twisted firestarter said:Hi Bam.
I would have thought that if an animal had died a natural death it means that it's body had packed up through old age or disease. Maybe the question should be more about eating roadkill in an extreme survival situation? I would, although I doubt I could keep it down for long.
Tadpole said:The fossil evidence allows us to trace the gradual increase in brain size over the past two or two and a half million years with some degree of precision. The average brain size of Homo habilis, who lived approximately 2 million years ago, was 750 cc. Homo erectus shows this transition most dramatically; indicating that most of the evolutionary increase in brain size took place during the life of this species. Early Homo erectus in Africa (from about 1.7 to 1 million years ago) averaged 900 cc in brain size, but later Homo erectus specimens from .5 million years ago average 1100-1200 cc, which falls within the range of the brain size of modern humans. The earliest or archaic forms of Homo sapiens, the species to which we belong dates to 300,000-400,000 years ago and averages over 1200 cc. The Neanderthal skull, second from right, has a brain size of 1500 cc, which is actually larger than the brains of most modern humans. The average for Homo sapiens sapiens, is around 1400 cc
The human brain size has fallen 11% in the last 35,000 years--with the bulk of that decrease (8%) coming in the last 10,000 years.
madrussian said:O.K. since you insist, before I can poke fun, I guess I need to know a little bit more about the vegan philosophy. For example, I noticed you said that you don't eat honey. Is it because you feel that taking honey from bees is explotation or cruel? If that is the case, then what about alcohol? Does a vegan drink alcohol? Or is that considered exploitation or cruelty of the yeast microorganizms?
What exactly is considered an animal? Does size matter? (pun intented) Does it include one celled organisms? If it does then does that mean that someone who practices vegan philosophy does not drink chlorinated water, or boil water to destroy the harmful protazoans and bacteria that live in it, or spray disinfectant to kill harmful bacteria around the home? Does the philosophy only apply to multicelled organisms? Would someone who practices veganism spray pesticides around their home to kill roaches and other disease carrying insects? Or swat a mosquito that just landed on them looking for blood to reproduce?
What about cutting the lawn? Is it o.k. to cut the grass, possibly killing the insects and small animals that live therein?
What about rats and mice? Does it mean that someone who practices vegan philosophy does not exterminate rats or mice in their home?
Who defines what is considered exploitation or cruelty? Is it left up to the individual or is there some guru somewhere that says what is acceptable or not?
I guess I don't know enough about the philosophy to comment or poke fun at just yet.
p.s. also again what with the need to poke fun?
madrussian said:Don't have to, just seems like a subject I could have a little fun with. Actually, I wish more people were vegan. That way meat prices would go down and I could BBQ alot more. I have no problem exploiting animals, especially the tasty ones.
madrussian said:Explain. In what way does eating an animal effect the planet?
madrussian said:When a lion eats an animal, does that effect the planet?
madrussian said:I don't agree that taking honey from bees is exploitation or cruelty if done properly.
madrussian said:Explain. In what way does eating an animal effect the planet? When a lion eats an animal, does that effect the planet? Should we kill off all preditors. If predation didn't occur we would be overrun with animals and disease would be rampant.
madrussian said:I prefer a balance. I don't support cruelty, but I don't agree that taking honey from bees is exploitation or cruelty if done properly.
cow farts (methane gas) are apparently one of the biggest contributors to global warming.
lions are carnivores, they don't have a choice. we have choices and everyone should live as their conscious allows and make choices accordingly.
I suspect (but could be wrong) that he's talking about the massive swaths of rain forest that have been cleared to graze cattle on to provide meat. As a meat eater that is not something I'm very proud of.
On the flip side, there is iirc from something I saw on the discovery channel a while ago now more of a problem in Brazil with deforestation to grow soya.
If I might be so bold, I tend to think the problem lies more with over population of the world rather than what an individual eats.
madrussian said:Exactly, thats why we need to eat them. If left alone they would overpopulate thereby increasing the amount of methane in the atmosphere. You see, I am doing my part to control that.
If more people eat plants, more land will be needed to raise the crops they eat. .
But if more people ate cows, we would need more cows to feed them.......
As for methane, why can they not stick a pipe up the cows jacksie going to a collection tank on its back, and the gas used for powering vehicles....
locum76 said:cow farts (methane gas) are apparently one of the biggest contributors to global warming.