• Lucytorial said on Sep 23, 2008....

  Its one of the conundrums for greenies at the moment we cannot make people into vegetarians, if you take a look at our natural diet we are carnivores naturally! due to societies easy access and its greed for immediate satiation we're left with industries that are highly polutant and harmfull to resources.

  As I said its a conundrum.  I have no idea how to approach it.

• bloc said on Sep 23, 2008....

  " if you take a look at our natural diet we are carnivores naturally! "
  
  
  I don't believe this is true.
  
  
  Also, I don't think it's a binary issue, be a vegetarian or eat meat. I am very careful, which not many people have noticed, to always say "eat less meat" and never to say "you must become a vegetarian". Inspite of this commenters always assume I'm asking people to become vegetarians. This is a fascinating example of how the human brain works and often sees/reads what it expects rather than what is actually there.

• Lucytorial said on Sep 23, 2008....

  I wasn't implying that you were wanting people to be vegetarian at all, I was merely making a point that greenies here (my country) are lobbying for complete meat free societies... its not possible in my humble opinion and had nothing to do with your statement but that you questioned should we eat less meat? you have done a few posts on this over the year as I recall.
   
  Ahh yes were are natural meat eaters, we were blessed with teeth to crack grain husks and gnaw on meat they're called mollars, strong, been around for millenia.
   
  Our first diet was grains, fish & fruit, it extended to meat when we found we could kill, then we learned to farm beasts and eat them at will, all this prior to society developing many of the skills to realise we shouldn't be farming meat.

• bloc said on Sep 23, 2008....

  the strongest statement one could make is that we are natural omnivores. In many ways our bodies more closely resemble those of herbivores than carnivores. I'm happy to debate this if it's doubted.
  
  
  regarding vegetarianism and my posts, many many people assume i'm demanding they be veggies for some reason. I'm glad you weren't, but it is a common trend.

• Lucytorial said on Sep 23, 2008....

  I don't doubt that Bloc, I've studied anatomy and physiology myself, I'm not talking about what our bodies SHOULD be eating but what they DO eat and have done so for thousands of years.
   
  Yes the herbivore closely resembles our original diet PRIOR to hunting and eating meat, take a look at each pocket of society that stemmed from Africa and central Europe, tell me they weren't eating meat every day when supplies were plentiful and when they could they ate sea food (shellfish and fish)
   
  If you want lets talk about one of the oldest societies in the world, aboriginals, they were eating meat daily over 45 thousands years ago, not much has changed.
   
  You slipped that last comment in as I was typing :-} I don't assume much Bloc, assumptions are the mother of all fuck ups.

• Lucytorial said on Sep 23, 2008....

  Actually you know what, I've been taking a look around to substantiate my claim and come across an interesting statement;
   
  We are more omnivore than herbivore or pure carnivore.
   
  The intestinal tract of humans is idealy suited to break down protien from meats as well as plant products but unlike most herbivores our intestines do not have the neccessary length or bacteria to break down a purely herbiverous diet, for example eating leaves and stems - there is no way that a human coudl be completely herbiverous and get enough protien without substituting it with man made protien products even if they are items like tofu, your still creating a massive industry to use energy, fertilizers etc to make it.
   
  So no we don't more closely reseemble either or, we are quite simply omnivores.

• bloc said on Sep 23, 2008....

  "there is no way that a human coudl be completely herbiverous and get enough protien without substituting it with man made protien products even if they are items like tofu"
  
  
  this is patently false. There is a great book called the China Study. It's author is a Ph D research in the field of nutrition with decades of work on the subject at MIT, VA Tech, and Cornell. He goes over protein very thoroughly in the book. Unfortunately a lot of nutritional information out there is old and wrong.
  
  

• bloc said on Sep 23, 2008....

  Length of Small Intestine 
  CARNIVORE: 3 to 6 times body length 
  HERBIVORE: 10 to more than 12 times body length 
  OMNIVORE: 4 to 6 times body length 
  HUMAN: 10 to 11 times body length 
  
  
  from here, with many other comparisons between us and herbivores.

• bloc said on Sep 23, 2008....

  The whole idea of "protein complementarity" got started in 1914 when Osborne and Mendel published a paper on rat nutrition. They noticed that baby rats fed a plant food diet did not grow as fast as other rats who ate the same diet plus a lysine supplement. Conclusion: these plant foods needed a lysine supplement.

  Unfortunately, the nutritional requirements of rats and humans are quite different, and this was quickly demonstrated by experiments on humans. Studies in which humans have been fed wheat bread alone, or potatoes alone, or corn alone, or rice alone, have all shown that these plant foods contain not only enough protein, but enough of all of the essential amino acids, to support growth and maintenance of healthy adults. Particularly striking were the experiments involving rice: not only was the rice protein more than adequate, it was adequate when only about 2/3 of the calories were provided through the rice. This means that the actual requirement for protein for most individuals is actually less than 8% of calories as stated by the National Research Council; the NRC has padded its figures with a "safety factor" which many individuals do not need.

• Lucytorial said on Sep 23, 2008....

  Bloc I read that article and many others.  There seems to be as many for omnivore as against it.
   
  Lets take a look at what is the standard or known omnivorous diet, not the western one but the original one.
   
  Hunter-Gatherer Diets vs. Western Diets:
  Wild vs. Domesticated/Cultivated Foods
  
  An important point to be noted concerning hunter-gatherer diets is that they are composed of wild rather than cultivated foods. Hunter-gatherer diets also generally exclude grains, legumes, and dairy, as they are the products of agriculture--something that hunter-gatherers do not practice.

  The hunter-gatherer diet is generally composed of:

  • Wild fruits, nuts, greens, tubers--raw and/or cooked.

  • The lean meat and organs of wild animals.

  • Insects (wild, though some tribes, e.g., the Ache of Paraguay, practice semi-cultivation of insects; see Clastres [1972]).

  • Other foods--e.g., honey, as an example. (Note that wild honey usually includes the bee brood--bees in the form of larvae; reportedly it is the best-tasting part--at least that is what a friend who is a former instinctive eater relates.)

  This is a small part of the study I've read which kind of mocks the idea that

  humans are true herbivors.  I will concede though that omnivorous activity is due

  part to society developing.  One goes in hand with the other.

• Lucytorial said on Sep 23, 2008....

  Further more Omnvivore is classified to explain those animals including humans which do not exclusively eat meat or either plant matter.
   
  Because we have over the hundreds of years designed farmed animals that contain a higher fat content we are of course going to see a higher rate in certain diseases, the same can be said for the higher fructose in the fruit we now grow. 
   
  Lets not be blind to those simple facts.  As far as health goes if humans tended towards a more herbivours / LEAN omnivorous (herbivore before omnivore) lifestyle that is biodynamic and organic then we would for certain see a reduction in the disease rates we now as humans happily enjoy.
   
  As for the environment? tell a corporate conglomerate who really cares.  I say let natural selection wipe the whole lot of us out so nature can change into something completely different once again.

• bloc said on Sep 23, 2008....

  I think we agree far more than we disagree. I don't know what it means to be a true omnivore, but I do believe we do not need to eat meat at all.
  Regarding sources, it is clear that one can link to a web page that says pretty much anything. This is why I mentioned dr campbells background. I've done a lot of reading and thinking about this issue and I have found nothing more convincing them dr Campbell's book.

• Lucytorial said on Sep 23, 2008....

  It seems as though I agree with you to a degree.  I've had personal experience with diet concentration over the years.
   
  I use to be a vegan, then vegetarian, then I began to eat meat again.  However, several years ago I was diagnosed as a celiac (wheat allergic) I found out why, due to a lack of gut bacteria ~ due to eating the wrong kinds of meat! yes I know I'm going against what I've said to a degree however, having lived on a fairly balanced and lean organic natural omnivorous diet for the last two years I've found my health including stats (medical) on my hormone production, is far more balanced than most my age, I do not show signs of celiac unless I eat processed foods.  The western diet is shit, unhealthy even deadly if you ask me.
   
  Thoroughly enjoyed the conversation Bloc, thank you. (I will take a look at campbells book)

• bloc said on Sep 24, 2008....

  yes, the western diet is shit. Eating meat instead of processed foods is an improvement if the only issue is health. Another great book you might like is "The Omnivore's Dilemma". Talks about the western diet and isn't about vegetarianism.

Comment on "should we eat less meat?"

Currently tagged	the environment politics food meat (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment