Frugivore / omnivore / carnivore

Anything not covered above probably belongs here!

Moderators: hardcore iv, fredrikw, JP, stateofflux, bronco

Postby Wobbly Lifter » Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:00 am

While I mostly argee with you I wonder about this;

[quote="veganmonk"]
-man evolved from herbivores (let's not go back to the origin of time, as this is something we simply cannot comprehend. what we do know is that this planet requires and ecological balance of species and their diets. the discussion should be focused on which one humans fall under).


Not only is it's truth questionable, it's just as easy to say we evolved from(and/or into) onmivores, it's not relevant. With everthing else you outlined does it matter weather it's 'natural'? If all the other things were still true, but we weren't 'naturally' herbivores would you eat meat? I'd hope not.

[quote="veganmonk"]
If anyone disagrees with this, you can meet me by the bike racks at 3pm after school.


For a herbivore you're pretty aggressive. But still a little skittish; where'd you want to meet again, the swingset or bike racks? :P
Better Living Through Chemistry
User avatar
Wobbly Lifter
Active Member
 
Posts: 1672
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 6:37 am
Location: Edmonton, Alberta

Postby veganmonk » Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:50 am

magnifico - it's not all bs. if you look into the planets ecology and the way everything is connected, you would know that the air, water, plant, and animal life, and everything else, all relies on a very delicate balance. Sure, the earth could still be around, bare with nothing on it like mars, but that is not the best situation is it? for those that have a great understanding of ecology, such as Diana Beresford-Kroeger, everything has it's place from the special chemicals released into the air from only two rain forests into the atmosphere which assist tornados in cleansing the air we breath, to the animals and macrobiotic life within those ecosystems that help sustain it all. we humans have thrown this balance completely out of whack, and although true that things will continue after we ruin this planet, our understanding of the way it does function should require us to consider protecting and preserving the balance that we see necessary, for the sake of all life currently on this planet.

wobbly - I would say that forcing a carnivore to eat a plant based diet is just as wrong as forcing a herbivore to eat meat. So if I were born a carnivore, such as a lion, then yes, I'd eat meat. But human beings are not carnivores, so I won't eat meat. I do believe it is perfectly OK for carnivores to eat meat, and I do believe in nature's balance of life based on observable evidence in our planets ecology. I also extend this to the inuit, based on the fact they have no choice in the region they live, however, they are not doing it naturally anymore, with their own developed tools, but rather using harpoons and anti-tank guns and all sorts of nasty bs the west has introduced to them, so I do strongly disagree with that portion of their lifestyle. when the earth goes into another ice age, chances are they would survive and the rest of us wouldn't...but then again, maybe not, considering their new found reliance on technology.
User avatar
veganmonk
Active Member
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 7:41 pm
Location: BC, Canada

Postby Wobbly Lifter » Thu Aug 17, 2006 4:29 pm

[quote="veganmonk"]
I would say that forcing a carnivore to eat a plant based diet is just as wrong as forcing a herbivore to eat meat. So if I were born a carnivore, such as a lion, then yes, I'd eat meat.


I'm not talking about forcing anyone to do anything! You say if you were a carnivore you would eat meet, but even if all this is true:
[quote="veganmonk"]
-humans today are healthiest as herbivores

-human being herbivores cause the least amount of destruction to our habitat, the earth

-human being herbivores prevent the needless cruelty of fellow animals on this planet


If what is 'natural' is so important, give up agriculture and shelter, gather your own food, and go live somewhere warm if you don't want to freeze to death in the winter. Becuase remember, like you implied, fire is another one of those 'unnatural' things that allow us to eat meat. :roll:

I've got the feeling something being 'natural' is only a justification for you, if you already argee with it. Rape happens in the natural world, but I damn well hope you're against it!
Better Living Through Chemistry
User avatar
Wobbly Lifter
Active Member
 
Posts: 1672
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 6:37 am
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Top

Postby veganmonk » Thu Aug 17, 2006 5:19 pm

[quote="Wobbly Lifter"]
If what is 'natural' is so important, give up agriculture and shelter, gather your own food, and go live somewhere warm if you don't want to freeze to death in the winter. Becuase remember, like you implied, fire is another one of those 'unnatural' things that allow us to eat meat. :roll:

I've got the feeling something being 'natural' is only a justification for you, if you already argee with it. Rape happens in the natural world, but I damn well hope you're against it!


I don't use that kind of "natural" argument. I totally agree with the overuse of the term "natural". In essence, everything that happens in the world is "natural". It is being taken out of context.

I would use it in the sense of referring to what is best for this planet's ecology and it's ecosystem, in order to sustain all life. We can see a very clear balance and relation amongst all species. So when referring to the term natural, it can refer to what peices of the puzzle fit in which position.

It is not meant to say things cannot change, as they always are, but rather that we should reflect on what we do know, and refer to nature for guidance based on observable interactions of all life on this planet, and guide our actions accordingly.

All of this points to human beings fitting in the herbivore category, in my opinion.
User avatar
veganmonk
Active Member
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 7:41 pm
Location: BC, Canada
Top

Postby aspara-gus » Thu Aug 17, 2006 5:22 pm

I'm curious. Are there any other omnivore mammals besides perhaps humans, that have small mouths, dull teath, dull claws, and long intestines?
aspara-gus
Active Member
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2006 8:34 pm
Location: Mauritius

Postby veganmonk » Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:17 pm

[quote="aspara-gus"]I'm curious. Are there any other omnivore mammals besides perhaps humans, that have small mouths, dull teath, dull claws, and long intestines?


Yes, chimpanzees and bonobos come to mind...but there intestines are shorter than ours and less than 3% of their diets are non-herbivore based, and all small vertibrae or mammals - so nothing like the common omnivore human diet.

The most suited omnivores are species like birds and black bears where the diet is more proportional rather than conditional, and the physical traits and predatory skills of the species are much more aligned with that type of diet. Also their health should be affected by a lack of the "omnivore" diet, ie: without the animal products they would suffer in some way, for instance with the black bears, they are herbivores other than right before hibernation, where they must stock up on fatty fish animal food. Without this type of food, one could argue they could not hibernate for as long (perhaps - I don't really know, but this is at least what would make sense to me to claim a species requires a certain diet for some reason).

I wouldn't worry to much about this line of questioning though, as humans can actually be carnivores if they want to be (inuit), despite the clear difference in physical attributes compared to other carnivores. It just makes us unhealthy and live shorter lives, as well as can cause diseases.

I think no matter which way we look at it, human beings should be herbivores when it is possible (not living in conditions like the inuit).
Last edited by veganmonk on Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
veganmonk
Active Member
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 7:41 pm
Location: BC, Canada
Top

Postby Wobbly Lifter » Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:22 pm

[quote="aspara-gus"]I'm curious. Are there any other omnivore mammals besides perhaps humans, that have small mouths, dull teath, dull claws, and long intestines?


Chimpanzees are omnivores and have similar features. Tell me are there any other herbivore mammals that willingly eat meat? :roll:

Anyways I'm done with this; it's just to frustrating to debate with people who use terms to mean whatever they want, and redefine them when convenient. It just seems the people arguing humans are herbivores are so blinded by thier beleifs that they can ignore that humans have always ate at least some meat thru out history, and most humans still eat and digest meat just fine. It doesn't mean we should be omnivores, but we defintely can be. Arguing that humans are herbivores just makes vegans look like religious nuts.

EDIT: I just wanted to note I mean no offense to anyone. We're all friends here :D
Better Living Through Chemistry
User avatar
Wobbly Lifter
Active Member
 
Posts: 1672
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 6:37 am
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Top

Postby veganmonk » Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:32 pm

[quote="Wobbly Lifter"]
Anyways I'm done with this; it's just to frustrating to debate with people who use terms to mean whatever they want, and redefine them when convenient. It just seems the people arguing humans are herbivores are so blinded by thier beleifs that they can ignore that humans have always ate at least some meat thru out history, and most humans still eat and digest meat just fine. It doesn't mean we should be omnivores, but we defintely can be. Arguing that humans are herbivores just makes vegans look like religious nuts.


It does not make us look like religious nuts. Religions are based on beliefs. The argument for human to be herbivores, is based on facts such as:

-human beings are proven healthier as herbivores

-a herbivore diet goes along with our claim to intelligence, since we would want to prevent the unnecessary suffering of other animals and damage to this planet. we have brains, why not use them

-meat and animal products promote disease and cancer (pcrm.org, the china study, etc..)

-meat and animal products cause damage to our planet (food revolution, davidsuzuki.org, etc..)

-we have scientific evidence that our species evolved as herbivores (man the hunted, etc..)

-our closest relatives exist as herbivores or primary herbivores (< 3% non-herbivore diets) (bonobos, chimpanzees, apes, etc..)

If we exist on omnivore or carnivore diets, it is definitely possible, but that doesn't make it the right choice.

And just as one can argue that cats should not be herbivores (as they become unhealthy as a result), the same claim can be made for humans (we become unhealthy if we eat animal products).

And I still to this day do not know of any human being that goes up to animals in the wild, kills them with their bare hands, and eats them raw through the flesh and bloody. Only the Inuit and those that live in habitats that cannot sustain a herbivore diet, have any right to claim a different diet. The rest of the human poplution are either just lazy, selfish, or ignorant of the surrounding issues.

I will confess to being "blinded" for the cause to end cruelty to animals. However, just like how people fought against slavery and sexism, speciesism is a fact based cause, and not a "belief". So I will in my every deliberation be passionate towards this cause, but based on very valid facts! This doesn't mean that I"m going to sway the argument of humans being herbivores just because of the animal issues. There are so many health issues and scientific evidence that we indeed existed as complete herbivores throughout our evolution, that there is no need to make up anything to make a point in case.
Last edited by veganmonk on Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
veganmonk
Active Member
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 7:41 pm
Location: BC, Canada
Top

Postby Wobbly Lifter » Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:01 pm

I know I said I was done... :oops:

[quote="veganmonk"]

It does not make us look like religious nuts. Religions are based on beliefs. The argument for human to be herbivores, is based on facts such as:


FACT:An omnivore is a animal that can and does eat both plant and animal matter.
FACT:Humans can and do eat both plant and animal matter.
FACT:Humans are omnivores

[quote="veganmonk"]
If we exist on omnivore ore carnivore diets, it is definately possible, but that doesn't make it the right choice.


I'm not saying it's the right choice, you're confusing is and ought. You say humans are herbivores, I say humans ought to be herbivores.

[quote="veganmonk"]
And I still to this day do not know of any human being that goes up to animals in the wild, kills them with their bare hands, and eats them raw through the flesh and bloody.


Catching fish with your bare hands isn't all that hard sometimes, it's something humans are capable of doing. A lot of people still eat raw fish, it's pretty popular. Stealing eggs from a birds nest isn't that hard either. I'm not suggesting that a human can take down a bison with it's bare hards, but there are animal sources of food you could get. People don't do it anymore they don't have to anymore.
Better Living Through Chemistry
User avatar
Wobbly Lifter
Active Member
 
Posts: 1672
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 6:37 am
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Top

Postby veganmonk » Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:10 pm

[quote="Wobbly Lifter"]I know I said I was done... :oops:

FACT:An omnivore is a animal that can and does eat both plant and animal matter.
FACT:Humans can and do eat both plant and animal matter.
FACT:Humans are omnivores

I'm not saying it's the right choice, you're confusing is and ought. You say humans are herbivores, I say humans ought to be herbivores.

Catching fish with your bare hands isn't all that hard sometimes, it's something humans are capable of doing. A lot of people still eat raw fish, it's pretty popular. Stealing eggs from a birds nest isn't that hard either. I'm not suggesting that a human can take down a bison with it's bare hards, but there are animal sources of food you could get. People don't do it anymore they don't have to anymore.


Glad to have you back in this thing =) I like your points...

I'd say for the facts, it is more like this:

-humans are herbivores based on physical attributes, optimal health, and longest lifespan
-humans can be omnivores with reduced health and shortened lifespan
-humans can be carnivores with worst health and shortest lifespan

As to the herbivores.... we could also make cows omnivores, guess what happens, they become sick and get diseases, just like human beings. So does that make cows "omnivores", simply because they "can" eat everything? :P

I agree with your comments on the fish and eggs, in terms of it being possible, and suitable for carnivores/omnivores, but a herbivore would not do that. That is why I classify myself as a herbivore.
User avatar
veganmonk
Active Member
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 7:41 pm
Location: BC, Canada
Top

Postby Wobbly Lifter » Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:32 pm

[quote="veganmonk"]
I'd say for the facts, it is more like this:

-humans are herbivores based on physical attributes, optimal health, and longest lifespan

That's not a fact at all; classification as herbivore or omnivore is not based on 'physical attributes, optimal health, and longest lifespan' but based on diet. And most humans have, and most humans in the past had, an omnivorous diet.

[quote="veganmonk"] So does that make cows "omnivores", simply because they "can" eat everything? :P

We force cows to eat animals, I could force you to eat rocks that doesn't mean you "can" eat rocks :P. Last time I checked most humans don't have to be forced to eat meat.

[quote="veganmonk"]
I agree with your comments on the fish and eggs, in terms of it being possible, and suitable for carnivores/omnivores, but a herbivore would not do that. That is why I classify myself as a herbivore.

You may not, but plenty of humans would.That's why I classify humans as omnivores.
Better Living Through Chemistry
User avatar
Wobbly Lifter
Active Member
 
Posts: 1672
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 6:37 am
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Top

Postby veganmonk » Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:40 pm

[quote="Wobbly Lifter"]
That's not a fact at all; classification as herbivore or omnivore is not based on 'physical attributes, optimal health, and longest lifespan' but based on diet. And most humans have, and most humans in the past had, an omnivorous diet.


Humans have historically always had a herbivore diet. Omnivore/carnivore diets are much more recent. One such study:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 190551.htm

[quote="Wobbly Lifter"]
We force cows to eat animals, I could force you to eat rocks that doesn't mean you "can" eat rocks :P. Last time I checked most humans don't have to be forced to eat meat.


Nope! It's exactly the same. Cows are fed prepared meals, not force fed. They eat what is put in front of them. This is the same with human children. They eat what is given to them.

[quote="Wobbly Lifter"]
You may not, but plenty of humans would.That's why I classify humans as omnivores.


Many other humans would also not do this, not just me! Therefore we can classify humans as all three categories, we are not limited to one, but one is the best of all, which is the one that makes the most sense to agree to and promote.
User avatar
veganmonk
Active Member
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 7:41 pm
Location: BC, Canada
Top

Postby Wobbly Lifter » Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:02 pm

[quote="veganmonk"]
Humans have historically always had a herbivore diet. Omnivore/carnivore diets are much more recent. One such study:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 190551.htm

[quote]
Since the process of human evolution is so long and varied, Sussman and Hart decided to focus their research on one specific species, Australopithecus afarensis, which lived between five million and two and a half million years ago...
dults ranged from around 3 to 5 feet and they weighed 60-100 pounds. They were basically smallish bipedal primates.

That's pretty far back and they seem quite different from humans. Also it may be possible that they ate things like fish, or other small animals and eggs. Whatever the case is, classifing humans as herbivores becuase a distant possible ancestor species was doesn't make much sense considering they are half out size! Nor does it support your statement that humans have historically been herbivores as they aren't human.

[quote="veganmonk"]
Many other humans would also not do this, not just me! Therefore we can classify humans as all three categories, we are not limited to one, but one is the best of all, which is the one that makes the most sense to agree to and promote.


Being herbivore is better, but most humans are omnivores so it makes sense to classify the species as omnivores.
Better Living Through Chemistry
User avatar
Wobbly Lifter
Active Member
 
Posts: 1672
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 6:37 am
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Top

?

Postby grant » Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:43 pm

"That's not a fact at all; classification as herbivore or omnivore is not based on 'physical attributes, optimal health, and longest lifespan' but based on diet. And most humans have, and most humans in the past had, an omnivorous diet. "


A biological classification must be based upon biology, surely? Draw up a genetic/physiological classification not casual observations of what various human cultures have eaten since the year dot. Humans have no *natural* ability to hunt and consume animals. They have no *natural* instinct to eat a live animal, raw and whole. Evolution is based upon genetics, tools have nothing to do with genetics. Calling people nutters does not offend? Really?

It could be argued that humans do not digest meat efficiently, or for that matter any concentrated proteins, judging by the sulfurous 'emissions' of decomposing proteins in the intestine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEFZx7VWMJs

"Truth has to be repeated constantly, because Error also is being preached all the time, and not just by a few, but by the multitude. In the Press and Encyclopaedias, in Schools and Universities, everywhere Error holds sway, feeling happy and comfortable in the knowledge of having Majority on its side."----Goethe
grant
Active Member
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 9:04 am
Location: Manchester, England

?

Postby grant » Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:46 pm

"Whatever the case is, classifing humans as herbivores becuase a distant possible ancestor species was doesn't make much sense considering they are half out size! Nor does it support your statement that humans have historically been herbivores as they aren't human. "

There is metabolic evidence of human herbivory, this is in itself sufficient proof of our roots. Regardless of whether one chooses to accept that fossil 'x' represents an ancestor or not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEFZx7VWMJs

"Truth has to be repeated constantly, because Error also is being preached all the time, and not just by a few, but by the multitude. In the Press and Encyclopaedias, in Schools and Universities, everywhere Error holds sway, feeling happy and comfortable in the knowledge of having Majority on its side."----Goethe
grant
Active Member
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 9:04 am
Location: Manchester, England

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron