Those Japanese must be well vegan with their worlds highest life expectancy and everything.
Some of them will be, as Japanese vegetarian cuisine is largely vegan because there's traditionally not been dairy there. But the real point is that the natural Japanese diet is rich in vegetables, fruit, fish and seaweed, all of which are healthy and most of which will have featured in our diet before we started farming.
A lot of the unhealthiness of the modern human diet is the excessive consumption of cereals, which only started when we changed from hunter gatherers to farmers planting fields of wheat or rice. Eating dairy products would only have started then as well (and not in much of Asia)
Those Japanese must be well vegan with their worlds highest life expectancy and everything.
Some of them will be, as Japanese vegetarian cuisine is largely vegan because there's traditionally not been dairy there. But the real point is that the natural Japanese diet is rich in vegetables, fruit, fish and seaweed, all of which are healthy and most of which will have featured in our diet before we started farming.
A lot of the unhealthiness of the modern human diet is the excessive consumption of cereals, which only started when we changed from hunter gatherers to farmers planting fields of wheat or rice. Eating dairy products would only have started then as well (and not in much of Asia)
This is another interesting post. One could argue that cultivation enabled nomadic mankind to settle in one place, and from that other benefits arose that made mankind more healthy not less so. Excessive consumption is to be avoided, I certainly think that is true.
Those Japanese must be well vegan with their worlds highest life expectancy and everything.
(They actually are)
Fish is the meat of Japan. Nearly 10 per cent of the world's fish is consumed by the Japanese, yet they make up only 2 per cent of the world's population
Just something for those concerned about the health of our canine chums who live on a plant based diet. I’m not saying if I had a dog I would have it go without meat but I’m certain it wouldn’t be it’s primary food source. There has to be some scepticism about the quality and nutritional value of the meat in your average tin of mass produced dog food.
If I was Japanese I’d certainly consider NOT eating fish caught locally. The Fukushima nuclear reactor still leaking is already having a negative effect on marine life. Suppose they could always market fish fingers as edible glow sticks though.
If I was Japanese I’d certainly consider NOT eating fish caught locally. The Fukushima nuclear reactor still leaking is already having a negative effect on marine life. Suppose they could always market fish fingers as edible glow sticks though.
The Cove put me off eating/ buying anything produced by those barbarians.
If I was Japanese I’d certainly consider NOT eating fish caught locally. The Fukushima nuclear reactor still leaking is already having a negative effect on marine life. Suppose they could always market fish fingers as edible glow sticks though.
You would be missing out massively then. The radiation is less than you would find occurring in some foodstuffs naturally, so spreading fear wouldnt work in Japan.
Edit - just checked and... ''The Fukushima leaks were miniscule compared to the vast scale of the Pacific, said Nicholas S. Fisher, an expert on nuclear radiation in marine animals at Stony Brook University in New York. The disaster added just a fraction of a percent to the radiation that’s already in the ocean, 99 percent of which is naturally occurring.
At those levels, you could eat piles of Pacific fish and have nothing to worry about from radiation, Fisher said. The dose of Fukushima-derived radiation from the average tuna fillet, he explained, “would be far less than the total radiation you’d get from eating a banana or flying in an airplane.”
Those Japanese must be well vegan with their worlds highest life expectancy and everything.
(They actually are)
Fish is the meat of Japan. Nearly 10 per cent of the world's fish is consumed by the Japanese, yet they make up only 2 per cent of the world's population
The first thing that needs to be put to bed here is the assertion that Veganism is inherently healthy. It’s not. Without seeking out vitamin B12 supplements a vegan diet will eventually kill you. Pure veganism is an unnatural state for humans. Before supplements if everyone was vegan the human race would no longer exist. That’s why humans are omnivores. It’s the only way to get everything the body needs to survive. It is the human natural state.
Now I accept that in modern terms the need to be an omnivore is no longer critical. I accept that we now can choose and that’s of course a good thing. Want to be a vegan. Fine. Get on with it. What irritates me beyond belief is the evangelical claptrap being spouted about it being more healthy than eating a balanced diet including meat. It’s not. That is a fact.
I mentioned above that it is possible to get vitamin B12 from soy beans. Which would be possible in a vegan diet. Is it more realistic to say that anybody's approach to their personal consumption is what makes it healthy or unhealthy? Unmitigated raw steak and beer might be unhealthy, and nothing but turnips and water might be unhealthy too. However my understanding is, technically if you like, that there is no source of nutrients from meat based stuff that can't be found in plant based stuff. This post is intended to be genuine and not claptrap.
Ask the Inuit or Sami etc etc. people’s what they think about Veganism because the option of getting a well balanced plant based diet are not actually possible.
Being vegan is not a natural human state. No nonsense you care to bring up can change that.
This is a bit harsh. I fail to see that I am coming up with nonsense in my contributions on this thread. My theme is that in terms of nutrients that science has identified as being needed for human survival or growth, all of those nutrients can be found in plants. I am not even that interested in arguing about what is natural or unnatural (beyond saying that calling a vegetarian or vegan diet unnatural which seems to be rather a negative spin on things), I am arguing from a technical perspective that it is possible (although of course nearly impossible for certain groups like Inuit) for humans to survive and thrive without meat. If meat is a necessity in a general sense, leaving aside particular living and planetary conditions, then I have yet to identify what nutrients you can get from meat that absolutely can't be got anywhere else.
The first thing that needs to be put to bed here is the assertion that Veganism is inherently healthy. It’s not. Without seeking out vitamin B12 supplements a vegan diet will eventually kill you. Pure veganism is an unnatural state for humans. Before supplements if everyone was vegan the human race would no longer exist. That’s why humans are omnivores. It’s the only way to get everything the body needs to survive. It is the human natural state.
Now I accept that in modern terms the need to be an omnivore is no longer critical. I accept that we now can choose and that’s of course a good thing. Want to be a vegan. Fine. Get on with it. What irritates me beyond belief is the evangelical claptrap being spouted about it being more healthy than eating a balanced diet including meat. It’s not. That is a fact.
I mentioned above that it is possible to get vitamin B12 from soy beans. Which would be possible in a vegan diet. Is it more realistic to say that anybody's approach to their personal consumption is what makes it healthy or unhealthy? Unmitigated raw steak and beer might be unhealthy, and nothing but turnips and water might be unhealthy too. However my understanding is, technically if you like, that there is no source of nutrients from meat based stuff that can't be found in plant based stuff. This post is intended to be genuine and not claptrap.
Ask the Inuit or Sami etc etc. people’s what they think about Veganism because the option of getting a well balanced plant based diet are not actually possible.
Being vegan is not a natural human state. No nonsense you care to bring up can change that.
Sorry seth if you think thats harsh. No offence meant but its just not possible to have a well balanced diet based in plants only for billions of people worldwide. Not everyone lives with the option of choice and supplements. Ive used two examples of peoples that could not be vegan in the inuit and Sami andi raise that in a completely different part of the world with the Masai. They mostly eat meat and regularly drink blood because they cant pop down to the local Holland and Barrett for a bottle if vitimin B12 even if they could grow crops enough. These are ancient peoples living the existence that hunter gatherers were enforced to live. Getting their needs where and how they could. That is the natural state of mankind. Not some Disneyland lifestyle we enjoy where we eat and get nourished as we please.
The first thing that needs to be put to bed here is the assertion that Veganism is inherently healthy. It’s not. Without seeking out vitamin B12 supplements a vegan diet will eventually kill you. Pure veganism is an unnatural state for humans. Before supplements if everyone was vegan the human race would no longer exist. That’s why humans are omnivores. It’s the only way to get everything the body needs to survive. It is the human natural state.
Now I accept that in modern terms the need to be an omnivore is no longer critical. I accept that we now can choose and that’s of course a good thing. Want to be a vegan. Fine. Get on with it. What irritates me beyond belief is the evangelical claptrap being spouted about it being more healthy than eating a balanced diet including meat. It’s not. That is a fact.
I mentioned above that it is possible to get vitamin B12 from soy beans. Which would be possible in a vegan diet. Is it more realistic to say that anybody's approach to their personal consumption is what makes it healthy or unhealthy? Unmitigated raw steak and beer might be unhealthy, and nothing but turnips and water might be unhealthy too. However my understanding is, technically if you like, that there is no source of nutrients from meat based stuff that can't be found in plant based stuff. This post is intended to be genuine and not claptrap.
Ask the Inuit or Sami etc etc. people’s what they think about Veganism because the option of getting a well balanced plant based diet are not actually possible.
Being vegan is not a natural human state. No nonsense you care to bring up can change that.
Sorry seth if you think thats harsh. No offence meant but its just not possible to have a well balanced diet based in plants only for billions of people worldwide. Not everyone lives with the option of choice and supplements. Ive used two examples of peoples that could not be vegan in the inuit and Sami andi raise that in a completely different part of the world with the Masai. They mostly eat meat and regularly drink blood because they cant pop down to the local Holland and Barrett for a bottle if vitimin B12 even if they could grow crops enough. These are ancient peoples living the existence that hunter gatherers were enforced to live. Getting their needs where and how they could. That is the natural state of mankind. Not some Disneyland lifestyle we enjoy where we eat and get nourished as we please.
I'll tidy these up @Admin chaps, never you mind...
The first thing that needs to be put to bed here is the assertion that Veganism is inherently healthy. It’s not. Without seeking out vitamin B12 supplements a vegan diet will eventually kill you. Pure veganism is an unnatural state for humans. Before supplements if everyone was vegan the human race would no longer exist. That’s why humans are omnivores. It’s the only way to get everything the body needs to survive. It is the human natural state.
Now I accept that in modern terms the need to be an omnivore is no longer critical. I accept that we now can choose and that’s of course a good thing. Want to be a vegan. Fine. Get on with it. What irritates me beyond belief is the evangelical claptrap being spouted about it being more healthy than eating a balanced diet including meat. It’s not. That is a fact.
I mentioned above that it is possible to get vitamin B12 from soy beans. Which would be possible in a vegan diet. Is it more realistic to say that anybody's approach to their personal consumption is what makes it healthy or unhealthy? Unmitigated raw steak and beer might be unhealthy, and nothing but turnips and water might be unhealthy too. However my understanding is, technically if you like, that there is no source of nutrients from meat based stuff that can't be found in plant based stuff. This post is intended to be genuine and not claptrap.
Ask the Inuit or Sami etc etc. people’s what they think about Veganism because the option of getting a well balanced plant based diet are not actually possible.
Being vegan is not a natural human state. No nonsense you care to bring up can change that.
Sorry seth if you think thats harsh. No offence meant but its just not possible to have a well balanced diet based in plants only for billions of people worldwide. Not everyone lives with the option of choice and supplements. Ive used two examples of peoples that could not be vegan in the inuit and Sami andi raise that in a completely different part of the world with the Masai. They mostly eat meat and regularly drink blood because they cant pop down to the local Holland and Barrett for a bottle if vitimin B12 even if they could grow crops enough. These are ancient peoples living the existence that hunter gatherers were enforced to live. Getting their needs where and how they could. That is the natural state of mankind. Not some Disneyland lifestyle we enjoy where we eat and get nourished as we please.
I'll tidy these up @Admin chaps, never you mind...
The top photo shows my boy after being fed a rice and wheat based complete dog food as recommended by most vets because its readily available in their surgeries at around £70 a bag. The bottom photo shows the same boy six weeks later being fed unprocessed raw meat with bone and offal added to suit. Not hard to see whats good for my dog.
I know I'm skipping pages of posts here, but this has made me really angry.
Some fucking sicko had admitted to making his dog live a vegan lifestyle, I really hope someone has contacted the RSPCA about this scumbag.
Absolutely bizarre. So you're ok with millions and millions of animals dying for nothing more than taste yet because someone is feeding their dog vegan food he is a 'fucking sicko'.
Have a word
One is natural, The other is torture.
I have big problems with how the food industry works, it's why I avoid super markets as much as possible and try to buy all my food from local wet markets and friends/family that produce it themselves.
However I'd never let my dog suffer as a result of my life choices.
So if the dog is healthy and not suffering you'd change your opinion?
But it's not, it's completely unnatural for a dog to only eat vegetables.
So even if it's fit and healthy you wouldn't reconsider? I know of several vegetarian dogs and they are all fit, healthy and vital. No different to any other dogs I know.
Then you're allowing what you believe so cloud your judgement.
The first thing that needs to be put to bed here is the assertion that Veganism is inherently healthy. It’s not. Without seeking out vitamin B12 supplements a vegan diet will eventually kill you. Pure veganism is an unnatural state for humans. Before supplements if everyone was vegan the human race would no longer exist. That’s why humans are omnivores. It’s the only way to get everything the body needs to survive. It is the human natural state.
Now I accept that in modern terms the need to be an omnivore is no longer critical. I accept that we now can choose and that’s of course a good thing. Want to be a vegan. Fine. Get on with it. What irritates me beyond belief is the evangelical claptrap being spouted about it being more healthy than eating a balanced diet including meat. It’s not. That is a fact.
I mentioned above that it is possible to get vitamin B12 from soy beans. Which would be possible in a vegan diet. Is it more realistic to say that anybody's approach to their personal consumption is what makes it healthy or unhealthy? Unmitigated raw steak and beer might be unhealthy, and nothing but turnips and water might be unhealthy too. However my understanding is, technically if you like, that there is no source of nutrients from meat based stuff that can't be found in plant based stuff. This post is intended to be genuine and not claptrap.
Ask the Inuit or Sami etc etc. people’s what they think about Veganism because the option of getting a well balanced plant based diet are not actually possible.
Being vegan is not a natural human state. No nonsense you care to bring up can change that.
This is a bit harsh. I fail to see that I am coming up with nonsense in my contributions on this thread. My theme is that in terms of nutrients that science has identified as being needed for human survival or growth, all of those nutrients can be found in plants. I am not even that interested in arguing about what is natural or unnatural (beyond saying that calling a vegetarian or vegan diet unnatural which seems to be rather a negative spin on things), I am arguing from a technical perspective that it is possible (although of course nearly impossible for certain groups like Inuit) for humans to survive and thrive without meat. If meat is a necessity in a general sense, leaving aside particular living and planetary conditions, then I have yet to identify what nutrients you can get from meat that absolutely can't be got anywhere else.
The first thing that needs to be put to bed here is the assertion that Veganism is inherently healthy. It’s not. Without seeking out vitamin B12 supplements a vegan diet will eventually kill you. Pure veganism is an unnatural state for humans. Before supplements if everyone was vegan the human race would no longer exist. That’s why humans are omnivores. It’s the only way to get everything the body needs to survive. It is the human natural state.
Now I accept that in modern terms the need to be an omnivore is no longer critical. I accept that we now can choose and that’s of course a good thing. Want to be a vegan. Fine. Get on with it. What irritates me beyond belief is the evangelical claptrap being spouted about it being more healthy than eating a balanced diet including meat. It’s not. That is a fact.
I mentioned above that it is possible to get vitamin B12 from soy beans. Which would be possible in a vegan diet. Is it more realistic to say that anybody's approach to their personal consumption is what makes it healthy or unhealthy? Unmitigated raw steak and beer might be unhealthy, and nothing but turnips and water might be unhealthy too. However my understanding is, technically if you like, that there is no source of nutrients from meat based stuff that can't be found in plant based stuff. This post is intended to be genuine and not claptrap.
Ask the Inuit or Sami etc etc. people’s what they think about Veganism because the option of getting a well balanced plant based diet are not actually possible.
Being vegan is not a natural human state. No nonsense you care to bring up can change that.
Sorry seth if you think thats harsh. No offence meant but its just not possible to have a well balanced diet based in plants only for billions of people worldwide. Not everyone lives with the option of choice and supplements. Ive used two examples of peoples that could not be vegan in the inuit and Sami andi raise that in a completely different part of the world with the Masai. They mostly eat meat and regularly drink blood because they cant pop down to the local Holland and Barrett for a bottle if vitimin B12 even if they could grow crops enough. These are ancient peoples living the existence that hunter gatherers were enforced to live. Getting their needs where and how they could. That is the natural state of mankind. Not some Disneyland lifestyle we enjoy where we eat and get nourished as we please.
Maybe we are talking at cross purposes. What you say is absolutely true phenomenologically, what I am saying is true technically.
The first thing that needs to be put to bed here is the assertion that Veganism is inherently healthy. It’s not. Without seeking out vitamin B12 supplements a vegan diet will eventually kill you. Pure veganism is an unnatural state for humans. Before supplements if everyone was vegan the human race would no longer exist. That’s why humans are omnivores. It’s the only way to get everything the body needs to survive. It is the human natural state.
Now I accept that in modern terms the need to be an omnivore is no longer critical. I accept that we now can choose and that’s of course a good thing. Want to be a vegan. Fine. Get on with it. What irritates me beyond belief is the evangelical claptrap being spouted about it being more healthy than eating a balanced diet including meat. It’s not. That is a fact.
I mentioned above that it is possible to get vitamin B12 from soy beans. Which would be possible in a vegan diet. Is it more realistic to say that anybody's approach to their personal consumption is what makes it healthy or unhealthy? Unmitigated raw steak and beer might be unhealthy, and nothing but turnips and water might be unhealthy too. However my understanding is, technically if you like, that there is no source of nutrients from meat based stuff that can't be found in plant based stuff. This post is intended to be genuine and not claptrap.
Ask the Inuit or Sami etc etc. people’s what they think about Veganism because the option of getting a well balanced plant based diet are not actually possible.
Being vegan is not a natural human state. No nonsense you care to bring up can change that.
This is a bit harsh. I fail to see that I am coming up with nonsense in my contributions on this thread. My theme is that in terms of nutrients that science has identified as being needed for human survival or growth, all of those nutrients can be found in plants. I am not even that interested in arguing about what is natural or unnatural (beyond saying that calling a vegetarian or vegan diet unnatural which seems to be rather a negative spin on things), I am arguing from a technical perspective that it is possible (although of course nearly impossible for certain groups like Inuit) for humans to survive and thrive without meat. If meat is a necessity in a general sense, leaving aside particular living and planetary conditions, then I have yet to identify what nutrients you can get from meat that absolutely can't be got anywhere else.
The first thing that needs to be put to bed here is the assertion that Veganism is inherently healthy. It’s not. Without seeking out vitamin B12 supplements a vegan diet will eventually kill you. Pure veganism is an unnatural state for humans. Before supplements if everyone was vegan the human race would no longer exist. That’s why humans are omnivores. It’s the only way to get everything the body needs to survive. It is the human natural state.
Now I accept that in modern terms the need to be an omnivore is no longer critical. I accept that we now can choose and that’s of course a good thing. Want to be a vegan. Fine. Get on with it. What irritates me beyond belief is the evangelical claptrap being spouted about it being more healthy than eating a balanced diet including meat. It’s not. That is a fact.
I mentioned above that it is possible to get vitamin B12 from soy beans. Which would be possible in a vegan diet. Is it more realistic to say that anybody's approach to their personal consumption is what makes it healthy or unhealthy? Unmitigated raw steak and beer might be unhealthy, and nothing but turnips and water might be unhealthy too. However my understanding is, technically if you like, that there is no source of nutrients from meat based stuff that can't be found in plant based stuff. This post is intended to be genuine and not claptrap.
Ask the Inuit or Sami etc etc. people’s what they think about Veganism because the option of getting a well balanced plant based diet are not actually possible.
Being vegan is not a natural human state. No nonsense you care to bring up can change that.
Sorry seth if you think thats harsh. No offence meant but its just not possible to have a well balanced diet based in plants only for billions of people worldwide. Not everyone lives with the option of choice and supplements. Ive used two examples of peoples that could not be vegan in the inuit and Sami andi raise that in a completely different part of the world with the Masai. They mostly eat meat and regularly drink blood because they cant pop down to the local Holland and Barrett for a bottle if vitimin B12 even if they could grow crops enough. These are ancient peoples living the existence that hunter gatherers were enforced to live. Getting their needs where and how they could. That is the natural state of mankind. Not some Disneyland lifestyle we enjoy where we eat and get nourished as we please.
Maybe we are talking at cross purposes. What you say is absolutely true phenomenologically, what I am saying is true technically.
Phenomenologically !!!!!
You do know this is a football forum where brexiters lurk ;0)
I know I'm skipping pages of posts here, but this has made me really angry.
Some fucking sicko had admitted to making his dog live a vegan lifestyle, I really hope someone has contacted the RSPCA about this scumbag.
Absolutely bizarre. So you're ok with millions and millions of animals dying for nothing more than taste yet because someone is feeding their dog vegan food he is a 'fucking sicko'.
Have a word
One is natural, The other is torture.
I have big problems with how the food industry works, it's why I avoid super markets as much as possible and try to buy all my food from local wet markets and friends/family that produce it themselves.
However I'd never let my dog suffer as a result of my life choices.
So if the dog is healthy and not suffering you'd change your opinion?
But it's not, it's completely unnatural for a dog to only eat vegetables.
So even if it's fit and healthy you wouldn't reconsider? I know of several vegetarian dogs and they are all fit, healthy and vital. No different to any other dogs I know.
Then you're allowing what you believe so cloud your judgement.
Dogs are not, nor should ever be herbivores.
No. I'm using the evidence in front of me. Happy vital dogs no different to their peers.
You are just blinkered. Your judgement is not just clouded it's suffering a smog bound delusion.
I know you won't change your mind but speak to the RSPCA. They're sanguine about dogs fed vegetarian diets as long as the nutrient bases are covered.
The top photo shows my boy after being fed a rice and wheat based complete dog food as recommended by most vets because its readily available in their surgeries at around £70 a bag. The bottom photo shows the same boy six weeks later being fed unprocessed raw meat with bone and offal added to suit. Not hard to see whats good for my dog.
Don’t know about healthier but he certainly looks happier in the 2nd photo.
The top photo shows my boy after being fed a rice and wheat based complete dog food as recommended by most vets because its readily available in their surgeries at around £70 a bag. The bottom photo shows the same boy six weeks later being fed unprocessed raw meat with bone and offal added to suit. Not hard to see whats good for my dog.
To be fair we don't know anything but your pictures do we.
The top photo shows my boy after being fed a rice and wheat based complete dog food as recommended by most vets because its readily available in their surgeries at around £70 a bag. The bottom photo shows the same boy six weeks later being fed unprocessed raw meat with bone and offal added to suit. Not hard to see whats good for my dog.
To be fair we don't know anything but your pictures do we.
Correct - but let's forget about dogs, we are talking about human choice. Here is incontrovertible evidence of what turning vegan can do - before and after.
The top photo shows my boy after being fed a rice and wheat based complete dog food as recommended by most vets because its readily available in their surgeries at around £70 a bag. The bottom photo shows the same boy six weeks later being fed unprocessed raw meat with bone and offal added to suit. Not hard to see whats good for my dog.
Beautiful boy
Friends of ours have a Rhodesian ridge back that is now on the same diet, the difference is astounding - coat, eyes, boundless energy - amazing.
The top photo shows my boy after being fed a rice and wheat based complete dog food as recommended by most vets because its readily available in their surgeries at around £70 a bag. The bottom photo shows the same boy six weeks later being fed unprocessed raw meat with bone and offal added to suit. Not hard to see whats good for my dog.
To be fair we don't know anything but your pictures do we.
Correct - but let's forget about dogs, we are talking about human choice. Here is incontrovertible evidence of what turning vegan can do - before and after.
Haven't had time to watch whole thing but from the beginning it's clearly not an academic lecture, it's an evangelical sermon on diet by a 5 stone overweight American preacher. Gave up after ten minutes and watched the last 2 minutes.
Introduced as someone "trying to convince people" who is "pressing the cause".
Starts out with an assertion and then sets out to prove it without any scientific evidence, merely deductions made from scientific studies he quotes out of context. Quotes research saying 80% of deaths from certain deseases could be eliminated by a change in diet, then proceeds to talk as if that change was veganism when it simply promotes the need for a healthy diet, omnivorous or otherwise.
The nonsense about carnivorous animals and herbivores was when i switched off. The preacher ignores historical facts, that humans were hunter gatherers, he just calls them hunters and explains how they couldn't have survived by hunting. I assume he goes on to prove we are more like deers and should be eating grass.
Authoritative studies suggest that man ate relatively little meat, because it was difficult to catch and store. He would, however, have eaten as much meat as he could catch. Had this preacher been an academic he would have explained that before we became farmers we did not have access to the domesticated varieties of seeds, grains, fruits and nuts we have today. Soya beans didn't exist, nor did oats or almonds or any other nuts beyond the wild varieties you might find today required in enormous quantity to provide nutrition.
Humans cannot process all 22 amino acids required to support life, unlike herbivores. Without access to Tescos and a sustainable quantities of the nuts and beans providing the missing amino acids, and no books on nutrition and how to get your daily five, humans didn't have a choice but to eat meat. But why let facts get in the way of "pressing the case" for veganism. The assertion that humans could have survived without eating meat and were not designed to eat the stuff is utter bollox.
By all means, vegans and vegetarians can argue that today we can go to Tesco and get any amount of non-meat protein we need, and so we don't have to eat meat. Just stop there.
By all means argue that less land is utilised to survive off plants compared to animals but please don't try and argue that we have too many animals and can save the planet by getting rid of animals - we have too many humans stupid. This woolly thinking seeks to address the symptoms and not the cause. If we now changed to being 100% plants eaters it would solve nothing, just create different problems and less bio diversity.
Why we shouldn't eat meat is what most of this thread has covered and don't want to get too drawn over old ground.
But - Vegans always trip over when it comes to justifying veganism by reference to feelings of animals. They don't understand what anthropomorphism is (or pretend they don't do it) - the attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to a god, animal, or object. It means it's pretending god animals and object can have human characteristics.
We have all been indoctrinated to think animals have human feelings, like all children, from the age they could listen to stories about Peter Rabbit and Jungle Book. Just for the record, cows don't know they are going to die and they can't read the sign that says you are now entering a slaughter house, so they have a contented life, one they would not have enjoyed had they not been bred to be eaten. Many still believe Peter Rabbit talks and became vegan.
I read with amusement the comment about "stealing" honey from bees from someone who has never kept bees and will never experience the pleasure of doing so. I used to keep bees and the fact is that beekeepers today manage their hives in such a way that more colonies of bees are created than in the wild. He doesn't kill them and he doesn't hurt them. He restricts the instinct for bees to swarm which is what they start to do if they sense smoke. It's not "fear", they don't know what a fire is, just that they need to move house. They are just doing what nature programmed them to do, suck up the honey and take it somewhere safe. If you knew anything about bees, apart from seemingly knowing how they feel and that they understand the law of property, you would know that they only store honey for the purpose of feeding themselves through the winter. They need about 80lbs of honey to take them through winter and with the help of the beekeeper they might make about 200lbs. If nature didn't intend bees to share their honey he wouldn't have made them so damn busy. They are free to leave anytime and Bees are less exploited than humans by their employer. So we have a vegan animal lover who does not support the keeping of bees, oblivious of the damage to the environment if no one ate honey and bee keeping disappeared leading to less bees and the plants on which the vegan expects to be fed dying off through lack pollination. It's the woolly not-joined-up thinking that frustrates me.
The bee thing is just proof of the reliance on myths and anthropomorphism to justify what is for many a belief system no different from a religion. I am an animal lover, a game fisherman and a discriminating omnivore outnumbered by vegans and vegetarians in my family, but I don't need to be vegan to do my bit for the environment, wildlife or animal welfare. I see vegetarianism doing more to promote urbanism, a disconnect with nature and reduction in bio diversity, but don't try and convert them to meat eating by pretending we have to eat meat.
Comments
One could argue that cultivation enabled nomadic mankind to settle in one place, and from that other benefits arose that made mankind more healthy not less so.
Excessive consumption is to be avoided, I certainly think that is true.
Just something for those concerned about the health of our canine chums who live on a plant based diet. I’m not saying if I had a dog I would have it go without meat but I’m certain it wouldn’t be it’s primary food source. There has to be some scepticism about the quality and nutritional value of the meat in your average tin of mass produced dog food.
Which may be why they live so long....or it may be all the mercury in the fish or it may just be 'little and often' diets.
Spain Australia and Switzerland might be harder to explain.
Edit - just checked and...
''The Fukushima leaks were miniscule compared to the vast scale of the Pacific, said Nicholas S. Fisher, an expert on nuclear radiation in marine animals at Stony Brook University in New York. The disaster added just a fraction of a percent to the radiation that’s already in the ocean, 99 percent of which is naturally occurring.
At those levels, you could eat piles of Pacific fish and have nothing to worry about from radiation, Fisher said. The dose of Fukushima-derived radiation from the average tuna fillet, he explained, “would be far less than the total radiation you’d get from eating a banana or flying in an airplane.”
I'll tidy these up @Admin chaps, never you mind...
3:30PM
killerandflash said:
» show previous quotes
Fish is the meat of Japan. Nearly 10 per cent of the world's fish is consumed by the Japanese, yet they make up only 2 per cent of the world's population
https://foodwatch.com.au/blog/fast-food/item/lessons-from-japan-eat-like-a-japanese-copy.html
Not sure what the picture has to do with the link you posted , nor why Steve has liked an article espousing the great merit of a fish diet? Wierd.
Dogs are not, nor should ever be herbivores.
You are just blinkered. Your judgement is not just clouded it's suffering a smog bound delusion.
I know you won't change your mind but speak to the RSPCA. They're sanguine about dogs fed vegetarian diets as long as the nutrient bases are covered.
I rest my case.
Friends of ours have a Rhodesian ridge back that is now on the same diet, the difference is astounding - coat, eyes, boundless energy - amazing.
That’s actually quite funny. Have a lol from me.
Introduced as someone "trying to convince people" who is "pressing the cause".
Starts out with an assertion and then sets out to prove it without any scientific evidence, merely deductions made from scientific studies he quotes out of context. Quotes research saying 80% of deaths from certain deseases could be eliminated by a change in diet, then proceeds to talk as if that change was veganism when it simply promotes the need for a healthy diet, omnivorous or otherwise.
The nonsense about carnivorous animals and herbivores was when i switched off. The preacher ignores historical facts, that humans were hunter gatherers, he just calls them hunters and explains how they couldn't have survived by hunting. I assume he goes on to prove we are more like deers and should be eating grass.
Authoritative studies suggest that man ate relatively little meat, because it was difficult to catch and store. He would, however, have eaten as much meat as he could catch. Had this preacher been an academic he would have explained that before we became farmers we did not have access to the domesticated varieties of seeds, grains, fruits and nuts we have today. Soya beans didn't exist, nor did oats or almonds or any other nuts beyond the wild varieties you might find today required in enormous quantity to provide nutrition.
Humans cannot process all 22 amino acids required to support life, unlike herbivores. Without access to Tescos and a sustainable quantities of the nuts and beans providing the missing amino acids, and no books on nutrition and how to get your daily five, humans didn't have a choice but to eat meat. But why let facts get in the way of "pressing the case" for veganism. The assertion that humans could have survived without eating meat and were not designed to eat the stuff is utter bollox.
By all means, vegans and vegetarians can argue that today we can go to Tesco and get any amount of non-meat protein we need, and so we don't have to eat meat. Just stop there.
By all means argue that less land is utilised to survive off plants compared to animals but please don't try and argue that we have too many animals and can save the planet by getting rid of animals - we have too many humans stupid. This woolly thinking seeks to address the symptoms and not the cause. If we now changed to being 100% plants eaters it would solve nothing, just create different problems and less bio diversity.
Why we shouldn't eat meat is what most of this thread has covered and don't want to get too drawn over old ground.
But - Vegans always trip over when it comes to justifying veganism by reference to feelings of animals. They don't understand what anthropomorphism is (or pretend they don't do it) - the attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to a god, animal, or object. It means it's pretending god animals and object can have human characteristics.
We have all been indoctrinated to think animals have human feelings, like all children, from the age they could listen to stories about Peter Rabbit and Jungle Book. Just for the record, cows don't know they are going to die and they can't read the sign that says you are now entering a slaughter house, so they have a contented life, one they would not have enjoyed had they not been bred to be eaten. Many still believe Peter Rabbit talks and became vegan.
I read with amusement the comment about "stealing" honey from bees from someone who has never kept bees and will never experience the pleasure of doing so. I used to keep bees and the fact is that beekeepers today manage their hives in such a way that more colonies of bees are created than in the wild. He doesn't kill them and he doesn't hurt them. He restricts the instinct for bees to swarm which is what they start to do if they sense smoke. It's not "fear", they don't know what a fire is, just that they need to move house. They are just doing what nature programmed them to do, suck up the honey and take it somewhere safe. If you knew anything about bees, apart from seemingly knowing how they feel and that they understand the law of property, you would know that they only store honey for the purpose of feeding themselves through the winter. They need about 80lbs of honey to take them through winter and with the help of the beekeeper they might make about 200lbs. If nature didn't intend bees to share their honey he wouldn't have made them so damn busy. They are free to leave anytime and Bees are less exploited than humans by their employer. So we have a vegan animal lover who does not support the keeping of bees, oblivious of the damage to the environment if no one ate honey and bee keeping disappeared leading to less bees and the plants on which the vegan expects to be fed dying off through lack pollination. It's the woolly not-joined-up thinking that frustrates me.
The bee thing is just proof of the reliance on myths and anthropomorphism to justify what is for many a belief system no different from a religion. I am an animal lover, a game fisherman and a discriminating omnivore outnumbered by vegans and vegetarians in my family, but I don't need to be vegan to do my bit for the environment, wildlife or animal welfare. I see vegetarianism doing more to promote urbanism, a disconnect with nature and reduction in bio diversity, but don't try and convert them to meat eating by pretending we have to eat meat.