Operation Farm to Fridge is ~drum roll~ successful! My sister just sat there with eyes wide in shock and covered her face when I asked her to watch it with me. When we were having dinner that night she just sat staring at the chicken breast on her plate and then looked up at me and mumbles "Maybe I will try that thing where you don't eat meat once a week" so tomorrow I'm taking her grocery shopping so she has all the stuff for her very first Meatless Monday Three places in Brooklyn carry Dr. Cow so I will pick it up for myself too.

Earthlings was one of the movies that made me want to switch to veganism. I will never be the same person I was before I watched that movie. Seeing animals abused in front of their eyes shocks everyone I think. Except for maybe serial killers, lol. The problem is we just don't make the connection. In our heads we label some animals as friends and others as food and never stop to think where and why we're drawing that line. Why do we stick cats and dogs in the friends category and sympathize with them yet stick pigs and cows in the food category and distance ourselves from their suffering. There isn't really a reason to it other than that's what we're taught all our lives. I guess that's the reason for everything isn't it? We do what others do and that's that. Culture, baby. It was really hard for me to make the connection but once those blinders are off WHOAH the world looks so different. I think back on myself before I knew all this stuff and that me feels like a completely different person.

vix86 Wrote:I'm more certain that, if people were "forced" to eat nothing but veggies because thats all their income would allow them to buy, that people would simply vote out the libertarian tard that made it into office. Either that or riot.

Sadly you may be right. People tend to vote for the party that gives them the most (in the short term), while taking the least (from them). The problem is that most people do not understand the cost of all these "free" goodies.

astendra Wrote:Meat is also a good source of iron, zinc, b vits (and creatine), which you have to pay more attention to on a vegan diet. Likewise, dairy is our major source of calcium, which is important for bone health and reducing the risk of osteoporosis. How the adoption of a diet which may require you to supplement any of these is more natural or healthy, I guess I'll never know.

You can get plenty of those vitamins from vegetables. Meat and dairy actually leads to calcium being sapped from the bones (something to do with the acidifying effect of these foods, look it up).
You don't need to supplement anything on a vegan diet. Gorillas and elephants also don't need to take supplements.

If you think people are supposed to eat meat, just imagine yourself chasing after a squirrel or something and biting into it live. Then imagine doing the same to something like a zebra. If you look at the form of a human body, it is clearly not optimised for hunting or digesting meat at all. Yes, people can eat meat, in desperate times it beats starving, but it's not good for you. All the evidence points to meat/dairy leading to higher risk of all sorts of health complications. Furthermore it's massively less efficient to produce.

astendra Wrote:Meat is also a good source of iron, zinc, b vits (and creatine), which you have to pay more attention to on a vegan diet. Likewise, dairy is our major source of calcium, which is important for bone health and reducing the risk of osteoporosis. How the adoption of a diet which may require you to supplement any of these is more natural or healthy, I guess I'll never know.

That you need to drink dairy for bone health is just a lie the dairy industry has perpetuated through millions of dollars in advertising. Countries with the highest dairy consumption are the countries with the highest rates of osteoporosis. Milk, like other animal proteins, creates acidity in the body through amino acids that have sulfur, which the body then neutralizes by leeching calcium out of your bones. The body then removes that calcium through the urine, so that you're losing calcium instead of gaining it. If you don't over consume on animal proteins this isn't a problem, but average consumption rates of dairy in America are excessive and can lead to osteoporosis. Harvard's article on the topic is a good read.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsou...ull-story/

Meat might have many nutrients, but like I've mentioned a bunch before: non-animal foods have all those nutrients and more. Plants foods are far more nutrient dense than meats, meaning you get more vitamins, minerals, and nutrients per calorie than you do with meat. There's absolutely zero supplements needed on a vegetarian or vegan diet so long as you have a balanced diet with variety.

People always go off about b-12 and everything when they learn I'm vegan, but all of those supposed nutrient deficiencies are just popular misconceptions. If you have a good diet, you'll have zero problems. I take 0 supplements, and last time I got my blood work done my b-12 was higher than average.

Quote:The main issue with protein on a vegan diet is that it's actually harder to obtain in a low-caloric form, since most sources like nuts and legumes are also high in carbs and/or fat. Vegetarian diets do not really have the same problem due to eggs and milk.

Why would you need protein in a low-caloric form? In our food culture we way over emphasis protein consumption. The truth is that the average American consumes TOO much protein. Normal people really don't need that much protein. Nuts, legumes, and grains are excellent sources of protein since they combine a great balance of healthy fats, carbs, and dietary fiber.

The only people that need large amounts of protein are people in burn wards, who requires huge amounts to repair all the tissue damage. The daily value for normal people is only 50g, and even strength athletes and bodybuilders who may be shooting for past the 100g range can meet their protein intake just by eating a balanced diet of plant foods. And for those who just want straight up protein there are tons of protein isolates: hemp isolate, rice isolate, pea isolate, soy isolate, you name it.

Quote:And no, most health risks aren't really due to eating meat, it's due to obesity, inactivity, stress and genetics. If you want to be healthy, control the factors that you can, and don't obsess about the rest.

Cholesterol and saturated fat are huge risks for heart disease. Exercise and genetics help, but diet is a huge factor in heart disease. A single egg is 70% of the daily value of cholesterol, so when you take into account that the average American diet is loaded not only with high cholesterol egg proteins, but tons of dairy and meat as well, you get people eating tenfold the recommended amount of cholesterol everyday, not to mention all the saturated fat. Vegan diets have 0 cholesterol, and are low in saturated fat, so it's no surprise that according to the American Heart Association, "vegetarians seem to have a lower risk of obesity, coronary heart disease (which causes heart attack), high blood pressure, diabetes mellitus and some forms of cancer."

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHea...rticle.jsp

nadiatims Wrote:If you think people are supposed to eat meat, just imagine yourself chasing after a squirrel or something and biting into it live. Then imagine doing the same to something like a zebra. If you look at the form of a human body, it is clearly not optimised for hunting or digesting meat at all.

Yep, there's a great paper on how humans are, biologically speaking, infinitely closer to being herbivores than they are carnivores, I'll have to find it later. There is a funny analogy I've heard that sums it up perfectly: Stick a bowl of fruit and a live rabbit in front of a child. If the child kills the bunny and then feasts upon the raw flesh, consuming the fur, the tendons, and the meat, the child is a carnivore. If he eats the fruit and plays with the bunny, well...

I believe that compassion towards animals is something we're born with, and that it's only through our culture teaching us that it's okay to cause them suffering for our own benefit that we desensitize ourselves. From all the studies I've read about ethics in young children, as a rule they desire to help and bring happiness to other living things rather than cause suffering. What child does not cry and become emotionally upset if she sees an animal being abused in front of her? You see babies and young children interact with animals, and there is only curiosity, smiles, and a desire for companionship. The child does not wish to cause them suffering, to stick them in gestation crates, to hunt them for amusement, to electrocute them anally and then rip off their fur to wear. No, it is only through culture teaching us that these things are "okay" and lies like "animals don't feel pain" that we are able to bite our conscience's tongue and engage in these practices.

It's no different from how cultural norms desensitize us to be okay with the abuses carried out in the name of racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of oppression. It's what allows religions, countries, and other groups to dehumanize even our own species so that we don't sympathize with their suffering and can oppress and abuse them without regret. Look at The Holocaust, any other genocide, at ethnic and religious wars, at the horrors of the slave trade, of misogyny, and at the root of all these atrocities you will find the same in-group out-group mentality. This is why I place speciesism right alongside those words, because it is no different except that it applies to different species rather than our own. Ending speciesism is the logical extension of the peace movement in my mind.

I'll end with a quote I saw recently that I liked: "Being vegan is easy. Are there social pressures that encourage you to continue to eat, wear, and use animal products? Of course there are. But in a patriarchal, racist, homophobic, and ableist society, there are social pressures to participate and engage in sexism, racism, homophobia, and ableism. At some point, you have to decide who you are and what matters morally to you. And once you decide that you regard victimizing vulnerable nonhumans is not morally acceptable, it is easy to go and stay vegan."

Aijin, would your optimal diet healthwise be vegetarian or vegan or would it include something else as well? I'm not talking moral issues, just health, with a secondary concern being convenience/time/money. It's fine if you haven't researched in that direction (I haven't at all, so there may be none; but I doubt it), but if you have, do share. If we're trying to convince someone for the health benefits, it's purely self-interest to ignore a better option if we are aware of one.

Nadiatims, people were eating fish way before they were eating wheat (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ado...ne.0044926 (I haven't read this, this - http://lesswrong.com/lw/fk4/how_minimal_...elligence/ - mentioned it as a reference and made a quick summary, namely "they were limited by access to food that the human body could use to create Docosahexaenoic acid, which is a fatty acid required for human brain development. Originally humans got this from fish living in the lakes and rivers of central Africa. However, about 80,000 years ago, we developed a gene that let us synthesize the same acid from other sources, freeing humanity to migrate away from the wet areas, past the dry northern part, and out into the fertile crescent."). 80k+ is a pretty long time; we've had cultivated wheat for a way shorter period. Do I imagine myself biting into a fish? No. Does it matter? No. If it did, I could use a similar analogy, using taste instead of the disgust mechanism, and claim that cookies and steak are the optimal diet. If we're talking evolution, wheat is among the first things to be banned; yet nobody's definition of vegetarianism includes and avoidance of wheat. It's neither about health nor about what we're "meant" to eat nor about optimizing food production. The heart of the matter is morals, and I feel that any attempts to address other issues are half-hearted and biased towards plants from the start (seeking justification instead of neutrally surveying all options and saying which is truly the best, optimizing for results X, Y, and Z individually and then in tandem).

Your supplement claim about gorillas and elephants is invalid. I don't have a gorilla stomach, and I think you don't either. I don't understand what people have against supplements (or genetically modified crops; far more efficient than the normal variety - if vegetarians are concerned about feeding people, why not endorse that?), but then, I haven't done my research, and at a glance both seem reasonable. I'm just pointing out fallacies.

Vegetarians tend to support vegans - I wonder if more due it due to kindred feelings, or due to moral understanding? You see, I understand how projection can make one dislike eating meat. I can even imagine the morals behind "abortion is murder" combined with the projection thing combining and forming the "eating eggs is bad" creed. The milk thing, I'll never understand. Do vegans themselves believe this, or have they just taken vegetarianism to the next logical step without thinking about it? Do vegetarians share the same moral or do they support and look up to them just because of the extra effort required, to a cause that is the same as theirs and more?

captal Wrote:How can we harvest crops when we know that combines kill millions of animals each year? If it is not ok to ethically raise and consume animals, then surely it is not ethical to run over them with a combine?

There's a line drawn between intentional and unintentional killing. I would love for the agricultural industry to not accidentally kill animals when harvesting crops, and if we really wanted this to happen it's definitely possible to create a system where it doesn't happen. But even just taking the system as it is now, less animals are killed by eating plant foods than by eating a meat diet. Here's a report that took the time to figure out how many animals are killed producing 1 million calories in 8 different food categories.

http://animalvisuals.org/projects/data/1mc

captal Wrote:Why should we give equal standing to animals, if animals do not give equal standing to other animals? That is, animals eat each other constantly as part of the circle of life, why should we not participate? Some people would make the argument that because we have advanced cognitive processes, we should not participate and instead rise above the "circle of life" and choose to be vegetarians or vegans.

There is simply zero comparison between what happens in the "circle of life," and how humans exploit animals. Do terrible things happen in the circle of life? Yep, a gazelle sure doesn't enjoy being eaten by a lion. The difference is that in the circle of life animals are allowed to live natural lives, to have freedom of movement, to engage in their normal behaviors. Watch a video of foxes playing in their natural habitat with their families, being affectionate, sunbathing, and napping, then getting eaten by another animal, then watch a video of a fox in the cage of a fur farm, running in circles every moment of the day in insanity from lack of stimulation, with not a single moment of happiness until her neck is either snapped or she is anally electrocuted, and you'll see the big difference between suffering in "the circle of life" and suffering at the exploitative hands of human industry.

Animals do not stick each other in gestation crates like we do to sows. Animals do not force each other in cells then rape them with artificial insemination, continually steal their children, then raise those children in the terrible veal industry for slaughter, hook up machines to their nipples, and feed them growth hormones so they can pump abnormal amounts of pus-filled milk year after year like we do to cows. Animals do not stick each other in cages that barely allow them to move, so they go insane until the moment they are vaginally electrocuted, like we do to many animals in the fur industry. Animals do not shove tubes down animals throats and force-feed them hellishly to enlarge their liver like we do to produce foie gras. Animals do not actively engage in physical and sexual abuse of one another for mere sadistic amusement like many workers in factory farms are documented doing. Animals do not take wild animals that are supposed to be swimming countless miles per day in the ocean and engaging in social interaction with their families, and sticking them in a tiny pool of water like we do with twisted enterprises like SeaWorld.

It's not the act of eating meat that I oppose so passionately. It's the cruelty. If people want to eat meat, whatever, but it's messed up to subject the animal to years of a hellish life all to make the product a little cheaper. If there is no unnecessary suffering and cruelty involved, then I don't care if people eat meat. But the reality is the current industry is one giant Animal Holocaust.

Quote:It's no different from how cultural norms desensitize us to be okay with the abuses carried out in the name of racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of oppression. It's what allows religions, countries, and other groups to dehumanize even our own species so that we don't sympathize with their suffering and can oppress and abuse them without regret. Look at The Holocaust, any other genocide, at ethnic and religious wars, at the horrors of the slave trade, of misogyny, and at the root of all these atrocities you will find the same in-group out-group mentality. This is why I place speciesism right alongside those words, because it is no different except that it applies to different species rather than our own. Ending speciesism is the logical extension of the peace movement in my mind.

Racism etc dehumanize beings that are built very similar to us, objectively speaking. How do you dehumanize what is not human in the first place? The statement that homophobia is wrong is justified by comparing a homosexual to the average human, concluding that they are nearly the same except for one preference and moving on. Specieism doesn't get a free pass. It must first justify itself - compare animals to humans and come to a conclusion - do they have the same intelligence? Do they have pain circuitry? Do they share our moral system (I care less for someone who would decrease the net happiness to increase his own) and goals (I care little for the pain of a paperclip maximizer in comparison to fellow humans)? Do they understand pain the same way? Projection is banned; and children are the one example of human that embodies almost all logical fallacies - they're even better than religious fundamentalists at it (which is probably why they're so vulnerable to conversion). I don't care how you feel when you see a carcass; I care about how a deer feels when it is being killed; when it sees the corpse (not necessarily gouged to maximum horror value) of deer it was in contact with; when it sees the corpse of a deer it had never seen before; when it sees the corpse of a wolf or a rabbit. Most of those questions are not answerable without a high understanding of how a brain works - if we could simulate a deer brain, we could probably also make AI and solve all our problems without any effort. Without an answer, it is definitely a net gain to not kill animals - no matter whether we estimate a 90% or a 10% chance that they feel pain (there's less need to inflict pain the less willpower an organism has; don't assume that because you feel pain they do too - humans have by far the most willpower in the animal world), not killing is better. Of course, the answer to this probability question determines how much of the net utility should go toward animal pain prevention, especially in relation to human pain prevention, where we know with a certainty that the pain of one affects not only them, but also those around them.

In any case, claims of specieism are silly unless proven otherwise. There is no indisputable way to provide evidence; but it can still be philosophized about, and that counts for evidence too. Sadly there's too much fallacy load on the term already, and that is when it's still in its creation stage.

Forgetting for a moment animals' feelings, how about our fellow human beings? Producing meat is massively less efficient than producing plant based food sources. By subsidising meat production and encouraging its consumption we are impoverishing the worlds population. The majority of grain produced is fed to animals in order to produce meat. If we stopped devoting so much of our capacity to feeding animals, the price of grain would plummet (basic supply and demand). Add in free trade, allowing anyone to buy at market price from anywhere in the world and prices could be reduced even further.

It especially irritates me when people go on about CO2 emissions (and overpopulation) but continue happily eating meat, despite their massively larger resource footprint. You've got to grow the extra food, then transport it to where the animals are kept. During their lives, the animals pump methane into the atmosphere. Then there's energy used when the animals are processed and transported. The meat requires constant refrigeration. Then you need to cook it to make it palatable and/or edible etc etc.

Fadeway Wrote:Aijin, would your optimal diet healthwise be vegetarian or vegan or would it include something else as well? I'm not talking moral issues, just health, with a secondary concern being convenience/time/money. It's fine if you haven't researched in that direction (I haven't at all, so there may be none; but I doubt it), but if you have, do share. If we're trying to convince someone for the health benefits, it's purely self-interest to ignore a better option if we are aware of one.

For nutrition alone, I don't really think any single diet is better than another, it's just a matter of balance. A well balanced omnivore diet that includes a lot of healthy plant foods, and avoids over consumption of dairy and red meat, I think is perfectly healthy. My only note would be to take care where you source your meat from, since in America the meat industry is pretty much self regulated, and the amount of disease on meats is astonishing. 2010 Consumer Report shows that 62% of chicken has salmonella/and or campylobacter bacteria, and a recent report shows over 70% of pork has Yersinia bacteria. There is more fecal bacteria on chicken meat than there is in toilets, scarily enough. If you cook all the meat properly, and sanitize yourself and your kitchen afterwards it's not an issue, but that's extra work and still freaky to me, so yeah picking good meat sources is key I say.

For money, I'd say vegetarian would be the cheapest. For convenience omnivore wins by a long shot. But if you combine health/convenience/money I think vegetarian is on top.

Quote:The milk thing, I'll never understand.

I think this is a really common perception people have, where they understand not wanting to eat the corpse of an animal (vegetarianism), since it implies murder, but don't get why vegans don't consume byproducts like milk/eggs. That's definitely how I thought before I became vegan. Veganism is all about choosing compassion over cruelty, and boycotting any industry that creates animal suffering. When you research the dairy and egg industries you find that they're pretty much cruelty incarnate, way worse in my eyes than even the meat industry. There is more suffering in a gallon of factory farm milk than there is in a lb of beef in my opinion, and dairy cows live out one of the most horrific lives of all farmed animals. The popular image of dairy farms is happy cows, green pastures, and a local farmer milking into a jug--these are the types of images the companies put on their packages and in their advertisements, so it's no surprise that it's hard for people to see the cruelty in the dairy industry without researching independently. But out of the thousands of pictures, and endless hours of undercover factory farm videos I've seen, it is the ones of the dairy industry that haunt me the most.

http://www.mercyforanimals.org/dairy/

If I had my own chickens, or knew someone who did and treated them well, I would totally eat the eggs. After all, they're just the chickens' periods, they don't have any attachment to them. All vegans I know have the same mindset: they'd have zero problems with animal byproducts if those byproducts weren't produced with such cruelty. Which means it's totally possible to be cruelty-free and just be vegetarian if you get your byproducts from sources you know treat the animals well.

nadiatims Wrote:It especially irritates me when people go on about CO2 emissions (and overpopulation) but continue happily eating meat, despite their massively larger resource footprint. You've got to grow the extra food, then transport it to where the animals are kept. During their lives, the animals pump methane into the atmosphere. Then there's energy used when the animals are processed and transported. The meat requires constant refrigeration. Then you need to cook it to make it palatable and/or edible etc etc.

What I love is how even though the UN has come out and said the meat industry is a top source of global warming and environmental damage, and that societies need to consume less meat, what are they serving at the currently ongoing UN Climate Conference? Meat. Sigh. It's like Al Gore devoting his life to combating climate change, yet continuing to eat animal products. So hypocritical, yet one's own culture is usually the last thing a person is willing to change.

The cooking to make meat palatable bit reminds me of a thought that's been on my mind lately. People often say, "Oh, I could never go vegetarian, I love meat too much," but do people REALLY love meat itself, rather than all the crap we put on it to make it edible? How many people enjoy the taste of raw meat with zero seasonings and additives? Or even cooked meat with zero seasonings and additives? I think it's really the spices, salt, and oil that people love, not the meat itself. Compared to all the flavors and textures of plant foods, I personally think unflavored meat is boring and kinda' nasty, so when you add in all the spices, salts, and oils to plant foods I don't get how you would enjoy it less.

Aijin Wrote:For nutrition alone, I don't really think any single diet is better than another, it's just a matter of balance. A well balanced omnivore diet that includes a lot of healthy plant foods, and avoids over consumption of dairy and red meat, I think is perfectly healthy.

Well shoot, I guess we actually agree then. The nutritional argument is the only one I was making. To extend on that, I think that you should do things for the right reasons. In this case, nutrition isn't really one of them.

I see, vegan's clear now. It's purely a question of suffering then. It should've occurred to me, but I didn't think enough about it.

My general impression of nutrition has been similar - not so much about a magic formula but rather simply balance and relying on the body's versatility. The very particular diets phenomenon seems to have appeared as a result of nutritionists trying to patent their advice (can't ask people to pay for telling them to eat in moderation, that's just common sense).

The meat thing has another side as well though. Greens>meat & no health benefit (from meat) => eliminate meat. But then we have greens>pesticide-free greens => eliminate pesticide-free (if no health benefit from it, which is very likely), and, more arguably, genetically-modified greens>greens => eliminate normal greens (if genetic modification is not unhealthy).

Haha the meat taste thing makes sense. A few years ago, I didn't even understand why meat is seen as superior, in the sense that I ate only select kinds of it and mostly preferred other foods.

Aijin Wrote:I think it's really the spices, salt, and oil that people love, not the meat itself.

I think part of it is the body responding to the increased calories. For evolutionary reasons, people crave high calorie foods. Meat is high calorie presumedly because of the fat content. People crave sugar for the same reason.

Quote:The very particular diets phenomenon seems to have appeared as a result of nutritionists trying to patent their advice (can't ask people to pay for telling them to eat in moderation, that's just common sense).

The mainstream food industry is largely based around extreme fads like the low-carb nonsense. It's usually some guy™ that decides to draw his very own lines in the sand and gets results for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily related, and then decides it's the be-all end-all solution to evil, and works for everyone in every kind of context. If you don't agree or fail, well you didn't try hard enough.

Who knows, maybe nutrition is more complex than that, and maybe we're all actually different.

nadiatims Wrote:I think part of it is the body responding to the increased calories. For evolutionary reasons, people crave high calorie foods. Meat is high calorie presumedly because of the fat content. People crave sugar for the same reason.

Unfortunately, high calorie density foods (ie fat+carbs) ARE palatable, which is certainly one reason for the current obesity rates. But again, all meat isn't fatty, and meat is still palatable because of umami.

Aijin Wrote:There is a funny analogy I've heard that sums it up perfectly: Stick a bowl of fruit and a live rabbit in front of a child. If the child kills the bunny and then feasts upon the raw flesh, consuming the fur, the tendons, and the meat, the child is a carnivore. If he eats the fruit and plays with the bunny, well...

To me that argument is silly; virtually none of the food that humans consume is eaten whole in the form it's found in the wild. We don't grab wheat stalks and eat them straight. We don't take strawberry plants and eat them whole including the twigs and leaves. We don't take eggs and down them whole including the shell.

Nadiatims' argument of "would you want to hunt down and kill an animal yourself" is equally silly because humans in modern society are different from animals -- we don't act purely on instinct, and our lives aren't based solely around food and procreation. I wouldn't want to hunt and kill an animal myself, but I also wouldn't particularly want to farm wheat or grow fruit trees. I don't find the idea of hunting an animal for food disgusting, it's just not something I have the training or means to do. If you threw me out on a farm with some seeds I might not be able to grow wheat, but that doesn't mean I'm not supposed to be eating it.

As for vegetarians being healthier, you should also consider that people who become vegetarian and vegan are more likely to eat less in general because they're already concerned about their diet, and also more likely to care about their overall health and do things like exercise. As I said earlier, I think the biggest problem is eating too much and not enough variety rather than the specific foods.

nadiatims Wrote:The problem is that most people do not understand the cost of all these "free" goodies.

The cost of stuff comes from taxes, obviously, which if you are poor as crap, you probably aren't getting. As a poor person the only taxes that tend to hit you are sales tax.

Aijin Wrote:What I love is how even though the UN has come out and said the meat industry is a top source of global warming and environmental damage, and that societies need to consume less meat, what are they serving at the currently ongoing UN Climate Conference? Meat. Sigh. It's like Al Gore devoting his life to combating climate change, yet continuing to eat animal products. So hypocritical, yet one's own culture is usually the last thing a person is willing to change.

What happens if farms can become completely energy sufficient on biofuel? I can't find the article again even though I only read it like a month ago, but a livestock farm here in Japan was able to became nearly (they actually claimed 100%) energy sufficient using animal waste/biofuel.

Quote:Compared to all the flavors and textures of plant foods, I personally think unflavored meat is boring and kinda' nasty, so when you add in all the spices, salts, and oils to plant foods I don't get how you would enjoy it less.

This is purely opinion. On the flipside, I know more people that find vegetables to be unpalatable (even disgusting) and can't eat them. They say they are either tasteless or they can't stand the taste. They often can only eat (a few types of) them with tons of spices on them or cooked so there's really no flavor there.

ydtt Wrote:I don't find the idea of hunting an animal for food disgusting, it's just not something I have the training or means to do.

Exactly. The point here is that a natural carnivore would have the means and would require little or no training (survival depends on it). Keep your pet cat well fed, and it will still chase after small animals given the opportunity. It seems that humans have not adapted for hunting and eating meat, and a lot of evidence points to it being bad for you. Indeed it would be a colossal stroke of luck if it weren't, as our bodies simply haven't evolved significantly in that direction.
We do not have:
sharp teeth
claws
speed
night vision
short digestive tracks
highly acidic stomachs
keen sense of smell
strong hinge like jaws for tearing flesh
we are not drawn to the smell of rotting flesh

vix86 Wrote:The cost of stuff comes from taxes, obviously, which if you are poor as crap, you probably aren't getting. As a poor person the only taxes that tend to hit you are sales tax.

The poor and their future progeny pay for it down the line with the decreased opportunity that comes from the trashing of the economy and erosion of their savings due to inflation. They pay for it with increased taxes if they try to move up. They pay through higher consumer prices due to protectionism. They pay when their jobs are ultimately out sourced or wages cut (directly or through dollar devaluation). They pay when the party comes to an end and reality/austerity sets in. They pay when taxes are inevitably raised to pay off debt.

nadiatims Wrote:The poor and their future progeny pay for it down the line with the decreased opportunity that comes from the trashing of the economy and erosion of their savings due to inflation.

This appears to occur at least as often as a result of private sector bubbles as bad governance.

nadiatims Wrote:They pay for it with increased taxes if they try to move up.

Sure, to have a healthcare system that everyone in society can access.

nadiatims Wrote:They pay through higher consumer prices due to protectionism. They pay when their jobs are ultimately out sourced or wages cut (directly or through dollar devaluation).

Both? Then there is no policy which could be correct in your view. You at least should not be complaining about the second, since that is what you advocate.

nadiatims Wrote:They pay when the party comes to an end and reality/austerity sets in.

As has been shown, austerity is rarely a good solution, and counts as bad governance rather than a direct result of tax.

nadiatims Wrote:They pay when taxes are inevitably raised to pay off debt.

Again, this is about bad governance rather than a direct result of tax. It is perfectly possible to have a system where only what is raised in tax is spent.

As Vix already pointed out, evidence shows that private sector insurance raises the costs of healthcare whilst lowering it's quality and barring certain sectors of the population from access to it. Or does evidence not matter here either in your opinion?

nadiatims Wrote:

ydtt Wrote:I don't find the idea of hunting an animal for food disgusting, it's just not something I have the training or means to do.

Exactly. The point here is that a natural carnivore would have the means and would require little or no training (survival depends on it). Keep your pet cat well fed, and it will still chase after small animals given the opportunity. It seems that humans have not adapted for hunting and eating meat, and a lot of evidence points to it being bad for you. Indeed it would be a colossal stroke of luck if it weren't, as our bodies simply haven't evolved significantly in that direction.
We do not have:
sharp teeth
claws
speed
night vision
short digestive tracks
highly acidic stomachs
keen sense of smell
strong hinge like jaws for tearing flesh
we are not drawn to the smell of rotting flesh

Is that not because humans have evolved/were given the intelligence (depending on your religious beliefs) to be able to use tools and weapons effectively rendering all those things you mentioned above useless? Humans are fundamentally social creatures, and as such, would have worked together in the hunt rather than going off on one's own as a tiger or bear might do, which requires great specialised hunting skills and abilities.

Yeah, but we aren't carnivores, we're omnivores. We've also adapted to using tools and strategy for hunting and to digest cooked food. Hence we don't need sharper claws, vision or smell and we also have shorter digestive tracts. Apparently, we're still one of the most successful species on the planet.

I don't know if you're trying to argue that meat (including fish etc) doesn't actually taste good, because I think that most people would disagree. It would be a stretch to say that we aren't wired to eat it. Again, it's very high in umami which is one of the five basic tastes.

One interesting thing to note though, is that taste buds somewhat adapt to what you eat. For example, it's easy to increase sodium intake over time as you get 'used to' your current levels. At the same time, if you tend to not eat anything salty, suddenly doing so could make you gag.

nadiatims Wrote:

ydtt Wrote:I don't find the idea of hunting an animal for food disgusting, it's just not something I have the training or means to do.

Exactly. The point here is that a natural carnivore would have the means and would require little or no training (survival depends on it).

That's not how humans work for anything, though. We're not creatures of pure instinct.

Do you avoid eating grains, because we can't just eat raw wheat stalks? Do you not eat rice because you can't just go out into a field and grab some rice plants and chow down? A lot of animals are able to eat grains directly from the field.

Aijin Wrote:

astendra Wrote:Meat is also a good source of iron, zinc, b vits (and creatine), which you have to pay more attention to on a vegan diet. Likewise, dairy is our major source of calcium, which is important for bone health and reducing the risk of osteoporosis. How the adoption of a diet which may require you to supplement any of these is more natural or healthy, I guess I'll never know.

That you need to drink dairy for bone health is just a lie the dairy industry has perpetuated through millions of dollars in advertising. Countries with the highest dairy consumption are the countries with the highest rates of osteoporosis. Milk, like other animal proteins, creates acidity in the body through amino acids that have sulfur, which the body then neutralizes by leeching calcium out of your bones. The body then removes that calcium through the urine, so that you're losing calcium instead of gaining it. If you don't over consume on animal proteins this isn't a problem, but average consumption rates of dairy in America are excessive and can lead to osteoporosis. Harvard's article on the topic is a good read.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsou...ull-story/

You might like to have a read of this article. It's quite interesting - I read it one day while procrastinating at work

[url=http://lin.alic.go.jp/alic/month/domefore/2012/may/wadai.htm"]モンゴル遊牧民の乳利用～健康維持の秘密～[/url]

nadiatims Wrote:The poor and their future progeny pay for it down the line with the decreased opportunity that comes from the trashing of the economy and erosion of their savings due to inflation. They pay for it with increased taxes if they try to move up. They pay through higher consumer prices due to protectionism. They pay when their jobs are ultimately out sourced or wages cut (directly or through dollar devaluation). They pay when the party comes to an end and reality/austerity sets in. They pay when taxes are inevitably raised to pay off debt.

If the US would simply reset tax rates back to what they were many years ago there wouldn't be AS much of a strain on stuff. Bump the highest tax bracket back up to 39%. Remove loops holes. Trim back the excess absurdity that has been given to the richy-rich with the expectation that they would "make jobs," which they haven't. Fix the tax code on companies so the large ones can't weasel out of taxes. Higher rates on companies sitting on absurd amounts of cash would be great too. If you look at the last century, the periods of most growth in the US occurred when taxes were higher. (EDIT: The reason I have read is that companies would rather re-invest money into projects that might turn more revenue/profit than let it disappear into the govt. Plus when the system works, the govt. taxes high in times of prosperity and then spends during recessions in order to stimulate the economy. Doesn't work when your get a president that wants to start 2 wars during a downturn.)

Trim and force cheaper costs on drugs and treatment from the pharmaceuticals and hospitals. Put everyone on a single player system which will solve the problem where the hospital charges people on private insurers or no insurance; even more.

On the issue of outsourcing. Rolling back the benefits that come from outsourcing (in the US) would be a start to fixing the outsourcing problem. The biggest issue on outsourcing though isn't anything to do with workers though I suspect. Its simply that by manufacturing in a low standard of living country, allows them to pay people less and pocket more profit. I recall when the iphone 5 launched, that someone ran rough numbers that showed that if they made the phone in the US that it would only be something like 5 to 30 more dollars. On a phone that's already ~500USD, that's not a lot. GREED is what drives outsourcing, that few extra million each quarter from penny labor.