Vegetarians and vegans

[Doc]

If I remember right, agriculture started in the neolithic - prior to that we were hunter-gatherers and, in the UK at least, often lived near the coast.

I seem to remember reading that the longest lived people are the Japanese, who eat a lot of fish.

I would not choose to be vegetarian, but I do find their thinking a bit more joined up than those 'animal-lovers' who oppose shooting wildfowl but will happily buy intensively farmed shrinkwrapped chicken from Tescos. If I was reincarnated I'd rather be a wild goose than a battery farmed broiler chicken.

 

[Banjobill]

Vegetarians are ok....but I couldn't eat a whole one

People have different reasons for their dietary habits - religeous, ethical, fashion etc, and to say that one group is right and another wrong is just crazy.

The thing I object to is the 'Evangelist' who tries his hardest to convince you that his way is 'best'.

I have tried to ensure that my family were given a wide and varied diet, containing the best ingredients that I could buy at the time. When we didnt have a lot of money, we ate 'Peasant Food' - cheap cuts of meat, stews etc. Some were vegetable based.

I have never had the desire to be 'vegetarian' - instead I try to buy ethically, which means no factory farmed pork or chicken. No fast food.

I am proud to say that both my children, now grown, can skin rabbits, gut fish, draw fowl if they have to, and both of them are good cooks.

I like the approach of Hugh Fearnly Wittingstall: if we are going to kill an animal for food, it is beholden upon us to give it the best life possible while it is alive; and to treat it with respect when it is dead.

 

[bambodoggy]

Food for thought,how many vegetarians would we have if you had to kill your own food and butcher it? (on this forum numbers might be a bit askew )

This seems to me to be a little bit of a non-question, I see what you mean and agree but it's still a non-question . You can trace back through history and you will find that not everybody that eats meat hunts, some are better at hunting and so become hunters, some are better at sowing and become seamstresses, some can grow stuff well and become farmers, some were spiritual and became sages, some found they were good with their hands and became blacksmiths and turners and some are good at fighting and became soldiers. There are, of course, exceptions and crossovers in this but basically that's how civilisation became so....a host of people all with different skills sharing and bartering their wears with one another. Now, I can't sow for the sake of my life and my blacksmithing skills are just below nought so does this mean that I should walk the earth naked and without any metal tools?

So factory farming animals in cages is OK so we can have 99p chickens in the supermarket?

Surely as bushcrafters we understand that we have a responsibility to 'use' nature's resources responsibly and not just destroy the planet because we're the strongest?

How come this arguement, no matter how true it is, is only ever applied to animals? ? ? Why is it bad to cut down the rain forest for beef grazing but fine for when wheat and soya are to be grown? Why is it not applied to large farms raping the land with crop after crop of veg to the point were chemicals need to be used to enable us to grow there anymore? Why isn't it mentioned or brought up that our hedgerow habitats have been decimated so that we can get one more row of spuds in that field? ? ?
Why is it so acceptable to (and very rightly so) shout about factory farming animals and yet hardly mention factory farming veg? Why is it soooo bad to mistreat the little fluffy animals and yet fine to defile the very earth we walk on?

I can only come up with two answers to the above: Money and Population. Money as in the highest possible profits for farmers, traders and retailers as well as money the public has to spend on food (we can all afford a pc and internet access so we can afford to eat....others in this country can bearly afford to just eat let alone buy organic this and that). Population as in: THERE'S TOO BLEEDING MANY OF US!

Well, that's how I feel anyway. I'll eat just about anything excpet mazipan and I really don't mind what others eat or don't eat.....I just hate being told what I should eat and why...I'll make my own mind up thanks Toddy, thanks for giving us the view from the veggie side without rating at us....I too like veggie food and my wife makes a mean adooki bean bake but I also like meat

Hope I haven't offended anyone, can't see that I would have but there you go

Bam.

 

[locum76]

Some hae meat and canna eat,
And some wad eat that want it;
But we hae meat, and we can eat,
And sae the Lord be thankit.

i agree. and on that note, anyone can come to my farm and purchase (for a reasonable price) honey, eggs, lamb, mutton, salads, roots, fruits and it all. if you're skint a little ramble around the perimeter will offer up nuts, berries and fish.

theres enough for everyone in our country (scotland) as long as folks cooperate.

as for the tropics, on a recent visit to kenya, i learned about tribes that eat nothing but blood, milk and beef. and other tribes that subsist mainly on fruit and yams.

it really depends where you are from. like the poet is banging on about - we have the choice so enjoy what you like.

 

[nitram55]

A quick reply to

'If we were not intended to eat animals, why were they made of meat'

You and I are also made of meat, it is a personal thing as to were you draw your line.

Martin

 

[Tadpole]

The hunter-gatherer societies you are talking about are all tropical or subtropical. It is hard to come by sufficent plant food in the temperate zone and above. And who says the women only gathered plant food. In the northern latiudes they contributed a lot by fishing and trapping. Also I think you would struggle getting enough protein from insects in Britain. Fish and game on the other hand...

Torjus Gaaren

The great ape and human lineage first appeared in some where in Eurasia (mostly tropical or subtropical region) and not as first believed in Africa. The discoveries suggest that the early ancestors of the hominids (the family of great apes and humans) migrated to Eurasia from Africa about 17 million years ago, just before these two continents were cut off from each other by an expansion of the Mediterranean Sea. Begun says that the great apes flourished in Eurasia and that their lineage leading to the African apes and humans.

In a process of evolution those ape like creatures evolved into man, quite recently as a matter of fact. Homo sapiens, like Homo erectus and other hominoids was a migratory animal. They reached Australia 70,000 years ago, the ice age made Europe unsuitable for settlement until the ice retreated some 40,000 years ago, and the Americas 30,000 years ago. Homo sapiens are an aggressive animal. In the course of his expansion, all earlier hominids were exterminated. As Colin McEvedy wrote: "If the evidence for man's descent is scanty, we can thank our ancestors, who probably ate most of it.”

It took mankind something like a million years to leave his purely fruit and plant based diet, behind. As I said in my other posts modern man has evolved to gain less then two percent of its diet from meat, and by meat I mean bugs, small amphibians, sea creatures, and insects.
Homo sapiens evolved in a place where there was an abundance of plants and fruits, nuts etc. it was not until much later that Homo sapiens was forced to adapt to living in less then ideal places. Places where the “normal food” was just not available. Some 25,000 years ago Homo sapiens started, forced by some as yet not known or understood social, economic, or cultural pressure moved towards colder climes.

My point being that Homo sapiens evolved to eat plants vegetable fruits and nuts spiced up with a few insects etc, but by the very nature of being one of the most successful creatures to stalk the planet, it is highly adaptable, and quickly adapted its diet to suit its living conditions.

Man continues to adapt, ten thousand years ago, were you to find yourself, being harangued by a man half your size, berating you for not turning in your work quota, you’d have a choice, either run, or fight. Nowadays not many people opt to display the head of a fallen foe next to the water cooler. Hmmm now I’m not sure that is much of an argument for evolution.

Vegetarian:
North American Indian word used to describe ‘poor hunter’.

Most North American tribes raised their children to be 100% vegetarian until the age of ten, in fact only the apache, were almost wholly reliant on hunting meat, the rest of the American natives lived a more vegetarian lifestyle until the introduction of horses in the sixteenth century, the horse allowed them to hunt the buffalo it wasn’t long before other tribes joined the Apache in the hunt the Sioux, Cheyenne, Arapahos, Comanches, and Kiowas. These tribes gave up agriculture, and started living nomadic existences for the first time.

It is ironic that Indians are strongly associated with hunting and fishing when, in fact, "nearly half of all the plant foods grown in the world today were first cultivated by the American Indians bell peppers, red peppers, peanuts, cashews, sweet potatoes, avocados, passion fruit, zucchini, green beans, kidney beans, maple syrup, lima beans, cranberries, pecans, okra, chocolate, vanilla, sunflower seeds, pumpkin, cassava, walnuts, forty-seven varieties of berries, pineapple, and, of course, corn and popcorn, and hundreds of others.

 

[torjusg]

I wasn't going to reply to this thread any more, but I strongly dispute some of the facts Tadpole uses.

So you are saying that kids should be raised vegetarian? Meat and fish is from what sources I have read clearly stated as important for proper development of the brain.

By saying that humans are meant to eat 98% plant food, how do you explain that inuits and other traditional 98% meateaters have excellent health? In fact far better than many on the opposite side of the scale.

The facts you are reffering to regarding evolution is news to me, I thought the consensus still was that humans managed become so successful after they started to hunt for meat. This allowed bigger brains and more complex societies (less time needed for foraging).

Torjus Gaaren

 

[Mikey P]

Is it me or is this thread a bit devisive?

Regardless of what anyone says above about being tolerant one way or another, you can feel the venom and disdain in this thread.

Me and the missus have been veggie for 8 years now - no meat or fish - and I'm sick and tired of being questioned and patronised about my choice as if I'm some sort of dull tw*t. I do it because I want to and I don't feel we should have to explain and defend a lifestyle choice which doesn't affect anyone else.

I have no problem with people eating meat or fish - I've never tried to stop anyone from eating meat, or lecture them about it and, frankly, I really don't care as I have no moral issue.

Nor have I ever sat in a restaurant or at a dinner party and harangued someone over their choice to eat meat, all the while saying, 'But you know it's not natural', 'I'm not having a go at you but...', and - my favourite - 'Don't you miss bacon butties?' Believe me, sitting there all night asking may seem perfectly normal to you but it is actually really annoying and sometimes quite upsetting.

If I'm sounding somewhat vexed, it's because I am. Can we finish this rather pointless thread and move onto something that brings us all together rather than drives a wedge between us?

 

[Tadpole]

I wasn't going to reply to this thread any more, but I strongly dispute some of the facts Tadpole uses.

So you are saying that kids should be raised vegetarian? Meat and fish is from what sources I have read clearly stated as important for proper development of the brain.

Torjus Gaaren

Not at all, you raise your kids how you want to, and I will do the same. I am merely replying to statements made by other on this board.

By saying that humans are meant to eat 98% plant food, how do you explain that inuits and other traditional 98% meateaters have excellent health? In fact far better than many on the opposite side of the scale.

Torjus Gaaren

If you read my post I said humans evolved on a mainly vegetarian diet. Millions of years were spent eating mainly fruits vegetables and nuts. We as humans adapted to the changing climate, when the world temperatures started fall and forests were replaced with grass land. The expansion pressure that forced the early settlers into a colder harsher climate, and the needs of that people to find other sources of food, made them adapt to suit that changing clime.

 

[pteron]

Mikey P I must be dim but I was enjoying the debate, didn't notice the venom; I eat meat but as far as I know (and my wife studied anthropology) Tadpole is mainly correct.

The only point I would raise is that we were pretty much hunter gatherers by the time we became Homo sapiens and previous to that (as erectus et al) we would scavenge the marrow and remains of animals that were left by the carnivores. The hand axe is associated with the erectus butcher sites - you don't need to develop a hand axe if you are only eating plants, but there is still debate over whether it was used for smashing bones for marrow or for butchering kills. But take a look at modern hunters - even now they are terrible at hunting, they regularly return without a kill, yet they have access to modern weaponry. Back then, Homo sapiens must have lived on a mainly gathered diet.

That said, there is little doubt that the huge increase in protein gathered from an omnivorous diet caused a tremendous leap in the development of the species at that time.

Sorry if you find the debate divisive, I've enjoyed it as it has caused much discussion on anthropology with my wife and I've learned a lot!

 

[wingstoo]

I guess it is like the question asked previously..."why do we do bushcraft"...Because we want to, though in this case for some it is because they have to for whatever reason...


LS

 

[Ed]

But take a look at modern hunters - even now they are terrible at hunting, they regularly return without a kill, yet they have access to modern weaponry.

I think there are alot of factors involved in this, for example, I normally return with one or two rabbits when out on the mooch, I have come back with none on occasion.... If I were to disregard the law and use more efficient techniques I'm sure my kill rate would be much higher. So law, ethics (you dont take a shot unless you are garunteed a kill.... in a food situation, you would take the shot anyway and track it to its death), and possibly the availability of game compared to way back when, are just a few factors which make modern hunter terrible hunters.

Sorry for going off topic a bit

Ed

 

[ilan]

Yes i to have enjoyed the debate not fussed one way or other . I do have a vegeterian cat tho (Yes realy only eats dried food ) and has nevey caught a mouse of bird lol . I think tho we will all end up eating more veggies or at least meat substitute as the environmental cost of producing meat on a large scale is very high , we are loosing vast areas of rain forest to production of cheap feed for chickens and beef . and as the world becomes more affluent, and populations expand demand will rise (As i said to the lady from save the children why ? they are not exactly endangered species ) Incidently my steak bake at lunch time proudly proclaimed it contained 16% Meat whilst the sausage roll had 6% pork in it so we are perhaps becoming vegetarians by the back door

 

[pteron]

If you read my post I said humans evolved on a mainly vegetarian diet. Millions of years were spent eating mainly fruits vegetables and nuts. We as humans adapted to the changing climate, when the world temperatures started fall and forests were replaced with grass land. The expansion pressure that forced the early settlers into a colder harsher climate, and the needs of that people to find other sources of food, made them adapt to suit that changing clime.

Depends on what you class as humans. It is argued that the adaptations you refer to are what led to Homo sapiens developing. The changes you refer to began when Australopithecus first walked across laetoli which was millions of years before Homo sapiens emerged. From that time onwards there is increasing evidence of meat eating, and as meat became a more important part of the diet (erectus), accelerating development.

(Wow, I just became a Forager - ironic eh??? )

 

[Tadpole]

Depends on what you class as humans. It is argued that the adaptations you refer to are what led to Homo sapiens developing. The changes you refer to began when Australopithecus first walked across laetoli which was millions of years before Homo sapiens emerged. From that time onwards there is increasing evidence of meat eating, and as meat became a more important part of the diet (erectus), accelerating development.

(Wow, I just became a Forager - ironic eh??? )

Sorry but recent discoveries and analysis seem to confirm that H. erectus' may be similar to that of H. neanderthalensis. And like the aforementioned species not a true ancestor of H. sapiens.
Homo heidelbergensis who lived 100 to 600 thousand years ago may in fact be the link between the branch containing H. erectus and the one leading to modern humans.
Their brain size was larger than H. erectus, but not as large as H. sapiens. Their teeth were smaller than H. erectus, but not as small as H. sapiens. They used stone tools and fire. A change in their diet from a mostly vegetarian, low calorie diet to one that contained more meat and fat, may have allowed for the physiological changes, and this happened almost yesterday in terms of Evolutionary time. Evidence found in Heidelberg, such as sophisticated spears and tools, indicate that H. heidelbergensis were highly developed hunters.




and in an effort to drag the thread kicking and screaming back somewhere near it's topic.

. I do have a vegeterian cat tho (Yes realy only eats dried food ) :

Dogs, vegetarian diet fine, yes not a whole lot of problems.
Cats nope, not a good idea, if you love your cat.
Cats need Taurine
An amino acid essential for cats In the prolonged absence of taurine, a cat's retina slowly degenerates and the cat suffers eye problems and can become irreversibly blind. This condition is called central retinal degeneration (CRD). Cow's milk is a poor source of taurine and there is none in plant foods. The only rich source is meat.

Arachidonic acid Cats need a dietary source of essential fatty acids which they can then convert into other essential substances. A dietary source of the essential fatty acid, arachidonic acid, is not needed by humans as they can synthesise it from linoleic acid present in vegetable fat. However, cats lack the necessary enzymes to synthesise arachidonic acid and so a dietary source is essential. Fatty tissues and milk contain almost none and only small amounts occur in eggs. Meat is the only major source. Arachidonic acid deficiency takes some time to develop but its effect on the cat is profound.
Vitamin A Cats cannot utilise the provitamin A of vegetables and therefore require preformed vitamin A (retinol) which occurs only in animal foods. There are only small quantities of vitamin A in eggs and dairy produce. The richest source is liver. Vitamin B12 Cat's cannot synthesise their own vitamin B12 and a dietary source is necessary. Vitamin B12 is present only in animal products.
Niacin Unlike other mammals, cats cannot synthesise useful quantities of this vitamin from protein and therefore require a good dietary supply. Eggs and dairy produce are very poor sources and the niacin in cereals is largely unavailable to cats. A diet based on cereals, milk and eggs will always be deficient in niacin for cats. Meat is a rich source. Thiamin Cats are very susceptible to deficiency of this vitamin, which is rapidly destroyed by heat. Eggs and dairy produce are poor sources, wholemeal cereals and pulses are fair sources, meat is a good source

 

[Toddy]

The bit about the stone tools is interesting but I think it's not indicative of the whole picture.
The archaeological record shows selective survival.
Stone survives for millenia. Bone and horn, in the right conditions also survives well. Wood and plant materials don't survive *as* well. So we find the stone tools necessary to render a carcass but not the baskets that were used to gather frutis, etc.
The pollen record, recovered from lacustrian sites or ice cores is helping to fill the gaps but it's still too scanty to tell us what our "homo whatever" ancestors ate with any surety.
I think the most indicative feature we have are our teeth and our hands.
We don't have huge crushing molars or high muscle attachments on the crown of our skulls that would indicate a gorilla type diet of heavy plant materials. Neither do we have the long piercing/gripping canines or the shearing molars (or the gut length) that would indicate a carnivorous one. I have distinct memories of school dinner stew that I just *couldn't* chew into anything but stringy, choking lumps that got stuck in my teeth and my throat ........maybe why we invented mince There are very few bits of an animal that we can actually eat without cooking, but then that brings us to fire and another discussion
We do have biting incisors, good for fruits, fish, vegetable and cooked food, & we do have molars and the jaw action that allows mastication of foods such as grains, nuts, peas....

I think humans are optimist feeders for the most part, and the agricultural revolutions of the past were simply a development of the wandering knowledge that encouraged the proliferation of choice crops in certain areas, and the exploitation of animals such as the cow, goat, pig and fowls...guinea pig, dormouse et al If this is so, it's relatively recent in our history, c10,000 years, but long enough for us to beome comfortable with it and our population numbers to thrive and soar.
To be honest I think it would benefit us all to grow a bit more of our own food, it might make us appreciate it more and make us more aware of the world outside the living room and the car.

Cheers,
Toddy

 

[Andy]

some of you may know I'm a veggi. The only people I discuss the cruelty involved (or my opinion of it taking place) are people who ask and Johavas Witnesses who choose to spend time trying to make me agree with them regarding beliefs.

one thing that I haven't noticed ebing mentioned is that the teeth normaly thought of as things for tearing meat are needed to get at the inner parts of some plants

I'm not sure how much to believe it but I have been told that male fertility is often higher among men who don't eat meat. I think the theory was that the chemicals given to animals lowered the fertility level

 

[demographic]

Not a vegetarian myself but after reading figures about how much more energy goes into farming beef as opposed to a an equal mass of vegetables the figures stand in favour of the vege's.
Even when calorific values for the two come into play.

I know that some land is not much cop for growing cerials (I lived on a hill farm and we sold beefstock and had a heard of sheep so I know about crap land) so sometimes it's more viable to let animals graze rather than put in the effort and grow crops) but if you consider the effort that goes into producing one kilo of beef as opposed to one kilo of most crops (please nobody mention coffee beans here ) it's a lot.

Still, Bacon tastes gooood

 

[pteron]

Sorry but recent discoveries and analysis seem to confirm that H. erectus' may be similar to that of H. neanderthalensis. And like the aforementioned species not a true ancestor of H. sapiens.
Homo heidelbergensis who lived 100 to 600 thousand years ago may in fact be the link between the branch containing H. erectus and the one leading to modern humans.
Their brain size was larger than H. erectus, but not as large as H. sapiens. Their teeth were smaller than H. erectus, but not as small as H. sapiens. They used stone tools and fire. A change in their diet from a mostly vegetarian, low calorie diet to one that contained more meat and fat, may have allowed for the physiological changes, and this happened almost yesterday in terms of Evolutionary time. Evidence found in Heidelberg, such as sophisticated spears and tools, indicate that H. heidelbergensis were highly developed hunters.

This simply stems from the recent split of erectus into ergaster and erectus (the latter being what remains of the original erectus). H. heidelbergensis is transitional but is just another archaic H. sapiens. H. habilis was using tools long before both. H. ergaster was a hand axe user and omnivore.

It is interesting to debate the various branches, but the fact remains that the general view of anthropologists is that we developed from an omnivorous species and became who we are because we were omnivorous. Otherwise, we would have been one of the dead ends. We were opportunistic, ate whatever we could get hold of and fought for animal matter whenever we could. It is that ability to adapt, stemming from being omnivorous that led to modern humans.

I deeply respect your choice to be vegetarian, but to argue that it is our natural heritage is flawed.

 

[Tadpole]

I deeply respect your choice to be vegetarian, but to argue that it is our natural heritage is flawed.

I'm not a vegetarian. To argue that we should eat meat because our "cave man" ancestors ate meat is arguably as irrational.