PETA: are you for them or against them?

[Madhuri]

Well when I say humans are predators we are overconsumers. Whether its population or overconsuming animal flesh, we are natural predators I mean overall.

Can that be justified/ Shouldn't we be looking to improve our destructive behaviour?

 

[Vendetta]

Can that be justified/ Shouldn't we be looking to improve our destructive behaviour?

I don't think we can. A friend of mine studying agriculture and behavior believes that humans have to overconsume to sustain our population that means more space is taken, less land, more pollution and more meats being consumed. He theorizes that the only way to reverse our destruction is if over half the human population dies out-which is probably what's going to happen. The movie by M. Night Shamalan "The Happening" is a very good possibility.

 

[ninerbuff]

Would you at least agree that your view is not rational? Is there any logical reason that one species should have special rights over and above all the rest? The bio-mass argument doesn't really fly (AKA the "dominant species" argument), since we are outweighed by many other species. There is 5 times as much krill by weight on earth than humans. Does that mean krill should have special rights?

By "dominant" I mean "we" have the ability to keep or obliterate a species. No animal on Earth besides humans have that type of presence.
When the snakehead fish infested waters in VA and Maryland, if they were left alone they would have killed every fish there. As a "dominant" species we prevented that from happening. Can you think of any other animal on Earth that could have done that?

 

[nameless]

Perhaps if it benefits us. But apparently it doesn't anymore.

so regardless of what we are (omnivorous or herbivorous), its better to consider the more beneficial one, correct?

 

[Madhuri]

We'll never agree here on the Holocaust and animal slaughter because we hold opposing views on the degree of humans and animals. I hold human over animal, so my view will always be that the Holocaust was much more horrific than animal slaughter.

I never say that animals are equal to humans. In fact, a cat is not equal to a frog. Every species is different.
The only way that the holocaust was worse is because humans have a different degree of intelligence and perception. Of course I agree with this.

But that doesn't or shouldn't negate the fact that what we do to non-human animals is still very, very barbaric. Just because one species is less intelligent than us does not mean that it is unaware of pain, that is does not suffer, that it has no understanding or emotions. These animals go through a very high degree of suffering. And unlike the holocaust, it goes on year after year after year with millions upon millions of sentient individuals being bred in captivity, taken away from their mother at a young age and being killed before they reach anything near old age.

This reality should not be ignored. And what I agree with PETA about, from that article, is that the animal situation relates to the holocaust because of our mindset. Because the fact remains that most people still think of animals as something inferior, something that we objectify for our selfish desires. Most people just don't care. And that is just as sickening as the people who did not care about those suffering under the holocaust. A general dismissal of the suffering that every individual victim must undergo due to our selfishness and ignorance.

 

[Vendetta]

so regardless of what we are (omnivorous or herbivorous), its better to consider the more beneficial one, correct?

Well it is whatever nature (or God) intends. Our very teeth is proof that we are omnivores.

 

[Alceste]

Wow you're better than me. When I grill my steak the only thing I think about is what beer im going to have and what barbecue sauce im using

well - it's not constant. I don't fret about the suffering of my oysters when I chuck them onto the bonfire, but that's partly because I get them off the beach myself. I know they've been as "happy" as its possible for an oyster to be.

 

[ninerbuff]

I never say that animals are equal to humans. In fact, a cat is not equal to a frog. Every species is different.
The only way that the holocaust was worse is because humans have a different degree of intelligence and perception. Of course I agree with this.

But that doesn't or shouldn't negate the fact that what we do to non-human animals is still very, very barbaric. Just because one species is less intelligent than us does not mean that it is unaware of pain, that is does not suffer, that it has no understanding or emotions. These animals go through a very high degree of suffering. And unlike the holocaust, it goes on year after year after year with millions upon millions of sentient individuals being bred in captivity, taken away from their mother at a young age and being killed before they reach anything near old age.

This reality should not be ignored. And what I agree with PETA about, from that article, is that the animal situation relates to the holocaust because of our mindset. Because the fact remains that most people still think of animals as something inferior, something that we objectify for our selfish desires. Most people just don't care. And that is just as sickening as the people who did not care about those suffering under the holocaust. A general dismissal of the suffering that every individual victim must undergo due to our selfishness and ignorance.

While there are points I agree with, and I did support Proposition 2 in California BTW, the ONLY way to reduce consumption IMO isn't to try to scare or depict people on the cruelty of animals, but to reduce the APPETITE for meat. Since most people don't worry about how food is slaughtered and really don't care (or else it would be a major political issue) their focus is just making sure it's available when they want it. And unfortunately in America, meat is a staple of many diets. Many people don't care enough to help unfortunate people, so animals are probably even lower on their "care" list. That's really just what it comes down to.

 

[Madhuri]

Well it is whatever nature (or God) intends. Our very teeth is proof that we are omnivores.

Maybe we are evolving to be herbivores:

The human gastrointestinal tract features the anatomical modifications consistent with an herbivorous diet. Humans have muscular lips and a small opening into the oral cavity. Many of the so-called "muscles of expression" are actually the muscles used in chewing. The muscular and agile tongue essential for eating, has adapted to use in speech and other things. The mandibular joint is flattened by a cartilaginous plate and is located well above the plane of the teeth. The temporalis muscle is reduced. The characteristic "square jaw" of adult males reflects the expanded angular process of the mandible and the enlarged masseter/pterygoid muscle group. The human mandible can move forward to engage the incisors, and side-to-side to crush and grind.

Human teeth are also similar to those found in other herbivores with the exception of the canines (the canines of some of the apes are elongated and are thought to be used for display and/or defense). Our teeth are rather large and usually abut against one another. The incisors are flat and spade-like, useful for peeling, snipping and biting relatively soft materials. The canines are neither serrated nor conical, but are flattened, blunt and small and function Like incisors. The premolars and molars are squarish, flattened and nodular, and used for crushing, grinding and pulping noncoarse foods.

Human saliva contains the carbohydrate-digesting enzyme, salivary amylase. This enzyme is responsible for the majority of starch digestion. The esophagus is narrow and suited to small, soft balls of thoroughly chewed food. Eating quickly, attempting to swallow a large amount of food or swallowing fibrous and/or poorly chewed food (meat is the most frequent culprit) often results in choking in humans.

Man's stomach is single-chambered, but only moderately acidic. (Clinically, a person presenting with a gastric pH less than 4-5 when there is food in the stomach is cause for concern.) The stomach volume represents about 21-27% of the total volume of the human GI tract. The stomach serves as a mixing and storage chamber, mixing and liquefying ingested foodstuffs and regulating their entry into the small intestine. The human small intestine is long, averaging from 10 to 11 times the body length. (Our small intestine averages 22 to 30 feet in length. Human body size is measured from the top of the head to end of the spine and averages between two to three feet in length in normal-sized individuals.)

The human colon demonstrates the pouched structure peculiar to herbivores. The distensible large intestine is larger in cross-section than the small intestine, and is relatively long. Man's colon is responsible for water and electrolyte absorption and vitamin production and absorption. There is also extensive bacterial fermentation of fibrous plant materials, with the production and absorption of significant amounts of food energy (volatile short-chain fatty acids) depending upon the fiber content of the diet. The extent to which the fermentation and absorption of metabolites takes place in the human colon has only recently begun to be investigated.

In conclusion, we see that human beings have the gastrointestinal tract structure of a "committed" herbivore. Humankind does not show the mixed structural features one expects and finds in anatomical omnivores such as bears and raccoons. Thus, from comparing the gastrointestinal tract of humans to that of carnivores, herbivores and omnivores we must conclude that humankind's GI tract is designed for a purely plant-food diet.

The Comparative Anatomy of Eating - Vegsource.com

 

[ninerbuff]

Why doesn't PETA think the same about bugs? Heck when termites or roaches try to make a living, in a home of course, the first thing done is extermination. Who protects the bugs?

 

[Madhuri]

While there are points I agree with, and I did support Proposition 2 in California BTW, the ONLY way to reduce consumption IMO isn't to try to scare or depict people on the cruelty of animals, but to reduce the APPETITE for meat. Since most people don't worry about how food is slaughtered and really don't care (or else it would be a major political issue) their focus is just making sure it's available when they want it. And unfortunately in America, meat is a staple of many diets. Many people don't care enough to help unfortunate people, so animals are probably even lower on their "care" list. That's really just what it comes down to.

I agree, that is the sad reality. But what I see is that in such cases it takes some pretty extreme actions to make a point or to get people's attention. So I don't necessarily agree with what PETA does all of the time, but I can also see that it's getting the important ideas out there and making discussions like this one possible.

 

[ninerbuff]

Maybe we are evolving to be herbivores:

The human gastrointestinal tract features the anatomical modifications consistent with an herbivorous diet. Humans have muscular lips and a small opening into the oral cavity. Many of the so-called "muscles of expression" are actually the muscles used in chewing. The muscular and agile tongue essential for eating, has adapted to use in speech and other things. The mandibular joint is flattened by a cartilaginous plate and is located well above the plane of the teeth. The temporalis muscle is reduced. The characteristic "square jaw" of adult males reflects the expanded angular process of the mandible and the enlarged masseter/pterygoid muscle group. The human mandible can move forward to engage the incisors, and side-to-side to crush and grind.

Human teeth are also similar to those found in other herbivores with the exception of the canines (the canines of some of the apes are elongated and are thought to be used for display and/or defense). Our teeth are rather large and usually abut against one another. The incisors are flat and spade-like, useful for peeling, snipping and biting relatively soft materials. The canines are neither serrated nor conical, but are flattened, blunt and small and function Like incisors. The premolars and molars are squarish, flattened and nodular, and used for crushing, grinding and pulping noncoarse foods.

Human saliva contains the carbohydrate-digesting enzyme, salivary amylase. This enzyme is responsible for the majority of starch digestion. The esophagus is narrow and suited to small, soft balls of thoroughly chewed food. Eating quickly, attempting to swallow a large amount of food or swallowing fibrous and/or poorly chewed food (meat is the most frequent culprit) often results in choking in humans.

Man's stomach is single-chambered, but only moderately acidic. (Clinically, a person presenting with a gastric pH less than 4-5 when there is food in the stomach is cause for concern.) The stomach volume represents about 21-27% of the total volume of the human GI tract. The stomach serves as a mixing and storage chamber, mixing and liquefying ingested foodstuffs and regulating their entry into the small intestine. The human small intestine is long, averaging from 10 to 11 times the body length. (Our small intestine averages 22 to 30 feet in length. Human body size is measured from the top of the head to end of the spine and averages between two to three feet in length in normal-sized individuals.)

The human colon demonstrates the pouched structure peculiar to herbivores. The distensible large intestine is larger in cross-section than the small intestine, and is relatively long. Man's colon is responsible for water and electrolyte absorption and vitamin production and absorption. There is also extensive bacterial fermentation of fibrous plant materials, with the production and absorption of significant amounts of food energy (volatile short-chain fatty acids) depending upon the fiber content of the diet. The extent to which the fermentation and absorption of metabolites takes place in the human colon has only recently begun to be investigated.

In conclusion, we see that human beings have the gastrointestinal tract structure of a "committed" herbivore. Humankind does not show the mixed structural features one expects and finds in anatomical omnivores such as bears and raccoons. Thus, from comparing the gastrointestinal tract of humans to that of carnivores, herbivores and omnivores we must conclude that humankind's GI tract is designed for a purely plant-food diet.

The Comparative Anatomy of Eating - Vegsource.com

Of course during the ice age, if that was the case humans wouldn't have survived since plants were scarce, hence the need for hunting.

 

[Madhuri]

Why doesn't PETA think the same about bugs? Heck when termites or roaches try to make a living, in a home of course, the first thing done is extermination. Who protects the bugs?

That's a harder job and according to many, insects are more like robots. I had a debate with Meow Mix a little while ago and her 'scientific' opinion was that insects are not even self-aware/sentient.
I personally disagree but while that thinking is prominent, people aren't going to put as much energy into fighting for bugs.

 

[Alceste]

I don't think we can. A friend of mine studying agriculture and behavior believes that humans have to overconsume to sustain our population that means more space is taken, less land, more pollution and more meats being consumed. He theorizes that the only way to reverse our destruction is if over half the human population dies out-which is probably what's going to happen. The movie by M. Night Shamalan "The Happening" is a very good possibility.

Your friend should read the End of Food. He'd probably enjoy it.

We don't need to "over-consume". We - like all other life forms - only need to consume enough to survive. We are numerous, so our consumption leads to space-taking, polluting, etc. to the extent that other species have trouble competing. Do we need to eat meat every day? No. Do we need to live in 2000 square foot single family dwellings, often heated by coal? No. Do we need to drive everywhere? No. We can recognize, on the one hand, the basic fact of life that life is a competitive environment - everything has to eat something else to live - while on the other hand acknowledging that over-consumption is a threat not only to the survival of other species, but ultimately to our own.

Yes, a die-off is very likely, but it isn't necessary. The die-off your friend is talking about will occur because we are unwilling to change our habits; because we falsely believe our wanton waste of resources is "manifest destiny"; because we falsely believe we are set apart from (and more important than) the biosphere that sustains us; because we have constructed our society entirely on the ludicrous assumption that infinite human population growth is both possible and desirable.

There are alternatives, of course. We don't need to accept the four horsemen of the apocalypse (war, famine, plague and death) to re-balance the human influence on the biosphere. We could opt for vasectomies and vegetarianism. But we won't.

 

[Madhuri]

Of course during the ice age, if that was the case humans wouldn't have survived since plants were scarce, hence the need for hunting.

I don't disagree with you. Facts are facts.
But why is the human body so similar to that of a herbivore if we can consume so much meat?
We seem to be built more like a herbivore than an omnivore. I don't understand it.

 

[nameless]

Well it is whatever nature (or God) intends.

in case of tail, its our ancestors who intended to lose it, as they felt difficult of it.

Our very teeth is proof that we are omnivores.

if our ancestors thought in this manner, we would be still having tail.

 

[ninerbuff]

Your friend should read the End of Food. He'd probably enjoy it.

We don't need to "over-consume". We - like all other life forms - only need to consume enough to survive. We are numerous, so our consumption leads to space-taking, polluting, etc. to the extent that other species have trouble competing. Do we need to eat meat every day? No. Do we need to live in 2000 square foot single family dwellings, often heated by coal? No. Do we need to drive everywhere? No. We can recognize, on the one hand, the basic fact of life that life is a competitive environment - everything has to eat something else to live - while on the other hand acknowledging that over-consumption is a threat not only to the survival of other species, but ultimately to our own.

Yes, a die-off is very likely, but it isn't necessary. The die-off your friend is talking about will occur because we are unwilling to change our habits; because we falsely believe our wanton waste of resources is "manifest destiny"; because we falsely believe we are set apart from (and more important than) the biosphere that sustains us; because we have constructed our society entirely on the ludicrous assumption that infinite human population growth is both possible and desirable.

There are alternatives, of course. We don't need to accept the four horsemen of the apocalypse (war, famine, plague and death) to re-balance the human influence on the biosphere. We could opt for vasectomies and vegetarianism. But we won't.

Like I said in another thread, it seems for humanity all that counts is how much land we can get, how much money we can get, and how much power (where we have control for ourselves regardless of how bad things get) is wielded. That's what all the wars we've fought in have been about.

 

[Alceste]

By "dominant" I mean "we" have the ability to keep or obliterate a species. No animal on Earth besides humans have that type of presence.
When the snakehead fish infested waters in VA and Maryland, if they were left alone they would have killed every fish there. As a "dominant" species we prevented that from happening. Can you think of any other animal on Earth that could have done that?

That's debatable. I concede that we have the ability to obliterate species, but it is almost never done with intent to obliterate. Any species can obliterate another through blundering ignorance and self-interest, as humans do. The pine beetle is a good example. Perhaps we can save species, but it is always an uphill battle against industries wishing to develop the habitat of the species we hope to save or emit pollutants that harm it, and industry almost always wins in the end. Sure, we can point to a few successes, but those are so outnumbered by the blunders they are hardly worth mentioning.

 

[ninerbuff]

I don't disagree with you. Facts are facts.
But why is the human body so similar to that of a herbivore if we can consume so much meat?
We seem to be built more like a herbivore than an omnivore. I don't understand it.

There are some essential amino acids that are more prevalent in meat by concentration compared to how much you have to eat in plant sources. The 11 essentials are all found in meat and dairy products while with plant based foods you would have to eat from a larger variety to obtain them. That could be part of the reason.

 

[Madhuri]

There are some essential amino acids that are more prevalent in meat by concentration compared to how much you have to eat in plant sources. The 11 essentials are all found in meat and dairy products while with plant based foods you would have to eat from a larger variety to obtain them. That could be part of the reason.

My only real observation is that humans seem to be able to sustain themselves on a variety of diets whether that is vegetarian, vegan, omnivorous or even mostly meat-based (and even junk-food based!).
So my argument to most people is that if you can be healthy as a vegetarian, there's no good reason why you shouldn't be except for if you truly do not care about the suffering of others.