Bananas and bean sprouts

People say a lot of things.

... only bananas and bean sprouts ...

Mebbe so. Mebbe no. But for how long.

de

I have chosen to eat a vegetarian diet (mostly vegan, honey is the exception, make your own inference). Since I'm in it for my health, I pay attention to nutritional info. Vitamin B12 is required, and not available in bean sprouts or bananas. I'm guessing there is quite a bit more that is missing too.

This diet would produce some messy stools as well.

BTW, Steve Jobs, Apple's fearless leader, once followed a fruitarian diet (fruits and seeds only). What this mostly produces is a lot of time spent running for the toilet.

Mutant_Pie

I firmly believe that you are what you eat...

... so today I am a pig, a lot of finely ground, bleached wheat, and couple of aborted chicken embryos.

Tomorrow I shall start the day being oats...

On the serious side, though, I have heard a lot of what people can eat to survive, and a lot of what people should eat to survive longer. I personally think that I am allowed a certain amount of time with this mortal coil, and if it demands grilled Spam and cheez sandwiches, I'll bloody well give it that...

I follow a vegitarian diet for health reasons, but I consider it rude to not eat a meal that has been prepared for you at a host's house. I also consider it appropriate to, say, occasionally indulge in Viener Schnitzel and Spaetzle at a local german resturant for the sake of tradition.
A healthy balance of fibre and protean is important for general gastrointestinal health, as well as eating the proper amounts of oils and sugars.

Homo sapiens has spent a long time evolving as an omnivore. His dentition, alimentary canal, commensal and symbiotic gut microflora, biochemistry and posture confirm the omnivorous development. Any person is at liberty not to follow the omnivorous path, but to propose that it is right and proper, as some ideologues (not the present company) do, flies in the face of reality. Much of our necessary nutriment depends, because we don't synthesize it for ourselves, on its ingestion from a variety of plant, animal and microbial sources.

de

"Homo sapiens has spent a long time evolving as an omnivore. His dentition, alimentary canal, commensal and symbiotic gut microflora, biochemistry and posture confirm the omnivorous development."

According to the best scientific data and theories, the above statements are generally correct. I would only add that a very probable theory holds that humanoids evolved to be upright to survive by entering the surf, or water, escape routes from predators. The consumption of omega fatty acids in fish from this habitat shift created the larger brain and capacity for cognition. For optimal nerve and brain function all humans should ingest occasional amounts of these fatty acids (flax is one of the best vegetarian options), fish is the common nonvegetarian option but due to human caused pollution (mostly the burning of coal) large amounts of mercury are now in the aquatic food chain.

"Any person is at liberty not to follow the omnivorous path, but to propose that it is right and proper, as some ideologues (not the present company) do, flies in the face of reality."

I think that the terms "right" and "proper" are vague for the purposes of this discussion. I would also suggest that the terms "moral" or "good" are also too ephemeral for analysis. However there is a logical and ethical way of viewing this; It is irrational to kill, or otherwise destroy without need. You do not need to eat animals to survive, and in fact a great body of scientific studies (double blind, peer-reviewed, with large sample groups, and having been replicated) demonstrate that it is much healthier not to eat animal products. Does this sufficiently address "the face of reality"?

"Much of our necessary nutriment depends, because we don't synthesize it for ourselves, on its ingestion from a variety of plant, animal and microbial sources."

The only nutrient (that is frequently stated by dieticians) as not being available from a vegan diet, that is necessary, is vitamin B12 (the chemical cynocobalamin). This statement is factually incorrect. B12 is available in sea vegetables (seaweed, etc. . . ), which is then harvested, separated, and used to enrich several food products (the one I use on a near daily basis is Enriched Organic Rice Dream (rice milk)).

By the way, a lack of B12 can be a cause of anemia (sometimes labeled "pernicious anemia", a lack of red blood cells, and then oxygenation of blood. This is the source of the "anemic vegetarian" image. If you need images for a model of healthy behavior and results, I would suggest Jack Lalane, who has been a vegetarian since age 16. O.k., o.k., so he no longers swims across the English channel while pulling a rowboat behind him, but you get the idea. . .

Mutant_Pie

Mutant_Pie:

Are you an educator or a student? I find that there are two groups of people that communicate with the extensive use of quotes: students and educators.

I have a theory as to why this is, but I'm not going to share.

. . . B12 is also produced in the guts of animals, vegetarian animals included. Do humans have the parasitic fauna/flora which produce B12? I have searched for scientific literature on this question. I don't know of any studies that provide an answer. If anyone here has that information, or know of a website that has it, I'd appreciate it if you post it here. Thanks!

Mutant_Pie

Sorry to be one to disprove your theory. I'm neither a student nor an educator. As I experience more of life, I'm more and more interested in objective reality and how it is measured. That's why I made the comment about scientific studies being peer-reviewed, large samples, double-blinded, and replicated.

Mutant_Pie

Sorry to be one to disprove your theory. I'm neither a student nor an educator. As I experience more of life, I'm more and more interested in objective reality and how it is measured. That's why I made the comment about scientific studies being peer-reviewed, large samples, double-blinded, and replicated.

Mutant_Pie

Actually, I meant that I had a theory on why students and educators communicate with extensive use of quotes. I didn't mean to suggest that only educators and students make extensive use of quotes, merely that those two groups of people do make extensive use of quotes.

You do not need to eat animals to survive, and in fact a great body of scientific studies (double blind, peer-reviewed, with large sample groups, and having been replicated) demonstrate that it is much healthier not to eat animal products. Does this sufficiently address "the face of reality"?

I'm not going ot argue your points, as I've not studied the matter much, but I'll add some things about health. My best example is Bobbie. She walsk with a cane, but she tends to carry it instead of actually use it. She doesn't mind getting a little help with something if she really needs the help. Don't help her too much or she'll tell you she's not helpless, just aged. She eats bacon and doughnuts for breakfast, and drinks some vodka too. She lived in her own apartment and managed the building until she was 95. Now, she lives in an apartment with on site nurses, but that's because she is 105, rapidly approaching 106 in Jan. Eat whatever you want, I'll stick with animals, plants, fungi, etc. I've seen a lot of proof that you can live a good long life with an omnivorous diet.

I'm out.

Jon.

Greetings Jon,

Your story is interesting, and supports the theory that "good genes" are an important component in longevity. "Bobbies" choice to remain physically active is probably also a significant factor in her longevity, and is also strongly supported by the scientific evidence as a healthy lifestyle.

However your story is what is known as "anecdotal evidence" not considered to be valid "proof", as you suggest.

I trust that you don't feel that I'm picking on you or trying to pick an argument. I am, however, keen that accurate information, with a modicum of supporting background data is supplied in this discussion. There is a major problem with discussions in the public discourse in this country. Science is being denied. This is a critical error. Please help me in correcting this error.

Mutant_Pie

My main point was that an omnivorous diet can lead to a long life. There is much empirical evidence that people are living longer, all the while consuming more processed foods. And better meds and living conditions. Bobbie is my best proof, as any one who breaks 90 is doing just peachy, and 105+ is amazing. We have people living much longer than they were a single generation ago. I think the case can be made that these people are not all eating vegitarian/vegan diets. They are most liekly eating omnivorous diets and living in a cleaner environment. Dirt floors were prime breeding ground for diseases, as were sewage ditches. Covered flooring and and septic treatment systems have gone a long way to contributing to the general welfare than simple diet changes. Again, I'm not posting about the specifics of vegitartian/vegan diets, but there is clear evidence of increasing health and longetiviy even with the omnivorous lifestyle.

I have no reason to resile from what was necessarily a succinct summary of our omnivorous past and present. We necessarily derive more than cyanocobalamine exogenously: some amino acids and fatty acids being just two groups. Even if those substances were derived from protista in one of our four stomachs, as ruminants have, it would still be exogenously derived. While no creature, in my opinion, deserves a capricious death, life can be guaranteed to no creature, animal, vegetable or protistan, notwithstanding any amount of babble about a non-realizable right to life. Death is the inevitable end of everything that lives. The biosphere of this world is a net of food chains, and it is only by luck that humankind has not been provided with an efficient predator to keep our numbers in check. If you exclude bird 'flu, ebola, HIV and the like, that is. I repeat, people (at least, in affluent societies) are at liberty to eat what they please, and also to accept the consequences of their choices. Making such choices doesn't negate the proposition that Man is omnivorous.

de

I would only add that a very probable theory holds that humanoids evolved to be upright to survive by entering the surf, or water, escape routes from predators. The consumption of omega fatty acids in fish from this habitat shift created the larger brain and capacity for cognition.

No evolutionist who did not wish for death by scorn would ever propose that evolution was purposive, as above. It has also been suggested/speculated/theorized that it was meat-eating, in all probability carrion at first, that selected for the complex set of less time spent in foraging, greater brain capacity, and the energetically more economic derivation of nutriment and energy from consumption of other animals, rather than plants.

de

GrannySmith correctly points out that evolution is not purposeful, however seemingly so are the results. Rather the theory of natural selection, if I understand it correctly, indicates that genetic mutations occur, and those mutants who are able to survive, breed, and more successfully exploit the environment than those that previously occupied, and the mutations now compete with, will survive in the longer term compared with the species that aren't as successful.

BTW I didn't know that one could suffer "death by scorn."

In any event, I will still propose that it is irrational to kill without need. Please address that issue, now that we have all agreed that we don't need to eat meat.

Mutant_Pie

"Need" is very subjective. We don't "need" to eat at all. We can all just starve and not kill plants either. Why doesn't anyone ever thingof the plants?

Oh, and BTW if this is goign down the road of Vegan Morality and not harming animals, just remember all the thousands of animals that get killed during harvest season by the combines that drive the fields. Eating vegitatian doesn't mean you suddenly stopped harming animals. Also, take this idea: By farming you create a source of food for small animals such as mice rabbits and squirrels. These animals are lured out to the open fields by the food being grown and are easier targets for predators such as hawks and owls. Therefore, you've increased the chance of death to these lower mammals by farming "morally right" food, even if you don't use the combines that can also kill the critters.

Food for thought, as the saying goes. A little devils'-advocacy goes a long way...

its our nature to consume plant and animal ill eat any thing plant if it edable and animal. i like a big juciy steak alil bit pink in the inside along with corn and salad any one just eating vegi becomes a vegi themself

Jon says; ""Need" is very subjective. We don't "need" to eat at all. We can all just starve and not kill plants either. Why doesn't anyone ever thingof the plants?"

I'll clarify with a more complete sentence. Human beings don't need to kill animals, intentionally, for consumption, in order to survive (that means to live) with good health.

They can even thrive more healthily than they do with meat (check the American Cancer Society, National Institutes of Health, etc. . . for the level of food/health related issues in the United States).

Regarding thinking of plants, I'll restate the sentence so you can apply it to this example;

It is irrational to kill without need. (See the above description of "need").

We are hydrocarbon exchange based life forms. To live, we need to eat plant based matter. However, we do not need to waste it, or the resources to obtain it. There is tremendous waste of water, land, energy, and plant based foods in the production of meat products.

Regarding "Vegan Morality". There are several points to address;
1) Morality is a relativistic, generalized, and therefore not very accurate, term to use when providing definintions.
2) Ah. You have now resorted to tribalism. By labeling me you attempt to seperate me from your group or "tribe". This is the first step in the de-humanization of someone you perceive as your opponent.

Jon says "Food for thought, as the saying goes. A little devils'-advocacy goes a long way.."

There is no evidence for the existance of a "devil", so that is an irrational statement. If you mean to be contrary in this discussion just to be contrary, that is also irrational. If you mean to suggest that examining multiple points of view in a discussion can be a useful learning tool, then I agree, as long as the points of view are honestly issued with the intent to be useful for analysis.

madmax_2069 says"its our nature to consume plant and animal ill eat any thing plant if it edable and animal. i like a big juciy steak alil bit pink in the inside along with corn and salad any one just eating vegi becomes a vegi themself"

Our human ancestors, and other hominids ate, and chimps (our closest species relatives) still eat insects. Not artificially selected, farm raised, antibiotic injected, corn fed cattle. Not in "our nature". Nor is the use of fire. That is a socialized skill set (as is the ancient human group activity of chasing large game off a cliff to later consume, or to otherwise group hunt). So that statement is false.

You may like to eat a big juicy steak with a little pink in it, but it isn't rational. It also isn't healty for you, in the long run, if you do it consistantly.

You have choices. You can use scientific information to modify your behaviour, and improve your health. Good luck.

Mutant_Pie

Jon says; ""Need" is very subjective. We don't "need" to eat at all. We can all just starve and not kill plants either. Why doesn't anyone ever thingof the plants?"

I'll clarify with a more complete sentence. Human beings don't need to kill animals, intentionally, for consumption, in order to survive (that means to live) with good health.

I was pointing out the other extreme of the situation. Either we eat meat and eschew veggies, or we eat veggies and meat equally, or we favor only veggie. Past that, we eat nothing. The furthest extreme we can do is "do no harm" and eat nothing and sacrifice ourselves as food for other life. Of course, by living and eating we provide a location for many of the symbiotic bacteria living in the human digestive tract so maybe our existence is of some value, no matter what we eat.

Regarding thinking of plants, I'll restate the sentence so you can apply it to this example;

It is irrational to kill without need. (See the above description of "need").

We are hydrocarbon exchange based life forms. To live, we need to eat plant based matter. However, we do not need to waste it, or the resources to obtain it. There is tremendous waste of water, land, energy, and plant based foods in the production of meat products.

We can also discuss whether you can or can't "waste" water or energy. Conservation of energy shows that we get bombarded with plenty of energy every day and much must be radiated back into space on the night side, or we'd be buring up. Thus, if we don't make use of that energy before it is fed back into space in can be argued that what hit the planet is "wasted" back into space. People also speak of thousands or millions of gallons of water required to raise cattle, etc. while ignoring that water on this planet is involved in a large cyclical phenomenon that is only disruped by removing water from the planet. Plants use evaporative systems from their leaves to draw ground water. The evaporated water is released to the atmosphere, re-entering the system. Animals take water in as liquid and in food and release it through sweat, urination, and other means. They, like plants, only retain water essential to survive. That retained water is recycled in some form at the plant/creatures death. Thus, unless we are launching water into space, it isn't being "wasted". To lay claim to "waste" it must be shown that either resources are being overconsumed without viable production or that the resources are not being used at all. To not use an available resource *IS* a form of waste.

Regarding "Vegan Morality". There are several points to address;
1) Morality is a relativistic, generalized, and therefore not very accurate, term to use when providing definintions.
2) Ah. You have now resorted to tribalism. By labeling me you attempt to seperate me from your group or "tribe". This is the first step in the de-humanization of someone you perceive as your opponent.

I didn't label you as Vegan, I asked if this is heading down that road, then here are a few extreme points on the other side to consider for discussion. What is the exact nature of de-humanizing going on here? I haven't resorted to any sort of derogatory name calling, taunting, or generally vile tactics. I did make a point of extreme views, and by making the comment of "Devil's Advocacy" I had hoped it would be treated as an obvious counterpoint to the extremeism of "Do no harm" Veganism. Now, I'm being accused of "tribalism" and trying to dehumanize you, without IMHO any obvious provocation. I've stated before that I can't argue the specifics of Vegitarian/Vegan evidences in favor of their views, but I can offer some input as to the views of non-Vegitarian/Vegans.

There is no evidence for the existance of a "devil", so that is an irrational statement. If you mean to be contrary in this discussion just to be contrary, that is also irrational. If you mean to suggest that examining multiple points of view in a discussion can be a useful learning tool, then I agree, as long as the points of view are honestly issued with the intent to be useful for analysis.

Presicely. We must examine both extremes of view to understand both sides, otherwise the "one hand clapping makes no sound" comes into play. "Devil's Advocacy" is often used (in my cultural base anyway) to offer views that may or may not be held, but are being presented in an obviously extreme attempt to show others a different viewpoint.

I'm glad this discussion has come so far along and not one post accusing others of being idiots, narrowminded or stupid. We should keep up the good work, eh?

Just wanted to point out a really interesting-looking book on the topic of ethics in regards to animals, before I head downstairs for some hog maw:

Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust

And as for labels, you showed ready to assume one to yourself in your first post of the thread:

I have chosen to eat a vegetarian diet (mostly vegan, honey is the exception, make your own inference). Since I'm in it for my health, I pay attention to nutritional info. Vitamin B12 is required, and not available in bean sprouts or bananas. I'm guessing there is quite a bit more that is missing too.

You openly say you eat vegitarian, and nearly vegan. If I call you a Vegitarian, I speak the truth based on your own statements. I could also call you a near-Vegan for the same reason, but, I didn't.

For the uninformed (as was I a moment ago) hog maw is stuffed pigs stomach. Never heard of it before. At least if uses an otherwise unused portion of the hog. I'd give it a try if anyone I knew made it, but I'd probably never attempt it on my own.

As for the book, it looks like an interesting read. I dunno if I'd ever actually buy it, but I might find out if the library carries it.

... now that we have all agreed that we don't need to eat meat.

This portion of 'we' agreed to no such thing. Where does that leave your intellectual rigour but in tatters? However, this is no battlefield, so let us argue what is arguable (morality) and cease to contest the unarguable (biochemistry).

In my opinion, and it isn't humble, 1) no creature deserves capricious death, and 2) no creature can be guaranteed life. Being eaten by a carnivore or an omnivore is no capricious death. Macropredator eats you, or micropredator parasitizes you, and you cark it. One is drowned, gunned down in a mindless drive-by shooting, gored to death by a rabid cockroach, disappeared by aliens, whatever. Hard cheese. If one cannot find a ready supply of macro- or micropredators, or unglamorous fatal accidents, why on earth should one wish to punish one's self by deprivation of one of the essential components of easeful life, to wit, suitable nutrition? Too late to look back in moral superiority at fatal delusion. Too late to look back at all if you aren't somewhere whence you can look back.

3) Life is a purposeless accident. 4) When a man (read the animal, not the sex) dies, he is dead.

de

If you read it on the internet or see it on tv, it's true!