Humans As Meat-Eaters: Some Perspectives from Science

Randip Singh · #19 (**permalink**) 29-Jun-2009, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unbiasedview

1.compare the canines of humans with that of carnivores u will see they r better in cracking nuts than
meat

My friend, if you can manage a nut shell, then you can easily manage meat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by unbiasedview

2.if cows intestine is 20 times longer, it is still on thelonger side not the smaller side.

Humans are Omnivores so maybe our tract maybe somewhere between a plat eater and a meat eater? Just maybe?

Quote:

Originally Posted by unbiasedview

3.omnivorous habit doesnt doesnt gives excuse for a ph that is not good enough to digest meat properly!

That is your opinion, please give us some facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by unbiasedview

4.yeah human evolved from primates,let them stay human,dont make them live like primates again!

Actually if humans didn't eat meat we would be swinging around in trees.

Meat in the human diet: an anthropological perspective. (01-SEP-07) Nutrition & Dietetics: The Journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia

BBC - Science & Nature - The evolution of man

Maybe vegetarians might de-evolve into apes?

Quote:

Originally Posted by unbiasedview

5.animals ahve social organisation like us,they have emotions like us,but u dont know whether plants have emotions or not (they have life we all agree)by overlooking these emotional aspects we r desensitizing ourselves and that doesnt augurs well for humanity

Ok let me get this right, because a plant does not run away and scream thats fine? Hmmm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by unbiasedview

6.and all those who say vegeterianism isnt good enough to support life is rubbish,i know ppl who have been vegeterian all thru there lives and they have better haemoglobin levels than so called flesh eaters.and cereals and pulses have all the amino acids,its jus that u have to eat them in combinations!

Read the articles. Humans became humans because we ate meat:

Meat in the human diet: an anthropological perspective. (01-SEP-07) Nutrition & Dietetics: The Journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia

BBC - Science & Nature - The evolution of man

Quote:

Originally Posted by unbiasedview

7.why shouldnt humans eat humans if flesh is so good?u would say that would wipe out the race.ok point taken.but what abt a guy who has died just out of accident and his body is good enough to be eaten?i think human flesh would be even better than other fleshes as it is exactly what u want in your body!i would say it is the emotional part that stops one from doin that.and in killing a animal ur overlooking that emotional aspect(and u dont know whether plants have emotions or not)

Why don't vegetarians eat tree bark, or maybe cow dung? How about grass?

This is getting silly now. Be serious.

Randip Singh · #20 (**permalink**) 29-Jun-2009, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenjuice

yeah, humans "evolved" from primates, you're right

i'm out of here...

That was a lame attempt at an insult.

Here is a good insult.

It follows from these articles:

Meat in the human diet: an anthropological perspective. (01-SEP-07) Nutrition & Dietetics: The Journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia

BBC - Science & Nature - The evolution of man

That eating meat made us Human from Apes.

Maybe vegetarians might de-evolve into apes?

tony · #21 (**permalink**) 30-Jun-2009, 19:11 PM

Not sure but I do believe that the appendix is required for the digestion of green vegatation, in humans it isnt a functioning organ and is quite often removed without any side effects,
Meat eaters have claws explain that to a snake. only grazing animals have hoofs, most other herbivores i.e squirrels, iguanas, veggi birds, field mice, the list is endless but all have claws and not all meat eaters use their claws in the capture of its prey.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/health-and-nutrition/25586-humans-meat-eaters-some-perspectives-science.html
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=25586
Herbivores have no canine teeth, humans do. As for nut cracking thats why humans invented nut crackers so as not to break there canines.
As for the need to cook meat, its for taste and does nothing for the digestion of meat, my friends steaks are dripping with blood barely warms them up, the Japanese eat raw fish so the cooking isnt needed.
Think you could have something in the veggis might De-evolve theory Randip Singh ji, looks like some may be further along that line than first thought, in intelligences levels anyway.

Randip Singh · #22 (**permalink**) 01-Jul-2009, 00:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony

Not sure but I do believe that the appendix is required for the digestion of green vegatation, in humans it isnt a functioning organ and is quite often removed without any side effects,
Meat eaters have claws explain that to a snake. only grazing animals have hoofs, most other herbivores i.e squirrels, iguanas, veggi birds, field mice, the list is endless but all have claws and not all meat eaters use their claws in the capture of its prey.
Herbivores have no canine teeth, humans do. As for nut cracking thats why humans invented nut crackers so as not to break there canines.
As for the need to cook meat, its for taste and does nothing for the digestion of meat, my friends steaks are dripping with blood barely warms them up, the Japanese eat raw fish so the cooking isnt needed.
Think you could have something in the veggis might De-evolve theory Randip Singh ji, looks like some may be further along that line than first thought, in intelligences levels anyway.

Never thought of Snakes. That is interesting.

I love the point of nut crackers. Even Chimps have the sense to use rocks

Sinister · #23 (**permalink**) 01-Jul-2009, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unbiasedview

7.why shouldnt humans eat humans if flesh is so good?u would say that would wipe out the race.ok point taken.but what abt a guy who has died just out of accident and his body is good enough to be eaten?i think human flesh would be even better than other fleshes as it is exactly what u want in your body!i would say it is the emotional part that stops one from doin that.and in killing a animal ur overlooking that emotional aspect(and u dont know whether plants have emotions or not)

Why shouldn’t humans eat humans?

To prevent the expansion and proliferation of diseases. Animals (especially carnivores) prefer prey that looks nothing like them because they are the most genetically dissimilar, thus they will share the least amount of diseases. Which is why lions won’t eat other lions, lions may kill other predators, such as cheetahs but they will never actively hunt for them.

Prion related diseases have been associated with the those animals which consume there own kind; Mad Cow disease … bovine spongiform encephalitis …… Kuru (developed in some tribes in Africa that that practiced cannibalism) ….. Creutzfeldt Jacobs disease ….. scrapies.

all these factors come together and give us an understanding as to why not only humans, but also the entire animal kingdom avoid eating there own kind.

I take offence to this question (not anger, but simply offence) because I know and understand what was implied, psychologically, behind such an armed question. I know that this debate has been ignited many times on spn, and that the arguments are always very similar if not identical, to the point where they become talking points (which is why I only answered part 7 of Greenjuice’s aka unbiasedview’s question, as it was the most intriguing). What have I learnt:

A particular sentiment is consistent within many in the ‘vegetarian cult’. For most vegetarians the consumption of meat is considered to be a barbaric act, simply because of a strong moral conviction that suffering is being inflicted on thousands of animals that can otherwise be avoided by unnaturally altering the human diet.

By all measure of account, this bleeding heart sentiment is at the crux of this argument, the rest of the claptrap behind the debate is a secondary levy (which is needed because the primary levy is weak to begin with) that tries to justify their position as the correct one. Basically we humans try to justify our actions and protect ourselves even if it involves making up stories about ‘meat not being properly digested in the human GI tract’ or ‘canines preferably being used for cracking nuts’ (both claims so unsubstantiated and ludicrous that it is hard not to laugh).

It is childish because it is persuasion through fear and mostly guilt. In which the belief is that if you want something done you have to scare people or at least make them feel bad about themselves so that they are persuaded to change their ways. Instead of treating them like adults and conveying your feelings through a dialogue that stimulates thought and expands knowledge we are reduced to debating sentiments and morality on a childish level.

Do these people genuinely care about the animals/animal rights or are they more concerned about generating an aura of moral superiority above there equals?

Are animals to be treated like a commodity as they are now? Traded by the ton on the mercantile exchange?

Should animals and grains be patented? Cloned?

Should meat be grown on a Petri dish?

Is artificial insemination in animals cruel? What can be characterized as correct breeding practices?

How can farmers respect their livestock, make healthier food, and still out compete the farmers that don’t? what type of enforcement is necessary in the globalization and 'corporatization' of the farming industry?

This discussion really needs to move on and become far more intricate than what it is…what it is currently is just nonsense. What it needs to turn into is a serious discussion that puts serious issues first, not personal preferences.

Randip Singh · #24 (**permalink**) 01-Jul-2009, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sinister

Why shouldn’t humans eat humans?

To prevent the expansion and proliferation of diseases. Animals (especially carnivores) prefer prey that looks nothing like them because they are the most genetically dissimilar, thus they will share the least amount of diseases. Which is why lions won’t eat other lions, lions may kill other predators, such as cheetahs but they will never actively hunt for them.

Prion related diseases have been associated with the those animals which consume there own kind; Mad Cow disease … bovine spongiform encephalitis …… Kuru (developed in some tribes in Africa that that practiced cannibalism) ….. Creutzfeldt Jacobs disease ….. scrapies.

all these factors come together and give us an understanding as to why not only humans, but also the entire animal kingdom avoid eating there own kind.

I take offence to this question (not anger, but simply offence) because I know and understand what was implied, psychologically, behind such an armed question. I know that this debate has been ignited many times on spn, and that the arguments are always very similar if not identical, to the point where they become talking points (which is why I only answered part 7 of Greenjuice’s aka unbiasedview’s question, as it was the most intriguing). What have I learnt:

A particular sentiment is consistent within many in the ‘vegetarian cult’. For most vegetarians the consumption of meat is considered to be a barbaric act, simply because of a strong moral conviction that suffering is being inflicted on thousands of animals that can otherwise be avoided by unnaturally altering the human diet.

By all measure of account, this bleeding heart sentiment is at the crux of this argument, the rest of the claptrap behind the debate is a secondary levy (which is needed because the primary levy is weak to begin with) that tries to justify their position as the correct one. Basically we humans try to justify our actions and protect ourselves even if it involves making up stories about ‘meat not being properly digested in the human GI tract’ or ‘canines preferably being used for cracking nuts’ (both claims so unsubstantiated and ludicrous that it is hard not to laugh).

It is childish because it is persuasion through fear and mostly guilt. In which the belief is that if you want something done you have to scare people or at least make them feel bad about themselves so that they are persuaded to change their ways. Instead of treating them like adults and conveying your feelings through a dialogue that stimulates thought and expands knowledge we are reduced to debating sentiments and morality on a childish level.

Do these people genuinely care about the animals/animal rights or are they more concerned about generating an aura of moral superiority above there equals?

Are animals to be treated like a commodity as they are now? Traded by the ton on the mercantile exchange?

Should animals and grains be patented? Cloned?

Should meat be grown on a Petri dish?

Is artificial insemination in animals cruel? What can be characterized as correct breeding practices?

How can farmers respect their livestock, make healthier food, and still out compete the farmers that don’t? what type of enforcement is necessary in the globalization and 'corporatization' of the farming industry?

This discussion really needs to move on and become far more intricate than what it is…what it is currently is just nonsense. What it needs to turn into is a serious discussion that puts serious issues first, not personal preferences.

Sinisters strikes back with a vengeance.

Where have you been hiding?