MSG IN VEG FOOD ...

[DaN]

Great posts IYM.

 

Tuc & bruce are trying to suggest that GM crops & pesticides are fine & that returning to a more natural way of living is "meaningless"

 

Its an embarassing attitude which highlights the basic lack of intelligence present in the human species.Its this lack of basic intelligence that was present in the people who made the first decisions to spray crops with chemicals.Those first idiots didnt even think that maybe it was a really stupid idea.All they were thinking of was their profits.Now because of these idiots, all manner of animals are suffering.Here is a link about the effects of agricultural chemicals on Birds:

 

http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/whidbey/swr/lifestyle/26081914.html

 

Countless birds meet their deaths from direct or indirect exposure to landscape and agricultural chemicals. Direct poisoning occurs when a bird consumes a harmful substance or is sprayed. Indirect exposure occurs when a bird ingests an insect that has been poisoned.

 

Here is a link (one of many) about the likely effects of agricultural chemicals on Bees:

 

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Parasiticfungi.php

 

The reason these chemicals are harmful is because we made them, and introduced them un-naturally quickly to the environment our little friends live in.Tuc says nature has been doing these things itself for millions of years but fails to grasp the basic concept of TIME.

 

When nature does these things, it changes minute cells over a long period of time.This gives the animals involved time to adapt.We just make something in a lab in years, which would take longer in nature & then just put it into the natural environment straight away.

 

I would find it quite funny that it needs explaining to some people, but unfortunately because of these people, our natural environment & ecosystems are being destroyed.

 

[tuc]

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.

Wrong.

 

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-7c.shtml

[blabbate]

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.

It's a shame you don't have time to discuss the other issues, because they're relevant. They're digressions from the "natural order" of things as many people would define it. My point here is just that it's a very subjective term. You would toss pesticides, but maybe not irrigation. Others would get rid of everything. (I agree on the pesticides, at least on the surface.)

 

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.

But wind and solar power are the results of scientific experimentation. And utilizing them to a degree that would eliminate the need for fossil fuels, while it could be done, would require even more scientific development. Remember, this is the same science that once told us that burning fossil fuels was the right way to go and that you don't seem to trust at all. I'm not sure why you would now believe about wind and solar. And while I agree the time for fossil fuels should be over, if we had never started burning them we likely never would have found a way to use wind and solar power.

 

As far as using a minimal amount, I think most of the people on this forum are as guilty as anyone else. Clearly, we use computers. Most of us use televisions. Lights, HVAC, video games, laundry, etc. And most of us probably drive cars or use some sort of fossil fuel-burning transportation. What would need to be eliminated to meet this "minimal" amount? I think it would be sadly unacceptable to society in general.

 

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.

Well, there's no way to argue against moral absolutism when speaking to a moral absolutist, so let's move on.

 

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.

Ooh, judge me, Dan. I love it. No, I don't think that humans are more important than animals. Not in a general sense. But again, I'm a moral relativist, so it's not necessarily about what I believe for myself, but what the scientists believe. As I said above, we aren't going to agree on this. I'm not going to ignore society and circumstances when viewing morality. You are. And that's fine. We just don't agree.

[Im Your Man]

Wrong.

 

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-7c.shtml

I don't see many proofs on this website, but lots of suspicion :

 

"Available information not well-controlled enough to provide definitive answers."

"The limited evidence available, though, suggests that... "

"on mammals (...) and we suspect that they will also do this in the living human."

 

Besides, "true" B12 and "analogues" are human concepts and thereby subject to misconception and error.

[blabbate]

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.

First, thanks for being civil and actually taking time and researching.

 

Yes, because it occurred in nature, back when man was more a part of it, I consider it natural. We have adaptations that allow us to consume meat. As you point out, that doesn't mean we ate it a lot or that it was our first choice, but it was natural to do so when desired or required. I wouldn't be surprised if cannibalism was natural at times, because we're just meat as well. I also don't understand why cannibalism is so much more abhorrent than meat-eating in general.

 

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 ?

First of all, I ate meat for 27 years, but I never engaged in cannibalism (as far as I know). I think your question is a very good one, though. Did our ancestors feel remorse or regret at eating meat? I personally don't think they would have. Whether in self-defense or savagery, I don't think they cared. And I don't think they chose to eat plants (if they did, which I certainly admit is possible) because it was morally preferable. And I think our evolution from a type of primitive behavior to one of intelligence and complex morality is what allows us to feel remorse at eating meat and to decide not to. This is another reason I think the "natural order" is meaningless. Is our evolution part of the natural order? Or did we evolve beyond it? If the former, then there's nothing to return to. If the latter, we need to ask ourselves whether we really want to go back to the "natural order" when we're now able to make more compassionate and healthy decisions. Even going back 50 or 100 years takes us back to a mentality where veganism was unheard of, where virtually nobody considered the rights of animals.

 

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 ?

Adaptations to a diet certainly don't mean that diet is ideal. They mean that it's what was available. Here's a paper that I'm not going to purchase, but that indicates in its abstract that meat-eating may have been the result of selective pressure:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/rr78052089583418/

So we may have eaten a lot of meat at times because it's what was available. At other times we may have preferred fruits. Some climates and cultures may have eaten meat every day, while others may have been vegetarian. We don't know. All we know is that some humans ate meat, and that we have wonderful GI tracts capable of digesting a wide range of materials, but not as specialized as you'd see in a pure carnivore or herbivore.

 

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.

"Depending on the climate" sounds right to me. But I hesitate to call veganism an "ideal diet" for them, unless you mean just nutritionally. For prehistoric man, the ideal diet was whatever allowed them 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.

Of course we don't have the same size canines as tigers. But we also don't have the same dentition as cows. They don't have canines at all. We aren't going to have the same teeth as most pure carnivores or herbivores. Instead, we have something in between, allowing us to eat whatever we want.

 

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.

Well, that's all I'm saying. We ate meat. For millions of years. We don't know how much or how often, but we did it. We are adapted to it. And in many situations, it was perfectly natural. I'm snipping the rest, because I don't disagree with it. We ate varying amounts of meat at different periods of time in different climates. My only contentions are that we have been eating meat for millions of years and that we have corresponding adaptations, and I don't see anything that disagrees with those.

[Im Your Man]

It's good to see we agree in general, it's rare

Of course we don't have the same size canines as tigers. But we also don't have the same dentition as cows. They don't have canines at all. We aren't going to have the same teeth as most pure carnivores or herbivores. Instead, we have something in between, allowing us to eat whatever we want.

Yeah but canines are useful for some fruits, nuts, seeds, etc, this is why cows don't need any, to eat grass.

Yes, because it occurred in nature, back when man was more a part of it, I consider it natural. (...) I wouldn't be surprised if cannibalism was natural at times, because we're just meat as well. I also don't understand why cannibalism is so much more abhorrent than meat-eating in general.

Yes, if we see it that way, meat-eating is perfectly natural, survival instinct is natural. But cannibalism isn't as natural as eating flesh of another specie though, it's against nature and causes a degenerative disease, those who eat the flesh of a member of it's own specie risk to contract prions -- malignant/deformed proteins which attack the nervous system and litterally eat the brain. Mad cow disease, human mad cow disease. But it appears that this problem doesn't occur if it's your own body: self-cannibalism, like if you bite your nails, or lose weight (eating your fat or muscles).

Your last phrase is interesting. We could say also: cannibalism is as much abhorrent as meat-eating in general, or both are as normal and not abhorrent -- depending on each person's perception. I noticed that a large number of meat-eaters confessed they wouldn't mind at all eating human flesh, for them it is not very different to any other meat.

There is also about 500 movies which deal with this topic, many are just horror flicks but a few offer a serious reflection, like Soylent Green and Delicatessen.

[DaN]

Bruce, thanks for the replies.Maybe it is a shame, but is unfortunately true that I dont have the time to discuss the wider range of issues regarding where this conversation has gone.But you are right in saying that we can agree to disagree, with no hard feelings.Thats great.

 

One thing that does worry me is your final comment to me:

 

No, I don't think that humans are more important than animals. Not in a general sense. But again, I'm a moral relativist, so it's not necessarily about what I believe for myself, but what the scientists believe

 

You are unsure about whether you view the entire animal kingdom as having an equal right to life & fair treatment to homo-sapiens.I think for your own integrity, you should have a think about it & make a decision.I assumed the decision was made at the same time you became vegan, but clearly there is still a sense of confusion...

 

The second sentence of your comment is also odd, by calling yourself a moral relativist, you have actually stated that its not what you believe that you follow, but what scientists believe? Have you mis-written this or have I mis-read it? Are you actually saying that you believe simply what others believe? (sheep mentality?) Are you aware that scientists are not moral leaders? You would be better off following buddhist teachers who's main concern is morality.Atleast they make strong recomendations against hurting any living thing.Scientists torture, mutilate & kill thousands of animals every year.And we are not just talking guinia pigs & rats.They use cats, dogs & primates.

 

 

...........?

[blabbate]

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.

Not at all. In fact, in one of my posts I noted that evolutionary gene change is much more stable and reliable than scientific experimentation. Evolution has the benefit of time, allowing mutations to self-select and stabilize. Genetic experimentation is much less reliable, even unreproducible. I fully accept that. I just don't think that by itself means we should stop experimenting.

[blabbate]

No, I don't think that humans are more important than animals. Not in a general sense. But again, I'm a moral relativist, so it's not necessarily about what I believe for myself, but what the scientists believe

 

You are unsure about whether you view the entire animal kingdom as having an equal right to life & fair treatment to homo-sapiens.I think for your own integrity, you should have a think about it & make a decision.I assumed the decision was made at the same time you became vegan, but clearly there is still a sense of confusion...

I don't believe that's what I said. I said that I don't think humans as a whole are more important than animals as a whole. In a general sense we're all equally important.

 

The second sentence of your comment is also odd, by calling yourself a moral relativist, you have actually stated that its not what you believe that you follow, but what scientists believe? Have you mis-written this or have I mis-read it? Are you actually saying that you believe simply what others believe? (sheep mentality?) Are you aware that scientists are not moral leaders? You would be better off following buddhist teachers who's main concern is morality.Atleast they make strong recomendations against hurting any living thing.Scientists torture, mutilate & kill thousands of animals every year.And we are not just talking guinia pigs & rats.They use cats, dogs & primates.

No, moral relativism simply means that I believe morality is subjective (to a degree, because I'm not purely a relativist). I have my own personal moral values, but I don't pretend that they apply to every person in every situation. So while I believe it's wrong to kill an animal, I also understand that social convention sometimes disagrees. And since personal moral systems are largely defined by social convention, it's understandable that many people find animal experimentation acceptable within their value systems.

[DaN]

Cool, thanks for explaining yourself.