# Humans As Meat-Eaters: Some Perspectives From Science



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jun 26, 2009)

This came in the Mail today..Read on...

             Sahel is the transition region of grassland and shrubland between wooded Africa to its South and Sahara to its north.

This is the where the modern humans evolved, after chimps from the wooded south travelled northwards and started bi-pedalism and hunting for small prey and developed the first tools for cooking and hunting. Jaw size became smaller as the cooked food became available. And brain size and processing increased due to additional proteins available from hunted food. Anthropologists are unanimous in view after studying dietary habits and tools made by first humans in the region that modern humans may not have evolved without change in dietary habits. 

Read articles below from Berkeley and National Geographic.


Sahel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

06.14.99 - Meat-eating was essential for human evolution, says UC Berkeley anthropologist specializing in diet
"Evolving to Eat Mush": How Meat Changed Our Bodies


-- 
Rgds
Amandeep Singh


*Meat-eating was essential for human evolution, says UC Berkeley anthropologist specializing in diet*
*By Patricia McBroom, Public Affairs
*  <img align="bottom"> BERKELEY-- Human ancestors who roamed the dry and open savannas of Africa about 2 million years ago routinely began to include meat in their diets to compensate for a serious decline in the quality of plant foods, according to a physical anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley.
  It was this new meat diet, full of densely-packed nutrients, that provided the catalyst for human evolution, particularly the growth of the brain, said Katharine Milton, an authority on primate diet.
  Without meat, said Milton, it's unlikely that proto humans could have secured enough energy and nutrition from the plants available in their African environment at that time to evolve into the active, sociable, intelligent creatures they became. Receding forests would have deprived them of the more nutritious leaves and fruits that forest-dwelling primates survive on, said Milton.
  Her thesis complements the discovery last month by UC Berkeley professor Tim White and others that early human species were butchering and eating animal meat as long ago as 2.5 million years. Milton's article integrates dietary strategy with the evolution of human physiology to argue that meat eating was routine. It is published this month in the journal "Evolutionary Anthropology" (Vol.8, #1). 
  Milton said that her theories do not reflect on today's vegetarian diets, which can be completely adequate, given modern knowledge of nutrition.  
  "We know a lot about nutrition now and can design a very satisfactory vegetarian diet," said Milton, a professor in the Department of Environmental Science, Policy & Management. 
  But she added that the adequacy of a vegetarian diet depends either on modern scientific knowledge or on traditional food habits, developed over many generations, in which people have worked out a complete diet by putting different foods together.
  In many parts of the world where people have little access to meat, they have run the risk of malnutrition, said Milton. This happened, for instance, in Southeast Asia where people relied heavily on a single plant food, polished rice, and developed the nutritional disease, beriberi. Closer to home, in the Southern United States, many people dependent largely on corn meal developed the nutritional disease, pellagra.
  Milton argues that meat supplied early humans not only with all the essential amino acids, but also with many vitamins, minerals and other nutrients they required, allowing them to exploit marginal, low quality plant foods, like roots - foods that have few nutrients but lots of calories. These calories, or energy, fueled the expansion of the human brain and, in addition, permitted human ancestors to increase in body size while remaining active and social.
  "Once animal matter entered the human diet as a dependable staple, the overall nutrient content of plant foods could drop drastically, if need be, so long as the plants supplied plenty of calories for energy," said Milton.
  The brain is a relentless consumer of calories, said Milton. It needs glucose 24 hours a day. Animal protein probably did not provide many of those calories, which were more likely to come from carbohydrates, she said.
  Buffered against nutritional deficiency by meat, human ancestors also could intensify their use of plant foods with toxic compounds such as cyanogenic glycosides, foods other primates would have avoided, said Milton. These compounds can produce deadly cyanide in the body, but are neutralized by methionine and cystine, sulfur-containing amino acids present in meat.  Sufficient methionine is difficult 
  to find in plants. Most domesticated grains - wheat, rice, maize, barley, rye and millet - contain this cyanogenic compound as do many beans and widely-eaten root crops such as taro and manioc. 
  Since plant foods available in the dry and deforested early human environment had become less nutritious, meat was critical for weaned infants, said Milton.  She explained that small infants could not have processed enough bulky plant material to get both nutrients for growth and energy for brain development.
  "I disagree with those who say meat may have been only a marginal food for early humans," said Milton. "I have come to believe that the incorporation of animal matter into the diet played an absolutely essential role in human evolution."
  Milton's paper also demonstrates that the human digestive system is fundamentally that of a plant-eating primate, except that humans have developed a more elongated small intestine rather than retaining the huge colon of apes - a change in the human lineage which indicates a diet of more concentrated nutrients.
  ###

*"Evolving to Eat Mush": How Meat Changed Our Bodies*

                                                              Hillary Mayell
 for National Geographic News

                                 February 18, 2005
                                                                                                            Meat-eating has impacted the evolution of the human body, scientists reported today at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's annual meeting in Washington, D.C. 
Our fondness for a juicy steak triggered a number of adaptations over countless generations. For instance, our jaws have gotten smaller, and we have an improved ability to process cholesterol and fat.                                  
                                                                                                           <img alt="_"> Printer Friendly
                                      <img alt="">Email to a Friend
What's This? 
     SHARE 
Digg StumbleUpon Reddit 
                                                    RELATED     


Ancient Olympians Followed "Atkins" Diet, Scholar Says
Deep-Fried Candy Bars: Scotland's Worst Food?
Bones, Tools Push Back Human Settlement in Arctic Region
Deciphering the "Bugs" in Human Intestines
Why Did Ancient Britons Stop Eating Fish?
Telltale Face Betrays Neandertals as Non-Human
 
                                       Our taste for meat has also led us into some trouble—our teeth are too big for our downsized jaws and most of us need dental work. 
"It's really amazing what we know now that we didn't know 15 or 20 years ago," said Mark Teaford, a professor at Baltimore's Johns Hopkins University. Teaford helped organize a panel discussion on human diet from a number of perspectives: 
*• * How did the ability to eat meat shape the evolution of humans? 
*• * What can we learn about early humans from tooth shape?  
 Carnivorous humans go back a long way. Stone tools for butchering meat, and animal bones with corresponding cut marks on them, first appear in the fossil record about 2.5 million years ago. 
*How Did Meat-Eating Start?* 
  Some early humans may have started eating meat as a way to survive within their own ecological niche.  
Competition from other species may be a key element of natural selection that has molded anatomy and behavior, according to Craig B. Stanford, an ecologist at the University of Southern California (USC). 
 Stanford has spent years visiting the Bwindi Impenetrable Forest National Park in Uganda, Africa, studying the relationship between mountain gorillas and chimpanzees. 
 "It's the only forest where mountain gorillas and chimps both live," he said. "We're trying to understand the ecological relationship—do they compete for food, for nesting sites?" 
 The key difference between chimps and gorillas ecologically is that chimps eat meat and gorillas don't. A total herbivore is able to coexist with an omnivore because they have significantly different diets. 

 When humans switched to meat-eating, they triggered a genetic change that enabled better processing of fats, said Stanford, who has worked extensively with gerontologist Caleb Finch of USC. 
"We have an obsession today with fat and cholesterol because we can go to the market and stuff ourselves with it," Stanford said. "But as a species we are relatively immune to the harmful effects of fat and cholesterol. Compared to the great apes, we can handle a diet that's high in fat and cholesterol, and the great apes cannot. 
 "Even though we have all these problems in terms of heart disease as we get older, if you give a gorilla a diet that a meat-loving man might eat in Western society, that gorilla will die when it's in its twenties; a normal life span might be 50. They just can't handle that kind of diet." 
*Diet and Teeth* 
Tool-use no doubt helped early humans in butchering their dinners. But there is evidence that the advance to cooking and using knives and forks is leading to crooked teeth and facial dwarfing in humans. 
Today it's relatively rare for someone to have perfectly straight teeth (without having been to the orthodontist). Our wisdom teeth don't have room to fit in the jaw and sometimes don't form at all, and the propensity to develop gum disease is on the increase. 
 "Virtually any mammalian jaw in the wild that you look at will be a perfect occlusion—a very nice Hollywood-style dentition," said Peter Lucas, the author of _Dental Functional Morphology_ and a visiting professor at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. "But when it comes to humans, the ideal occlusion [the way teeth fit together] is virtually never seen. It's really the only body part that regularly needs attention and surgery." 
Lucas argues that the mechanical process of chewing, combined with the physical properties of foods in the diet, will drive tooth, jaw, and body size, particularly in human evolution. 
 Essentially, by cooking our food, thereby making it softer, we no longer need teeth big enough to chow down on really tough particles. By using knives and forks to cut food into smaller pieces, we no longer need a large enough jaw to cram in big hunks of food. 
  "We're evolving to eat mush," said Bernard Wood, a paleoanthropologist at George Washington University.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jun 27, 2009)

Great information.

I saw a BBC documentary that stated that the combinations of fire and meat enabled human brains to get bigger. They were able to extract marrow from bones, the most nutritional. We are humans because we eat meat, rather than just Apes.

Stanford, C.B.: The Hunting Apes: Meat Eating and the Origins of Human Behavior.

The Human Brain - Fats

Meat in the human diet: an anthropological perspective. (01-SEP-07) Nutrition & Dietetics: The Journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia

BBC - Science & Nature - The evolution of man

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Human brain began evolving early


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Jun 27, 2009)

Gurfateh

Weather such thing should be put in here or not. If found objectionable then could be deleted. One there was a meeting in Geeta Colony, Trans Yamuna, Delhi,. Mr Harjinder Singh Billah, a close aide of Delhi's Minster Arvinder Singh Lovly took part.

As per him consumption of meet also enhance capability of humans for male female or household relation ship. Further to it he said that due to vegetarianism only that Sikhs ladies do not like Sikhs boys more and go to non Sikhs.

Well as far as knowledge of das, male reproductive fluid is made up of proteen and meat is the fastest source of the same.

Forgive, if anything objectionable is said.


----------



## greenjuice (Jun 27, 2009)

humans are not natural carnivores...
official organizations and main-stream media will say that we are, but how much of their budget comes from the meat industry?

PLEASE ADD THE LINK RATHER THAN UNLINKED TEXT!

And what if i wrote the text?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

could this get more stupid?!​


----------



## spnadmin (Jun 27, 2009)

Vegetarians, especially women who are nursing babies, over time risk heart failure because of the lack of essential amino acids in the veggie diet. The risk is actually 20 percent greater than the general population. The lack of aminos has to be made up through deliberate consumption of yoghurt and other fermented dairy products. 


So -- though vegetarian that I be -- please if you are make a careful attempt each day to balance proteins and aminos. There are real advantages to including meat and fish in the diet and one has to be deliberate about food choices if one does not eat meat and fish.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jun 27, 2009)

greenjuice said:


> humans are not natural carnivores...​




Every text book that has been written in schools must be wrong and the fundementals of human science are flawed. :happy:




> official organizations and main-stream media will say that we are, but how much of their budget comes from the meat industry?


 
I guess there is a mass meat conspiracy. Dear oh dear! :rofl!!:


----------



## BhagatSingh (Jun 27, 2009)

As far as evolutionary science is concerned we are only HUMAN because we were hunters. 
Something that makes us human is that we have no fur compared to other primates. 
The reduced fur allowed us to loose heat quickly and outrun our prey. If we had fur we would need to stop and pant, like other predators. This would be a huge disadvantage. But we only got to this reduced fur stage if there was a need to lose it. 
Why do you think we can run marathons and cheetahs cant? Because we lost fur overtime.
This allowed us to become even better at hunting.
Sure our prey would be faster and was better equipped for running but ONLY for shorter distances. We were slower but could run longer!


And thats just one example.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jun 27, 2009)

BhagatSingh said:


> As far as evolutionary science is concerned we are only HUMAN because we were hunters.
> Something that makes us human is that we have no fur compared to other primates.
> The reduced fur allowed us to loose heat quickly and outrun our prey. If we had fur we would need to stop and pant, like other predators. This would be a huge disadvantage. But we only got to this reduced fur stage if there was a need to lose it.
> Why do you think we can run marathons and cheetahs cant? Because we lost fur overtime.
> ...



If people bothered to read this:

Stanford, C.B.: The Hunting Apes: Meat Eating and the Origins of Human Behavior.

The Human Brain - Fats

Meat in the human diet: an anthropological perspective. (01-SEP-07) Nutrition & Dietetics: The Journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia

BBC - Science & Nature - The evolution of man

Rather than assuming that all these people were in conspiracy then we would at least accept the truth. Fact is, if we did not start cooking and eating meat we would be like Gorillas.

I would like to know what came first, fire or brain development? They say it was fire that helped our ancestors unlock nutrients from meat.


----------



## greenjuice (Jun 28, 2009)

> Every text book that has been written in schools must be wrong and the fundementals of human science are flawed.


yes. 



> I guess there is a mass meat conspiracy. Dear oh dear!


yes. just like the economic and media "conspiracy", which isn't realy a theory or a secret- everyone with a gram of brain know that a few people control almost all the money in the world, and consequently- almost all of the media and industry (including the meat and "official science" ones).

thinking for yourself, and not being a good- modern, liberal "citizen of the world", just looks hard, it ain't really; but it seems that it is not ecouraged here on this forum, and that such msgs are deleted.

let's try again:

Meat-eaters: have claws
Herbivores: no claws 
Humans: no claws


 Meat-eaters: have no skin pores and perspire through the tongue
Herbivores: perspire through skin pores
Humans: perspire through skin pores


 Meat-eaters: have sharp front teeth for tearing, with no flat molar teeth for grinding
Herbivores: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding
Humans: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding


 Meat-eaters: have intestinal tract that is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quickly
Herbivores: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.
Humans: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.


 Meat-eaters: have strong hydrochloric acid in stomach to digest meat
Herbivores: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater
Humans: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater


 Meat-eaters: salivary glands in mouth not needed to pre-digest grains and fruits.
Herbivores: well-developed salivary glands which are necessary to pre-digest grains and fruits
Humans: well-developed salivary glands, which are necessary to pre-digest, grains and fruits


 Meat-eaters: have acid saliva with no enzyme ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Herbivores: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Humans: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains

where do the school text books and "fundametals of human science" explain this?

comparisons are from the a chart by A.D. Andrews, Fit Food for Men, (Chicago: American Hygiene Society, 1970)

humans ARE NOT meant to eat meat. Meat and seafood putrefies within 4 hours after consumption and the remnants cling to the walls of the stomach and intestines for 3-4 days or longer than if a person is constipated. Furthermore, the reaction of saliva in humans is more alkaline, whereas in the case of flesh-eating or preying animals, it is clearly acidic. The alkaline saliva does not act properly on meat.

All omnivorous and carnivorous animals eat their meat raw. When a lion kills an herbivore for food, it tears right into the stomach area to eat the organs that are filled with blood (nutrients). While eating the stomach, liver, intestine, etc., the lion laps the blood in the process of eating the dead animals flesh. Even bears that are omnivores eat salmon raw. However, eating raw or ****** meat disgust us as humans. Therefore, we must cook it and season it to buffer the taste of flesh.  
If a deer is burned in a forest fire, a carnivorous animal will NOT eat its flesh. Even circus lions have to be feed raw meat so that they will not starve to death. If humans were truly meant to eat meat, then we would eat all of our meat raw and ******. The thought of eating such meat makes one's stomach turn, while eating it is certainly not healthy, and that's an understatment.

oh, yeah, wanna link? here:

PROOF THAT HUMANS SHOULD NOT BE CARNIVORES! Biological proof that cannot be denied.

but i'm sure there's always a reason to delete my msg...


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jun 28, 2009)

QUOTE:<<<<<<<<<
but i'm sure there's always a reason to delete my msg...<<<<<<<<<<<<

why do some always feel this way ??  in Punjabi they say..paala maardah....cold feet ???
but why  ??
its a fact that messgaes get deleted only on one track fanatic "forums/sites' controlled by talibanese...
try anbd post a pro meat message on those forums and see if it gets posted..over there they all THINK ALIKE and pat each other on the backs...and thus you see the same posters posting...or peopel think up soem alias and post under that to make up variety !! Here on SPN we actively HUNT DOWN and ban multiple IDs...


----------



## greenjuice (Jun 28, 2009)

> why do some always feel this way ??  in Punjabi they say..paala maardah....cold feet ???
> but why  ??


maybe 'couse my msg 5 posts upwards was deleted? :a19:


----------



## Randip Singh (Jun 28, 2009)

greenjuice said:


> yes.



Proof please from reliable sources.




greenjuice said:


> yes. just like the economic and media "conspiracy", which isn't realy a theory or a secret- everyone with a gram of brain know that a few people control almost all the money in the world, and consequently- almost all of the media and industry (including the meat and "official science" ones).
> 
> thinking for yourself, and not being a good- modern, liberal "citizen of the world", just looks hard, it ain't really; but it seems that it is not ecouraged here on this forum, and that such msgs are deleted.
> 
> ...



These are the rantings of some nutcase from some forum. That is not reliable evidence. Sorry you fail!

Below are reliable sites and journals.

Stanford, C.B.: The Hunting Apes: Meat Eating and the Origins of Human Behavior.

The Human Brain - Fats

Meat in the human diet: an anthropological perspective. (01-SEP-07) Nutrition & Dietetics: The Journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia

BBC - Science & Nature - The evolution of man

Go educate yourself !


----------



## Randip Singh (Jun 28, 2009)

greenjuice said:


> maybe 'couse my msg 5 posts upwards was deleted? :a19:



Your post was deleted because there was no link, and also I have now noted it is just written by some nutcase from a forum, rather than a journal. I follow science, not some weirdo vege/vegan Nazi site. Sorry.



> Meat-eaters: have claws
> Herbivores: no claws
> Humans: no claws



Chimpanze's eat meat. Explain that.

http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html

I would say my nails are pretty good claws.



> Meat-eaters: have no skin pores and perspire through the tongue
> Herbivores: perspire through skin pores
> Humans: perspire through skin pores



Chimpanzee's?



> Meat-eaters: have sharp front teeth for tearing, with no flat molar teeth for grinding
> Herbivores: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding
> Humans: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding



hahahah.

I suppose my Canine teeth are for show?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0218_050218_human_diet.html
*"Evolving to Eat Mush": How Meat Changed Our Bodies*

 							 								Hillary Mayell
 for National Geographic News

 								February 18, 2005
 								 									 									 Meat-eating has impacted the evolution of the human body, scientists reported today at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's annual meeting in Washington, D.C. 
Our fondness for a juicy steak triggered a number of adaptations over countless generations. For instance, our jaws have gotten smaller, and we have an improved ability to process cholesterol and fat. 								 


 								      Our taste for meat has also led us into some trouble—our teeth are too big for our downsized jaws and most of us need dental work. 
"It's really amazing what we know now that we didn't know 15 or 20 years ago," said Mark Teaford, a professor at Baltimore's Johns Hopkins University. Teaford helped organize a panel discussion on human diet from a number of perspectives: 
*• * How did the ability to eat meat shape the evolution of humans? 
*• * What can we learn about early humans from tooth shape?  
 Carnivorous humans go back a long way. Stone tools for butchering meat, and animal bones with corresponding cut marks on them, first appear in the fossil record about 2.5 million years ago. 
*How Did Meat-Eating Start?* 
  Some early humans may have started eating meat as a way to survive within their own ecological niche.  
Competition from other species may be a key element of natural selection that has molded anatomy and behavior, according to Craig B. Stanford, an ecologist at the University of Southern California (USC). 
 Stanford has spent years visiting the Bwindi Impenetrable Forest National Park in Uganda, Africa, studying the relationship between mountain gorillas and chimpanzees. 
 "It's the only forest where mountain gorillas and chimps both live," he said. "We're trying to understand the ecological relationship—do they compete for food, for nesting sites?" 
 The key difference between chimps and gorillas ecologically is that chimps eat meat and gorillas don't. A total herbivore is able to coexist with an omnivore because they have significantly different diets. 




> Meat-eaters: have intestinal tract that is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quickly
> Herbivores: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.
> Humans: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.



err no. 

In a cow it is 20 times longer

http://www.milkproduction.com/Library/article_series/bovine_biology/9_Small_intestine.htm




> Meat-eaters: have strong hydrochloric acid in stomach to digest meat
> Herbivores: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater
> Humans: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater



Jesus, is this guy who wrote this on acid?

Humans are OMnivores, designed for meat and vegetables.




> Meat-eaters: salivary glands in mouth not needed to pre-digest grains and fruits.
> Herbivores: well-developed salivary glands which are necessary to pre-digest grains and fruits
> Humans: well-developed salivary glands, which are necessary to pre-digest, grains and fruits



Again we are Omnivores.




> Meat-eaters: have acid saliva with no enzyme ptyalin to pre-digest grains
> Herbivores: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains
> Humans: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains



Sorry I am besides myself. How old is the guy who wrote this? He cannot even get the basics right?


----------



## greenjuice (Jun 28, 2009)

> I follow science


yeah, humans "evolved" from primates, you're right :}{}{}: i'm out of here...


----------



## unbiasedview (Jun 28, 2009)

i agree with green juice!


----------



## spnadmin (Jun 28, 2009)

unbiasedview said:


> i agree with green juice!




That is nice. Why do you agree?


----------



## unbiasedview (Jun 28, 2009)

1.compare the canines of humans with that of carnivores u will see they r better in cracking nuts than 
meat
2.if cows intestine is 20 times longer, it is still on thelonger side not the smaller side.
3.omnivorous habit doesnt doesnt gives excuse for a ph that is not good enough to digest meat properly!
4.yeah human evolved from primates,let them stay human,dont make them live like primates again!
5.animals ahve social organisation like us,they have emotions like us,but u dont know whether plants have emotions or not (they have life we all agree)by overlooking these emotional aspects we r desensitizing ourselves and that doesnt augurs well for humanity
6.and all those who say vegeterianism isnt good enough to support life is rubbish,i know ppl who have been vegeterian all thru there lives and they have better haemoglobin levels than so called flesh eaters.and cereals and pulses  have all the amino acids,its jus that u have to eat them in combinations!
7.why shouldnt humans eat humans if flesh is so good?u would say that would wipe out the race.ok point taken.but what abt a guy who has died just out of accident and his body is good enough to be eaten?i think human flesh would be even better than other fleshes as it is exactly what u want in your body!i would say it is the emotional part that stops one from doin that.and in killing a animal ur overlooking that emotional aspect(and u dont know whether plants have emotions or not)


----------



## spnadmin (Jun 28, 2009)

Some interesting arguments for cannibalism veerji! Never read them before.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jun 28, 2009)

unbiasedview said:


> 1.compare the canines of humans with that of carnivores u will see they r better in cracking nuts than
> meat



My friend, if you can manage a nut shell, then you can easily manage meat.



unbiasedview said:


> 2.if cows intestine is 20 times longer, it is still on thelonger side not the smaller side.



Humans are Omnivores so maybe our tract maybe somewhere between a plat eater and a meat eater? Just maybe?



unbiasedview said:


> 3.omnivorous habit doesnt doesnt gives excuse for a ph that is not good enough to digest meat properly!



That is your opinion, please give us some facts.




unbiasedview said:


> 4.yeah human evolved from primates,let them stay human,dont make them live like primates again!



Actually if humans didn't eat meat we would be swinging around in trees. 

Meat in the human diet: an anthropological perspective. (01-SEP-07) Nutrition & Dietetics: The Journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia

BBC - Science & Nature - The evolution of man

Maybe vegetarians might de-evolve into apes? :rofl!!:




unbiasedview said:


> 5.animals ahve social organisation like us,they have emotions like us,but u dont know whether plants have emotions or not (they have life we all agree)by overlooking these emotional aspects we r desensitizing ourselves and that doesnt augurs well for humanity



Ok let me get this right, because a plant does not run away and scream thats fine? Hmmm.:{;o:





unbiasedview said:


> 6.and all those who say vegeterianism isnt good enough to support life is rubbish,i know ppl who have been vegeterian all thru there lives and they have better haemoglobin levels than so called flesh eaters.and cereals and pulses  have all the amino acids,its jus that u have to eat them in combinations!



Read the articles. Humans became humans because we ate meat:


Meat in the human diet: an anthropological perspective. (01-SEP-07) Nutrition & Dietetics: The Journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia

BBC - Science & Nature - The evolution of man




unbiasedview said:


> 7.why shouldnt humans eat humans if flesh is so good?u would say that would wipe out the race.ok point taken.but what abt a guy who has died just out of accident and his body is good enough to be eaten?i think human flesh would be even better than other fleshes as it is exactly what u want in your body!i would say it is the emotional part that stops one from doin that.and in killing a animal ur overlooking that emotional aspect(and u dont know whether plants have emotions or not)



Why don't vegetarians eat tree bark, or maybe cow dung? How about grass?

This is getting silly now. Be serious.:rofl!!:


----------



## Randip Singh (Jun 28, 2009)

greenjuice said:


> yeah, humans "evolved" from primates, you're right :}{}{}: i'm out of here...



That was a lame attempt at an insult.

Here is a good insult.

It follows from these articles:

Meat in the human diet: an anthropological perspective. (01-SEP-07) Nutrition & Dietetics: The Journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia

BBC - Science & Nature - The evolution of man


That eating meat made us Human from Apes.

Maybe vegetarians might de-evolve into apes?:happy:


----------



## tony (Jun 30, 2009)

Not sure but I do believe that the appendix is required for the digestion of green vegatation, in humans it isnt a functioning organ and is quite often removed without any side effects, 
Meat eaters have claws explain that to a snake. only grazing animals have hoofs, most other herbivores i.e squirrels, iguanas, veggi birds, field mice, the list is endless but all have claws and not all meat eaters use their claws in the capture of its prey.
Herbivores have no canine teeth, humans do. As for nut cracking thats why humans invented nut crackers so as not to break there canines. 
As for the need to cook meat, its for taste and does nothing for the digestion of meat, my friends steaks are dripping with blood barely warms them up, the Japanese eat raw fish so the cooking isnt needed.
Think you could have something in the veggis might De-evolve theory Randip Singh ji, looks like some may be further along that line than first thought, in intelligences levels anyway.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jun 30, 2009)

tony said:


> Not sure but I do believe that the appendix is required for the digestion of green vegatation, in humans it isnt a functioning organ and is quite often removed without any side effects,
> Meat eaters have claws explain that to a snake. only grazing animals have hoofs, most other herbivores i.e squirrels, iguanas, veggi birds, field mice, the list is endless but all have claws and not all meat eaters use their claws in the capture of its prey.
> Herbivores have no canine teeth, humans do. As for nut cracking thats why humans invented nut crackers so as not to break there canines.
> As for the need to cook meat, its for taste and does nothing for the digestion of meat, my friends steaks are dripping with blood barely warms them up, the Japanese eat raw fish so the cooking isnt needed.
> Think you could have something in the veggis might De-evolve theory Randip Singh ji, looks like some may be further along that line than first thought, in intelligences levels anyway.



Never thought of Snakes. That is interesting.

I love the point of nut crackers. Even Chimps have the sense to use rocks


----------



## Sinister (Jun 30, 2009)

unbiasedview said:


> 7.why shouldnt humans eat humans if flesh is so good?u would say that would wipe out the race.ok point taken.but what abt a guy who has died just out of accident and his body is good enough to be eaten?i think human flesh would be even better than other fleshes as it is exactly what u want in your body!i would say it is the emotional part that stops one from doin that.and in killing a animal ur overlooking that emotional aspect(and u dont know whether plants have emotions or not)


 
Why shouldn’t humans eat humans? 

To prevent the expansion and proliferation of diseases. Animals (especially carnivores) prefer prey that looks nothing like them because they are the most genetically dissimilar, thus they will share the least amount of diseases. Which is why lions won’t eat other lions, lions may kill other predators, such as cheetahs but they will never actively hunt for them. 

Prion related diseases have been associated with the those animals which consume there own kind; Mad Cow disease … bovine spongiform encephalitis …… Kuru (developed in some tribes in Africa that that practiced cannibalism) ….. Creutzfeldt Jacobs disease ….. scrapies.

all these factors come together and give us an understanding as to why not only humans, but also the entire animal kingdom avoid eating there own kind.


I take offence to this question (not anger, but simply offence) because I know and understand what was implied, psychologically, behind such an armed question. I know that this debate has been ignited many times on spn, and that the arguments are always very similar if not identical, to the point where they become talking points (which is why I only answered part 7 of Greenjuice’s aka unbiasedview’s question, as it was the most intriguing). What have I learnt:

A particular sentiment is consistent within many in the ‘vegetarian cult’. For most vegetarians the consumption of meat is considered to be a barbaric act, simply because of a strong moral conviction that suffering is being inflicted on thousands of animals that can otherwise be avoided by unnaturally altering the human diet.

By all measure of account, this bleeding heart sentiment is at the crux of this argument, the rest of the claptrap behind the debate is a secondary levy (which is needed because the primary levy is weak to begin with) that tries to justify their position as the correct one. Basically we humans try to justify our actions and protect ourselves even if it involves making up stories about ‘meat not being properly digested in the human GI tract’ or ‘canines preferably being used for cracking nuts’ (both claims so unsubstantiated and ludicrous that it is hard not to laugh).

It is childish because it is persuasion through fear and mostly guilt. In which the belief is that if you want something done you have to scare people or at least make them feel bad about themselves so that they are persuaded to change their ways. Instead of treating them like adults and conveying your feelings through a dialogue that stimulates thought and expands knowledge we are reduced to debating sentiments and morality on a childish level.

Do these people genuinely care about the animals/animal rights or are they more concerned about generating an aura of moral superiority above there equals? 

Are animals to be treated like a commodity as they are now? Traded by the ton on the mercantile exchange?

Should animals and grains be patented? Cloned? 

Should meat be grown on a Petri dish?

Is artificial insemination in animals cruel? What can be characterized as correct breeding practices?

How can farmers respect their livestock, make healthier food, and still out compete the farmers that don’t? what type of enforcement is necessary in the globalization and 'corporatization' of the farming industry?

This discussion really needs to move on and become far more intricate than what it is…what it is currently is just nonsense. What it needs to turn into is a serious discussion that puts serious issues first, not personal preferences.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jun 30, 2009)

Sinister said:


> Why shouldn’t humans eat humans?
> 
> To prevent the expansion and proliferation of diseases. Animals (especially carnivores) prefer prey that looks nothing like them because they are the most genetically dissimilar, thus they will share the least amount of diseases. Which is why lions won’t eat other lions, lions may kill other predators, such as cheetahs but they will never actively hunt for them.
> 
> ...



Sinisters strikes back with a vengeance. :happy:

Where have you been hiding?


----------



## Sinister (Jun 30, 2009)

randip singh said:


> Sinisters strikes back with a vengeance. :happy:
> 
> Where have you been hiding?


 
lolz

ive been around :shifty: 

in the shadows  

i was busy trying to figure why my birth certificate was a formal apology from the condom factory.


----------



## spnadmin (Jun 30, 2009)

randip singh said:


> That eating meat made us Human from Apes.
> 
> Maybe vegetarians might de-evolve into apes?:happy:



For the record, chimpanzees eat meat.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 1, 2009)

aad0002 said:


> For the record, chimpanzees eat meat.



I'm joking.

Maybe we will de-evolve and chimpanzee's take over?


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jul 1, 2009)

randip singh said:


> I'm joking.
> 
> Maybe we will de-evolve and chimpanzee's take over?



PLANET OF THE APES...did you all watch that series..it was very famous a few years back...early 90's..and then starred Charlton Heston in Hero role in a movie of same title..
The Humans left on a journey to a distant galaxy and when they returned....a few centuries had passed..human life had destroyed itself in nuclear war and the devastated planet taken over by APES...who made the remaining humans "slaves"...and did the exact same things humans used to do...genetic research (on captive humans)... keeping humans in zoos and observe them...etc etc.


----------



## greenjuice (Jul 1, 2009)

> Maybe vegetarians might de-evolve into apes?


you might find it funny, but those who think about it will see that this sentance shows the nonsence of your previous sentance "That eating meat made us Human from Apes."...


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 1, 2009)

randip singh said:


> I'm joking.
> 
> Maybe we will de-evolve and chimpanzee's take over?



That happened on Planet of the Apes. As Gyani ji said above. Maybe it will happen in Second Life on www and we can try out different solutions there first and get it right before we move on.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 1, 2009)

greenjuice said:


> you might find it funny, but those who think about it will see that this sentance shows the nonsence of your previous sentance "That eating meat made us Human from Apes."...



Your points made earlier have been debunked try and address those.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jul 1, 2009)

a student of mine popped this...
WHY are the BRAINS of Original  / SOLELY MEAT eaters like Lions, Tigers etc NOT that much developed like partly meat Eaters like Humans ?..Shouldnt their braisn be much bigger than ours ??
OR is it COOKED MEAT that is the answer ??
Any help with this one..


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 1, 2009)

Gyani ji

A poor explanation here on my part -- but brain size is the result of evolution. The brain case of a skull is used with skeletons to tell if a skull was that of a chimp or an early hominid or a neanderthal or a homo sapiens. Humans developed larger cerebra or upper brains reflecting the larger size of their pre-frontal lobes.The homo sapiens skull grew and changed shape to accommodate that. Modern humans have larger brains than chips because the pre-frontal lobes are larger. In early hominids and chimps the front of the skull slants back -- smaller lobes.  Animals like tigers have an even smaller cerebrum, but adeveloped mid-brain and lower brain. When you get down to the level of reptiles, no cerebrum at all - only the lower brain. 

This has nothing to do with whether one eats meat or not. Biological changes occur randomly within species. Animals that develop features that equip them to do better in their environment, compete more effectively for food, therefore live longer, reproduce more often,  and their numbers increase. Early hominids, with brains that randomly evolved to larger pre-frontal lobes,  became homo sapiens and were better equipped to adapt. They were better problem solvers. The prefrontal lobe is where problem solving abilities are housed. The homo sapiens figured out how to use both veg and meat as food. They prospered. The hominids that did not develop larger pre-frontal lobes, like the neanderthals, had more limitations, and faded out because they were less equipped to adapt, especially in competition with homo sapiens.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jul 1, 2009)

aad ji..its not" poor" at all.....


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jul 1, 2009)

Antonia ji,

Guru Fateh.

I loved your explanation about the prefrontal lobe and its utilities. We found that out how it really works yesterday.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 1, 2009)

:shock:


----------



## greenjuice (Jul 4, 2009)

> Maybe we will de-evolve and chimpanzee's take over?


you haven't have one serious, soul-usefull post on this forum.. but i've read on the topic about the homosexuality that you think that gay is ok, so who knows are u at all a sikh, and what are your intentions writing on the net, imposing as some authority on gurmat..

Then you should find a different forum where you can be uplifted according to your aims and sentiments. Please do not abuse our members who are here because they are welcome to express their views. Our strength comes from our diversity -- even when we disagree with the message. One more outburst like this on any SPN thread, and an infraction will follow. Thanks, Narayanjot Kaur


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 5, 2009)

greenjuice said:


> you haven't have one serious, soul-usefull post on this forum.. but i've read on the topic about the homosexuality that you think that gay is ok, so who knows are u at all a sikh, and what are your intentions writing on the net, imposing as some authority on gurmat..



Actually I answered you points, very seriously. The fact every one of your points has been trounced as being meaningless should not hurt your ego too much.

Debate the topic and not the person.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 6, 2009)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> a student of mine popped this...
> WHY are the BRAINS of Original / SOLELY MEAT eaters like Lions, Tigers etc NOT that much developed like partly meat Eaters like Humans ?..Shouldnt their braisn be much bigger than ours ??
> OR is it COOKED MEAT that is the answer ??
> Any help with this one..


 
Maybe this link answers that?

BBC - Science & Nature - The evolution of man
*Brain food *



> Because meat is relatively easy to digest and rich in calories and nutrients, early _Homo_ lost the need for the big intestines of apes and earlier hominids. This freed up energy for use by other organs. This surplus of energy seems to have been diverted to one organ in particular - the brain. But scavenging meat from under the noses of big cats is a risky business, so good scavengers needed to be smart. At this stage in our evolution, a big brain was associated with greater intellect. Big brains require lots of energy to operate: the human brain uses 20% of the body's total energy production. But the massive calorific hit provided by meat kick-started an increase in the brain size of early humans.


 

*Tooled up* 



> But around two million years ago, telltale cut marks on the surface of animal bones reveal that early humans were using crude stone tools to smash open the bones and extract the marrow. Stone tools allowed early _Homo_ to get at a food source that no other creature was able to obtain - bone marrow. Bone marrow contains long chain fatty acids that are vital for brain growth and development. This helped further fuel the increase in brain size, allowing our ancestors to make more complex tools.
> The tools made by _habilis_ are called 'Oldowan tools'. The process used to make these tools was incredibly simple. Hominids picked up one stone, known as a core and broke it with another, known as a hammerstone or percussor. This gave them a sharp cutting edge that could pass through an animal's hide.


*Chimp test*



> Yet even this crude form of tool-making required our ancestors to make a cognitive leap. When researchers at the Yerkes Primate Center in Atlanta showed an intelligent chimp called Kanzi how to strike a suitable flake from a stone core in order to cut a cord tied around a box containing food, Kanzi soon grasped the general idea. But after many months of trying, Kanzi had not managed to produce anything as deliberately crafted as an Oldowan flake.
> Kanzi couldn't seem to comprehend that useful flakes are only produced if a hammerstone strikes the core at the right point, at the right angle and with the right force. By contrast, even the earliest Oldowan tool-makers understood this principle.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Jul 11, 2009)

Wow Randip Singh Ji and Sinister Ji are on "killing spree"!:happy: Leaving no Vegan argument undestroyed!


Cannibalism is simply downfall of a society/community/species. The species wouldn't survive if they ate each other. One major component of evolution is survival, which is why morality does not have to come from religious sources. Its ingrained in evolution.

To my knowledge, the human brain expanded because of the shrinking of jaw muscles along with other factors. If you look at a chimp skull , a lot of the space they use for their jaw muscles is use by humans to store their brains. Why would the jaw muscles become smaller? Fire? Mutations?


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 11, 2009)

BhagatSingh said:


> Cannibalism is simply downfall of a society/community/species. The species wouldn't survive if they ate each other. One major component of evolution is survival, which is why morality does not have to come from religious sources. Its ingrained in evolution.



Bani explicitly states that human life is precious above all other life therefore it would be difficult to justify Cannibalism in Sikhi.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Jul 11, 2009)

No I dont think it explicitly states that human life is more or less precious.
Do you remember any shabads that do?

If we assume it is, just because human life is more precious doesn't mean you can't kill them.
Again I think SGGS is neutral on this but would love to see the shabads.

I think this is one lesson you must learn from evolution.


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 11, 2009)

BhagatSingh said:


> Wow Randip Singh Ji and Sinister Ji are on "killing spree"!:happy: Leaving no Vegan argument undestroyed!
> 
> 
> Cannibalism is simply downfall of a society/community/species. The species wouldn't survive if they ate each other. One major component of evolution is survival, which is why morality does not have to come from religious sources. Its ingrained in evolution.



My  remarks have nothing to do with to vegan or not to vegan, but with the problem of torturing a detail to death. Bhagat ji, cannibalism as practiced throughout the world has and had *less to do with hunting down other members of the species for a fine meal.* The practice of d*ining on an already dead member of the species for religious purposes or totemistic reasons is/was far more common.* For example... well I won't give an example at this time. So *cannibalism is not a downfall of society/community/or species*--  as it is not practiced by "the species" as a whole (of which you and are members of the same one)  and when engaged by "society" or "community" has a very defined role.  Typically to assimmilate characteristics, spiritual power, magical strength of an already dead person in a socially prescribed ritual by designated participants (not all are permitted to participate). All of this is relevant to the practice of cannibalism and at the same time you can see *irrelevant to the thread topic. *

To be continued - ritual cannibalism as known to Guru Nanak no doubt, and rejected by him as helpful -  and then I hope that will be the end of this "C"  aspect of the threaded discussion.


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 11, 2009)

BhagatSingh said:


> No I dont think it explicitly states that human life is more or less precious.
> Do you remember any shabads that do?
> 
> If we assume it is, just because human life is more precious doesn't mean you can't kill them.
> ...



The Guru's perspective on the value of human life is actually reflected in both Sri Guru Granth Sahib and in Dasam Granth - and to be found in a very curious context. That of cannibalism as religious ritual. The aghori sadhus eat human flesh - the flesh of corpses after they have been immolated in cremation and then set afloat in the Ganges.

Aghori Sadhus eating human flesh video very shocking

It is a ritualized aspect of their spiritual practice and accepted in society.  An interesting exercise is to search for yogis, yoginis using Gurbani search engines for both Sri Guru Granth Sahib and Dasam Granth and see what verses come up. Human life is precious, so Guruji's message is - Rather than remaining fixated on death, the dead, cemetaries, spirits haunting burial grounds, the cadavers of warriors and horses --- none of this is where the consciousness of a gursikh needs to be.

I don't think Gurbani will say anywhere that human life is more precious than other forms of life. Gurbani will say -- from where we stand our life is too precious to waste it -- and we have evolved to a level of consciousness to make better use of our lives. I take that idea from this shabad (part of a shabad) 

 
 ਮਿਲੁ ਜਗਦੀਸ ਮਿਲਨ ਕੀ ਬਰੀਆ ॥ 
mil jagadhees milan kee bareeaa ||
Meet the Lord of the Universe - now is the time to meet Him.
 
 ਚਿਰੰਕਾਲ ਇਹ ਦੇਹ ਸੰਜਰੀਆ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ 
chirankaal eih dhaeh sanjareeaa ||1|| rehaao ||
After so very long, this human body was fashioned for you. ||1||Pause||

 ਕਈ ਜਨਮ ਸੈਲ ਗਿਰਿ ਕਰਿਆ ॥ 
kee janam sail gir kariaa ||
In so many incarnations, you were rocks and mountains;

 ਕਈ ਜਨਮ ਗਰਭ ਹਿਰਿ ਖਰਿਆ ॥ 
kee janam garabh hir khariaa ||
in so many incarnations, you were aborted in the womb;

 ਕਈ ਜਨਮ ਸਾਖ ਕਰਿ ਉਪਾਇਆ ॥ 
kee janam saakh kar oupaaeiaa ||
in so many incarnations, you developed branches and leaves;

 ਲਖ ਚਉਰਾਸੀਹ ਜੋਨਿ ਭ੍ਰਮਾਇਆ ॥੨॥ 
lakh chouraaseeh jon bhramaaeiaa ||2||
you wandered through 8.4 million incarnations. ||2||

 ਸਾਧਸੰਗਿ ਭਇਓ ਜਨਮੁ ਪਰਾਪਤਿ ॥ 
saadhhasang bhaeiou janam paraapath ||
Through the Saadh Sangat, the Company of the Holy, you obtained this human life.

ਕਰਿ ਸੇਵਾ ਭਜੁ ਹਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਗੁਰਮਤਿ ॥ 
kar saevaa bhaj har har guramath ||
Do seva - selfless service; follow the Guru's Teachings, and vibrate the Lord's Name, Har, Har.


ਤਿਆਗਿ ਮਾਨੁ ਝੂਠੁ ਅਭਿਮਾਨੁ ॥ 
thiaag maan jhooth abhimaan ||
Abandon pride, falsehood and arrogance.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 12, 2009)

BhagatSingh said:


> No I dont think it explicitly states that human life is more or less precious.
> Do you remember any shabads that do?
> 
> If we assume it is, just because human life is more precious doesn't mean you can't kill them.
> ...



 On page 50 of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji it states: 

_sireeraag mehlaa 5 ghar 2._
_go-il aa-i-aa go-ilee ki-aa tis damf pasaar._
_muhlat punnee chalnaa tooN sampal ghar baar._
_har gun gaa-o manaa satgur sayv pi-aar._
_ki-aa thorh-rhee baat gumaan._ rahaa-o. 
_jaisay rain paraahunay uth chalsahi parbhaat._
_ki-aa tooN rataa girsat si-o sabh fulaa kee baagaat._
_mayree mayree ki-aa karahi jin dee-aa so parabh lorh._
_sarpar uthee chalnaa chhad jaasee lakh karorh._
*lakh cha-oraaseeh bharmati-aa dulabh janam paa-i-o-ay.*
_naanak naam samaal tooN so din nayrhaa aa-i-o-ay._

_Siree Raag, Fifth Mehl, Second House:_
_The herdsman comes to the pasture lands-what good are his ostentatious displays here?_
_When your allotted time is up, you must go. Take care of your real hearth and home._
_O mind, sing the Glorious Praises of the Lord, and serve the True Guru with love._
_Why do you take pride in trivial matters?_ Pause 
_Like an overnight guest, you shall arise and depart in the morning._
_Why are you so attached to your household? It is all like flowers in the garden._
_Why do you say, "Mine, mine?" Look to God, who has given it to you._
_It is certain that you must arise and depart, and leave behind your hundreds of thousands and millions._
*Through 8.4 million incarnations you have wandered, to obtain this rare and precious human life.*
_O Nanak, remember the Naam, the Name of the Lord; the day of departure is drawing near!_
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji

Also read Narayanjot Kaur  ji's post  above.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Jul 13, 2009)

Narayanjot kaur ji
The reason why we don't see hunting + cannibalism is because it would be discouraged as you need other members of your species to survive.
The reason why we do see some "already dead"+ cannibalism is because it doesnt seem as dangerous to your community as the previously mentioned, hunting + cannibalism. but even this sort of Cannibalism is dangerous because members of the smae species will share more diseases.
Sinister ji explained that here: 



> To prevent the expansion and proliferation of diseases. Animals (especially carnivores) prefer prey that looks nothing like them because they are the most genetically dissimilar, thus they will share the least amount of diseases. Which is why lions won’t eat other lions, lions may kill other predators, such as cheetahs but they will never actively hunt for them.
> 
> Prion related diseases have been associated with the those animals which consume there own kind; Mad Cow disease … bovine spongiform encephalitis …… *Kuru (developed in some tribes in Africa that that practiced cannibalism)* ….. Creutzfeldt Jacobs disease ….. scrapies.


Kuru killed off the tribes that developed it, and they developed it because of cannibalism.
The reason Cannibalism doesn't affect us much is because there are so many of us. more of us means more genetic diversity as well as, differences in cultural practices.

So cannibalism, either way = downfall. Of course, the effect of the downfall is dampened if you have more members in a species, and members who dont practice it. 
By downfall I didn't mean a *sudden* decline in strength or numbers, I just meant decline.

-----------------------------------------------------
You read my mind!


> Gurbani will say -- from where we stand our life is too precious to waste it -- and we have evolved to a level of consciousness to make better use of our lives.


I was thinking of the exact same shabad and exact same thing. 

Do you know of any shabads specifically on cannibalism? that would be helful.
Saying human life is very precious, is just a positive thinking. its there to make you feel good. I find that many Shabads in SGGS are simply there to make you feel good and motivated to get off your butt and do something good. So thats no reason to avoid cannibalism.


----------



## Admin (Jul 13, 2009)

We are naturally omnivores, we have enzymes in our bodies that are only present in omnivorous or carnivorous animals designed primarily for digesting meat. Therefore we are born with the ability to eat and digest meat.

However, our evolutionary background was shaped much longer by herbivorous creatures than ones that ate meat. Our intestinal tract is tremendously long and our bodies react similiarly to a herbivorous creature's to meat - we develop atherosclerosis, become somewhat more susceptible to some forms of cancer, are more likely to get heart disease. If you dissect a carnivorous animal's heart, their major arteries, and take a good look, you'll find that their bodies don't really develop sedimentary deposits of cholesterol and fat. Their bodies are developed for a meat-intensive diet. We, like herbivorous animals that are forced to eat meat in experiments, develop serious conditions much more easily, develop heart disease at a rate incomparable to other omnivores and to carnivores.

Therefore I think that eating as much meat as we do is a learned thing, mostly because people are either uneducated about what it can do to your body or they have an apathy or lack of insight as to how most meat on the market is "made". Unlike making plastic cups on a conveyor belt, which can be done in a sterile and cold unfeeling environment, genetically breeding, raising and slaughtering animals in such a way shows disregard for a natural ecosystem and for the sentient nature of most of the food animals we devour senselessly.

I believe that we are designed to be able to eat meat, maybe as a garnish, maybe to survive, on occassion. But we are not designed to eat meat ANYWHERE NEAR as much as we do in a Western diet. Our diets should be overwhelmingly, if not completely, made up of plant foods. Just because we can eat meat and live through it doesn't mean it doesn't add up, that it is justifiable to what it reflects upon our society, our impact on the environment, and our own personal health. 

Sure, 'cavemen' ate it, but their life expectancy was what - 30 years? 40 years? What did they die of? They didn't have the life span we do now, where the consequences of a poor diet become very evident once you reach 50, 60 years of age. We also have an unnatural system for acquiring meat, and our meat is full of chemicals and toxins now that weren't present even a hundred years ago.

For those like me, with a direct ethical opposition to eating meat, a plant-based diet is almost easy, effortless, undeniably good for my body when compared to a traditional American diet that is loaded with four, five servings of meat a day (look at portion size - is your chicken breast the size of a deck of cards? It's more likely the size of your whole hand). While everyone in my family is stricken with diabetes, obesity, heart disease and other serious conditions, I remain the only person from my generation in my family that has remained relatively healthy on all aspects, with the occassional cold but no chronic diseases.
*Source(s):*

_*Vegan SA - South African Vegans Directory Listings*_


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 13, 2009)

Bhagat ji

I would like to get off the subject of cannibalism ASAP - but am the one prolonging the discussion out of respect for actual facts. There is no evidence that cannibalism=downfall because if it were true it would not be continuing into this the 21rst century in india. Among the yogis it was practiced and socially permitted. The reason why Indian society has continued strong for thousands of years in spite of political turmoil, upheaval and oppression is because India is DIVERSE racially, socially, culturally, genetically, etc etc etc. So for any yogic practice that seems primitive there are 20 others that are socially and spiritually moving in an opposite directon.

Is it my imagination or does this conversation keep returning to the discredited theory of Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics and also Social Darwinism -- both of which have been scientifically discredited.


----------



## tony (Jul 13, 2009)

Aman Singh ji
Thank you for an unbiased view. Whether veggie or not I think the answer to a better healthier lifestyle is moderation, Ive seen some extremely obese people from both sides, One has to remember the human body is extremely efficient at converting any excess food into fat and would prefer to burn off muscle tissue before burning fat. Once you've got it, its hard to lose it. Remember to keep your chest size bigger than your waist or your heading for heart problems regardless of whether your a meat eater or veggie, Excess fat kills. One point that did seem a little biased was that meat contains chemicals and toxins, this is also true of a lot of veggie food unless organically grown and there is organic meat, so the message should be to eat the best you can in moderation, A good well balanced diet of personal preference is my advice to all my clients. Enjoy what ever you like just dont over do it
Tony


----------



## Sinister (Jul 13, 2009)

Narayanjot Kaur said:


> Is it my imagination or does this conversation keep returning to the discredited theory of Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics and also Social Darwinism -- both of which have been scientifically discredited.


 

*Cultural selection theory; it is a fusion of sociological principles/histories behind a Darwinian framework that help in identifying the chief agencies responsible for the emergence of certain Moralities. *

*It is systemic rather than deconstructionist when trying to figure out how a societies values and norms change. *

*It is different yet related to memetics and also encompasses Dual Inheritance Theory (Gene-Culture Coevolution).*

*(i think this is what Bhagatsingh ji including myself are trying to mimic/apply?)*


----------



## Sinister (Jul 13, 2009)

Aman Singh said:


> We are naturally omnivores, we have enzymes in our bodies that are only present in omnivorous or carnivorous animals designed primarily for digesting meat. Therefore we are born with the ability to eat and digest meat.
> 
> However, our evolutionary background was shaped much longer by herbivorous creatures than ones that ate meat. Our intestinal tract is tremendously long and our bodies react similiarly to a herbivorous creature's to meat - we develop atherosclerosis, become somewhat more susceptible to some forms of cancer, are more likely to get heart disease. If you dissect a carnivorous animal's heart, their major arteries, and take a good look, you'll find that their bodies don't really develop sedimentary deposits of cholesterol and fat. Their bodies are developed for a meat-intensive diet. We, like herbivorous animals that are forced to eat meat in experiments, develop serious conditions much more easily, develop heart disease at a rate incomparable to other omnivores and to carnivores.
> 
> ...


 

The question really does come down to the wire when we start asking about life expectancy.

Heart disease has grown in the recent millennia and it is related to eating high fat diets combined with a lack of physical activity. A vegetarian is just as susceptible to heart disease as any other person especially if they are lethargic and love to overeat or eat high fat diets. (a good example of such a society is the South Asian society…which is one of the largest vegetarian populations yet still manages to top every other society in heart related problems).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7366753.stm

Considering the fact that meat intensive diets are considered to be predominantly Americo-European and intensive seafood diets Pacific-Asian…it would be worthy to note that these countries also have the highest life expectancy. The point I am trying to make is that life-expectancy depends on numerous variables for an independent country. For an individual, over-indulging in food leads to negative outcomes.

If you are not going to eat healthy you are not going to be healthy. Regardless of whether or not you are a vegetarian. People do a great disservice in thinking that if they cut meat out of their diet tehy will automatically lose weight and become healthy. Majority of the Junk food out there is compatible with a vegetarian diet. So this article I found to be misleading.

The majority of cavemen died of infectious diseases rather than a coronary blockage.... because they had to run after the mammoth before they ate it..they were more likely to die.


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 13, 2009)

Sinister ji

How would a cave man get an infectious disease by running after a mammoth--  barring all other possible infectious agents, since none are mentioned?


----------



## Sinister (Jul 13, 2009)

Narayanjot Kaur said:


> Sinister ji
> 
> How would a cave man get an infectious disease by running after a mammoth-- barring all other possible infectious agents, since none are mentioned?


 

oh i dont know...maybe he gets sneezed on by the mighty elephant ...it was a major health hazard back then...getting sneezed on by a mammoth


----------



## tony (Jul 13, 2009)

Would have thought chasing the mammoth would have kept him fit. but ive never seen a cave drawing of an overwieght caveman so may be it did.
Tony


----------



## vegangoth (Jul 13, 2009)

For those like me, with a direct ethical opposition to eating meat, a plant-based diet is almost easy, effortless, undeniably good for my body when compared to a traditional American diet that is loaded with four, five servings of meat a day (look at portion size - is your chicken breast the size of a deck of cards? It's more likely the size of your whole hand). While everyone in my family is stricken with diabetes, obesity, heart disease and other serious conditions, I remain the only person from my generation in my family that has remained relatively healthy on all aspects, with the occassional cold but no chronic diseases.
*Source(s):*

I get a wee bit annoyed with the (sometimes) supirior attitude of some vegans. Of course Vegans can get all of those diseases that they listed above there just perhaps not as common.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 13, 2009)

vegangoth said:


> For those like me, with a direct ethical opposition to eating meat, a plant-based diet is almost easy, effortless, undeniably good for my body when compared to a traditional American diet that is loaded with four, five servings of meat a day (look at portion size - is your chicken breast the size of a deck of cards? It's more likely the size of your whole hand). While everyone in my family is stricken with diabetes, obesity, heart disease and other serious conditions, I remain the only person from my generation in my family that has remained relatively healthy on all aspects, with the occassional cold but no chronic diseases.
> *Source(s):*
> 
> I get a wee bit annoyed with the (sometimes) supirior attitude of some vegans. Of course Vegans can get all of those diseases that they listed above there just perhaps not as common.



This is the difference between the West that eats meat and the East that eats meat.

At most in a Sikh meat eating household they may have it 3 times in a week (main meal). Rest of the time meals will be vegetarian.

Trust me when I say vegetarian meals in India are far from healthy. Loaded with ghee, cream and god knows what else, and usually fried, heart problems are becoming common.

The meat that is cooked in Punjab in a traditional Tandoor oven in contrast is very healthy.

Plus Sikhs in general tend not to be addicted to beef as much as Americans. They prefer leaner goat or mutton (as well as chicken).

I went Vegan for 2 months (was meant to be 3 but I couldn't stand it), and no offence, its got to be the nastiest diet I have ever been on. As for Soya milk (I don't even want to go there). Sorry.

Just in the way I find people in America whollping down tonnes of meat unnatural, I find a vegan diet unnatural. Again sorry.

As sinister has stated, the key is fitness and balance. ANY diet you have must have these two elements.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 13, 2009)

tony said:


> Would have thought chasing the mammoth would have kept him fit. but ive never seen a cave drawing of an overwieght caveman so may be it did.
> Tony



Maybe being chased by a Sabertooth may have an effect.

Maybe we need to release a few tigers in a few Gurudwara's to make the FAT ghee eating Sangat lose a few pounds.


----------



## vegangoth (Jul 13, 2009)

randip singh said:


> I went Vegan for 2 months (was meant to be 3 but I couldn't stand it), and no offence, its got to be the nastiest diet I have ever been on. As for Soya milk (I don't even want to go there). Sorry.
> 
> lol my mum says the same thing about soya milk. I agree some are nasty but I found one I love after much trial and error.
> 
> What was so nasty about your vegan trial?


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 13, 2009)

randip singh said:


> Maybe being chased by a Sabertooth may have an effect.
> 
> Maybe we need to release a few tigers in a few Gurudwara's to make the FAT ghee eating Sangat lose a few pounds.



LOL They didn't live long enough to get fat. Or get coronary disease.  Tigers in Gurdwaras ought to do the trick.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 13, 2009)

vegangoth said:


> What was so nasty about your vegan trial?



One word.

Milk! You realise in how many things this is in.

There was probably other things but I cannot remember.

One thing I will say is that, Vegan at least are not hypocrites like some of our vegetarian Sikh fraternity, who seem to be in some kind of denial about Milk and how it is basically liquefied meat.


----------



## vegangoth (Jul 15, 2009)

randip singh said:


> One word.
> 
> Milk! You realise in how many things this is in.
> 
> ...


 
You are so right, I still can't belive in just how many things they put that stuff in. I mean why put it in bread for goodness sake? And about the veggie Sikhs again your so right, you may not be eating the meat but the way milk is gotten is just as cruel and unethical.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 15, 2009)

vegangoth said:


> You are so right, I still can't belive in just how many things they put that stuff in. I mean why put it in bread for goodness sake? And about the veggie Sikhs again your so right, you may not be eating the meat but the way milk is gotten is just as cruel and unethical.



Ironically vegetarian Sikhs eat milk products by the truck load (given its cruelty), but won't eat eggs. I have always found that amusing. 

You will find that milk is in everything in Sikhism. The Karah Prashad has clarified butter in their, as well as most of the dishes cooked in the kitchen.


----------



## vegangoth (Jul 15, 2009)

randip singh said:


> Ironically vegetarian Sikhs eat milk products by the truck load (given its cruelty), but won't eat eggs. I have always found that amusing.
> 
> You will find that milk is in everything in Sikhism. The Karah Prashad has clarified butter in their, as well as most of the dishes cooked in the kitchen.


 
That's what is worrying me cause soon ( hopefully) I'll be taking my first trip to a Gurdwara and and obviously dont want to cause any offense by not eating anything offerd to me. Perhaps I will need to leave my veganism at the door along with my shoes and socks.


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 15, 2009)

vegangoth ji

Don't get too worried up front. Truly depending on the gurdwara and the food planned for the day there may be only a little bit of dairy. You are probably going to see roti, an Indian style mixed salad, 2 or 3 choices of dal's (made with lentils, definitely something with channa or chick peas). It wil be simple fare according to the thinking of Guru Amar Das. You will also be served each choice individually where you are sitting. You can refuse anything -- you don't have to eat everything that is offered. You can refuse seconds too.


----------



## vegangoth (Jul 15, 2009)

Narayanjot Kaur said:


> vegangoth ji
> 
> Don't get too worried up front. Truly depending on the gurdwara and the food planned for the day there may be only a little bit of dairy. You are probably going to see roti, an Indian style mixed salad, 2 or 3 choices of dal's (made with lentils, definitely something with channa or chick peas). It wil be simple fare according to the thinking of Guru Amar Das. You will also be served each choice individually where you are sitting. You can refuse anything -- you don't have to eat everything that is offered. You can refuse seconds too.


 
Thanks for that, I feel less worried now and I'm sure I'm not the only vegan that has crossed their door lol


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 15, 2009)

If you are offered what looks like ribbons of fried dough -- DON'T TURN IT DOWN!


----------



## Satyaban (Jul 16, 2009)

What an interesting thread. I drink about three gallons of milk each week and see nothing wrong with it and the cows are pretty cool about it. They wander around, eat grass and appear to give of themselves quite unselfishly. Problems can arise when they are not miked on time no they don't like that at all. Cows are good and milk is good it is hardly liquefied meat and most importantly no one kills the cow to get the milk which for me makes all the difference. Butter is good and ghee is better. BTW I don't have a problem with vegetarian fed free range eggs

I think the hunting angle did alter our evolution and predated farming and domestication of animals. However we can grow the proper foods to have a good nutritious diet without eating meat. Here is the kicker the planet is not going to be able to support all of us and all of the cattle it would take to feed everyone. They eat too much, drink too much water, and their flatulence damages the air we breath. Eat em no sir, stop their procreation and let them die of old age, maybe have some in a zoo or side shows I don't know.

Peace
Satyaban


----------



## BhagatSingh (Jul 16, 2009)

Satyaban said:


> Eat em no sir, stop their procreation and let them die of old age, maybe have some in a zoo or side shows I don't know.


We see that sort of torture happen in India...
no thanks!


----------



## vegangoth (Jul 16, 2009)

Satyaban said:


> What an interesting thread. I drink about three gallons of milk each week and see nothing wrong with it and the cows are pretty cool about it. They wander around, eat grass and appear to give of themselves quite unselfishly. Problems can arise when they are not miked on time no they don't like that at all. Cows are good and milk is good it is hardly liquefied meat and most importantly no one kills the cow to get the milk which for me makes all the difference. Butter is good and ghee is better. BTW I don't have a problem with vegetarian fed free range eggs
> 
> oooooh! I can challange you on everything you have just written. Are you up for the challang?
> 
> ...


----------



## tony (Jul 16, 2009)

Sorry Satyaban ji but it is not the cows that eat to much, drink to much nor is flatulence destroying the air we breath, it is us humans who are the ones eating/ drinking to much and it is us that are destroying the earth. As for the reason to keep them and to drink their milk or eat their meat take a look at the B V (biological value) of the protein they provide. Beef has a BV of 83 and milk has a BV of 78, now the highest scoring veggie BV is soya milk which scores 73. Whole Egg scores 100. BV is the ratio of amino acids as required for the human body. Soya milk while it contains all the essential amino acids doesn't contain them in the right quantities/ ratio and therefore leaves the body short of certain essential amino's and these are the ones that we require to make all the other amino acids. And for the Vegans who think milk is bad look at the first meal you ever had. Milk is life giving without it no baby would get past day one, 
Tony


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 16, 2009)

Satyaban said:


> What an interesting thread. I drink about three gallons of milk each week and see nothing wrong with it and the cows are pretty cool about it. They wander around, eat grass and appear to give of themselves quite unselfishly. Problems can arise when they are not miked on time no they don't like that at all. Cows are good and milk is good it is hardly liquefied meat and most importantly no one kills the cow to get the milk which for me makes all the difference. Butter is good and ghee is better. BTW I don't have a problem with vegetarian fed free range eggs


 
No offence Satyaban but you need to learn some basic biology. The milk the cow produces is for its calf, but the calf is taken away.

You need to read on the biological process of how milk is produced:

http://foodallergens.ifr.ac.uk/food.lasso?selected_food=5000#summary

_The blood proteins present in cow’s milk are also present in meat (beef)._

http://www.milk.org/corporate/view.aspx?content=Faq/DairyCattle

_In the cow's udder, small sacs, called alveoli, produce milk. The alveoli take the nutrients from the blood and add fat, protein and lactose (a type of sugar) to produce milk._





Satyaban said:


> I think the hunting angle did alter our evolution and predated farming and domestication of animals. However we can grow the proper foods to have a good nutritious diet without eating meat. Here is the kicker the planet is not going to be able to support all of us and all of the cattle it would take to feed everyone. They eat too much, drink too much water, and their flatulence damages the air we breath. Eat em no sir, stop their procreation and let them die of old age, maybe have some in a zoo or side shows I don't know.
> 
> Peace
> Satyaban




The hunter gatherer lifestyle is by far the greenest.

I don’t buy into that report written by a Vegetarian, Hindu Economist who works for the UN, that cites vegetarianism as away of saving the planet. It’s a nonsense, and his points have been rebutted. Yes we need to eat less in the west per se, but otherwise his report is biased.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 16, 2009)

tony said:


> Sorry Satyaban ji but it is not the cows that eat to much, drink to much nor is flatulence destroying the air we breath, it is us humans who are the ones eating/ drinking to much and it is us that are destroying the earth. As for the reason to keep them and to drink their milk or eat their meat take a look at the B V (biological value) of the protein they provide. Beef has a BV of 83 and milk has a BV of 78, now the highest scoring veggie BV is soya milk which scores 73. Whole Egg scores 100. BV is the ratio of amino acids as required for the human body. Soya milk while it contains all the essential amino acids doesn't contain them in the right quantities/ ratio and therefore leaves the body short of certain essential amino's and these are the ones that we require to make all the other amino acids. And for the Vegans who think milk is bad look at the first meal you ever had. Milk is life giving without it no baby would get past day one,
> Tony


 
Overcomsumption is the problem. You are correct.


----------



## tony (Jul 16, 2009)

Yes Randip ji one only has to go to the gudwara and see how much food is scraped into the bin. peoples eyes are to big for their bellies, They buy to much from the supermarkets and it goes out of date, put to much on their plate, cook to much and it all ends up in the bin. it is estimated that Britain alone wastes enough food each year to feed an African nation for the same period, And with the extra packaging that goes with it we've just destroyed another rain forest. The best way to judge how much food you require is to cup your hands together and what fits in them is the right portion size for you, Six times a day and your on your way to a healthier life and its a good way to lose weight as well, no need for silly diets, 
Tony


----------



## Satyaban (Jul 16, 2009)

Friends
I am neither a dairyman, cattleman, farmer, biologist,physicist, scientist or any of those things.I have been a soldier and a host of other jobs but I am no scholar or expert.
That being said it is my understanding that after a cow has been calved she will keep giving milk as long as she is milked regularly. Cows are in perfect service to mankind as we should be to God. I believe.
My comment about zoos side shows was clearly a joke least I would have dressed it up with something like zoological park and petting zoo.
I don't need a discussion on whether cattle(read steers) are a growing burden on the planet and the greener hunter gatherer society doesn't deserve mention in the 21at century except in history books about how we got to where we are today. How green it was isn't an issue.
I think milk is great the problem in the states is they take it a part and then put it back together before selling it.

Peace
Satyaban


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 16, 2009)

Satyaban said:


> Friends
> I think milk is great the problem in the states is they take it a part and then put it back together before selling it.
> 
> Peace
> Satyaban




Yes we do do that.


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Sep 20, 2009)

Randip Singh said:


> One word.
> 
> Milk! You realise in how many things this is in.
> 
> ...




I am one of those hypocritical vegetarians, I suppose.  Thinking about it honestly, there are two main reasons I am vegetarian:



I object to killing innocent animals to sate my lust for meat, when I can live perfectly well without it.
I grew up that way.
Even there I have vegan considerations.  For example, if I care about killing the critters, don't I also need to be concerned about how they are treated when alive?  The treatment of dairy animals cannot bear close consideration by any compassionate human.  

Then, giving a lot of credence to the vegan consideration are the ecological ramifications of raising animals for food, whether directly (eating their carcasses) or indirectly (eating their products), logically, I should avoid all animal products. (That would also include my beloved soft blue cashmere sweater :8-)

My conscience tells me to become vegan.  My own animal desires and taste buds say, "Paneer!  Gulab jamun!  Swiss cheese!  Yogurt!  Mango lassi!" and, of course, "ICE CREAM!"  There are vegan versions of these and they are dreadful!  I like tofu properly prepared.  I really do.  But it only vaguely _looks _like paneer.  The taste, the texture are all wrong.  Anyway, I'd be laughed out of Punjabi society if I ever served mattar tofu, I think.

Also I make my own paneer (and use the whey, as well as the curd in cooking), but must buy tofu.  I much prefer making my own stuff. 

I am not yet Sant Mai.  Someday maybe I'll be vegan, but not yet.

:ice: :u):


----------



## Randip Singh (Sep 20, 2009)

Mai Harinder Kaur said:


> I am one of those hypocritical vegetarians, I suppose. Thinking about it honestly, there are two main reasons I am vegetarian:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Mai ji, you are in no way a hypocrit and I tell you why:


You have chosen not to eat meat because it is because of your conscience (you haven't brought religion into it, exactly as per Bani).
You understand exactly where milk comes from, and therefore understand the hypocrasy of those who cite themselves as pure vegetarians. I mean what is total purity?
You are too smart to be a hypocrit


----------

