Eating Meats.
- Thread starter CawthorneH
- Start date
It's an interesting idea that's being floated around right now. It's in the book The Omnivore's Dilemma and also Richard Wrangham's book Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human. I think there's a strong argument here but still a lot of hand waving surrounding it, especially the idea that cooking led to larger brains. Could be. Hard to say just yet.
Sure I don't think there is anything wrong with it what so ever if you wanna gather your own food and I do see hunting as a good viable source for it to. I do plan to get a gun one day and do a little hunting when I go camping but I plan more to fish myself also to pack my own food with me. Would I wanna try and live just by fishing and hunting full time without other sources of food? No. Now if you are talking sport hunting VS putting food on the table that is a total different argument there. But for me I'm all up for and plan to try and better my knowledge of wild foods meat included whether I actually do hunt at one point that remains to be seen.
That probably leads us to the real issue. Here in the west we now have luxuries that most people could hardly have dreamed of a few hundred years ago. And in large parts of the world it's still that way.
Our luxurious lifestyle is the, er, natural result of industrialization, intensive farming, the development of our infrastructures, and, whether we like it or not, order enforced by government, legislation and the justice system. It means that most of us will probably never have to ask if we'll have enough to eat today. In fact most of us have far too much to eat.
When it's a question of survival, choosing something to eat takes second place to finding anything to eat.
You have incisors and a single stomach. You're a bipedal, diurnal, social omnivore.
It's possible to exist without eating meat as long as you aren't doing hard outdoor work. It's possible to sleep all day and stay up all night. It's possible to walk on all fours instead of on your hind legs. It's possible to reproduce without sex. It's possible to be anti-social.
But evolution didn't design you to live like that.
It's possible to exist without eating meat as long as you aren't doing hard outdoor work. It's possible to sleep all day and stay up all night. It's possible to walk on all fours instead of on your hind legs. It's possible to reproduce without sex. It's possible to be anti-social.
But evolution didn't design you to live like that.
Last edited:
But those incisors aren't good for meat unless it's cooked.
Our gut isn't long enough to digest uncooked meat properly to obtain the most of the nutritional value.
The calorific and protein intake of a vegetarian diet can easily beat one based on meat, so hard outdoor work isn't a problem whatsoever.
Been there, done that
I think the topic the OP is asking of is more 'should' we, in this overcrowded modern world, with Western societies of plenty, eat meat.
cheers,
Toddy
Our gut isn't long enough to digest uncooked meat properly to obtain the most of the nutritional value.
The calorific and protein intake of a vegetarian diet can easily beat one based on meat, so hard outdoor work isn't a problem whatsoever.
Been there, done that
I think the topic the OP is asking of is more 'should' we, in this overcrowded modern world, with Western societies of plenty, eat meat.
cheers,
Toddy
But those incisors aren't good for meat unless it's cooked.
Our gut isn't long enough to digest uncooked meat properly to obtain the most of the nutritional value.
The calorific and protein intake of a vegetarian diet can easily beat one based on meat, so hard outdoor work isn't a problem whatsoever.
Been there, done that
I think the topic the OP is asking of is more 'should' we, in this overcrowded modern world, with Western societies of plenty, eat meat.
cheers,
Toddy
I think this argument assumes efficiency is the key which may or may not be the case. If food is plentiful, you can be less efficient. The Inuit, for example, did well in some of the harshest environments on earth, often eating nothing but raw meat for extended periods of time. Raw fish is still popular in cultures around the world.
An imporatant question is what is the limiting factor? For plant eaters, it is often nitrogen (protein). For meat eaters, it is often energy.
PS - Love my Blackhawk Serpa Mikey P.
Oh no, not Mr. Potato Head?Sniper said:
I like the views of both sides. I would love to try some of Toddy's dishes, they always sound so good. But I also like a nice filet mignon too! I am definetly in the "eats too much" brigade.Sniper said:
Gordy
I was vegetarian for nearly ten years and SWMBO still is so whilst I do now eat meat I do eat less than I did before giving it up and I eat a lot of vegetarian dishes.
One argument that is often recited by a number of vegetarians, I had always found IMHO to be misleading. That is the argument that 'you can produce more protein per acre by growing soya than farming livestock' or the other version of the argument is that 'you can produce more food by growing crops than farming livestock'. I think this is a case of being able to use statistics to prove anything. It ignores the fact that a lot of land that is used for livestock farming in britain is not suitable for crops whether because of altitude leading to shortening of the growing season, gradient etc etc. Thus it could be said that it is better to use this land to farm livestock than do nothing with it. I would admit that this may not be the case in other countries but that is just another reason to buy british and support british farmers.
Personally my opinion is that you can be perfectly strong and healthy without meat (I'm a landscaper so have done a physical job for years whilst not eating meat). However I think whether to eat meat is a matter for personal choice and, so long as there is demand for meat, I don't feel that there is a strong moral argument that livestock farming is wrong on the grounds that it is less efficient than growing crops for the reasons outlined above.
One argument that is often recited by a number of vegetarians, I had always found IMHO to be misleading. That is the argument that 'you can produce more protein per acre by growing soya than farming livestock' or the other version of the argument is that 'you can produce more food by growing crops than farming livestock'. I think this is a case of being able to use statistics to prove anything. It ignores the fact that a lot of land that is used for livestock farming in britain is not suitable for crops whether because of altitude leading to shortening of the growing season, gradient etc etc. Thus it could be said that it is better to use this land to farm livestock than do nothing with it. I would admit that this may not be the case in other countries but that is just another reason to buy british and support british farmers.
Personally my opinion is that you can be perfectly strong and healthy without meat (I'm a landscaper so have done a physical job for years whilst not eating meat). However I think whether to eat meat is a matter for personal choice and, so long as there is demand for meat, I don't feel that there is a strong moral argument that livestock farming is wrong on the grounds that it is less efficient than growing crops for the reasons outlined above.
I was under the impression there was a problem with the amount of plant oestrogen in unfermented soya
Perhaps not having as many children (as Mr Attenborough suggests) is a better solution to an expanding population?
In some circumstances it seems to be a good thing. Women who have traditionally had a diet high in soya have a tremendously less chance of contracting breast cancer, and since tofu is made by the addition of calcium rich liquids to the soya milk, their bone density is excellent too.
Tbh, on the whole, I think variety is the healthiest way to eat.
We're lucky in our modern world that we can obtain that variety so easily.
cheers,
M
Tbh, on the whole, I think variety is the healthiest way to eat.
We're lucky in our modern world that we can obtain that variety so easily.
cheers,
M
Whittler Kev
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
All this reading has made me want one of my favourite foods that I haven't had for donkeys. Bacon & Onion roll with thick beef gravy....OOPPS I just started salivating
Another thing the vegitarians I have met never seem to mention is the amount of grain used to make beer.
You can grow barley where you cannot grow wheat...but that doesnt seem to happen.
Nor the amount of resources that go into fattening their pets...(Says she who loves cats and dogs...but like children, I think their numbers need to be limited.)
You can grow barley where you cannot grow wheat...but that doesnt seem to happen.
Nor the amount of resources that go into fattening their pets...(Says she who loves cats and dogs...but like children, I think their numbers need to be limited.)
Do you know I had never considered that Tengu! I suppose people who are vegetarians through morality just don't own cats or dogs. Please reassure me that no-one makes natural carnivores eat a vegetarian diet?
What do we do with the billions of funds currently involved in meat production ?
How do those involved make a living if animals are no longer farmed ?
How will the animals themselves fare ?
Unless there is a profit to be made from farming them there is no incentive to look out for their welfare.
Soya growing currently is number 2 (or thereabouts) on the list of rainforest deforestation.
A vegetarian diet is only possible en masse due to the horrific air miles involved in worldwide transport and distribution of fruits and vegetables.
In many areas (and even countries) a healthy vegetarian lifestyle would be borderline impossible without those air miles.
Domestic crops and especially wild forage would be hammered to death and wild foods would suffer under the additional load if more people suddenly started down that path.
Local supply, not designed to cope with significant extra demand, could easily be decimated.
There are also those who argue that plants are capable of experiencing pain of sorts, or that they have 'memory' of parts that are harvested or removed. If that is ever proven then we're in for a world of trouble...
I am all for personal choice and only the luxury of the widespread availability of produce we currently enjoy allows us that option. In poorer countries I've noticed less incentive or tendency to take a moral stance when the main concern is having any supper at all, never mind a choice about what it might be.
Just a generation or so ago folks would look forward to an apple and an orange at Christmas, and bananas or a pineapple were considered a very rare treat.
How things have changed...
Take away the worldwide distribution of produce (and the awful air mile penalty that comes with it) and see how far most vegetarians will get drawing purely on local/domestic foodstuffs.
Britain (and most other western countries) is only a 'green and pleasant land' because it is managed.
There is no ideal solution.
On the subject of whether or not we should - until a solution is arrived at where the dietary requirements and personal preferences of meat eaters is met in full, where those involved with all aspects of animal farming, processing, distribution and sales can somehow be gainfully employed elsewhere, where the animals themselves are looked after until their natural demise despite offering no return, where the land continues to be well-managed, etc, etc, then those who wish to should. Those who prefer not to don't need to.
On the other side of the coin and since I am a big fan of wild meat and fish, I will have words with anyone who wants to deny me my hunting and fishing.
Now there's a moral can of worms for you to chew on
How do those involved make a living if animals are no longer farmed ?
How will the animals themselves fare ?
Unless there is a profit to be made from farming them there is no incentive to look out for their welfare.
Soya growing currently is number 2 (or thereabouts) on the list of rainforest deforestation.
A vegetarian diet is only possible en masse due to the horrific air miles involved in worldwide transport and distribution of fruits and vegetables.
In many areas (and even countries) a healthy vegetarian lifestyle would be borderline impossible without those air miles.
Domestic crops and especially wild forage would be hammered to death and wild foods would suffer under the additional load if more people suddenly started down that path.
Local supply, not designed to cope with significant extra demand, could easily be decimated.
There are also those who argue that plants are capable of experiencing pain of sorts, or that they have 'memory' of parts that are harvested or removed. If that is ever proven then we're in for a world of trouble...
I am all for personal choice and only the luxury of the widespread availability of produce we currently enjoy allows us that option. In poorer countries I've noticed less incentive or tendency to take a moral stance when the main concern is having any supper at all, never mind a choice about what it might be.
Just a generation or so ago folks would look forward to an apple and an orange at Christmas, and bananas or a pineapple were considered a very rare treat.
How things have changed...
Take away the worldwide distribution of produce (and the awful air mile penalty that comes with it) and see how far most vegetarians will get drawing purely on local/domestic foodstuffs.
Britain (and most other western countries) is only a 'green and pleasant land' because it is managed.
There is no ideal solution.
On the subject of whether or not we should - until a solution is arrived at where the dietary requirements and personal preferences of meat eaters is met in full, where those involved with all aspects of animal farming, processing, distribution and sales can somehow be gainfully employed elsewhere, where the animals themselves are looked after until their natural demise despite offering no return, where the land continues to be well-managed, etc, etc, then those who wish to should. Those who prefer not to don't need to.
On the other side of the coin and since I am a big fan of wild meat and fish, I will have words with anyone who wants to deny me my hunting and fishing.
Now there's a moral can of worms for you to chew on
