Scott on vegetarianism vs. meatism

[offense74]

Yeah, I know I'm a fan of Scott...

Today he's blogging on vegetarian diets vs. omni ones:

Permalink

You can comment on it on his blog.

For all you lazy bastards I will also paste it here:

 

Vegetarian Says, “Bring it on!”

 

A reader e-mailed me to point out that we humans have eyes in the front of our heads, as opposed to the sides, so our design is more like hunters than prey. Hunters need good front-vision eyes that help them focus on the prey. Prey need good side-view vision so nothing can sneak up on them.

 

So we’re designed as hunters. Unfortunately, we are very, very slow hunters.

 

Have you tried to outrun an animal lately? Those fuckers are fast. And I’m not talking about cheetahs and rabbits. I couldn’t catch a motivated woodchuck. I suppose I could catch a panda. But I’d have to run to China to do it. And I could probably catch a turtle, although it wouldn’t help much unless I brought my turtle opener.

 

For all other animal – the speedy ones – I would need some sort of weapon. Luckily we humans as designed to use tools.

 

But wait…

 

If it’s okay to include intelligence and the use of tools in the discussion of what we’re “designed” to eat, then I say we’re designed to be soy-loving vegetarians who take B12 and Omega-3 supplements. Our big brains figured out that we need that stuff and our tools provided them.

 

A number of Dilbert Blog readers proudly pointed out the obvious, that we’re omnivores capable of eating both meat and plants. Well, some cultures eat dirt too. As long as it’s in moderation, we can eat a lot of things. In fact, the perfect protein for humans to eat is other humans. So arguably we are best designed to be cannibals, as long as we only eat people who were going to die soon anyway.

 

The important question is what diet is best for us, without getting bogged down in the “designed for” swamp.

 

Some people who commented went so far as to assert that we NEED meat in our diets to be healthy. This is a popular view among meat-eaters.

 

Vegetarians believe that there is no science to support the belief that we NEED meat (not counting the B12 and Omega-3 supplements). And not counting any studies that were funded by the meat industry.

 

So let’s throw down.

 

Meat eaters, show me the links to studies supporting the view that eating meat in moderation is healthier than eating no meat.

 

Vegetarians, show us your links proving that a proper vegetarian diet is the healthiest.

 

For now, let’s leave fish out of this. I think both sides agree that eating some fish can be good in your diet. Vegetarians simply prefer to get those nutrients elsewhere. I want to see the meat eaters make their case with mammal and bird meat.

 

Remember, you meat eaters are not trying to show that a tiny bit of meat won’t HURT you. You’re trying to show that it’s actually healthier to have some meat than no meat.

 

Go.

[JW]

this guy is whacked!!!

I'm not sure I would even want to respond (although it's the right thing to do)

Thanks for posting

and thanks for catering to us lazy bastards!!

[finbarrio]

"Vegetarians believe that there is no science to support the belief that we NEED meat (not counting the B12 and Omega-3 supplements). "

 

Uhh, since when are B12 and Omega-3 supplements "meat"? And how come I can get all I need through my meat-free diet (and without supplements)?

[Zack]

I think they've got a point with the needing meat part, as we do need b12, however it is just NOT true anymore. If we were still primative, then yes, maybe we would need to eat some b12 source. However, like a chimpanzee for example, it would be an EXTREMELY small part of our natural diet, something like 5%. I believe a b12 source that is more realistic for a human being is something like eggs from a birds nest, or insects, which we would actually be able to catch. Also, if this was the scenario, there wouldn't be the ethical dilemna which is so many people's reason for being vegan in the first place.

 

Most people that feel the need to advocate their meat-eating indulge on it, and that's definately a moral issue. Eating any dairy or meat today is an ethical question, why do it when you can be much healthier as a vegan?

[pelicanAndrew]

I believe the chips consumption of insects is even less, something like 3% or 1%.

 

Yea this is another idiot in a long line of them. His logic is so flawed. If we're so smart we should be able to see that killing animals for food is wrong and unhealthy.

[Zack]

I believe the chips consumption of insects is even less, something like 3% or 1%.

 

Yea this is another idiot in a long line of them. His logic is so flawed. If we're so smart we should be able to see that killing animals for food is wrong and unhealthy.

 

I agree, ethics is mostly the reason I do it, but the health benefits are astounding. I think chimps animal product consumption is limited to like 3-7% of their diet. They eat some insects, birds eggs, and rarely they hunt other monkeys. Their diet is primarily fruits, which is what I feel natural on as well.

[offense74]

Yea this is another idiot in a long line of them. His logic is so flawed.

He's actually not irrational. His starting points for further deduction is sometimes strange but I've read his blog for a long time and illogical is actually not the word I would use to describe him

If we're so smart we should be able to see that killing animals for food is wrong and unhealthy.

You're making 2 statements here. One of them is emotional and the other one you have to based on scince (ie. deduction and logic) to prove.

That it is wrong to kill animals for food is an emotional statement that can't be proven in the terms of logic since it depends on deduction from a certain persons axioms on how he views the world. Since we are all built different these axiom can vary and thus the endpoint after deduction changes. For every person there's another view, which means that 'ethics' is not measurable from a general standpoint.

 

The second statement is scintifically measurable in that we know the definition of the term 'health'. A person who lives long and have less than average amounts of dangerous diseases is healthier than a person that has more than avarage disease and lives shorter. Here we can apply scince and we have done so. On average a person who eats a whole-foods, plant-based diet has better 'heath' than a person who eats SAD and thus it's 'healthier'.

 

Also, how do I spell mean, it's been bugging me for quite some time. Is it:

I mean what I say.

or

I meen what I say.

?

[pelicanAndrew]

Human emotions factor into everything though and you can analyze emotions by science.

 

Honestly i think there is a very scientifc way to show that it is cruel to kill something and eat it. Generally we say that it is wrong to commit homicide(although we go to war for no reason and do other violent things). If we didn't know that each and everyone of us feels pain this might be different. You can easily check if an animal feels pain by doing something you think might cause it pain and see it's reaction. Also after awhile if you keep doing this the animals will learn and become afraid of you. Abused dogs are the most common form of this. Even my dad has yelled at a customer for being mean to his dog in front of him(my dad eats meat though).

 

I think people tend to seperate animals into pets/food which is pretty hypocritical. Essentially what this guy is saying is that a little bit of murder/pain and suffering/distruction of the environment is OK. What you use to prove he is wrong really doesn't matter. Science or personal experience(emotions) can co-exist in a counter argument.

 

I guess that last paragraphy is my whole point.

[finbarrio]

On the B12 tip - B12 can be present anywhere bacteria can ferment and grow. That may be in the digestive track of an animal, that may be in the soil- pick a tomato, eat it with dirty hands - BOOM! there's your B12.

 

I don't buy into the premise that B12 is proof that humans should eat meat when the risk of B12 deficiency health complications GREATLY pales in comparison to health complications stemming from meat and dairy cosumption. Yes, it's something that vegans should be aware of - but to suggest that we should risk the MANY health complications stemming from eating meat and dairy, just so we can get a little B12, is too absurd for words.

 

I suspect that the whole B12 issue is something the meat industry pushes to try to undermine their competition - a healthy vegan diet.

[Guest]

I have no idea why there are vegans that say in the we would need meat if it weren't for supplements. Obviously there are tons of vegan animals that get b12...hell you probably get enough of it when your best buddy wafts a fart in your face

[pelicanAndrew]

I remember reading or hearing that b12 wouldn't be an issue if we didn't overfarm and even that some fruits and veggies might absorb it from the soil. Namely avocados i believe.

[Odidnetne]

I hate it when people bring the whole "tools" part up. When someone said to me that we're carnivores and that it's natural for us to hunt, and that our intelligence made guns for us, I said "So what you're telling me is that the second we invented guns, our need for animal protein shot through the roof, based on the existance of guns alone?"

[Zack]

[finbarrio]

Awesome chart, Zack. Tks for posting.

 

I hate it when people bring the whole "tools" part up. When someone said to me that we're carnivores and that it's natural for us to hunt, and that our intelligence made guns for us, I said "So what you're telling me is that the second we invented guns, our need for animal protein shot through the roof, based on the existance of guns alone?"

 

My (non-v) buddy said that Discovery channel had a show about evolution and they apparently said that the humans started evolving into our modern, "civilized" form once we started eating meat -- that the proteins somehow prompted our brains to greatly advance. My immediate response was "then how come wolves and grizzlies and sharks aren't driving around in beemers and performing brain surgery?"

It would make more sense if humans evolved like all species do - out of need. And if our need was for meat, I think we would have evolved with super speed, claws, strength, huge teeth - you know, like a wolf, grizzly, shark.

Humans are naturally very vulnerable to many other animals - heck even my 10lb cat could kick my butt. I suspect our brains evolved more out of a need to protect ourselves and adapt to a dangerous and complex world, rather than evolving simply because we ate meat.

[_raVen_]

In my opinion, we were prey; not hunters, initially. We most likely became scavengers and that is where we began to eat meat. We did what every other animal did and does to survive. That meant leftovers.

 

It's possible meat contributed to an accelerated development, so what? I think people take that possibility too far when they spin it to mean we wouldn't have developed without meat -- Entirely separate issue. That's some serious Bush-junta spin. Perhaps we'd have gone extinct without meat. That's a possibility.

[andgbr]

In my opinion, i don't think we are prey, nor hunters.. we're humans, it's more complicated than that, other animals can't attack us because we have more power than they do, but that does not give us the right or moral to attack a animal, the same brain that makes us so powerful and able to do these things, should also be able to think about the environment and health, ethics and other things as well, just because we have the power to do something doesn't mean we should put ourselves in that position.

[Guest]

I think scavenged meat allowed humans to live more comfortably when good edible plant life was not so abundant...thus giving them the ability to focus on useless crap...similarly to people that grow up and wind up on Jeopardy. Having more time to do things thats seem useless(not that everything was useless) allowed them to advance greatly.

[Odidnetne]

Can I point out something? Why would the people on the meat-eating camp be so proud if "Eating meat sped up to what we have today", when we live in a world where we hear about a new environmental problem almost everyday of the week, and a world filled with hate anger and rage?

[CollegeB]

because it tastes good

[Odidnetne]

because it tastes good

 

That's right! I guess it's okay to destroy the rainforest for cheap grazing land for hamburger then.

[Zack]

because it tastes good

 

That's right! I guess it's okay to destroy the rainforest for cheap grazing land for hamburger then.

 

And toxify our own water too!

[pelicanAndrew]

And contribute to global warming...

[CollegeB]

but the flavors of meat, and you need it to live

[pelicanAndrew]

We're such jackasses.