Humans As Meat-Eaters: Some Perspectives From Science

[tony]

Not sure but I do believe that the appendix is required for the digestion of green vegatation, in humans it isnt a functioning organ and is quite often removed without any side effects,
Meat eaters have claws explain that to a snake. only grazing animals have hoofs, most other herbivores i.e squirrels, iguanas, veggi birds, field mice, the list is endless but all have claws and not all meat eaters use their claws in the capture of its prey.
Herbivores have no canine teeth, humans do. As for nut cracking thats why humans invented nut crackers so as not to break there canines.
As for the need to cook meat, its for taste and does nothing for the digestion of meat, my friends steaks are dripping with blood barely warms them up, the Japanese eat raw fish so the cooking isnt needed.
Think you could have something in the veggis might De-evolve theory Randip Singh ji, looks like some may be further along that line than first thought, in intelligences levels anyway.

 

[Randip Singh]

Not sure but I do believe that the appendix is required for the digestion of green vegatation, in humans it isnt a functioning organ and is quite often removed without any side effects,
Meat eaters have claws explain that to a snake. only grazing animals have hoofs, most other herbivores i.e squirrels, iguanas, veggi birds, field mice, the list is endless but all have claws and not all meat eaters use their claws in the capture of its prey.
Herbivores have no canine teeth, humans do. As for nut cracking thats why humans invented nut crackers so as not to break there canines.
As for the need to cook meat, its for taste and does nothing for the digestion of meat, my friends steaks are dripping with blood barely warms them up, the Japanese eat raw fish so the cooking isnt needed.
Think you could have something in the veggis might De-evolve theory Randip Singh ji, looks like some may be further along that line than first thought, in intelligences levels anyway.

Never thought of Snakes. That is interesting.

I love the point of nut crackers. Even Chimps have the sense to use rocks

 

[Sinister]

7.why shouldnt humans eat humans if flesh is so good?u would say that would wipe out the race.ok point taken.but what abt a guy who has died just out of accident and his body is good enough to be eaten?i think human flesh would be even better than other fleshes as it is exactly what u want in your body!i would say it is the emotional part that stops one from doin that.and in killing a animal ur overlooking that emotional aspect(and u dont know whether plants have emotions or not)

Why shouldn’t humans eat humans?

To prevent the expansion and proliferation of diseases. Animals (especially carnivores) prefer prey that looks nothing like them because they are the most genetically dissimilar, thus they will share the least amount of diseases. Which is why lions won’t eat other lions, lions may kill other predators, such as cheetahs but they will never actively hunt for them.

Prion related diseases have been associated with the those animals which consume there own kind; Mad Cow disease … bovine spongiform encephalitis …… Kuru (developed in some tribes in Africa that that practiced cannibalism) ….. Creutzfeldt Jacobs disease ….. scrapies.

all these factors come together and give us an understanding as to why not only humans, but also the entire animal kingdom avoid eating there own kind.


I take offence to this question (not anger, but simply offence) because I know and understand what was implied, psychologically, behind such an armed question. I know that this debate has been ignited many times on spn, and that the arguments are always very similar if not identical, to the point where they become talking points (which is why I only answered part 7 of Greenjuice’s aka unbiasedview’s question, as it was the most intriguing). What have I learnt:

A particular sentiment is consistent within many in the ‘vegetarian cult’. For most vegetarians the consumption of meat is considered to be a barbaric act, simply because of a strong moral conviction that suffering is being inflicted on thousands of animals that can otherwise be avoided by unnaturally altering the human diet.

By all measure of account, this bleeding heart sentiment is at the crux of this argument, the rest of the claptrap behind the debate is a secondary levy (which is needed because the primary levy is weak to begin with) that tries to justify their position as the correct one. Basically we humans try to justify our actions and protect ourselves even if it involves making up stories about ‘meat not being properly digested in the human GI tract’ or ‘canines preferably being used for cracking nuts’ (both claims so unsubstantiated and ludicrous that it is hard not to laugh).

It is childish because it is persuasion through fear and mostly guilt. In which the belief is that if you want something done you have to scare people or at least make them feel bad about themselves so that they are persuaded to change their ways. Instead of treating them like adults and conveying your feelings through a dialogue that stimulates thought and expands knowledge we are reduced to debating sentiments and morality on a childish level.

Do these people genuinely care about the animals/animal rights or are they more concerned about generating an aura of moral superiority above there equals?

Are animals to be treated like a commodity as they are now? Traded by the ton on the mercantile exchange?

Should animals and grains be patented? Cloned?

Should meat be grown on a Petri dish?

Is artificial insemination in animals cruel? What can be characterized as correct breeding practices?

How can farmers respect their livestock, make healthier food, and still out compete the farmers that don’t? what type of enforcement is necessary in the globalization and 'corporatization' of the farming industry?

This discussion really needs to move on and become far more intricate than what it is…what it is currently is just nonsense. What it needs to turn into is a serious discussion that puts serious issues first, not personal preferences.

 

[Randip Singh]

Why shouldn’t humans eat humans?

To prevent the expansion and proliferation of diseases. Animals (especially carnivores) prefer prey that looks nothing like them because they are the most genetically dissimilar, thus they will share the least amount of diseases. Which is why lions won’t eat other lions, lions may kill other predators, such as cheetahs but they will never actively hunt for them.

Prion related diseases have been associated with the those animals which consume there own kind; Mad Cow disease … bovine spongiform encephalitis …… Kuru (developed in some tribes in Africa that that practiced cannibalism) ….. Creutzfeldt Jacobs disease ….. scrapies.

all these factors come together and give us an understanding as to why not only humans, but also the entire animal kingdom avoid eating there own kind.


I take offence to this question (not anger, but simply offence) because I know and understand what was implied, psychologically, behind such an armed question. I know that this debate has been ignited many times on spn, and that the arguments are always very similar if not identical, to the point where they become talking points (which is why I only answered part 7 of Greenjuice’s aka unbiasedview’s question, as it was the most intriguing). What have I learnt:

A particular sentiment is consistent within many in the ‘vegetarian cult’. For most vegetarians the consumption of meat is considered to be a barbaric act, simply because of a strong moral conviction that suffering is being inflicted on thousands of animals that can otherwise be avoided by unnaturally altering the human diet.

By all measure of account, this bleeding heart sentiment is at the crux of this argument, the rest of the claptrap behind the debate is a secondary levy (which is needed because the primary levy is weak to begin with) that tries to justify their position as the correct one. Basically we humans try to justify our actions and protect ourselves even if it involves making up stories about ‘meat not being properly digested in the human GI tract’ or ‘canines preferably being used for cracking nuts’ (both claims so unsubstantiated and ludicrous that it is hard not to laugh).

It is childish because it is persuasion through fear and mostly guilt. In which the belief is that if you want something done you have to scare people or at least make them feel bad about themselves so that they are persuaded to change their ways. Instead of treating them like adults and conveying your feelings through a dialogue that stimulates thought and expands knowledge we are reduced to debating sentiments and morality on a childish level.

Do these people genuinely care about the animals/animal rights or are they more concerned about generating an aura of moral superiority above there equals?

Are animals to be treated like a commodity as they are now? Traded by the ton on the mercantile exchange?

Should animals and grains be patented? Cloned?

Should meat be grown on a Petri dish?

Is artificial insemination in animals cruel? What can be characterized as correct breeding practices?

How can farmers respect their livestock, make healthier food, and still out compete the farmers that don’t? what type of enforcement is necessary in the globalization and 'corporatization' of the farming industry?

This discussion really needs to move on and become far more intricate than what it is…what it is currently is just nonsense. What it needs to turn into is a serious discussion that puts serious issues first, not personal preferences.

Sinisters strikes back with a vengeance. :happy:

Where have you been hiding?

 

[Sinister]

Sinisters strikes back with a vengeance. :happy:

Where have you been hiding?

lolz

ive been around :shifty:

in the shadows

i was busy trying to figure why my birth certificate was a formal apology from the condom factory.

 

[spnadmin]

That eating meat made us Human from Apes.

Maybe vegetarians might de-evolve into apes?:happy:

For the record, chimpanzees eat meat.

 

[Randip Singh]

For the record, chimpanzees eat meat.

I'm joking.

Maybe we will de-evolve and chimpanzee's take over?

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

I'm joking.

Maybe we will de-evolve and chimpanzee's take over?

PLANET OF THE APES...did you all watch that series..it was very famous a few years back...early 90's..and then starred Charlton Heston in Hero role in a movie of same title..
The Humans left on a journey to a distant galaxy and when they returned....a few centuries had passed..human life had destroyed itself in nuclear war and the devastated planet taken over by APES...who made the remaining humans "slaves"...and did the exact same things humans used to do...genetic research (on captive humans)... keeping humans in zoos and observe them...etc etc.

 

[greenjuice]

Maybe vegetarians might de-evolve into apes?

you might find it funny, but those who think about it will see that this sentance shows the nonsence of your previous sentance "That eating meat made us Human from Apes."...

 

[spnadmin]

I'm joking.

Maybe we will de-evolve and chimpanzee's take over?

That happened on Planet of the Apes. As Gyani ji said above. Maybe it will happen in Second Life on www and we can try out different solutions there first and get it right before we move on.

 

[Randip Singh]

you might find it funny, but those who think about it will see that this sentance shows the nonsence of your previous sentance "That eating meat made us Human from Apes."...

Your points made earlier have been debunked try and address those.

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

a student of mine popped this...
WHY are the BRAINS of Original / SOLELY MEAT eaters like Lions, Tigers etc NOT that much developed like partly meat Eaters like Humans ?..Shouldnt their braisn be much bigger than ours ??
OR is it COOKED MEAT that is the answer ??
Any help with this one..

 

[spnadmin]

Gyani ji

A poor explanation here on my part -- but brain size is the result of evolution. The brain case of a skull is used with skeletons to tell if a skull was that of a chimp or an early hominid or a neanderthal or a homo sapiens. Humans developed larger cerebra or upper brains reflecting the larger size of their pre-frontal lobes.The homo sapiens skull grew and changed shape to accommodate that. Modern humans have larger brains than chips because the pre-frontal lobes are larger. In early hominids and chimps the front of the skull slants back -- smaller lobes. Animals like tigers have an even smaller cerebrum, but adeveloped mid-brain and lower brain. When you get down to the level of reptiles, no cerebrum at all - only the lower brain.

This has nothing to do with whether one eats meat or not. Biological changes occur randomly within species. Animals that develop features that equip them to do better in their environment, compete more effectively for food, therefore live longer, reproduce more often, and their numbers increase. Early hominids, with brains that randomly evolved to larger pre-frontal lobes, became homo sapiens and were better equipped to adapt. They were better problem solvers. The prefrontal lobe is where problem solving abilities are housed. The homo sapiens figured out how to use both veg and meat as food. They prospered. The hominids that did not develop larger pre-frontal lobes, like the neanderthals, had more limitations, and faded out because they were less equipped to adapt, especially in competition with homo sapiens.

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

aad ji..its not" poor" at all.....

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Antonia ji,

Guru Fateh.

I loved your explanation about the prefrontal lobe and its utilities. We found that out how it really works yesterday.

Tejwant Singh

 

[spnadmin]

:shock:

 

[greenjuice]

Maybe we will de-evolve and chimpanzee's take over?

you haven't have one serious, soul-usefull post on this forum.. but i've read on the topic about the homosexuality that you think that gay is ok, so who knows are u at all a sikh, and what are your intentions writing on the net, imposing as some authority on gurmat..

Then you should find a different forum where you can be uplifted according to your aims and sentiments. Please do not abuse our members who are here because they are welcome to express their views. Our strength comes from our diversity -- even when we disagree with the message. One more outburst like this on any SPN thread, and an infraction will follow. Thanks, Narayanjot Kaur

 

[Randip Singh]

you haven't have one serious, soul-usefull post on this forum.. but i've read on the topic about the homosexuality that you think that gay is ok, so who knows are u at all a sikh, and what are your intentions writing on the net, imposing as some authority on gurmat..

Actually I answered you points, very seriously. The fact every one of your points has been trounced as being meaningless should not hurt your ego too much.

Debate the topic and not the person.

 

[Randip Singh]

a student of mine popped this...
WHY are the BRAINS of Original / SOLELY MEAT eaters like Lions, Tigers etc NOT that much developed like partly meat Eaters like Humans ?..Shouldnt their braisn be much bigger than ours ??
OR is it COOKED MEAT that is the answer ??
Any help with this one..

Maybe this link answers that?

BBC - Science & Nature - The evolution of man
Brain food

Because meat is relatively easy to digest and rich in calories and nutrients, early Homo lost the need for the big intestines of apes and earlier hominids. This freed up energy for use by other organs. This surplus of energy seems to have been diverted to one organ in particular - the brain. But scavenging meat from under the noses of big cats is a risky business, so good scavengers needed to be smart. At this stage in our evolution, a big brain was associated with greater intellect. Big brains require lots of energy to operate: the human brain uses 20% of the body's total energy production. But the massive calorific hit provided by meat kick-started an increase in the brain size of early humans.

Tooled up

But around two million years ago, telltale cut marks on the surface of animal bones reveal that early humans were using crude stone tools to smash open the bones and extract the marrow. Stone tools allowed early Homo to get at a food source that no other creature was able to obtain - bone marrow. Bone marrow contains long chain fatty acids that are vital for brain growth and development. This helped further fuel the increase in brain size, allowing our ancestors to make more complex tools.
The tools made by habilis are called 'Oldowan tools'. The process used to make these tools was incredibly simple. Hominids picked up one stone, known as a core and broke it with another, known as a hammerstone or percussor. This gave them a sharp cutting edge that could pass through an animal's hide.

Chimp test

Yet even this crude form of tool-making required our ancestors to make a cognitive leap. When researchers at the Yerkes Primate Center in Atlanta showed an intelligent chimp called Kanzi how to strike a suitable flake from a stone core in order to cut a cord tied around a box containing food, Kanzi soon grasped the general idea. But after many months of trying, Kanzi had not managed to produce anything as deliberately crafted as an Oldowan flake.
Kanzi couldn't seem to comprehend that useful flakes are only produced if a hammerstone strikes the core at the right point, at the right angle and with the right force. By contrast, even the earliest Oldowan tool-makers understood this principle.

 

[BhagatSingh]

Wow Randip Singh Ji and Sinister Ji are on "killing spree"!:happy: Leaving no Vegan argument undestroyed!


Cannibalism is simply downfall of a society/community/species. The species wouldn't survive if they ate each other. One major component of evolution is survival, which is why morality does not have to come from religious sources. Its ingrained in evolution.

To my knowledge, the human brain expanded because of the shrinking of jaw muscles along with other factors. If you look at a chimp skull , a lot of the space they use for their jaw muscles is use by humans to store their brains. Why would the jaw muscles become smaller? Fire? Mutations?