-issue. From the biological standpoint, humans are built to process both flora and fauna so I see no reason to rely on only one or the other. From the dining standpoint, the meat or protein source is "the main event" of the meal. For example, I am trying to decide whether I should cook tomorrow for valentine's day: chateaubriand and lobster with julienned vegetables and red potatoes or duck breast and mussels with kale and pomme frites. The entree choice drives other choices regarding what side dishes and accompanying wines will be served. Whats the point in living a long life if you can't enjoy yourself?

Here is a post of yours with which I agree, though for day to day meals, the meat is less of a main event. The meat may be the centerpiece in that its flavors may control the meal, even if the volume of meat is not large.

I'd go with the duck breast, accompanied by a lovely Pinot Noir from Les' part of the country, but that is just me. I've also found sweet potatoes (without any additional sugar and a touch of Asian spice) work well with duck and pinot.

It also happens that my digestion accepts a duck breast better than comparable nourishment from legumes, which I also like quite a bit.

---

Last edited by GeneV; 02-13-2012 at 07:54 AM.

[jogiba]

The point of factory farming is cheap meat, made possible by confining large numbers of animals in small spaces. Perhaps the greatest hidden cost is its potential effect on human health.

Small doses of antibiotics — too small to kill bacteria — are fed to factory farm animals as part of their regular diet to promote growth and offset the risks of overcrowding. What factory farms are really raising is antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which means that several classes of antibiotics no longer work the way they should in humans. We pay for cheap meat by sacrificing some of the most important drugs ever developed.

Last week, the Natural Resources Defense Council, joined by other advocacy groups, sued the Food and Drug Administration to compel it to end the nontherapeutic use of penicillin and tetracycline in farm animals. Veterinarians would still be able to treat sick animals with these drugs but could not routinely add the drugs to their diets.

For years, the F.D.A. has had the scientific studies and the authority to ban these drugs. But it has always bowed to pressure from the pharmaceutical and farm lobbies, despite the well-founded objections of groups like the American Medical Association and the World Health Organization, which support an antibiotic ban.

It is time for the F.D.A. to stop corporate factory farms from squandering valuable drugs just to promote growth among animals confined in conditions that inherently create the risk of disease. According to recent estimates, 70 percent of the antibiotics sold in this country end up in farm animals. The F.D.A. can change that by honoring its own scientific conclusions and its statutory obligation to end its approval of unsafe drug uses.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/opinion/03fri3.html

This is a hotly contested number in the water footprinting arena, but most research on the subject suggests that, on average, it takes 1800 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef (which translates to 900 gallons of water consumed per day based on average American meat consumption).

http://www.ecocentricblog.org/2011/01/05/the-900-gallon-diet-meat-portion-si...er-footprints/

[mikemike]

Here is a post of yours with which I agree, though for day to day meals, the meat is less of a main event. The meat may be the centerpiece in that its flavors may control the meal, even if the volume of meat is not large.

I'd go with the duck breast, accompanied by a lovely Pinot Noir from Les' part of the country, but that is just me. I've also found sweet potatoes (without any additional sugar and a touch of Asian spice) work well with duck and pinot.

It also happens that my digestion accepts a duck breast better than comparable nourishment from legumes, which I also like quite a bit.

I favor the duck too, it has much richer flavors than the steak and lobster but it is also more work since I will need to go out and get a duck tonight then render the fat for pomme frites tomorrow and cook again tomorrow and cooking the mussels is more complicated than steaming lobster. I am also more confident with the duck than I am with the chateaubriand because I have only cooked the latter once and usually cook tenderloin filet mingon style.

[GeneV]

I favor the duck too, it has much richer flavors than the steak and lobster but it is also more work since I will need to go out and get a duck tonight then render the fat for pomme frites tomorrow and cook again tomorrow and cooking the mussels is more complicated than steaming lobster. I am also more confident with the duck than I am with the chateaubriand because I have only cooked the latter once and usually cook tenderloin filet mingon style.

Just remember to score the skin so that the fat drains and you get it crispy. The mussels are not too difficult--steam them in white wine with sauteed garlic and shallots and a little thyme. That one is a bit of heaven with a nice Meursault.

[les3547]

A few points.

Part of my hypothesis was that we can’t seriously consider getting off meat because of lust. So here in a thread about the dangers, costs, and environmental destruction due to our addiction to meat we have a lust fest!

I favor the duck too, it has much richer flavors than the steak and lobster but it is also more work since I will need to go out and get a duck tonight then render the fat for pomme frites tomorrow and cook again tomorrow and cooking the mussels is more complicated than steaming lobster. I am also more confident with the duck than I am with the chateaubriand because I have only cooked the latter once and usually cook tenderloin filet mingon style.

Just remember to score the skin so that the fat drains and you get it crispy. The mussels are not too difficult--steam them in white wine with sautéed garlic and shallots and a little thyme. That one is a bit of heaven with a nice Meursault.

Now that’s some serious lust! I’m teasing, but there is a serious side to the idea of addiction to meat. As kids, we are fed it as soon as we can chew. We don’t have a choice in the matter, we don’t know if there is a better way to eat. For many, meat becomes part of every meal, and dinner becomes a time to really stuff the tummy.

Another very powerful force is the force of “the mouth.” From our first breath, “the mouth” becomes a central force in our lives since we depend on it to breathe, eat, and communicate. The trauma of birth (separation from the umbilical) accentuates its importance to the point that it overrides more important considerations. “The mouth,” can be stimulated, pleased, and fed far more than required for nutrition, while the over-accentuated force that is subconsciously pushing in the background can give “the mouth” an assertiveness that is out of proportion to its simple role as the first stage of digestion, naturally enjoyed.

This is how taste gets separated out from the natural process and given the huge status it doesn’t deserve; and meat (along with sugar and other processed food designed to over-stimulate tastes buds) fuels this taste disproportionality. Meat lovers drool over the flavors, and often complain about the blandness of vegetarian diets. What they don’t know is what happens to tastes buds when they are freed from overstimulation by meat (I speak as someone who was raised on meat, but who hasn’t had it for 40 years). Meat is VERY strong, so that everything in comparison seems a mere pittance of flavor. But after one stops eating it (along with other over-stimulaters like sugar and fried foods), one discovers just how much flavor is in non-meat, natural foods because one’s tastes buds come alive.

For the political end of it, I think the fact that we are more than self sufficient in terms of our food supply, including meat, makes this a non-issue.

A non-issue for whom? Surely you don’t mean the 900 million hungry or starving people on the planet.

From the biological standpoint, humans are built to process both flora and fauna so I see no reason to rely on only one or the other.

A myth. Our system does not handle meat very well. We are in denial about it, like my many friends and relatives (quite a few of them late friends and relatives) with clogged arteries and colon cancer (and personally I suspect, but can't prove, that other issues arise from eating meat, like prostate problems):

Meat-eaters: have claws
Herbivores: no claws
Humans: no claws

Meat-eaters: have no skin pores and perspire through the tongue
Herbivores: perspire through skin pores
Humans: perspire through skin pores

Meat-eaters: have sharp front teeth for tearing, with no flat molar teeth for grinding
Herbivores: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding
Humans: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding

Meat-eaters: have intestinal tract that is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quickly
Herbivores: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.
Humans: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.

Meat-eaters: have strong hydrochloric acid in stomach to digest meat
Herbivores: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater
Humans: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater

Meat-eaters: salivary glands in mouth not needed to pre-digest grains and fruits.
Herbivores: well-developed salivary glands which are necessary to pre-digest grains and fruits
Humans: well-developed salivary glands, which are necessary to pre-digest, grains and fruits

Meat-eaters: have acid saliva with no enzyme ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Herbivores: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Humans: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains

From the dining standpoint, the meat or protein source is "the main event" of the meal. Whats the point in living a long life if you can't enjoy yourself?

Correct, and that’s the problem. In meals I look forward to, the protein is a small part of the contributing flavors. I do all the cooking and have learned the importance of working with garlic, onion, spices, reducing, etc. to accentuate flavors. We basically rely on “complementary proteins” which means to get one’s “complete” proteins (proteins with the 8 essential amino acids) from the combination of whole grains (which have some essential amino acids) and beans or legumes (which have the rest). Split pea soup with a hearty whole grain rye would suffice, as would beans and rice or even a peanut butter sandwich on whole wheat. There is a company "Food for Life" which makes bread products with sprouted grains and legumes; that bread is a complete protein in itself (I eat their English muffins every day).

Deemphasizing the protein dish results in low fat meals and eating a lot more vegetables, naturally losing weight, and an overall improvement in health. In terms of enjoying taste, one must still learn solid cooking principles, but if learned great tasting meals can be had . . . my wife and I envy no one else’s meals over our own.

What’s the point in living a long life if you can't enjoy yourself?

We should enjoy ourselves. But can’t a drug addict or alcoholic or smoker make the same argument for why they should keep their habits? The question is one of opportunity costs -- what is sacrificed for the experience of over-stimulating taste. How would cancer and heart disease rates and the environment be affected, or world hunger, or cost of eating, if we got off the meat addiction? And are you sure once the taste buds have calmed down, that a non-meat diet would be any less enjoyable, and maybe even more so? It isn’t just about “taste,” taste shouldn’t be isolated from the whole process of growing, eating, and digesting meat, plus dealing with health issues that arise from it.

As someone who can speak from experience, I will testify that not only has there been absolutely no reduction in the quality of my life by eliminating meat, but just the opposite is true. I feel better, lighter, healthier . . . and by giving taste its proper importance, I am able to enjoy my food as well as the long-term, and day-to-day, benefits of clean, healthy eating.

[Ratmagiclady]

Greed and inability of governments to act in humanity's best interests is the real problem.

With a land area of Earth at roughly 196,935,000 square miles, even if the population hits 10 billion, if the land were evenly distributed, we'd only have 51 people per square mile. Let's put that in perspective: in 2010 New York City had a population density of 26,403 per square mile! Even if you took away 90% of Earth's land area as unsuitable for living, that only increases the density to ~510 people per square mile at a population of 10 billion people.

This kind of figure is often used to claim that people should breed like rabbits and not manage our populations or have access to contraception, etc... But the fact is, of all the land area on Earth, only so much of it can really sustain even that population density, and certainly not at the standard of living being sold as the 'developed-world expectation.' And if you did, that would also constitute 'habitat loss' for huge numbers of other species and ecosystems. And thus even that wouldn't be sustainable.

So those figures are exaggerated/disinterpreted. Which doesn't change the facts that most of the overproduction and environmental devastation comes from for-profit agribusiness and other *economic* issues : for instance, the plight of India's farmers won't be solved by Monsanto selling them GMO seeds year after year and claiming the land when it doesn't work... but if the same farmers had access to simple Victorian human-and-animal-powered technology, they could be producing *well,* and sustainably, on the land they already have. All it'd take is an iron ploughshare and a few other relatively-simple machines. They could still use and preserve the traditional skills that agribusiness is destroying generation by generation to create dependence, too. At least as long as the water holds out, which is unfortunately in doubt thanks to climactic effects on the Himalayan glaciers and such. (What they call 'modern' agriculture is even *more* water-and-petroleum-fertilizer-intensive than what it claims to replace. Not the right fit there. Especially when simple things like replacing wooden ploughshares with the right design of metal ones would mean most small farmers in India would be enjoying enough of a crop surplus to really be doing OK. )

So, let's not kid ourselves about the cause of mankind's problems. Man can't share. There's gross overconsumption in some areas, while not enough in others. And even when "wealthy" nations try to help out "poor" nations, oftentimes the food rots at the docks or is confiscated by corrupt governments which don't distribute the food/supplies to the people who need it. Mankind's governments and nationalism are to blame, not "overpopulation" and "inefficient food production."

This much is true: (except the part about 'Man Can't Share.' If we couldn't, we'd be long since extinct .) but it doesn't mean overpopulation isn't an issue: not all land can *sustain* the overpopulation, cause it's just not suited to that overpopulation. The developed world does consume, and waste, hundreds of times per capita what someone in the 'third world' does, of course, so it's certainly on the *developed* world to stop spawning more and more kids just cause someone tells them to, or out of ignorance. We're already way way off the curve of where we probably ought to be, ...we can't even care for all the children produced even in this wealthy country, even in 'boom times,' never mind employ everyone, or sufficiently.

There's two ways that problem needs to be approached in the West:

For one, slow the rate of population increase, or allow it to, (Certainly, all the resources that go into trying to coerce people like me to breed more while insisting that kids are better off abandoned than adopted, ...while we see the attacks on access to contraception and even the right of women to say *no,* ..Are just a ridiculous irony, ) Given how each child *here* counts for orders of magnitude more consumption than does one in the undeveloped world, we need to manage our own population... And in a free country that means access to information and the freedom to choose, not pressure to conform to some idea that people need to 'multiply' forever.

For another, we need to both distribute what *is* produced better and more equitably, while taking rapid steps to make that production more-sustainable, less-damaging, and healthier, ...in the process that would also serve to reduce the dangerous vulnerability of these overstacked profit-maximized systems and monocultures and dependencies on uncertain things like petroleum-based fertilizers, transportation, certain stable weather we may not enjoy, and water supplies that may not suffice, etc.

In a semi-post-colonialist world, agribusiness and missionaries have been seeking to export our own bad habits and certain crushing economics to places that the people there are at a disadvantage: telling them to overbreed is in turn sentencing them to dependency on relief shipments, loans, and imports... And all the strife and environmental and cultural devastation that comes of *that,* ...For the same reason warlords want to *take* those relief shipments, it's not particularly good long-term for such cultures even if it *does* get there: the power and security is commoditized, not coming from the land and the people. And that can be taken away. (And I'm not saying we shouldn't be sending relief, just that it shouldn't be used by some missionaries and corporations to turn around and make the situations on the ground *worse.* Somalia's probably never going to look like Kansas, whatever we do: development and adaptation to the modern world there or elsewhere in Africa is going to have to be on *local* terms, not the banks' and Monsanto's or the Wasilia NAR Church's. )

Again, this is about quality, not quantity. Quality *fits the real situation,* not trying to force things that ain't working here on everyone else. It's kind of a travesty that we *don't* feed the world in the meantime, but that cannot be separated from what's been done and what's still *being* done to make it worse. Even here. This is a world of interdependent systems, not dismembered moralistic 'issues' that can be forced off in all the wrong directions at the same time. That ain't even working *here* in what's supposed to be the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world.

[mikemike]

Meat-eaters: have claws
Herbivores: no claws
Humans: no claws
The human hand has a unique opposing thumb that lets us fashion and use tools and weapons for our meat procuring pleasures, how many herbivores have that?

Meat-eaters: have no skin pores and perspire through the tongue
Herbivores: perspire through skin pores
Humans: perspire through skin pores
Many humans have taste buds which react strongly to bitter flavors and therefore have genetic opposition to enjoying many vegetables.

Meat-eaters: have sharp front teeth for tearing, with no flat molar teeth for grinding
Herbivores: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding
Humans: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding
My incisors and canines do a pretty good job of tearing through meat and last time I looked, most carnivores I have seen chew up and down while herbivores do a back and forth or circular motion.

Meat-eaters: have intestinal tract that is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quickly
Herbivores: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.
Humans: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.
I think you need to do some research because the average human digestive track is 7.5 M while the average human is around 1.7 M so that 4.4:1 ratio is closer to carnivore than it is to herbivore.

Meat-eaters: have strong hydrochloric acid in stomach to digest meat
Herbivores: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater
Humans: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater
This seems as dubious as the rest of this list, but I will point out that humans are unable to digest cellulose which is a main constituent of vegetables and is something that can be processed by most herbivore's digestive tracts.

Meat-eaters: salivary glands in mouth not needed to pre-digest grains and fruits.
Herbivores: well-developed salivary glands which are necessary to pre-digest grains and fruits
Humans: well-developed salivary glands, which are necessary to pre-digest, grains and fruits
Meat-eaters: have acid saliva with no enzyme ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Herbivores: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Humans: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Because we also eat grains and fruits.

Gene and I don't get to have a love-in very often, so get over it.

As to the 900 million starving people, that is a logistical problem with getting the food to them rather than a biological problem of producing food for them. I am sure a great many of those starving people are starving in India, a country where vegetarianism is very much mainstream so eating veggies isn't going to change those folks' lot in life.

[magkelly]

I'm fully aware that my choosing to eat meat isn't all that eco-friendly nor is it all that practical in terms of feeding all the people on the planet most efficiently. But I've also tried eating vegetarian and I mean that in an informed and careful way. I did my homework ate the right things didn't just jump in. I knew how to properly feed myself. End result? I still got pretty darned sick because as it turns out I'm either allergic to or have severe food intolerance for quite a few necessary items in a vegetarian or vegan diet. Eating like that isn't "natural" for me as it turns out.

I do my best given where I live to eat as responsibly as I can. I limit the packaged food. Buy locally whenever possible. Recycle, as much as I can even though it's not mandatory here. But I don't have a whole lot of alternatives other than the local grocery chains and Walmart/Target. Fresh markets here are few and pretty far from here and honestly even when I go what you can buy there isn't even close to being good most of the time. It's a waste of time and gas to hit the so called Farmer's Markets around here. I can't grow my own food where I live, can't keep live stock, so there you go. In the end I have to live with my dietary choices whether they're perfect or not..

If you can do it go for it. More power to you, but no, it's not a great choice for everyone, far from it.

[redrockcoulee]

Les

You compared herbivours and carnivors. We, like many other species, are omnivours. Even dogs are not strict meat eaters and cows do not have canine teeth.

Humans have lived for over 5000 years in habitats that would not support a non meat diet. Even the area I now like in First Nations would not have survived with the plant choices they had unless they became good at eating grass. Inuit did not even have the grass to chew and their health issues arose not from eating meat but eating processed food. Their traditional diet was almost 100% meat and fish. Most natives who live in traditional hunting cultures eat little fruit or vegetables and again diabeties etc are brought on with western diet not from eating meat.

We actually do not eat that much meat and some times more chicken than beef. We are getting a side or whole deer this winter and often we do end up with a side of beef; meat that is for the most part raised on grass free to roam and part of a healthy family farm system.

Mike

I think it might have been you about war lords and food, that is only in some countries that this is an issue. I have read that farm subsidies in the US and Europe are a bigger problem in that food comes in cheaper than they can raise themselves so those on the farm cannot support themselves and then move into cities. Less food raised and more people buying food. I do not have the source but I know I have heard or read it more than once and it was some NGO operating in Africa that wanted food subisidies dropped so foreign aid could be cut as well.


A world without Sprague's pipits, pronghorns or prairie grassland would not be much of a world at all.

[GeneV]

A few points.

Part of my hypothesis was that we can’t seriously consider getting off meat because of lust. So here in a thread about the dangers, costs, and environmental destruction due to our addiction to meat we have a lust fest!

Now that’s some serious lust! I’m teasing, but there is a serious side to the idea of addiction to meat. As kids, we are fed it as soon as we can chew. We don’t have a choice in the matter, we don’t know if there is a better way to eat. For many, meat becomes part of every meal, and dinner becomes a time to really stuff the tummy.
* * *


We should enjoy ourselves. But can’t a drug addict or alcoholic or smoker make the same argument for why they should keep their habits? The question is one of opportunity costs -- what is sacrificed for the experience of over-stimulating taste. How would cancer and heart disease rates and the environment be affected, or world hunger, or cost of eating, if we got off the meat addiction? And are you sure once the taste buds have calmed down, that a non-meat diet would be any less enjoyable, and maybe even more so? It isn’t just about “taste,” taste shouldn’t be isolated from the whole process of growing, eating, and digesting meat, plus dealing with health issues that arise from it.

As someone who can speak from experience, I will testify that not only has there been absolutely no reduction in the quality of my life by eliminating meat, but just the opposite is true. I feel better, lighter, healthier . . . and by giving taste its proper importance, I am able to enjoy my food as well as the long-term, and day-to-day, benefits of clean, healthy eating.

The view you are expressing seems a bit Manichean. There are also omnivores. Humans, apes and many other animals have eaten both meat and vegetable for recorded history and fossil prehistory. There are human meat eaters without blood lust. There are also people who enjoy alcohol without being alcoholics. I happen to fit in both of those categories.

I'm glad you enjoy your diet, and it is good for each of us to find what is right for us. I've tried several forms of vegetarianism and was significantly less happy and less healthy. We each have our own preferences and needs. Bill Clinton needed a vegan diet to stay alive, and that may be true of many with coronary issues. A diabetic may need a diet completely without sugar to survive. An Ayurvedic would refine it even further, rightly or wrongly. Years of evolution in a certain area with certain available foods has probably left its mark on each of us.

[Ratmagiclady]

A few points.

Part of my hypothesis was that we can’t seriously consider getting off meat because of lust. So here in a thread about the dangers, costs, and environmental destruction due to our addiction to meat we have a lust fest!

"Lust?"

Seriously?

See what I say about the Vegan thing being about food like the Religious Right is about sex?

Self-righteousness, shame-and-excess cycles.

Don't even *work.*

Now that’s some serious lust! I’m teasing, but there is a serious side to the idea of addiction to meat. As kids, we are fed it as soon as we can chew. We don’t have a choice in the matter, we don’t know if there is a better way to eat. For many, meat becomes part of every meal, and dinner becomes a time to really stuff the tummy.

Again, moralistic claims that *food* is some 'addictive vice' does *not* make it 'unnatural' or 'evil.' Or 'bad' or 'sick.'

*Culturally* we *eat too much, particularly of rich food, precisely because we're a nation of immigrants ...mostly from places where at least the best of meat was something of a luxury in the kind of quantity that postwar America in particular suddenly had unfettered access to.

But meat and animal products were still a vital part of the traditional diet of *all* my ancestors. Some even had relatively little access to grain, and much of that was needed for brewing just to have safe water in a lot of places. (And they wonder why traditional old religion is so agrarian. And herd-and-hunt-based. )

Another very powerful force is the force of “the mouth.” From our first breath, “the mouth” becomes a central force in our lives since we depend on it to breathe, eat, and communicate. The trauma of birth (separation from the umbilical) accentuates its importance to the point that it overrides more important considerations. “The mouth,” can be stimulated, pleased, and fed far more than required for nutrition, while the over-accentuated force that is subconsciously pushing in the background can give “the mouth” an assertiveness that is out of proportion to its simple role as the first stage of digestion, naturally enjoyed.

Freud didn't really accept much about our *instincts,* ...everything, including basic appetites and drives, was a 'neurosis' in the stuff he wrote that caught on as that kind of pop-psych 'oral fixation' thing. (also shame-attached, incidentally)

Our evolved instincts *are* largely developed for hunting, gathering, and scavenging in terms of relative scarcity: the reason people fall prey to the overmarketing of meat, sweet things, and salt, (especially all in combination,) is because these are things our instincts say are *valuable nutrition* that one should get as much as one can.

(That's also why MSG works, too, you know: you should see how some ideological Vegans pile *that* stuff on. Or how they end up addicted to energy drinks while not knowing where the taurine comes from.)

This is how taste gets separated out from the natural process and given the huge status it doesn’t deserve; and meat (along with sugar and other processed food designed to over-stimulate tastes buds) fuels this taste disproportionality. Meat lovers drool over the flavors, and often complain about the blandness of vegetarian diets. What they don’t know is what happens to tastes buds when they are freed from overstimulation by meat (I speak as someone who was raised on meat, but who hasn’t had it for 40 years). Meat is VERY strong, so that everything in comparison seems a mere pittance of flavor. But after one stops eating it (along with other over-stimulaters like sugar and fried foods), one discovers just how much flavor is in non-meat, natural foods because one’s tastes buds come alive.

This is actually trying to argue from a standpoint of *treating pleasure as 'sin' and 'shameful.' * Then wondering why there's no such thing as 'enough' when people treat it that way.

As for the rest, De gustibus non disputandum. But it's just not so for everyone. As 'taste' goes, well, a lot of that is the actual particular veggies we get in this society... a lot of that really is pretty bland. And chewing on iceberg lettuce sure ain't really worth the nutritional value. As I'll go into a bit below, we aren't efficient pure herbivores, either. Our brains developed from and by scavenging meat, then hunting... We're adaptable social omnivores, not grazers.

A myth. Our system does not handle meat very well. We are in denial about it, like my many friends and relatives (quite a few of them late friends and relatives) with clogged arteries and colon cancer (and personally I suspect, but can't prove, that other issues arise from eating meat, like prostate problems):

Untrue.

You mistake overconsumption and under-activity and over-stress for some absolutist notion of 'This is bad there should be none!'


We're omnivores. We evolved for a *varied* diet *including* meat, and to be very mobile about getting it. What do you think an appendix is for? They keep going wrong, especially in the West, *because we've been cooking our food for a long time.*

*my* system doesn't handle quantities of *vegetation* very well, actually. And it's not cause of some stigmatizing theory of 'addiction,' ...it's cause I got a lot of the adaptation from my hunting and meat-eating and fighting ancestors, (Maybe really rather too much, but I got hit with a lot of prenatal hormones that Big Pharma kept selling even though they knew it caused problems.) ...It's actually because of a pretty 'streamlined' digestive system that just doesn't seem to be adapted the way you claim it should. In fact I would have died pretty quickly without medical intervention when I was *born.* This is not a grazer's stomach.


We're omnivores. And we vary.

Trying to say there are only carnivores and herbivores, then trying to force us into an herbivorous category based on certain traits (while excluding others, like our binocular vision, binaural hearing, our pack coordination, our general vulnerability to attacks from the rear quarters when alone, our head and hand stabilization, our *remarkable ability to throw things at other things,* our long-running ability, (unnecessary for most herbivores,) even our lack of fur and perspiration, (Far from being some 'Sign of an herbivore,' these things allow us to run down prey in hot climes: a fit human band can run down a horse or antelope to exhaustion over a day, or get ahead of a herd, ...especially a wounded one: (How do you think those clovis points and light spears and fire hardened sticks *worked,* anyway? Not exactly one-shot-one-kill. ) this ability is no defense against predators that kill fairly quick, but it makes us *great endurance-hunters.* ) ...but in general this framing of things is all is fallacious from the get-go.

Meat-eaters: have claws

Check. I used to use mine for screwdrivers, or file em to points.

Herbivores: no claws
Humans: no claws

That's, as I've shown, is kind of a matter of interpretation. Certainly as tool users, that's not been an evolutionary priority for hundreds of thousands of years. Which doesn't mean the early hominids went Vegan.

Meat-eaters: have no skin pores and perspire through the tongue
Herbivores: perspire through skin pores
Humans: perspire through skin pores

Covered that with the fur thing.

Meat-eaters: have sharp front teeth for tearing, with no flat molar teeth for grinding
Herbivores: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding
Humans: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding

That's an egregious ignoring of the fact we have *omnivores'* teeth. Primate version.

What are canines for? Peeling lemons? (Our ancestors didn't have those.)

Actually they 'had to' file *off* some of my pointy teeth when I was a kid. (I regret allowing that. Sigh.) (frankly, even my *molars* look pretty canine in profile. Odd.) It's not been a *vital* feature for us since we started *cooking* our meat, and it was never a means of predatory attack to speak of, but everyone has what's called 'canines' for a reason.

As a matter of fact, you can see in the transition to agriculture that we lack one *key* feature of a lot of herbivores: Our teeth *wear down* and don't keep growing if we rely, for instance, on grains. You can see it in ancient Egyptian commoners.

Meat-eaters: have intestinal tract that is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quickly
Herbivores: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.
Humans: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.

Being *omnivores,* we still require the capacity *to* digest plant matter, obviously. Pure predators slim that apparatus down to a minimum. This is why, though, some plant diets people use to lose weight actually take more energy for us to digest than we actually gain.

Meat-eaters: have strong hydrochloric acid in stomach to digest meat
Herbivores: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater
Humans: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater

Prilosec, anyone?

Meat-eaters: salivary glands in mouth not needed to pre-digest grains and fruits.
Herbivores: well-developed salivary glands which are necessary to pre-digest grains and fruits
Humans: well-developed salivary glands, which are necessary to pre-digest, grains and fruits

Say it with me... Omni-vores. Who evolved from primates and cook food and actually don't have the specialized digestive tract that would mean we wouldn't salivate, given where we came from.

Correct, and that’s the problem. In meals I look forward to, the protein is a small part of the contributing flavors. I do all the cooking and have learned the importance of working with garlic, onion, spices, reducing, etc. to accentuate flavors. We basically rely on “complementary proteins” which means to get one’s “complete” proteins (proteins with the 8 essential amino acids) from the combination of whole grains (which have some essential amino acids) and beans or legumes (which have the rest). Split pea soup with a hearty whole grain rye would suffice, as would beans and rice or even a peanut butter sandwich on whole wheat. There is a company "Food for Life" which makes bread products with sprouted grains and legumes; that bread is a complete protein in itself (I eat their English muffins every day).

Did you notice how there are very few 'complete foods' in the plant kingdom? That's cause we're.... Omnivores.

Deemphasizing the protein dish results in low fat meals and eating a lot more vegetables, naturally losing weight, and an overall improvement in health. In terms of enjoying taste, one must still learn solid cooking principles, but if learned great tasting meals can be had . . . my wife and I envy no one else’s meals over our own.

While much of America really could do to cut back on the quantity of meat, that doesn't make us 'herbivores' ...Not all people are adapted to even thrive on that, especially without a lot of contrivance and particularly importing vegetation that is out-of-season in a lot of climes, particularly climes where you may notice, they depend on meat to at least supplement their diets, if not live almost entirely from herds.

We should enjoy ourselves. But can’t a drug addict or alcoholic or smoker make the same argument for why they should keep their habits? The question is one of opportunity costs -- what is sacrificed for the experience of over-stimulating taste. How would cancer and heart disease rates and the environment be affected, or world hunger, or cost of eating, if we got off the meat addiction? And are you sure once the taste buds have calmed down, that a non-meat diet would be any less enjoyable, and maybe even more so? It isn’t just about “taste,” taste shouldn’t be isolated from the whole process of growing, eating, and digesting meat, plus dealing with health issues that arise from it.

This is just more of trying to cast it all in terms of some 'sin or vice' or 'disorder,' ...and like I say about sex, quality means people aren't at the mercy of 'hungers' and the conflicts that those moralistic notions only *put more energy into.* If people enjoy a good burger, they're less likely to be going to McDonald's to binge and still come away 'unsatisfied' but 'guilty.' Just like with 'Sex sells,' ...if people accept and honor, and yes, enjoy, our instincts, then people selling 'temptation' and 'shame' and 'blame' can't be *yanking us around by them so.*

Nor, is it a given that 'Eating meat hurts your health.' Rather, eating too *much* especially in a stressed-out, overtoxified, sedentary lifestyle, hurts your health.

I mean, I joke sometimes about bein' some kind of mutant, and been called one of "Lady's Own Prototypes' once in a while, but actually, the more I look at the science, it appears I got a lot of *throwback* in my genes and development: maybe a bit too much of the old Celtic aristocracy at once, even. It's in the shape of my feet (for springing, not agriculture,) ...that bump on the back of one's head usually more prominent in males? Got that, (That's not for gathering berries, that's an attachment point for stabilizing your eyes while running and throwing and stuff, ) all that adrenaline stuff that used to be so cool, ...A lot of adaptations that make pretty good huntress/warrior stuff but never actually did prioritize the kind of *longevity* that modern life tends to demand. I was built for wicked high performance, but not necessarily to last, me.

But if a lot of this stuff is *throwback,* it's a throwback *to* something.


A large percentage of what I *do* eat is animal products. My cholesterol actually does *fine,* despite me being under a lot of stress and being forced to be a lot more sedentary than I'd like. The absolutes you claim just don't *hold.*



Claiming we're 'supposed' to be pure herbivores is just ideological denialism, for anyone, though. I mean, we *have* *hunting instincts.* We *have* meat-eating ones.

We don't have to let people *play* us by those, (The real public health and overconsumption problem, that: our instincts and bodies aren't designed for 'no meat,' they're actually designed for 'as much meat as possible when you can get it.' And the problem there is we can *always* get as much as we can buy, (And that not even enough of the more-nutritious organ meats these days, hence more quantity of muscle) they combine it with similar responses to salt and sugars, ...and our instincts *don't* have much way to say 'enough' because 'Too much' has rarely been a problem in our evolution. ) To not get *played* by the instincts we're blinded to, in favor of shame, moralism and absolutist thinking, ...we need to accept, honor, and enlighten them, not try and deny, punish, and suppress them.


In other words, we need to pay attention to life. Not consider it 'beneath' us. Or treat it as 'degraded.'

[magkelly]

Oh just one more thing. I've known several kids who were raised vegan who actually chose to eat meat on their own after a certain point. It's not just about us all being force fed meat and being used to it. For some of us it is the way we eat, what our body seems to want. Not everybody can handle an all vegan/vegetarian diet. Even kids who are raised to it don't stick, and you also have people like my one roommate who naturally seem to gravitate to it.

She was raised eating less meat than the average westerner. The folks were from Japan, but still they ate meat her whole childhood, but she apparently never really cared for it much. By the time she was in her teens she was eating entirely vegan and that was her call. Meat cooking would literally make her nauseous. When I lived with her and one other roommate who was also vegan I never ate meat in the house as a courtesy to them.

Most of us are ominvores I think but there are definitely people who are more adapted to eating one way or the other than not, I think. I can eat some veggies, but mostly I'm a definite carnivore. I crave meat sometimes and it's not just a psychological thing. Too little meat and I can get really sick. Too many veggies, ditto. It's a fine balance, but my system is definitely geared more towards meat than veggies for what it's worth. I don't get enough of it? I've been known to sleepwalk and eat it RAW. No kidding. I've been found by the fridge fast asleep, acting like a pajama clad werewolf, furiously ripping off eating chunks of raw steak more than once. I'm thinking maybe my body knows better than my psyche, but yeah, definite carnivore, laugh...

[les3547]

The view you are expressing seems a bit Manichean. There are also omnivores. Humans, apes and many other animals have eaten both meat and vegetable for recorded history and fossil prehistory. There are human meat eaters without blood lust. There are also people who enjoy alcohol without being alcoholics. I happen to fit in both of those categories.

I'm glad you enjoy your diet, and it is good for each of us to find what is right for us. I've tried several forms of vegetarianism and was significantly less happy and less healthy. We each have our own preferences and needs. Bill Clinton needed a vegan diet to stay alive, and that may be true of many with coronary issues. A diabetic may need a diet completely without sugar to survive. An Ayurvedic would refine it even further, rightly or wrongly. Years of evolution in a certain area with certain available foods has probably left its mark on each of us.

I wasn't trying to make it a contest between good and evil, and the comparison to herbivores was to show how our bodies are constructed (herbivore-like). Neither am I trying to say vegetarianism is superior, which it may be -- I recognize it isn't my place to tell others what they should eat (however, poor health on a vegetarian diet is never due to the elimination of meat, it is always because of improper diet, or because there is an initial phase of detoxification that goes on that can be very uncomfortable). BTW, I believe the "omnivore" title simply describes what we do, not how our bodies are constructed. Anyway, most of my responses have been to claims you guys have made about not making a difference to world hunger, or we are built to eat meat, or enjoying life necessarily entails indulging appetites, etc. I'm sorry if any of that came off as holier than thou. Some of my best friends are . . . no wait, ALL my friends (except wife) consume dead rotting flesh (and I always am the one relentlessly teased).

My main point may have been lost in the side issues, but it was that meat eating discussions seem to never reach a point where an objective exchange of ideas takes place about its real costs (health, environment, world hunger, actual dollars) because people are so attached to eating meat they will rationalize away every problem. From my standpoint, comparing the resources necessary for my diet to a meat eaters, I don't see it as any different than the person who compares driving his electric car to a gas-guzzling SUV. Similar too is how there was a time not so long ago where trying to eliminate gas guzzlers was only going to happen if you pried it from their cold, dead hands.

[Ash]

Humans can process animal proteins (and fats) just fine. It is the overconsumption of the same that affects the human condition (spilling over into mental, not just physical, health) and makes many wonder what the virtues of such a foodstuff is. Each person will have their own standpoint as to what they find acceptable for themselves (the notion of personal relativism) and there is what is more absolute (biochemical requirement for essential amino acids, the ability to digest animal/egg products, necessity for dietary iron/calcium, etc.). Modern food technology gives us the false assurance that we can now achieve all that we need nutritionally by eating a less varied diet as long as it is supplemented with vitamins or functional foods, but there is no doubt that fortifying foods has curbed the prevalence of micronutrient deficiencies the world over.

It is worth considering that, particularly in the better endowed countries of the world, a full and varied diet balanced with good physical activity may not be a specific prescription for good health but the innumerable varieties this can be achieved certainly works. Nutritional and lifestyle knowledge and discipline are required to make better choices on what foods are good to have often, sometimes and sparingly. Often these fundamentals are put aside for the fads that stir up more interest because we almost want to have our cake and eat it as well.

[redrockcoulee]

Electric cars use less resources or non local resources compared to SUV. In most cases there is little environmental downside to electric cars and non at all to more fuel efficient ones. Stopping eating meat does have an environmental cost and that is to the prairie/plains ecosystem unless you wish to have people desert it and move into cities etc. Ranching substains biodiversity.

Factory farms, over consumption, waste and throwing out food, over sized portions: doing away with these or at least reducing them will do far more good from an environmental point of view than turning grasslands in semi arid areas into cabbage patches or even wheatfields. Take a look at a satelittle image of the Alberta/Montana border and see the difference; grasslands and native species north of the border and heavily subsidized grain farms south of the medicine line.

I is not a simple solution to a complex problem. Some problems have single solutions others do not.

I also think that our ancestors were classified as omnivours , herbivours etc based on skeletal remains not on cultural mories.