MSG IN VEG FOOD ...

[Richard]

From my point of view, what is "natural" is irrelevant. Something being natural or not has no intrinsic value. Many things which are "natural" are unethical / cruel, and there are other options available to us since we don't live in a "natural" way anymore. Regarding food, I want to eat healthily and ethically, not "naturally". We need B12, you will suffer symptoms from a deficiency, and you can get B12 ethically, so I don't see the problem. I don't consider veganism to be "natural", it is ethical.

[Im Your Man]

I agree with Dan's comment on Tuc saying that natural breeding occurs so GMOs are OK. It's not OK at all and it's not the samething at all ! The genetic modification made in laboratory cannot happen in nature, it's when you force a virus or bacteria to enter a cell with a needle or shooting billions of those with a molecular cannon so then you can insert an alien gene or bacteria, etc. In nature the DNA cannot be raped and violated like this. But once this manmade transformation is done and unleashed in the environment we can't go back and it's spreading, this is really sad. Blabbate, nature would never have done what scientists made. Do you seriously think that in a near or distant future nature will mix genes of pigs with strawberries or strawberries with fish or humans with sheep ?

 

Concerning B12, Dan is right too. Healthy humans don't really need b12 from meat, b12 deficiency happens as much in meateaters than vegans and it's pretty rare. Our body produces b12 in intestines, what matters is absorption. Same with Vitamin D. The amount is insignifiant in foods even animal products, nobody eats 2 kilos of butter per day and butter is not even natural, cows don't make butter and it doesn't grow in trees either. Anyway there's lots of b12 and vitamin d in vegan foods - with one Vega shake and one Ruth's shake I get 300% B12 and 400% vitamin D daily. Whatever if the scientists say vegan b12 is counterproductive.... looks like they're wrong again. What matters for Vit. D is skin exposition to sunlight and you'll be fine. So of course if you live in a northern area where it's dark for 3 months nonstop, yes eating fish is a natural diet. It becomes normal, otherwise it is not really normal; who really is salivating when he sees a fish swimming in water ?

Actually, we've been eating meat for 2.5 million years and have adapted fairly well to it. We have specialized enzymes for breakdown of meat, as well as enlarged canines. We also lack some of the specializations of true vegetarian species, like limbs designed and articulated for climbing and the ability to digest cellulose. However, we also have long intestines good for digesting plant foods. We're a mishmash of adaptations and can eat almost anything. That doesn't mean we should, just that it's possible.

Saying that humans have been eating meat for millions of years ? What makes you say this ? This is untrue. We've been eating fruits. The fruit was there before the axe. We never had a deadly body. Our body is innoffensive. What enlarged canines are you talking about !? And we don't have specialized enzymes to breakdown meat, we're very inefficient at digesting meat compared to carnivores whose gastric juices are 20x more acidic. Of course our digestive system is different than herbivores, that's because we're not cows ! We're primates, apes eat mainly fruits and greens. Some monkeys eat meat but we're less cousins with those. Richard have a point : because it,s natural doesn't mean it's ethical or I would say it doesn't mean it's normal. All carnivore animals are pathologic cases, like humans who kill, psychopaths, alienated criminals, cannibals, etc.

[blabbate]

Actually, we've been eating meat for 2.5 million years and have adapted fairly well to it. We have specialized enzymes for breakdown of meat, as well as enlarged canines. We also lack some of the specializations of true vegetarian species, like limbs designed and articulated for climbing and the ability to digest cellulose. However, we also have long intestines good for digesting plant foods. We're a mishmash of adaptations and can eat almost anything. That doesn't mean we should, just that it's possible.

Saying that humans have been eating meat for millions of years ? What makes you say this ? This is untrue.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0218_050218_human_diet.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4122-meat-eating-is-an-old-human-habit.html

http://www.rense.com/general20/meant.htm

It's perfectly true. We've been eating meat since the dawn of homo.

 

We've been eating fruits. The fruit was there before the axe. We never had a deadly body. Our body is innoffensive.

We've been eating fruits too, sure. And certainly for a longer time. That doesn't mean we haven't been eating meat for a long, long time too.

 

What enlarged canines are you talking about !?

The ones in our mouths. They're not as enlarged as you'd see in carnivores, obviously, but they're also not intended for grinding, like molars are.

 

And we don't have specialized enzymes to breakdown meat, we're very inefficient at digesting meat compared to carnivores whose gastric juices are 20x more acidic.

Very true, but I'm not saying we're carnivores. Just that we're able to eat meat. Even being 20x less acidic than those of true carnivores, our stomachs are still more acidic than needed to digest plants. We also have plenty of gelatinase and gastric lipase, which we shouldn't need if we aren't ingesting gelatin and tributyrin. And we have a whole lot more pepsin than we'd need for an herbivore's diet.

 

Of course our digestive system is different than herbivores, that's because we're not cows ! We're primates, apes eat mainly fruits and greens. Some monkeys eat meat but we're less cousins with those. Richard have a point : because it,s natural doesn't mean it's ethical or I would say it doesn't mean it's normal.

Right, we're not herbivores. We're not carnivores. We can eat meat or plants, but we're not the best at either one, frankly. We're not that specialized.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/674/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature

But I don't see why you're so threatened by the possibility that we've been eating meat for millions of years or we might have some adaptations to meat-eating. It doesn't mean we have to eat meat today. We're evolved enough to choose to be vegan for ethical reasons. Shouldn't that be enough?

[tuc]

DaN can believe all the crap he wants but he can't deny these facts: in northern regions there simply is no way to get enough vitamin D from sunlight. It has to be taken from supplements or fish (or other animal sources).

 

If any creature (yes that includes us) is inhabiting an environment that does not supply it with its essential requirments to live, then said creature is not meant to dwell in that environment.

 

Its not rocket science.

 

Thats why they are not any giraffes on the north pole taking fig leaf supplements.

OK. Which one do you want me to do: Move away from my friends, family, apartment, job, university & other stuff or stop veganism? I NEED my supplements and so do you. Have you checked your vitamin B12 and D levels lately? Where do you live and are you sure you get enough all vitamins?

 

I'm not vegan to be natural. I am vegan because it is ethically the right thing to do. There are hundreds of millions of people who live too north to get enough vitamin D from sun. Do you want them to be vegan and use supplements or leave the cities unhabited and move south in areas which are already packed full of people?

 

By claiming that without B12 supplements you would be unhealthy on a vegan diet is basically admitting that veganism is not a natural diet for humans, whereas eating animal produce is.

 

You guys are giving veganism a very bad representation when you admit we lack essential vitamins in our diet & that we need to take supplements.I would laugh but it isn't funny.

 

It is a well proven fact that you are unhealthy without B12 (but it might take years before the really serious adverse effects take place). Veganism in northern countries with high hygiene is unnatural but so is the whole thing with high hygiene, living indoors and using computer. Why are you using computer? It's utterly unnatural! Start living all naturally or cut the bullshit where some things must be natural and others don't. Back to jungle! Go!

 

I do NOT give veganism a bad presentation by saying that the scientific facts are right. You are doing it by saying that science cannot be trusted. You obviously do not have a clue what science is all about. I am an atheist who thinks one of the only things driving the world a better place to live is science.

 

I am far from laughing since I am truly shocked that someone can claim that you do not need certain vitamins at all. B12 in intestines is produced too late to be absorbed by our body, which means that our bodies simply do NOT provide it. We have to get it from food or supplements!

 

BTW, I do fully not oppose GM. However, I think that it should have be researched VERY well before they started using it. It might give food to millions who would starve otherwise and increased crop per land area might preserve nature since it reduces the need to cut forests for farming. I think possible side effects are still better option than dying of starvation.

 

Genes change between species via viruses naturally, so actually nature is doing its own genetic engineering all the time. And breeding and cultivation is genetic engineering as well.

Why doesnt this surprise me....

 

Tuc, nature has been doing its own genetic engineering for billions of years.You think all of a sudden we are qualified to do it?

 

O M G - are you sure there is no retardation here?

WTF? Nature has been screwing with genes for billions of years randomly and everything worked out well. Now humans are doing the same thing with strickt observations before letting the plant to be used outdoors. The fact that nature has been doing it billions of years shows that it is VERY VERY unlikely that something really dangerous happens with GM. The genes in plants do not affect the one who eats them. You don't get pig genes by eating pig, and you don't become any more flowerish if you eat flowers. With cultivation you change loads of genes at once. Do you have a problem with that too? You would be amazed if you had to eat non-cultivated food.

 

What on earth are you talking about retardation? I study in an appreciated university and I have published scientific papers. Don't you come talk me about retardation when you yourself disregard facts and believe what you think is right even though it is based purely on your own OPINIONS!

[blabbate]

I agree with Dan's comment on Tuc saying that natural breeding occurs so GMOs are OK. It's not OK at all and it's not the samething at all ! The genetic modification made in laboratory cannot happen in nature, it's when you force a virus or bacteria to enter a cell with a needle or shooting billions of those with a molecular cannon so then you can insert an alien gene or bacteria, etc. In nature the DNA cannot be raped and violated like this.

It doesn't happen exactly like the scientists cause, but mutations do occur, as well as retroviruses transcribing themselves onto the host genomes. The difference in my opinion is that natural genetic drift is slow, stable, and repeatable, whereas the artificial engineering is prone to error, or at least was a few years ago. Still, I don't see that as a reason not to experiment. It just means we need strict controls.

 

But once this manmade transformation is done and unleashed in the environment we can't go back and it's spreading, this is really sad. Blabbate, nature would never have done what scientists made. Do you seriously think that in a near or distant future nature will mix genes of pigs with strawberries or strawberries with fish or humans with sheep ?

Agreed with your first statement, that once it's unleashed we can't go back. And it's a shame that companies using the GM crops don't care about that. As to the second part, whether nature will mix certain genes, I have no idea. Nature could end up doing something even wackier than that in the future.

 

Concerning B12, Dan is right too. Healthy humans don't really need b12 from meat, b12 deficiency happens as much in meateaters than vegans and it's pretty rare. Our body produces b12 in intestines, what matters is absorption.

Are you saying we should eat our poop? Because that's the only way we're getting the B12 produced late in the digestive process. Yes, we contain bacteria that create B12, but it's too late for absorption.

 

Anyway there's lots of b12 and vitamin d in vegan foods - with one Vega shake and one Ruth's shake I get 300% B12 and 400% vitamin D daily. Whatever if the scientists say vegan b12 is counterproductive.... looks like they're wrong again.

So you get your B12 from supplements. Vega contains cyanocobalamin, which is a completely artificial, crystalline B12 vitamer. It does not occur in nature.

[tuc]

I agree with Dan's comment on Tuc saying that natural breeding occurs so GMOs are OK.

I did not say all GMO's are ok. I just said that I do not judge the whole thing with GMO's!

 

It's not OK at all and it's not the samething at all ! The genetic modification made in laboratory cannot happen in nature, it's when you force a virus or bacteria to enter a cell with a needle or shooting billions of those with a molecular cannon so then you can insert an alien gene or bacteria, etc. In nature the DNA cannot be raped and violated like this.

The other option is to kill people in starvation in the near future. I'd prefer raping DNA instead of humans. The genetic mutations made in laboratory can happen in nature but it would be very unlikely. Nothing says that viruses can't change just those genes. What makes it so much more dangerous to change the benefical genes than change them randomly? Nothing, that's what.

 

But once this manmade transformation is done and unleashed in the environment we can't go back and it's spreading, this is really sad. Blabbate, nature would never have done what scientists made. Do you seriously think that in a near or distant future nature will mix genes of pigs with strawberries or strawberries with fish or humans with sheep ?

Well, nature does mix them. Viruses change genes between species all the time. And think about all the incidents of mutations where genes are changed randomly!

 

Concerning B12, Dan is right too. Healthy humans don't really need b12 from meat, b12 deficiency happens as much in meateaters than vegans and it's pretty rare.

No. B12 deficiency is very common. It is because of a) lack of B12 in nutrition or b) because of absorption disorder. That's why some meat eaters are B12 deficient. My uncle is one

 

Our body produces b12 in intestines, what matters is absorption. Same with Vitamin D. The amount is insignifiant in foods even animal products, nobody eats 2 kilos of butter per day and butter is not even natural, cows don't make butter and it doesn't grow in trees either.

B12 in intestines is not absorbed since it is produced too late. Vitamin D is produced in skin with sunlight. The amount you get from foods is FUCKING significant in countries where you don't get loads of sunlight around the year. What the hell butter has to do with this?

 

Anyway there's lots of b12 and vitamin d in vegan foods - with one Vega shake and one Ruth's shake I get 300% B12 and 400% vitamin D daily.

This might come as a shocker but B12 and vitamin D in those are added. B12 in Vega is cyanocobalamin which is made in laboratories using fermentation and it is just the same substance as B12 in vitamin capsules or fortified soy milk. There are no natural B12 or vitamin D sources in those shakes.

 

Whatever if the scientists say vegan b12 is counterproductive.... looks like they're wrong again. What matters for Vit. D is skin exposition to sunlight and you'll be fine. So of course if you live in a northern area where it's dark for 3 months nonstop, yes eating fish is a natural diet. It becomes normal, otherwise it is not really normal; who really is salivating when he sees a fish swimming in water ?

Vegan B12 is not counterproductive. It is effective but it is made in laboratory. And in northern areas it's like 8 months a year too little sunlight. I believe there is no place in Canada where you can ceep vitamin D levels up with sunshine only year round.

 

Saying that humans have been eating meat for millions of years ? What makes you say this ? This is untrue. We've been eating fruits.

I bet you can't provide a single proof that human race has lived with just fruits or vegetables in general ever. If primate sees a maggot, it eats it. All primates use some meat. For example some gorillas eat 97 % vegan food but the rest is still meat.

 

The fruit was there before the axe. We never had a deadly body. Our body is innoffensive.

Human race has used tools for millions of years. As long as we've been homo sapiens we've had very effective tools.

 

And we don't have specialized enzymes to breakdown meat, we're very inefficient at digesting meat compared to carnivores whose gastric juices are 20x more acidic.

It is measured in Ph (0-14 and 7 being neutral) and therefore using "20x" is nonsense and untrue. Anyway, we do have specialized enzymes, no matter what you say. We aren't that inefficient digesting meat. Many people eat loads of meat without major problems with digestion (they do get other problems but that's for eating too much of it).

 

Of course our digestive system is different than herbivores, that's because we're not cows ! We're primates, apes eat mainly fruits and greens.

We are omnivores. Deal with it. All apes close to human eat meat.

 

Some monkeys eat meat but we're less cousins with those.

Which monkeys are you referring to? Well, it doesn't matter since all apes close to human eat meat.

 

Richard have a point : because it,s natural doesn't mean it's ethical or I would say it doesn't mean it's normal. All carnivore animals are pathologic cases, like humans who kill, psychopaths, alienated criminals, cannibals, etc.

Your attitude is fucked up. It's like religion which condemns everyone but you and people who think like you. I tried to write something sensible but that argument blew my mind. Shit!

Edited February 10, 2009 by tuc

[hilary wright]

Now Bruce and Tuc, you're not playing fair by using logical thought and facts. Who needs facts when I can insult you?

[DaN]

Ignoring hilarys usual, useless comments (as he's afraid of expressing, or lacks real opinions - not sure which yet)

 

Bruce, firstly, your replies have answered something I have thought about, what you said about natural bacteria.This fits for me, because I dont believe a vegan diet should be lacking any essential nutrients or vitamins - despite Tucs insistence (which is still incorrect) that B12 supplements enable him to be a vegan (what enables him to be a vegan is an ethical belief)

 

The theory that certain bacteria are no longer present, or atleast greatly reduced, does appear to give explanation for the lack of B12 in our natural environment.As for the rest of your comments, I agree in part & disagree in others.

[DaN]

Tuc, firstly my apologies for the retardation comments.I have tried to remain more impartial & not get involved in any name calling on this forum this year, as it is immature and intrinsically pointless.I notice that you have remained quite polite throughout the conversation, so I apologise - sincerely.You are obviously quite an intelligent person, & I usually agree with your logic in other posts, but I really cannot agree with what you think about molecular science.

 

Here are what your wonderful scientists were thinking when devising some modern agriculture techniques:

 

> "I know, if we mutate basic food groups on a molecualr level, we can increase yield & decrease waste.Now we can support even more ridiculous populations (or tax payers! $$$$$$$$$$$!!!!)"

 

> "I know, we can spray all the crops with chemicals, to stop bugs eating them.Then we will have more food to sell.That will increase our profits $$$$$$$$$$$!!!!!!"

 

> "What about the possible health effects of this new GM food?"

 

> "Mutate the food first, we'll do some testing over a few decades, & claim that this is enough to say its safe.Who is going to argue, we're SCIENTISTS! Then after all the peasants have been eating the stuff for a few generations, then we will do our real research - and they can be our guinia pigs! The government will even fund these new tests $$$$$$$$$$$$$$!!!!!!!"

 

> "What about the environmental effects of spraying all the food with chemicals?"

 

> "Who cares, those effects will take years to take hold, & by then we will have made loads of money $$$$$$$$$$$$!!!!!!!!Anyway we have done some tests, & the results are surprisingly inconclusive.Also the worst affected will be the insects (like bees) & all the wild animals, & who needs them? We are HUMANS! & even better SCIENTIST HUMANS! On the subject of animals, I've gotta inject some of my lab rats with this new serum I formualted over the spring.It could kill them ,but who cares, they are just rats.... & once the serum is safe, we can sell it and make loads of money $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!!!!!!"

 

You'll notice that the main side effect of GM & the use of pesticides is PROFIT!!!!!!

 

Do you honestly think that ethics, morality or environmental care, were very high on their priority list?

 

You think science is something that can help the world be a better place.I agree.But it can also be something that helps the world be a worse place.Playing with elements on a molecualr level has given us some great breakthroughs that help our world.But playing with elements on a molecular level also created the most devastating weaponry the world has ever seen.Science may have helped millions of people, but it only takes one nuclear war to kill millions.

 

You really need to think again about your alliance with the scientific community, world-view & belief system.If you think these people can replace the saints & prophets of religions, for the better, only time will tell.If we make it that far.

[Gaia]

Why does Mother Nature get a free pass on everything?

 

She kills millions every year with earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc. We just shrug our shoulders and can't blame Mother Nature cause it just is.

She has come up with some lovely viruses that kill off millions of people too.

Mother Nature is not the innocent character that we all adore.

As if "Natural" is a sainted word.

 

Now, why can't humans use their brains and start experimenting also? I am sure we will screw things up too. But we also have saved hundreds of lives with all the info our brains have put into motion.

 

Anything in this reality can be either good or bad. Just depends on how it effects you.

 

Off subject kind of: I was wondering in my genetics haze, what if we could engineer photosynthetic cells into our epidermal skin? And have our own photosynthesis in our own mitochondria? We could then be somewhat autotrophic. Need more enzymes in our genetic makeup.

 

Also: MSG is "natural", but it is refined to have it on the food additive market (lots of solvents to isolate lots of it). Also you can break it down, but you produce only so much enzyme that can handle only so much MSG/glutamic acid (enzyme kinetics). Then if it is not broken down, then the bacteria in your colon have a chance to utilize it (and who knows how the different bacteria in your GI tract will use it - yeast also use it and have different byproducts from it). And then if there is still too much, it may get circulated into your blood system (via passive diffusion from the GI tract), and that can do some damage to your homeostasis. Just like glucose with insulin resistance, and the excess glucose circulates into the blood stream causing diabetic complications - retinopathy, nerve disorders leading to amputation of the feet, etc. And yeah, all those people said they wouldn't get Type 2 diabetes when they were in their 30's are now getting it in their 50's. And yet, again, the body is an incredible adapting machine, and some will not get it (I'm thinking it is all genetics and how the body adapts to an imbalance). But MSG can not be blamed on Mother Nature . . or can she?

[Im Your Man]

I'm preparing in my mind an hardcore reply which will destroy all arguments by tuc and blabbate it's just I haven't had time to post lately.

 

Gaia, yes nature kills, nature is cruel. But we're making it worse by our unnatural habits which increase global warming and climate changes, so there's more storms and natural disasters and they're more deadly and intense.

Yes viruses and all this is natural, but with vaccines, antibiotics, pesticides, insecticides, all food additives, GMO's, intensive agriculture and hunting, animal farms, deforestation and all the rest, we've turned nature upside down, the ecosystem suffered and the viruses and microbes became much stronger and resistant.

 

Human is natural too, but we're not God and when we try to play God we produce things which oppose to nature.

 

The Doors, "The End"

 

It hurts to set you free

But you'll never follow me

The end of laughter and soft lies

The end of nights we tried to die

 

This is the end

 

Leonard Cohen, "The Future"

 

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions

Won't be nothing

Nothing you can measure anymore

The blizzard, the blizzard of the world

has crossed the threshold

and it has overturned

the order of the soul

When they said REPENT REPENT

I wonder what they meant

[DaN]

IYM wrote:

 

Human is natural too, but we're not God and when we try to play God we produce things which oppose to nature.

 

Havn't you heard Guillame, SCIENTISTS are the new gods.And in their clean white overalls & with their shiny labaroratory tools, & their arrogance, they will be able to save us all from our primitive beliefs in the natural order of things.

 

With their incompetent, naiive tampering of molecules, animal testing, growing pharmaceutical industry, & lack of morality, the world will be a better place for it.

 

[blabbate]

Havn't you heard Guillame, SCIENTISTS are the new gods.And in their clean white overalls & with their shiny labaroratory tools, & their arrogance, they will be able to save us all from our primitive beliefs in the natural order of things.

 

With their incompetent, naiive tampering of molecules, animal testing, growing pharmaceutical industry, & lack of morality, the world will be a better place for it.

Y'know, you're really quick to rush to judgment. You may not like what they're doing, but jumping straight to "lack of morality" is very presumptive. And for someone complaining about arrogance, it's also hypocritical.

 

Also, our behavior is already well outside the "natural order of things," so that's a meaningless complaint.

[DaN]

So what is your point blabbate, that scientists operate with ethics as their number 1 concern? You really are naiive! There is no hope for you if you cannot even recognise peoples true agendas or priorities.Next you will be telling me that Bush sent the US army to Iraq to relieve the poor population from a cruel dictatorship & that it had nothing to do with oil.If you cannot see what hidden motives or agendas people may have, then you will always be simply a sheep, blindly following what you are told to follow.Maybe you are happy being a sheep? They say ignorance is bliss.

 

And you say that me calling scientists arrogant is hypocritical?

 

Everthing I do revolves around ethics & morality.Its the way I live my life, all day, every day.Its what sets me apart from the majority of people on this planet.So dont mistake my confidence as arrogance.Its confidence that comes from walking a righteous, truthful life & being in a relationship with nature, not just abusing it.And before you accuse me of being on my high horse, just realise that I only look high on my horse when you are looking at me from the floor.

 

You also say our behaviour is well outside of the natural order of things.So what is your point? .....that its ok to do anything now because we have already started? Seriously bruce, you shock me with you poorly thought out opinions.Its like people who say, "whats the point of recycling - its never going to make a diffrence, its too late." NEGATIVITY mate, thats all your comment is.

 

The 2 main problems this planet faces are overpopulation leading to decimation of natural resources, & the burning of fossil fuels which is raising global temeratures:

 

> The overpopulation is caused by incompetent governments not exercising population control over their residents, & the human beings inability to breed responsibly.These are social issues.But added on to this is the advancment of scientific health techniques which is enabling far more people to live, and for longer.So science is a contributor to the planets biggest problem.Hoorah for science now bruce?

 

> The burning of fossil fuels stems from the scientific discovery that oil, coal & gas can be burned & output energy.Yes we have burnt wood for a long time, but never on the scale we do now, thanks to science.The same pioneers & adherents to the use of fossil fuels know that it is dangerously raising our planets temperature, the short/mid term effects are loss of ecosystems.The long term effect is loss of our atmosphere, which will kill everything (pretty much) The planet will turn into a Mars like state.Hoorah for science now bruce?

[DaN]

Also bruce I note that you have conveniently only responded to my judgement of scientists as being on the whole, little concerned with ethics.

 

You have not responded to my points about animal testing or the pharmecutical industry which are intrinsic components of the scientific community, a community you seem to worship like a god.Do you have any way of explaining how you justify this?

[blabbate]

So what is your point blabbate, that scientists operate with ethics as their number 1 concern? You really are naiive! There is no hope for you if you cannot even recognise peoples true agendas or priorities.

*sigh* Having spent plenty of time around researchers and scientists, I know that many of them do value ethics over profit. They also value morality over profit. That's not all of them, certainly, but they do exist. Blanketing all of them with an "immoral" label is unfair. Remember, while corporations are almost always out for profit, the scientists doing the research are often different. There's a layer of abstraction that's irresponsible to ignore.

 

Next you will be telling me that Bush sent the US army to Iraq to relieve the poor population from a cruel dictatorship & that it had nothing to do with oil.If you cannot see what hidden motives or agendas people may have, then you will always be simply a sheep, blindly following what you are told to follow.Maybe you are happy being a sheep? They say ignorance is bliss.

I don't see what the point is of any of this except for namecalling. Please calm down.

 

And you say that me calling scientists arrogant is hypocritical?

Yes. It takes a remarkable degree of arrogance to imply "scientists" as a whole suffer from a lack of morality.

 

Everthing I do revolves around ethics & morality.Its the way I live my life, all day, every day.Its what sets me apart from the majority of people on this planet.So dont mistake my confidence as arrogance.Its confidence that comes from walking a righteous, truthful life & being in a relationship with nature, not just abusing it.

And this behavior includes calling people retarded and immoral. Confidence and arrogance are not mutually exclusive.

 

You also say our behaviour is well outside of the natural order of things.So what is your point? .....that its ok to do anything now because we have already started?

No, my point is that going back to the "natural order of things" is meaningless. There's no such thing. The natural order of things for the past 2.5 million years was for humans to eat meat. Would you like to go back to that? Should we return to a pre-industrial society? Pre-agricultural? How exactly do you define "natural order?"

 

Seriously bruce, you shock me with you poorly thought out opinions.Its like people who say, "whats the point of recycling - its never going to make a diffrence, its too late." NEGATIVITY mate, thats all your comment is.

Granted, it was a negative post. But I found your original to be irresponsible and felt a need to comment, negative or not. Sorry if it shocked you.

 

The 2 main problems this planet faces are overpopulation leading to decimation of natural resources, & the burning of fossil fuels which is raising global temeratures:

> The overpopulation is caused by incompetent governments not exercising population control over their residents, & the human beings inability to breed responsibly.These are social issues.But added on to this is the advancment of scientific health techniques which is enabling far more people to live, and for longer.So science is a contributor to the planets biggest problem.Hoorah for science now bruce?

Yup. Allowing more people to live and for longer isn't bad in my opinion. Incompetent government and irresponsible behavior, as you mentioned, are the real problems.

 

> The burning of fossil fuels stems from the scientific discovery that oil, coal & gas can be burned & output energy.Yes we have burnt wood for a long time, but never on the scale we do now, thanks to science.The same pioneers & adherents to the use of fossil fuels know that it is dangerously raising our planets temperature, the short/mid term effects are loss of ecosystems.The long term effect is loss of our atmosphere, which will kill everything (pretty much) The planet will turn into a Mars like state.Hoorah for science now bruce?

So are you advocating a return to society before fossil fuels?

[blabbate]

Also bruce I note that you have conveniently only responded to my judgement of scientists as being on the whole, little concerned with ethics.

 

You have not responded to my points about animal testing or the pharmecutical industry which are intrinsic components of the scientific community, a community you seem to worship like a god.Do you have any way of explaining how you justify this?

Justify it for the scientists? They believe that what they're doing is for the greater good. Of course, I'd prefer they didn't test on animals. I think it makes them misguided, but not immoral. And the pharmeceutical industry is such a huge mixed bag that it's a different topic all on its own. I'm not saying that all scientists are moral, just that they aren't all immoral.

 

Also, I don't see why you keep harping on some of us "worshiping science like a god." We just happen to think more highly of science than you do. That doesn't mean we deify it.

[DaN]

I must admit, I am partially losing interest in this thread, but as you have taken the time to respond to all my points, I feel I should do the same.Although I will be winding down with the aim of ending my posts.

 

In response to your claims that scientists are often guided by morals, I will concur that some are.But like most institutions, the main over-riding aim is profit.Scientists as a whole are making decisions etc that affect the world for the worse.Thats my opinion, granted, but is an accurate opinion nevertheless.

 

In response to your question of what I call the natural order of things I will give you an example.Letting the natural cycles & genetic makeup of our food stuffs remain unchanged.Also refraining from spraying chemicals on crops to improve yields.These proceedures are irresponsible & are damaging our environment.These are 2 examples of what I consider, and for the record what are, the natural order of things.It certainly is not "meaningless" - this is a term I expect from someone who has little regard for the human race to live in a relationship with nature, not just abuse it.At the moment you are coming across as one of those people.Am I wrong?

 

In response to your comments on fossil fuels, yes I am suggesting a return to society without them - or atleast a VERY minimal use of them.Incase you are not aware, this is likely to be the ONLY way we can save our atmosphere.I will ask you this: are you suggesting we just keep burning them the way we are?

 

In response to your comments about animal testing you write:

 

Of course, I'd prefer they didn't test on animals. I think it makes them misguided, but not immoral.

 

Being misguided & being immoral are not mutually exclusive.I find it strange that a vegan like yourself would only "prefer" it if they didnt animal test, & doesnt view this behaviour as immoral.Are you sure it is not immoral? Really? Is it just misguided when people murder eachother or is that immoral?

[blabbate]

I must admit, I am partially losing interest in this thread, but as you have taken the time to respond to all my points, I feel I should do the same.Although I will be winding down with the aim of ending my posts.

Fair enough.

 

In response to your claims that scientists are often guided by morals, I will concur that some are.But like most institutions, the main over-riding aim is profit.Scientists as a whole are making decisions etc that affect the world for the worse.Thats my opinion, granted, but is an accurate opinion nevertheless.

Again, fair enough. I don't take issue with you calling some of them immoral. Undoubtedly some are, but not all. I think the overarching goal of most scientists is discovery and knowledge, but the goal of corporations is profit. And unfortunately, many scientists need to work for corporations to fund their research. By the way, what do you see as the difference between an "accurate opinion" and a "fact?"

 

In response to your question of what I call the natural order of things I will give you an example.Letting the natural cycles & genetic makeup of our food stuffs remain unchanged.Also refraining from spraying chemicals on crops to improve yields.These proceedures are irresponsible & are damaging our environment.These are 2 examples of what I consider, and for the record what are, the natural order of things.It certainly is not "meaningless" - this is a term I expect from someone who has little regard for the human race to live in a relationship with nature, not just abuse it.At the moment you are coming across as one of those people.Am I wrong?

I think "living in a relationship with nature" is absurdly subjective. You seem to be avocating a partial return to the natural order of things. Stop spraying crops, but don't eat meat, even though it's been perfectly natural to do so for millions of years. Should we get rid of irrigation systems? Antibiotics? Should we stop using paper? Telecommunications? What defines an acceptable deviation from the natural order?

 

In response to your comments on fossil fuels, yes I am suggesting a return to society without them - or atleast a VERY minimal use of them.Incase you are not aware, this is likely to be the ONLY way we can save our atmosphere.I will ask you this: are you suggesting we just keep burning them the way we are?

No, not at all. I'm wondering what you think our options are, though. And I'm assuming this was your last post before going off-the-grid and foraging to survive deep in a forest somewhere. If you're not willing to get rid of electricity and transportation as a whole, you need a viable alternative. And from what you've previously said, it sounds like you need to find it without the help of that pesky science.

 

In response to your comments about animal testing you write:

Of course, I'd prefer they didn't test on animals. I think it makes them misguided, but not immoral.

Being misguided & being immoral are not mutually exclusive.I find it strange that a vegan like yourself would only "prefer" it if they didnt animal test, & doesnt view this behaviour as immoral.Are you sure it is not immoral? Really? Is it just misguided when people murder eachother or is that immoral?

They certainly aren't mutually exclusive, true. I think immorality is probably always misguided. I suppose it would be useful to define morality here, though, since it has a few meanings. If we're thinking descriptively, I don't see how we could call animal testing immoral, since it's common and widely accepted as being for the long-term good, despite the opinions of a vocal minority.

 

Prescriptivism might categorize it differently, but what do we use as a source for normative morality? Historically, moral absolutism, whether social or religious, hasn't cared much about the rights of animals. If we suddenly declare the rights of animals sacred, we're saying that all of those preexisting moralities are wrong, which should cast some doubt on whether we have the right one either. But that's why there's so little room for doubt in prescriptivism. So I guess if you're using morally absolute principles that define animal testing as unequivocally, universally wrong under all circumstances, there's nothing I can say. I'm more of a moral relativist.

[DaN]

Fair points.

 

By the way, what do you see as the difference between an "accurate opinion" and a "fact?"

 

Accurate opinion is still open to fault.Fact is 100% right.Yes its hard to be 100% sure of most things, but some things you can be sure of.

 

I think "living in a relationship with nature" is absurdly subjective. You seem to be avocating a partial return to the natural order of things. Stop spraying crops, but don't eat meat, even though it's been perfectly natural to do so for millions of years. Should we get rid of irrigation systems? Antibiotics? Should we stop using paper? Telecommunications? What defines an acceptable deviation from the natural order?

 

I obviously dont have the time to discuss irrigation, antibiotics & telecommunications.What you have written in blue is spot on.

My example of pesticides is a classic.It was never, and will be never a good idea to spray chemicals on our plants.It is bad for insects at the very least - let alone us.Pesticides is the number one suspect of why all the bees are dying out.We should accept that bugs will eat some of our crops, & just deal with it.Or grow them in large tents that are bug free.

 

No, not at all. I'm wondering what you think our options are, though. And I'm assuming this was your last post before going off-the-grid and foraging to survive deep in a forest somewhere. If you're not willing to get rid of electricity and transportation as a whole, you need a viable alternative. And from what you've previously said, it sounds like you need to find it without the help of that pesky science.

 

It is commonly known that viable alternatives exist, but governments are not putting the finance into them yet because fossil fuels are still in use.Its just short sightedness.Also people might say "what, life without electricity?!" But bear in mind electricity was discovered only in the 1700's (arguably - some say earlier) Thats only 300 years ago.Human culture has flourished without it for thousands of years.Dont get me wrong, I am not saying ban electricity, but we certainly could use a very minimal amount & be a happy productive society.We could source enough from wind & solar without problems.Thats as long as we stopped increasing our population to such ridiculous levels.

 

So I guess if you're using morally absolute principles that define animal testing as unequivocally, universally wrong under all circumstances, there's nothing I can say. I'm more of a moral relativist.

 

Yes I am saying that.

 

it's common and widely accepted as being for the long-term good, despite the opinions of a vocal minority.

 

It is for our long term good, but not the animals.Do you believe that humans are automatically more important than animals? Your answer may help explain alot I see in you.

[Im Your Man]

You seem to be avocating a partial return to the natural order of things. Stop spraying crops, but don't eat meat, even though it's been perfectly natural to do so for millions of years. Should we get rid of irrigation systems? Antibiotics? Should we stop using paper? Telecommunications? What defines an acceptable deviation from the natural order?

Why do you say eating meat has been perfectly natural to do so for millions of years? Jist because it happened, then it means it was natural? During Stone Age, our ancestors did cannibalism, so I guess it was "perfectly natural" too, and there's still cases of cannibalism in our modern age, in society or outside of it. It's natural, because meat-eating always lead to cannibalism. But is it normal? Yes, I guess death, killing and murder is part of life so it's normal... But I wouldn't consider myself normal if I would kill someone else or an animal, for no reason. I would be mentally ill, or it would have been the result of some temporary insanity. If you're considered "normal" but you kill, that must be because you are an animal with a killer instinct and you don't feel any remorse, or because it is a matter of life or death, self defense, or because there's nothing else to eat so you need to kill an animal otherwise you'll starve to death. Did our distant ancestors were able to feel remorse and regrets so they were killing animals only when it was necessary ? And if it's natural and normal to eat meat, does it mean it is the ideal diet ? The reason I say all this is because you keep repeating "we have been eating meat for 2,5 million years. Sure, but how much, a lot everyday? And what about before 2,5 million years ? And in all climates and areas ? The 3 links that you provided are pretty old and don't say anything new, the same old meat eating myth. They provide little proof that we ate meat; I'm not saying we never ate meat ! But those clues don't say if it was very common. If you want to skip to the end of my post, I talk about more recent proofs that our old ancestors followed a vegan diet as much as possible, our natural/ideal diet, but were completing with meat, more or less depending on the climate, to survive.

 

You say we have enlarged canines but they're not enlarged at all I guess you never seen the dentition of tigers and other carnivores ! http://waiting-for-the-miracle.blogspot.com/2008/10/tooth.html Besides, it doesn't mean anything, look at gorillas. The teeth thing is so ridiculous that meateaters say: we have enlarged canines to eat meat, while vegetarians say we don't have enlarged canines. I see you're on the side of meat-eaters.

 

Your 3rd link is about vegan and vegetarian diet and the only thing referring to meat is at the end and doesn't say much:

http://www.rense.com/general20/meant.htm

"But the isotopic clues show that it ate a varied diet, including either grassland plants or animals that themselves fed on grasses," reported the journal Science in 1999."

 

Your 2nd link uses the teeth proof

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4122-meat-eating-is-an-old-human-habit.html

 

"Humans evolved beyond their vegetarian roots and became meat-eaters at the dawn of the genus Homo, around 2.5 million years ago, according to a study of our ancestors' teeth."

 

Eating meat requires teeth adapted more to cutting than to grinding. The ability to cut is determined by the slope of the cusps, or crests. "Steeper crests mean the ability to consume tougher foods," Ungar says. He has found that the crests of teeth from early Homo skeletons are steeper than those of gorillas, which consume foods as tough as leaves and stems, but not meat.

Ripe fruit

But the crests of teeth from A. afarensis are not only shallower than those of early Homo, they are also shallower than those of chimpanzees, which consume mostly soft foods such as ripe fruit, and almost no meat.

Ungar shows that early Homo had teeth adapted to tougher food than A. afarensis or [chimpanzees]. The obvious candidate is meat," says anthropologist Richard Wrangham of Harvard University.

It's not "obvious" at all. This ain't no proof. Analyzing teeths is a proof now with ultra precise scanners, you can watch closely the teeth as if it was a mountain and see with the striations that yes, it has been used to eat meat. But it doesn't say how much.

 

Your 1st link, from your 2005, talks about the bones. Again, marks of tools or human teeth on animal bones say that prehistoric ate them, but we didn't find mountains of those bones, it doesn't say how widespread this practice was. The same kind of proof showed that there was cannibalism too amongst them, so it can give a clue that they weren't eating meat by choice but because food was sometimes very rare.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0218_050218_human_diet.html

"It's really amazing what we know now that we didn't know 15 or 20 years ago,"

...and it's really amazing what we know now that we didn't know 4 years ago. Now there's a new method to analyze the level of isotopes from carbon and azot in bones which allows to know the proportion of metabolites from plant kingdom and from animal kingdom in the diet. Also, caprolithes: fossilized feces; they were finding lots of proteins from plant based food but little or rarely from animal proteins. Or analysing food residues in prehistoric containers. And pollen fossils indicates the flora, fauna, and thus the food available at that time. Many scientists and anthropologists were stunned to find out that prehistoric men were eating less meat than we always have thought. These technologies allowed to make great discoveries:

 

First we were gatherers: fruits, leaves, flowers, vegetables, roots, shoots, berries, mushrooms and wild plants provide up to 70% of the basic subsistence. And before the tools to kill animals: eggs, fish, insects, meat, carrion. Then when we started hunting with sharpened stones and spears = 35% of the diet, and 60% at the peak.

In the tropics: 75% plant based diet. If you go more to North: more meat. Probably 100% meat diet in the far North and during Ice Age.

 

http://www.bio-info.be/pages/pdf_telechargeable/BIOinfo_30.pdf

 

Sorry the link is in French, a vegetarian magazine. I don't know with what keywords to search in English, but try with "fossil feces" if you want, along with "prehistoric diet" or I don't know...

 

Meat is a survival food. We were eating meat because there wasn't huge fields of orange trees everywhere or huge fields of wheat and other grains. In fact, grains are not so old and before in nature are very sporadic and dispersed, some molecules in them could also make believe they're not so edible. Like for vegetables we need to cook them, or at least sprout them. So, without agriculture or adequate climate, there's not so many with lots of fruits or vegetables or animals to hunt, so of course prehistoric men were eating some meat; were eating anything they could find to survive. Doesn't mean this is the ideal diet. When we compare our digestive system with carnivores (wolves), herbivores (cows) and frugivores/vegans (gorillas, bonobos), we're very similar if not identical to the last ones.

 

 

We are omnivores. Deal with it. All apes close to human eat meat.

(...)all apes close to human eat meat.

(...) I bet you can't provide a single proof that human race has lived with just fruits or vegetables in general ever. If primate sees a maggot, it eats it. All primates use some meat. For example some gorillas eat 97 % vegan food but the rest is still meat.

I just showed proofs that we weren't eating so much meat, but plant-based foods as much as possible.

What do you mean apes eat meat ? Chimps hunt small animals and even do cannibalism and rapes (consequences of meat-eating) and we're doing the same. So? Gorillas eat meat... What do you mean by "meat" ? Do you suggest that gorillas are omnivores, or even carnivores ? They eat greens and there's insects on the leaves. This 3%, is it a precise number or sometimes it's more like 1% ? Is it 3% of total calories or of total weight of food? If you say they "eat meat" and thereby aren't vegans, I guess we could say you and me aren't vegans either, because there's lots of insects in the peanut butter, fruit juice etc that we eat (and this solves the B12 issue), maybe it's more than 3% of weight: for instance pastas has an "average of 225 insect fragments or more per 225 grams."

http://www.veganbodybuilding.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=16553

Edited February 15, 2009 by I'm Your Man

[Im Your Man]

Last post was about meat-eating, this one's about B12 as well as GMOs...

 

Nature has been screwing with genes for billions of years randomly and everything worked out well. Now humans are doing the same thing with strickt observations before letting the plant to be used outdoors. The fact that nature has been doing it billions of years shows that it is VERY VERY unlikely that something really dangerous happens with GM. The genes in plants do not affect the one who eats them. You don't get pig genes by eating pig, and you don't become any more flowerish if you eat flowers. With cultivation you change loads of genes at once. Do you have a problem with that too? You would be amazed if you had to eat non-cultivated food.

 

The other option is to kill people in starvation in the near future. I'd prefer raping DNA instead of humans. The genetic mutations made in laboratory can happen in nature but it would be very unlikely. Nothing says that viruses can't change just those genes. What makes it so much more dangerous to change the benefical genes than change them randomly? Nothing, that's what.

 

Well, nature does mix them. Viruses change genes between species all the time. And think about all the incidents of mutations where genes are changed randomly!

 

Tuc and Blabbate, you seem to lack some knowledge about the evolution of species, adaptation, specialisation and natural selection of Darwin and genetically modified organisms because you confuse both concepts.

The things they do in laboratory allows to break the species barrier.

You're saying all this can happen in nature, but how the hell a petunia could mate with a tiger and produce a mutant in nature without the help of scientists? Some prehistoric fish started to adapt to live on the ground to later become reptiles and then apes and then us, and you compare this with the genetic engineering that scientists do for a living? Concerning viruses, no, they don't "change genes between species all the time." They can enter a gene and cause problems in it but they won't steal a gene and go put it in another host. If they do, let me explain to you how rarely this can cause a mutation in the DNA. Even in laboratory, it is very difficult and random to make GMOs. It takes a million trials before it works on just one. Cells have a self-defence system that protects them against a gene of another specie when it wants to enter. That's why a virus like e.colli or whatever is needed, to open a door for the alien gene. That's why with molecular cannons they shoot millions of viruses containing the DNA data they want to implant in the organism and only a few of those will hit the target : the center of a cell. Technically, it creates a tumor in the gene. In nature, DNA mutation rates is 0,5% per million years. (Concerning nutrition, the best diet is the one adapted to our genes, our genes are still quite the same as before, even compared to apes. Meateating is not ideal, but we adapted to it, not perfectly though. If you drink alcohol for the first time, it,s really hard on the liver, then your organism "adapts" and after a few drinks you may even like it. Addiction, morbid tolerance; not to confuse with adaptation. To avoid that a poison kills you quickly, the body learns how to get poisoned and to be more resistant. But it's not a reason to say poisons are good.)

 

So anyway, Tuc you're asking me for proof that GMOs are dangerous ?

Indian farmers 3 suicides per day or an average of 1 suicide every 8 hours . increased resistance of insects to pesticides.We need more and more pesticides and insecticides, and always more powerful/destroying the environment. If you find that this is not enough and is not critical/dramatic, how about this: google "Showa Denko, EMS, L-Tryptophane, epidemy", a company who made a GM supplement caused 100 deaths and 10,000 persons illed. The company had to pay $2 million for damages.

 

You ask what is the difference between the changes which occurs in nature and the GMOs scientists do?

One is natural and the other is not natural. That's the biggest difference you can find in the whole universe.

 

And about starvation... do you seriously believe what the biotechnology companies are saying when they claim they will save the world from starvation? Their products are killing the agriculture. It's unbelievable that the first thing Monsanto says on their website is "Monsanto is an agricultural company" but they never done any agriculture, they sell the seeds on the planet

and control all farmers. GMOs were more productive during the first 2 years, because the insects weren't adapted yet to the RoundUp insecticide and the built-in insecticide in GM soy. After that it's another story. Mutant insects, more insecticide needed than on conventional fields with ordinary insects. In 2000, farmers who grow genetically modified soy lose 8,87$ per acre, compared to 0,02$ for conventional soy. It's interesting to know that none are profitable, but GM is worse.

Gm corn is 28,28$ lost per acre and 25,02$ for conventional.

There's no more organic colza in Canada, genetically engeneered colza spread everywhere cos of contamination by wind and pollenisation. Just one seed may be enough to grow and take all the space because it's more agressive and resistant than conventional colza.

Once the GMOs are spreading, even in countries which banned them, what can we do? More and more insecticides, pesticides or built-in the GM plants (and we eat that), more acid rain, destroying more arable land, etc.. So what is dangerous ? We cannot even imagine how horrible the future could be. An infertile, sterile soil with no life and on which nothing grows.

[VeganEssentials]

Chimps hunt small animals and even do cannibalism and rapes (consequences of meat-eating) and we're doing the same.

 

Wait a minute...are you actually inferring that somehow, eating meat creates the behavior of wanting to cannibalize and/or rape, purely based on the action of eating meat and some perceived psychological change it instills in the one consuming it? Please don't tell me that's what you were actually trying to convey with this line, because if it is...welll...let the games begin .

[Im Your Man]

I only described what happens. You can draw the conclusions you want.

 

But actually concerning the chimps, maybe it's not true cannibalism, since they usually kill and eat members of enemy tribes... but it's still the same specie, I think ?

 

Well, is there any herbivore specie which practice cannibalism ? I doubt it... they wouldn't be herbivores, lol.

 

Serendipity, I was just now reading an article on the same subject but concerning humans.

 

http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/hygienic.review.articles.htm

 

The Life of Primitives - HM Shelton

 

Fred G. Merfield, in his book Gorillas Were My Neighbors, says that "African villagers go crazy for meat when they find a dead elephant or hippo. Opening up the carcass, they crawl right inside, indifferent to the blood and mess, in search of the choicest pieces. " Of one tribe among whom he hunted, he says, "their taste for food was revolting. Once they extracted the stomach of a hartebeast I had just shot and squeezed the liquid contents of it into their mouths, assuring me that it was a most nourishing and appetizing dish. The intestines were also eaten raw, after their contents had been squeezed out. " They drank a liquor made from fermented sap of the palm tree, which they call mimbo. Telling of the raid of one tribe by another he says that many of the attacked were killed; many were captured. Captured girls were sold; captured boys were kept as slaves. The men were killed, their stomaches and hearts being removed, as these were thought to be the best parts of an animal, including man. These were eaten. Some of the men were tied up and their throats cut so that the blood could be drained off and drunk. Everyone tried to get the sexual organs, which were regarded as the nicest parts, being full of fat. Among some tribes gorilla flesh is forbidden the women, the men eating it with gusto. Some of the Negroes eat beetle grubs; others eat a soup made of ground nuts, with plantains. They nurse their babies for two years.

[Im Your Man]

Anyway there's lots of b12 and vitamin d in vegan foods - with one Vega shake and one Ruth's shake I get 300% B12 and 400% vitamin D daily. Whatever if the scientists say vegan b12 is counterproductive.... looks like they're wrong again.

So you get your B12 from supplements. Vega contains cyanocobalamin, which is a completely artificial, crystalline B12 vitamer. It does not occur in nature.

Sure but in Vega there's also Chlorella, which contains B12, right ?

Spirulina is 4x more rich in b12 than raw liver, and chlorella contains even more than spirulina. I know scientists say we can't absorb this kind of b12, but who knows if next year they won't say they were wrong.