To ask everyone to eat less meat and meat products?

[Breadandwine]

There are 3 reasons I eat a plant-exclusive diet:

1. I feel I'm healthier (I became veggie to avoid BSE - and my osteoarthritis has been stopped in its tracks since I went vegan)
2. Animal welfare issues (I went vegan after looking at the inevitable cruelty involved in the meat and dairy industries)
3. Global warming/climate change (the single most important thing anyone can do to fight GW is to go vegan - the world's livestock industry contributes more to GW than does transport!)

Before global warming reared its ugly head, I was quite reticent about my veganism, only talking about it when I was asked. But now that our children's and our grandchildren's future is threatened, I'm a lot more vocal.

And now there's me and the Pope on the same side - who'dda thunk it?

"You're happy acting like an animal. I am not."

Not "act like an animal" as in snarl at passers-by but I'm happy to eat the food that my body has evolved to digest. You are not.

Fine. Do what you like. Nobody is telling you to eat what you don't want to. It would be great if the vegetarians and vegans coming on here to proselytise would extend us the same courtesy.

ThatBloody - As I said before, yes, a basic level of care should indeed be provided to animals we rear but beyond that... happiness?

LadyPlumpington I'm sure we are all glad to learn that when you go to a restaurant you don't grill the chef. Even such incorrigible meat-eaters as I don't do that. He would probably taste a bit greasy and who'd cook next time we went?

But I would say what my chickens get is a basic level of care,and just that basic level means they're happy.
But I doubt the majority of the chickens in Tesco's have had that.

I don't buy from chicken from Tesco's or similar supermarkets, not because the chickens whose body parts they sell may not have led happy lives, but because I prefer the smaller & tastier chickens sold at our local butcher's.

I find the whole 'happiness of the prey' thing a bit hypocritical tbh. I'm not going to encourage animal torture of course think they should be reared in as natural a way as possible, but frankly if I cared that much about the happy lives of those animals, I wouldn't be eating them.

Cote you seem to be deliberately obtuse.

"Like a lion eats a gazelle" - really? Lions are carnivores - they can only eat meat. Humans aren't. Our "ancestors" would have originally eaten much less meat than we do now. Likewise, even if lions weren't carniovores, they don't have a corner shop packed full of alternative options, nor do they destroy thousands of acres of land by having live stock on it. If people were only eating the meat that they themselves had hunted, then we wouldn't have this problem.

There are two lines of debate here anyway - one is the ethical side of the treatment of animals, etc. The other is the environmental side of there being far too much land required to graze lifestock, way too many livestock in the first place to ensure demand is always over and not under estimated, etc.

It's good of me to refrain, isn't it Andrew still, I'm sure that there would be some under-chefling around who could boil me a few harmoniously reared soya beans and serve them on a bed of ethically farmed wild rice plucked by happy children.

Humans are omnivores - they eat both meat and plants.

"Our "ancestors" would have originally eaten much less meat than we do now"

Care to back that up with some facts? I'd like to know where you think our ancestors were getting most of their calories from before the advent of agriculture around 12,000 BC.

"the environmental side of there being far too much land required to graze lifestock"

Read the thread.

"way too many livestock in the first place to ensure demand is always over and not under estimated"

Would you rather we kill the excess animals now?

'happiness' (whatever that may be) of a lamb in the five weeks its going to stay alive until it becomes the lamb chops on my plate.

More like five months. Or longer... Takes a while to fatten up a lamb.

I'm firmly of the view that animals do experience happiness, contentment, fear etc. I don't think it's anthropomorphising, I think it's accepting that they are sentient beings who don't like pain or hunger any more than we do.

That doesn't stop me eating them, but does make me think twice about how stock is reared.

I think animals are happy when they can express reasonably natural behaviours, all of which can be expressed in free range farming. Animals do not have any concept of fearing a stress free death. If I tell a human I'll be knocking on their door to kill them tomorrow, they'll fear it. However tell a cow that and it doesn't have a clue. Take it far out of its normal routine and scare it shitless you will, but that doesn't need to go hand in hand with killing it. Same for any animal.
Humans will never be predators like other mammals because we kill and torture and maim for reasons other than survival. Cats catch prey and give it their kittens live to torture slowly to teach them to hunt, hence why many domestic adult cats do the same to their own prey, because they've never progressed further than play in the kill to eat stakes. And animals have no concept of empathy. Humans though will torture animals or people for reasons that have no origins in survival, because we've wiped any memories of any possible use with intelligence.
So I think as the supposedly superior race we should be willing to say yes, it's actually ok to accept we're predators and omnivores, even if I personally don't wish to be, but we should use the superior intelligence we've developed alongside to treat our pray humanely, both prior to and including death.

"And animals have no concept of empathy"

Umm, not sure I agree with that. Have you ever cried with a pet in the room? You would be surprised.

"we should use the superior intelligence we've developed alongside to treat our pray humanely, both prior to and including death."

I agree with this. Yes, there is no reason to cause unnecessary hurt and suffering. I don't agree that we have to provide "happiness" to the animals we are soon going to be eating, though.

Yes, but I think that's more responding to you and your actions ( and/or their own herd instinct) rather than them empathising with why you're upset in the first place iyswim.
Depends I suppose on how you class happy. I think most animals are happy if their basic physical needs are met sufficiently and within reason their mental need, which broadly speaking I'd say was being reasonably stress free. Eg freedom to move about, to occupy themselves naturally most of the time grazing/ sleeping etc, to have herd/ group company, not having live healthy young removed prior to the start of weaning etc. I suppose by humane I mean stress free, rather than happy like a vague take on pampered pet.

Care to back that up with some facts? I'd like to know where you think our ancestors were getting most of their calories from before the advent of agriculture around 12,000 BC.

I think you will find that the fossil evidence directly links consumption of meat (and the extra protein therein) with increased brain size.
Once we were mostly vegetarian monkeys swinging through the trees , the average fossil from this period has an approximate brain size of 300cc.
The fossils from there on show a slow but sure development in canine teeth which are indicative of an increase in meat consumption. The same fossils also show an increase in brain size in direct correlation with increase in canine teeth.

If we'd stayed veggie the we would still be swinging through the trees!

Interesting, but correlation is not causation. Increased meat intake may have been involved in brain expansion but you simply cannot state with certainty that one caused the other.

My opinion is that its not the increased meat/protein that increased brains, but the need for brains to actually get the meat dictating evolution.
Herbivores don't actually need to actively think individually to plan a defence, it's a herd reaction, even if some members have a specific role. The majority of the herd just copies.
However predators, even those that hunt in packs, have to be able to think individually rather than the majority just copying each other. And unlike herbivores, predators often get chance to learn from their mistakes.
However I think evolution as a whole has far too many factors to directly correlate just two together without considering how those two were in turn affected by the others. Not to mention the fact advancing one aspect is to the detriment of other skills, so there's always a fine balance in whether the advantage is worth the disadvantage from an evolutionary point of view.

In other words, a large brain needs a lot of calories to run and that didn't happen on a diet of roots and berries.

Hi guys

Been on holiday for the past week or so, with a dodgy Wi-Fi connection - been able to lurk but not to post.

Very interesting discussion, I have to say. But a bit like fiddling while Rome burns, if you don't mind me saying so.

I shall say a lot on the GW side and the whole omnivore/herbivore argument when I have more time. But here are the animal welfare issues that everyone should consider before they put any animal product in their mouths.

Get your large brain around that, Cote!

Interesting, but correlation is not causation. Increased meat intake may have been involved in brain expansion but you simply cannot state with certainty that one caused the other.

I am not a scientist but have explained it the best I can.
Suffice to say that most scientists in that particular field agree that increased protein from meat was by far and away the major factor in the development of our species' brain.

Like it or not, your intelligence is down to meat eating!

BreadandWine you have linked to an American website, which is not relevant outside of America. They do not, in general, treat their animals for eating very well there. I feel you have been rather insulting to the intelligence of posters when you say "here are the animal welfare issues that everyone should consider before they put any animal product in their mouth". If you have spent so much time lurking, then surely you will have had time to ruminate ( ) on all the arguments put forward. Do yu honestly think that the meat-eaters haven't been able to figure out for themselves all the pros and cons? Another preachy post, thinking that everyone except you grasps the concept.

Most people who eat meat who have posted on this thread have not in any way, shape or form, advocated the ill-treatment of animals. Most have said they eat only free-range. I (and my family) for instance, would NEVER eat Danish bacon or pork, as the animal welfare standards in Denmark do not meet the same exacting standards as those in Britain. There are still battery farms for hens here, but we only buy free-range chicken and eggs. A lot of our meat is bought from a free-range farm in Oxfordshire, where you can see the living conditions of the animals. They are very well-cared for, very happy animals.

Some so-called vegans, however, are happy to eat certain eggs, or use man-made materials for their knitting (I'm sure you know that man-made materials are extremely damaging to the planet).

(Grrr - thinking NO-ONE except you grasps the concept)

Cote your "humans evolve/are meant to eat meat" argument is so out of date and mislead...

Researchers at the University of California found that meat triggers a toxic reaction within the body that weakens the immune system due to a natural sugar it contains our bodies can’t digest. Yes, you heard that right – meat actually has a natural sugar, as small as it may be. Known as Neu5Gc, this sugar is a foreign agent to our body that is seen as an invader.

The body launches an immune response as it tries to get rid of it and in the mean time, a host of health problems occur, such as cancer (which is largely a disease of a weak immune system). The unique findings are that other carnivores can eat red meat fine because their bodies actually contain the natural sugar that digests the meat. Our bodies don’t – clearly a sign that we’re not meant to eat it.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11316316/Red-meat-triggers-toxic-immune-reaction-which-causes-cancer-scientists-find.html

When you look at the comparison between herbivores and humans, we compare much more closely to herbivores than meat eating animals. Humans are clearly not designed to digest and ingest meat.

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
Based on a chart by A.D. Andrews, Fit Food for Men, (Chicago: American Hygiene Society, 1970)

Starkers - I haven't read your entire post, have only just got to the bit that says 'Herbivores have no claws"'.

We have pet rabbits. Rabbits are herbivores. They have claws.
We have fingernails, which are probably left over from claws.

Tortoises have claws - they're herbivores.

If humans are clearly so not designed to either ingest or digest meat, how come we've all been alive for so long (and living even longer, it seems)

We've evolved this way, from way back when. I remember watching a documentary once, examining the life of early humans. Some ate only meat, whilst others ate only berries and other vegetable matter.

So, nothing has changed really. The meat-eaters clearly evolved and moved on to embracing the berry to accompany and complement the meat, whilst the berry-eater just stuck with the berries.

starkers you might also be aware that a fertilised egg, and then the resulting foetus is something our bodies fight as an intruder. It only gets to remain when our bodies are entirely satisfied it's not taking away from any other aspect of survival. In the same way a body can reject a vital organ from a donor. Our bodies are so concerned with keeping up what they believe is essential for survival, they often make really stupid mistakes in judging which intruders are actually helpful or indeed necessary.
Being an omnivore is also a pretty handy survival skill.