As always, you inject the clear light of reason, and rational and analytic thought, into the thread, and describe so concisely what is going on in the answers people have been posting.
People constantly bring up this argument that consumption of meat led to humans having 'bigger' brains, but the fact is that during much of our evolutionary development humans ate a largely plant-based diet. As well, scientists generally agree that humans are savengers, and that our early ancestors ate whatever they could find.
What scientists say is that humans were both scavengers and hunters. While it is true that humans did a "largely" plant based diet, it is not true that humans ate an "exclusively" plant based diet. Humans did eat meat, wether it is from "scavenging" or from "hunting." They did eat meat even though, according to you they did not have the "proper teeth rend and tear raw flesh off bones."
The consensus of scientist is that it is not eating "meat" that produced an increase intelligence but the "hunting" that produced an increase in intelligence in humans.
Since we are not fast enough to run down prey, and we do not have the proper teeth to rend and tear raw flesh off bones, the idea that our ancestors ate a diet high in flesh is problematic at best.
It is true that humans are not fast enough to run down prey. However it is true that we use our intelligence to make up for the fact that humans are not fast enough to run down prey."
It is not true and not a fact that that humans do have the proper teeth to rend raw flesh off bones. The fact that humans were scavengers and hunters did so and do so is proof that we do have the proper teeth wether the flesh is "raw" or "cooked".
While I have not rendered raw flesh of the bones of chickens or fish, I could do it.
Women have always been the food-gatherers, and they would have brought back whatever they could find, which would have been largely plant products, but also the occasional eggs and, if the group was near water, perhaps shellfish.
Men have always-traditionally been food gathers. They have always-traditionally gathered food from either hunting or scavenging.
Always-traditionally both men and women have eaten plant food gathered by women and animal food gathered by men.
There is a more recent theory that evolution was spurred on not by a meat diet, but by cooking food. You can ingest a lot more calories from cooked food than by eating it raw.
I think you can gather more calories by cooking food that eating cooked than by eating it raw. Wether you are cooking meat or by cooking plants. Cooking meat also has the advantage of murdering germs and parasites that could murder humans.
However, if, as you speculate, a high meat diet led to bigger brains, then the carnivores would have it all over us.
If I theorize that the eating of meat did lead to bigger brains it would be because the effect of eating meat by carnivores did not cause them to have bigger brains because they are a different species of animals.
I know that humans can gather calories from eating raw food and cooked food. I know that I can render the flesh from the bones of animals. Maybe not as well or efficently as carnivores but I do have teeth that are proper enough to do it.
Speciesism is giving moral preference to the interests of members of one's own species, over identical interests of members of a different species, solely because it is a member of your species. It can be compared to racism and sexism. Solfeggio
In his first privately published leaflet entitled Speciesism, Ryder asked a number of rhetorical questions:
"Since Darwin, scientists have agreed that there is no ‘magical’ essential difference between human and other animals, biologically- speaking. Why, then, do we make an almost total distinction morally?
I will agree that there are no 'magica' differences between different species but there are "natural" differences between species.
The word ‘species’, like the word ‘race’, is not precisely definable.
The words tall and short are not 'precisely' definable however there are 'tall' people and there are 'short' people. It is reasonable to say that people who are 7 ft. are 'tall' and people who are 2 ft. are "short".
Lions and tigers can interbreed because they are of the same species, but are different "sub-species." Lions and tigers rarely, if ever interbreed in naturally.
Lions and wolves do not interbreed . While they are both "mammals" the are not the same "species" of "mammals"
Horses and donkeys can be "mated-interbreed" because they are of the same "species" but different "sub" species. They will produce a different "sub" species called mules.
However male mules and female mules cannot "mate".
Under special laboratory conditions it may soon prove possible to mate a gorilla with a professor of biology — will the hairy offspring be kept in a cage or a cradle?"
It "may" be "possible" that under "special" labatory conditions it might be possible to "mate" a gorilla with a human. It is more "probable" to "mate" a chimpanzee with a with a human.
But if that does happen, it will produce a different "race-species" that will be neither human or chimpanzee.
"If" it does happen, we will have to answer what "should" be done when it "does" happen.
I found your post very funny - in a good way. I love the "not magical, but definately natural differences" quip.
In regards to running down prey argument, ancient man could and did run down prey. Some prey is easier to run down than others. One book I read a couple of years ago about running discussed the human respiratory system and how it is actually pretty effective in running down certain prey and certainly more effective than the respiratory systems of many of the animals that are traitionaly prey. Something that might be hard for modern humans with our different lifestyles to realize.
I am a speciest, all people - all creatures are speciests. Who amoung us will really and truly value the life of a squirell as equal to the life of a human? It is ridiculous to contemplate something so ......unnatural. IMO such an argument makes AR look shallow. As if valuing our fellow humans is like sexism and racism.
To me, the entire concept and term "speciesism"...
Never heard of that term.
... is just a leap of illogic in an attempt to give AR credibility by comparing it to a stuggle for equality among humans with various skin pigmentations.
It is the same struggle: to include and accept all forms of life as worthy of respect, not just humans.
Or, conversly, to imply that anybody who doesn't agree with AR is a "bigot" who is locked in the same thought pattern as past slave owners or contemporary skin-pigmentation bigots (commonly called "racists.")
He,he,he. Quite similar, actually.The slave owners were locked into a certain thought pattern that did not allow them to appreciate and accept the slaves until their consciousness and understanding expanded to include them and see them as equally worthy. Nothing changed. Only their perception.
Like the people who are locked into their thought patterns and cannot accept sentient beings as worthy of the consideration given to humans, until their conscoiusness expands enough to include them.
It's ultimately, IMO, a completely false and non-sensical concept and false, dishonest comparison.
Nothing dishonest about it. It is a matter of inclusiveness.
The "differences" and status of quality or worth assigned according skin pigmentation at various points in checkered human history are false, unjust social constructs. Therefore, thinking according to those constructs and favoring one's own skin pigmentation over another, or all others, is false, illogical and unjust. That is why it is, rightfully, called "bigotry."
Same about thinking about constructs favoring humans over other sentient beings.
The differences between species are real. The favoring of one's "kind" (in terms of species) is therefore logical and just. Not to mention, universal among all creatures.
Favoring one kind over others is what the slave owners were doing. They thought it was logical and just. Until their understanding expanded. What is universal is the fact that all species are living and have their place in the scheme of things
Animals have no concepts of "rights." Wolves don't care a crap about the "rights" of coyotes. They will simply kill coyotes on sight. Likewise, coyotes don't care a crap about the "rights" of deer or wolves. If they find a lone sick or elderly wolf that has been ejected from its pack, they will kill it without mercy. Deer don't care a crap about either wolves or coyotes. And so on and on.
But we are humans and do give a crap (Some do)
If we wish to engage in absurd projection, we can observe and note with complete certainty that wolves are unrepentant wolf supremists, deer are blatant deer supremists, coyotes are stark and shameless coyote supremists.. and so on.
"Rights" are a human concept, shared among humans. Equality and justice among and between diverse groups are, likewise, unique to humans.
Some of us have been saying that all through these posts. It was labelled "mental masturbation" and "toucy feely".
As the sole sapient beings on Earth, humans have a moral/ethical obligation to approach the environment and other living things with wisdom and a long-term vision. Not to mention, a greater consideration of kindness and mercy toward animals than animals display toward one another.
Therefore, again, it might be perfectly ecologically sound and ethical to eliminate, or at least severly limit, an invasive, destructive, non-native species such as the feral Florida pythons. Where wisdom and compassion might come in is capturing the snakes alive when possible, or killing them quickly and mercifully -- and perhaps putting the carcass parts to good use -- such as in jackets or boots.
That will depend on the view and understanding of those who ascribe themselves the right to do that. That fact that we created a problem doesn't mean that whatever we do to correct it is ethical. It may be more of the same thing that created it.
As to Kardashian's reasons for buying and wearing snake skin boots (which yes, I realize probably came from a source less ethcial than the quick and merciful slaying of a feral Florida python), I can't say. I can't read minds well enough to guess the motives of a person I've never met.
Treating all things, and the Earth as a whole, with respect is one thing.
Trying to argue "snakes is people too" is quite another.
Speciesism is giving moral preference to the interests of members of one's own species, over identical interests of members of a different species, solely because it is a member of your species. It can be compared to racism and sexism. Solfeggio
In his first privately published leaflet entitled Speciesism, Ryder asked a number of rhetorical questions:
"Since Darwin, scientists have agreed that there is no ‘magical’ essential difference between human and other animals, biologically- speaking. Why, then, do we make an almost total distinction morally?
I will agree that there are no 'magica' differences between different species but there are "natural" differences between species.
So? That is the point. Differences do not decide what is moral. Slave owners used differences to justyify their treatment of slaves as "non-beings"whose life was not worthy of respect.
The word ‘species’, like the word ‘race’, is not precisely definable.
The words tall and short are not 'precisely' definable however there are 'tall' people and there are 'short' people. It is reasonable to say that people who are 7 ft. are 'tall' and people who are 2 ft. are "short".
Whether they are short or tall makes no difference to their moral standing.
Lions and tigers can interbreed because they are of the same species, but are different "sub-species." Lions and tigers rarely, if ever interbreed in naturally.
Lions and wolves do not interbreed . While they are both "mammals" the are not the same "species" of "mammals"
Horses and donkeys can be "mated-interbreed" because they are of the same "species" but different "sub" species. They will produce a different "sub" species called mules.
However male mules and female mules cannot "mate".
You are not saying anything. The point is that they are all living beings that have the fundamental right to their life.
Under special laboratory conditions it may soon prove possible to mate a gorilla with a professor of biology — will the hairy offspring be kept in a cage or a cradle?"
It "may" be "possible" that under "special" labatory conditions it might be possible to "mate" a gorilla with a human. It is more "probable" to "mate" a chimpanzee with a with a human.
But if that does happen, it will produce a different "race-species" that will be neither human or chimpanzee.
"If" it does happen, we will have to answer what "should" be done when it "does" happen.
You just keep repeating the prenmise of speciesism: giving moral preference to the interests of members of one's own species.
All based on differences. You are ignoring what is fundamentally the same: we are all living beings that have a place in the scheme of things, whether that place is understood or not. Speciesism is nothing but self centered awareness, unable to perceive anything beyond it's animal sense of territoriality.
Speciesism is giving moral preference to the interests of members of one's own species, over identical interests of members of a different species, solely because it is a member of your species. It can be compared to racism and sexism. Solfeggio
In his first privately published leaflet entitled Speciesism, Ryder asked a number of rhetorical questions:
"Since Darwin, scientists have agreed that there is no ‘magical’ essential difference between human and other animals, biologically- speaking. Why, then, do we make an almost total distinction morally?
I will agree that there are no 'magica' differences between different species but there are "natural" differences between species.
So? That is the point. Differences do not decide what is moral. Slave owners used differences to justyify their treatment of slaves as "non-beings"whose life was not worthy of respect.
The word ‘species’, like the word ‘race’, is not precisely definable.
The words tall and short are not 'precisely' definable however there are 'tall' people and there are 'short' people. It is reasonable to say that people who are 7 ft. are 'tall' and people who are 2 ft. are "short".
Whether they are short or tall makes no difference to their moral standing.
Lions and tigers can interbreed because they are of the same species, but are different "sub-species." Lions and tigers rarely, if ever interbreed in naturally.
Lions and wolves do not interbreed . While they are both "mammals" the are not the same "species" of "mammals"
Horses and donkeys can be "mated-interbreed" because they are of the same "species" but different "sub" species. They will produce a different "sub" species called mules.
However male mules and female mules cannot "mate".
You are not saying anything. The point is that they are all living beings that have the fundamental right to their life.
Under special laboratory conditions it may soon prove possible to mate a gorilla with a professor of biology — will the hairy offspring be kept in a cage or a cradle?"
It "may" be "possible" that under "special" labatory conditions it might be possible to "mate" a gorilla with a human. It is more "probable" to "mate" a chimpanzee with a with a human.
But if that does happen, it will produce a different "race-species" that will be neither human or chimpanzee.
"If" it does happen, we will have to answer what "should" be done when it "does" happen.
You just keep repeating the prenmise of speciesism: giving moral preference to the interests of members of one's own species.
All based on differences. You are ignoring what is fundamentally the same: we are all living beings that have a place in the scheme of things, whether that place is understood or not. Speciesism is nothing but self centered awareness, unable to preceive anything beyond it's animal sense of territoriality.
It must suck for you when a fly splatters on your windshield.
Speciesism is giving moral preference to the interests of members of one's own species, over identical interests of members of a different species, solely because it is a member of your species. It can be compared to racism and sexism. Solfeggio
In his first privately published leaflet entitled Speciesism, Ryder asked a number of rhetorical questions:
"Since Darwin, scientists have agreed that there is no ‘magical’ essential difference between human and other animals, biologically- speaking. Why, then, do we make an almost total distinction morally?
I will agree that there are no 'magica' differences between different species but there are "natural" differences between species.
The word ‘species’, like the word ‘race’, is not precisely definable.
The words tall and short are not 'precisely' definable however there are 'tall' people and there are 'short' people. It is reasonable to say that people who are 7 ft. are 'tall' and people who are 2 ft. are "short".
Lions and tigers can interbreed because they are of the same species, but are different "sub-species." Lions and tigers rarely, if ever interbreed in naturally.
Lions and wolves do not interbreed . While they are both "mammals" the are not the same "species" of "mammals"
Horses and donkeys can be "mated-interbreed" because they are of the same "species" but different "sub" species. They will produce a different "sub" species called mules.
However male mules and female mules cannot "mate".
Under special laboratory conditions it may soon prove possible to mate a gorilla with a professor of biology — will the hairy offspring be kept in a cage or a cradle?"
It "may" be "possible" that under "special" labatory conditions it might be possible to "mate" a gorilla with a human. It is more "probable" to "mate" a chimpanzee with a with a human.
But if that does happen, it will produce a different "race-species" that will be neither human or chimpanzee.
"If" it does happen, we will have to answer what "should" be done when it "does" happen.
I found your post very funny - in a good way. I love the "not magical, but definately natural differences" quip.
In regards to running down prey argument, ancient man could and did run down prey. Some prey is easier to run down than others. One book I read a couple of years ago about running discussed the human respiratory system and how it is actually pretty effective in running down certain prey and certainly more effective than the respiratory systems of many of the animals that are traitionaly prey. Something that might be hard for modern humans with our different lifestyles to realize.
I think you are right. I recall watching a program on National Geographic. It involved a hunt by Bushmen if Africa. The Bushmen would track an animal like an antelope. They would then co-operatively run after the antelope until it was exhausted and then murder it.
While the antelope could run "faster" than the Bushmen the Bushmen could run "longer". It was "speed" vs "stamina."
While the Bushmen were out gathering meat food by hunting the Bushwomen were home performing their "traditional" duties, taking care of children and gathering plant food.
When the Bushmen returned from a successful hunt, Bushmen, Bushwomen and Bushchildren would feast, sharing the calories and other nuterients from both plant food and the meat food from the murdered antelope.
If the Bushmen were not successful in murdering an antelope they would have to return home without the benefits of calories and nutrition from an antelope.
I am a speciest, all people - all creatures are speciests. Who amoung us will really and truly value the life of a squirell as equal to the life of a human?
I think that all omnivores and carnivores are specists. I would be willing to bet more than a dollar that a cheetah does not value the life of an antelope and does not think that the life of a murdered antelope is as valuable as its life or the life of its cubs.
It is ridiculous to contemplate something so ......unnatural. IMO such an argument makes AR look shallow. As if valuing our fellow humans is like sexism and racism.
I would say that the arguement is faulty and flawed. Specism is only vaguely similar to sexism and racism.
I think it would be riduclous to say that other animals are sexist.
However if humans are specists-racists then other omnivores are also specists-racists.
Being specists=racists is therefore as "natural" to omivores and carnivores.
All based on differences. You are ignoring what is fundamentally the same: we are all living beings that have a place in the scheme of things, whether that place is understood or not. Speciesism is nothing but self centered awareness, unable to perceive anything beyond it's animal sense of territoriality.
You do agree that there are differences between species.
The only way that all species of animals are fundamentally the same is that they are animals.
What you ignore is that there are fundamental differences between some animals and other animals.
If humans are specists than so are other ominvores as well as carnivores.
They are just as species-centered and as territorial as other species of animals.
Many other species of animals are unable to perceive anything beyond it's animal sense of territoriality, from bees to chimpanzees.
In your post #121, you kept quoting me but ascribing the quotes to arielg. You should be a little more careful about who and what you are quoting. Arielg and I agree on many philosophical points, but I don't think he likes having his name put on somebody else's quotes.
As far as the whole thread in general goes, people should be aware of the fact that, since we all evolved from the same common ancestor and all share at least some of the same DNA, we are all animals, humans and nonhumans alike.
How other animals behave or what they do with their lives regarding food-gathering has nothing, repeat nothing, to do with how humans live their lives. Talking about what other animals do as if their behaivoural systems have some bearing on our behaviour is meaningless.
Also, early humans did, indeed, eat animal flesh. Nobody has ever argued against that. But - how much they ate is unknown.
And, regardless of what anybody seems to think, human teeth are NOT designed to eat raw meat. We do not have sharp front teeth for tearing, and, unlike meat-eaters, we have flat molars for grinding. Unlike meat-eaters, who have no digestive enzymes in their saliva, we have well-developed salivary glands to pre-digest grains and fruits.
Our dentition evolved for processing a plant-based diet, and not tearing and chewing raw flesh.
Then, you have cholesterol, which is found in animal flesh. The human liver has a very limited capacity for removing the cholesterol in meat. Humans evolved on a mostly plant-based diet, and we never evolved with an efficient cholesterol-eliminating bilary system. As a result, eating animal flesh will cause deposits in the arteries, as well as gallstones.
In your post #121, you kept quoting me but ascribing the quotes to arielg. You should be a little more careful about who and what you are quoting. Arielg and I agree on many philosophical points, but I don't think he likes having his name put on somebody else's quotes.
I apologize to both you and Arilelg for my mistake I will try to be more careful in the future.
As far as the whole thread in general goes, people should be aware of the fact that, since we all evolved from the same common ancestor and all share at least some of the same DNA, we are all animals, humans and nonhumans alike.
I am a people and I am aware of the theory that all others species of animals evolved from a single cell animal. I doubt that other species of animals(people?)are aware that they evolved from a common ancestor.
I doubt that the hynea(people?)who are eating the waterbufflo(people?)alive are aware that they share a common ancestor.
How other animals behave or what they do with their lives regarding food-gathering has nothing, repeat nothing, to do with how humans live their lives.
Why not?
We all decended from the same common ancestoers. We are all equal(people?). We are all fundamenally the same(people)?
And, regardless of what anybody seems to think, human teeth are NOT designed to eat raw meat. We do not have sharp front teeth for tearing, and, unlike meat-eaters, we have flat molars for grinding. Unlike meat-eaters, who have no digestive enzymes in their saliva, we have well-developed salivary glands to pre-digest grains and fruits.
And regarless of what anybody think we DO and HAVE eaten both raw flesh and cooked flesh and we do use our teeth to do it.
Regardless of what anybody "seems" to think we do not have the teeth of herbivours.
Regardless of what "anyody" seems to think I have used my teeth to rip the flesh of cooked bones.
Our dentition evolved for processing a plant-based diet, and not tearing and chewing raw flesh. [/quot]
My dentition has evolved to eat raw aor cooked plant-based diet, and for tearing and chewing both raw flesh and cooked flesh. I supect that you can do the same because every human has fundamentall the same dentition.
Then, you have cholesterol, which is found in animal flesh. The human liver has a very limited capacity for removing the cholesterol in meat.
But the human liver has evolved to remove some cholestrol from raw and cooked meat. The human digestive system has a limited capacity for removing colories and other nutrients from cooked flesh.
Humans evolved on a mostly plant-based diet, and we never evolved with an efficient cholesterol-eliminating bilary system. As a result, eating animal flesh will cause deposits in the arteries, as well as gallstones.
"Also, early humans did, indeed, eat animal flesh. Nobody has ever argued against that. But - how much they ate is unknown."
It is a fact that people who have a balanced diet of both plant based for and meat have lived long lives.
Some flesh contains more cholestrol than other fleash. To limit the amount of deposits in the arteries then it would be advisable to limit the diet to flesh that has less cholestrol than other flesh. There is also a difference between cholestrols, some are good and some are not so good.
For My Mother: In Praise of a Life Lived
Chasing an Elusive God
Why Christianity Is Dying But Spirituality Is Thriving?
On the Frontlines An interview with Yael Eckstein, Senior Vice President of the ...
Ray Liotta, Seth Green Join an All-Star Cast in Indie Film ‘The Identical’ “We want to bring films with a redeeming value to the world. One of ...
A Life of Hope The fact that you’re standing here today with breath in your lungs ...
Habits for a Heart Healthy Lifestyle Heart disease is a top killer worldwide -- but our lifestyle choices ...
Emotional Equations Using brilliantly simple math that illuminates universal emotional ...
Are You a Compulsive or Binge Eater? Do you struggle with your weight? Find out more about compulsive and ...
Faith, Freedom and Rocker John Schlitt “We are making choices on greed and stupidity. The truth is that our ...
Robert Griffin III: Not the Average Rookie Washington Redskins quarterback Robert Griffin III continues to wow ...
Green Powders to Add to Your Diet Now Green powders are a great way to boost your health, keep your energy ...
Natural Deodorants That Actually Work What's that smell? Not us! We’ve been on a mission to find the best ...
Birth of a Habit How long does it take to form a new habit? How long should it take ...
Madly In Love With ME “I will never settle for less than my heart and soul desire.”
Is It Love If You're All Cranky When You Give It? Love is the answer to everything in life.
Living A Meaningful Life You are what you love and you love whatever you give your attention ...
"The Bible" a Labor of Love for Famed Producer, Wife The five-week, 10-hour TV special was nurtured by "Touched by an ...
Who Should Be Allowed to Pray for President Obama? It seems preposterous, but there’s a major debate over who is worthy ...
