Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[lordnincompoop]

Dietary needs.

Please elaborate, this is new to me cause I eat anything that's digestible within health limit. From my understanding basing on Wikipedia, there's no biological reasons for dietary. Of course there're items such as milk which cant be absorbed by everyone but that fall outside the term diet.

Dietary needs as in what we need to survive.

Okay, now you're being deliberately obtuse. The comparison cannot continue, because what you are contrasting it with (a screwdriver/lettuce) is not used for that purpose and is thus invalid for such a comparison. It's comparing bicycles and oranges. You cannot ride on an orange.

It was a bad joke to end a bad subthread. If you want to discuss that bit, please bring up an earlier view point when it was still sensible.

Arrite, fair enough. Unfortunately, tone doesn't transmit well through the intertubes. :/

[decius]

Oh I'm looking at it as an animal so I disregard supply. You are indeed right that I'm staking mostly calories there and it's true that in some extreme habitat, a bag of salt would be more valuable then wives. However in most habitats where you may find human as a thriving animal (I'm looking at you, Africa jungles), supplementary is of abundance and it's of much more importance to get the bulk of the meal. Since even carnivores eat random grass from time to time for supplementary, I make the assumption that everybody know even meat-craving human would when deemed necessary,

Why can you disregard supply in this context? Supply represents the cost of eating, measured in time and energy (or money). Disregarding supply would result in a diet of nothing but Ambrosia, on which anything would starve, because there isn't any. In reality, carnivores (animals) eat meat because meat has a low cost (to them), in terms of nourishment received compared to time and energy expended. Omnivores (animals) eat a varied diet because sometimes meat is less expensive, and sometimes it is more expensive. Herbivores (animals) follow similar physics.

When ethics comes into play (human ethical vegetarians), it alters the cost of meat to include "Eating this has the cost of violating an ethical belief". Meat now becomes either very or infinitely expensive, depending on the individual. When taste comes into play (human dietary "limited omnivores" or vegetarians), meat has a lesser perceived benefit, so becomes less popular or is removed from the diet. In neither case does evolutionary biology need to come into play.

The final argument, that meat requires less of scarce resources than grains and legumes to feed the same number of people, falls under a different set of ethical and physical premises, and I don't think that those premises are reasonable.

Sweetbread, offal, and organ meat are all delicious, and a BETTER source of trace vitamins than muscle meat. Some of them (polar bear liver) are dangerously fatally rich in some.

Do note that I didnt make that final argument. You answered your own question about supply. We'd take the most easy path to fill our stomach thus supply isnt a constant. However under these condition human are more likely to choose meat: the amount are equal or when the supply is in infinite amount where in the capacity of the stomach is the only limit. The reason is already provided, you get more energy per bite to do whatever you are partaking in. In most other circumstances, human would favor plants because it's easier to obtain them. Due to this trend, I conclude plants as being substitute to meat and not the other way around.

In my opinion, omnivore is superior to both carnivore and herbivore because it gives the species more options to get food and thus more chance of survival. Carnivores and Herbivores have to evolve themselves so they can eat the meal of choice (and still stay alive). Omnivores can take it easy on the "eat the meal of choice" bit and just forcus on staying alive.

Well, yeah. Supply and demand (cost and benefit) are the independent variables, and consumption is the dependent variable. But when you compare steaks to oranges, the fact that steak costs four to eight times as much per pound isn't (quite) the right measurement of cost; the fact that steak costs three to five times as much as oranges eaten to satiation is the right unit of measurement (Based on my supermarket prices and guesses as to how much I want to eat in a sitting.) I would still rather have a meal which combined multiple types of ingredients, just like pure vegetarians do.

Like what?

WOW. Used out of context, that does support your point. Of course, Maslow himself said that those needs may vary in importance or order between individuals, and various others have demonstrated that they vary between cultures; some humans will accept pain, hunger, and death (All low levels on that pyramid) in order to avoid dishonor or embarrassment (a higher level need).

They died when they choose higher needs over more basic needs. That's important. They failed to survive. We are talking about food.

Are you saying that surviving/creating offspring is the single most important thing? That is a measure of success, but is not the best one. The Roman empire and Soviet Union both fell; does that make them equal? Is a stable police state better than an unstable republic? Is a live dog better than a dead lion? (both literally and metaphorically). Is a thriving monopoly better than the small businesses that it destroys by unfair competition? There are lots of cases where thriving and/or surviving are characteristics of inferior specimens.  More weight indeed.

[rephikul]

well... if you don't get vitamin c you get scurvy. most animals synthesize vitamin c. humans don't. we need to get it from plants... unlike nearly every other animal.

we can get it from the cold, dead carcasses of other animals too

Dietary needs.

Please elaborate, this is new to me cause I eat anything that's digestible within health limit. From my understanding basing on Wikipedia, there's no biological reasons for dietary. Of course there're items such as milk which cant be absorbed by everyone but that fall outside the term diet.

Dietary needs as in what we need to survive.

But that's the same as the need to eat, which all other animals possess.

Are you saying that surviving/creating offspring is the single most important thing? That is a measure of success, but is not the best one. The Roman empire and Soviet Union both fell; does that make them equal? Is a stable police state better than an unstable republic? Is a live dog better than a dead lion? (both literally and metaphorically). Is a thriving monopoly better than the small businesses that it destroys by unfair competition? There are lots of cases where thriving and/or surviving are characteristics of inferior specimens.  More weight indeed.

On a large scale yes, survival/creating offspring is the most important thing. Like when the adam-eva of organisms came to life and they somehow didnt make offsprings, there wont be us here making a fuss. Of course there werent any adams or evas but I hope you get the point.

Now to entertain one of your examples: I think the thriving monopoly will eventually fall and a better economy system will be established. There are many other things outside the economy that'd heavily influence it. A revolution made by people who were driven crazy cause of expensive bread, for example. In this case, the inferior economy system is just a minor fluke in the grand scheme of things.

[Lagslayer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_C#Animal_sources

Vitamin C can be obtained from animals fairly easily, if you don't mind shellfish, liver, or fresh milk (last one is kind of eww, but I digress)

Truth be told, neither an all plant or all meat diet is optimal because some resources are easier to gather from different sources. Both can be made to work, for the most part, however.

[lordnincompoop]

well... if you don't get vitamin c you get scurvy. most animals synthesize vitamin c. humans don't. we need to get it from plants... unlike nearly every other animal.

we can get it from the cold, dead carcasses of other animals too

If you'll check the list above you'll see that plant sources are not only more numerous, but have better sources as well (3100mg, that is insane).

[G-Flex]

A carnivorous diet is suboptimal, as is confirmed by many articles. A meat-only based diet can be dangerous for you, such as a lean-meat only diet¹.

Veganism can also be dangerous for you, because you're eliminating a lot of good sources of various nutrients.

It's important to note the "can" in these sentences. If anything, I'd say it's probably easier to eat a healthy vegan diet (provided you take a B12-containing supplement of some kind, of course) than it is to eat a healthy meat-only diet, unless you're cool with eating basically every digestible substance from any animal you come across.

Of course, eating a meat-only diet isn't particularly smart either, given how difficult it is compared to a diet with only moderate amounts of vegetable matter. On the same token, an ovo-lacto vegetarian diet is much, much easier than a vegan diet, but there are extenuating ethical circumstances there from the point of view of those who engage in it.

[decius]

well... if you don't get vitamin c you get scurvy. most animals synthesize vitamin c. humans don't. we need to get it from plants... unlike nearly every other animal.

we can get it from the cold, dead carcasses of other animals too

Wait, is anyone here advocating a strict meat-only diet? Or even just saying that a meat-only diet is possible?

[G-Flex]

A meat-only (or I should say animal-product-only, since you aren't surviving on muscle tissue alone at all) diet is possible; there's just no reason to do it.

[lordnincompoop]

well... if you don't get vitamin c you get scurvy. most animals synthesize vitamin c. humans don't. we need to get it from plants... unlike nearly every other animal.

we can get it from the cold, dead carcasses of other animals too

Wait, is anyone here advocating a strict meat-only diet? Or even just saying that a meat-only diet is possible?

It's possible, just ill-advised and difficult to pull off. Like veganism (well, difficult at least).

A carnivorous diet is suboptimal, as is confirmed by many articles. A meat-only based diet can be dangerous for you, such as a lean-meat only diet¹.

Veganism can also be dangerous for you, because you're eliminating a lot of good sources of various nutrients.

It's important to note the "can" in these sentences. If anything, I'd say it's probably easier to eat a healthy vegan diet (provided you take a B12-containing supplement of some kind, of course) than it is to eat a healthy meat-only diet, unless you're cool with eating basically every digestible substance from any animal you come across.

Of course, eating a meat-only diet isn't particularly smart either, given how difficult it is compared to a diet with only moderate amounts of vegetable matter. On the same token, an ovo-lacto vegetarian diet is much, much easier than a vegan diet, but there are extenuating ethical circumstances there from the point of view of those who engage in it.

Yeah, that's why I used "can".

Also, elaborate on the ethics of an ovo-lacto vegetarian diet.

[decius]

A carnivorous diet is suboptimal, as is confirmed by many articles. A meat-only based diet can be dangerous for you, such as a lean-meat only diet¹.

Veganism can also be dangerous for you, because you're eliminating a lot of good sources of various nutrients.

It's important to note the "can" in these sentences. If anything, I'd say it's probably easier to eat a healthy vegan diet (provided you take a B12-containing supplement of some kind, of course) than it is to eat a healthy meat-only diet, unless you're cool with eating basically every digestible substance from any animal you come across.

Of course, eating a meat-only diet isn't particularly smart either, given how difficult it is compared to a diet with only moderate amounts of vegetable matter. On the same token, an ovo-lacto vegetarian diet is much, much easier than a vegan diet, but there are extenuating ethical circumstances there from the point of view of those who engage in it.

Ethical veganism is easy: It's living that's complicated. Once one establishes what is and is not acceptable to eat, just don't eat those things that are not food. It doesn't matter to me if the rule is "Food doesn't talk." or "Food isn't cute." or "Food is not derived from species of kingdom Animalia."

[rephikul]

A carnivorous diet is suboptimal, as is confirmed by many articles. A meat-only based diet can be dangerous for you, such as a lean-meat only diet¹.

Veganism can also be dangerous for you, because you're eliminating a lot of good sources of various nutrients.

It's important to note the "can" in these sentences. If anything, I'd say it's probably easier to eat a healthy vegan diet (provided you take a B12-containing supplement of some kind, of course) than it is to eat a healthy meat-only diet, unless you're cool with eating basically every digestible substance from any animal you come across.

Of course, eating a meat-only diet isn't particularly smart either, given how difficult it is compared to a diet with only moderate amounts of vegetable matter. On the same token, an ovo-lacto vegetarian diet is much, much easier than a vegan diet, but there are extenuating ethical circumstances there from the point of view of those who engage in it.

Yeah, that's why I used "can".

Also, elaborate on the ethics of an ovo-lacto vegetarian diet.

I think it's important to mention that all these "can" occur because while it's possible to live off just one spectrum of food, we are designed to be omnivores and thus many things are done with the assumption that we eat both. That's why we dont synthesize vitamin c as one person has pointed out.

A meat-only (or I should say animal-product-only, since you aren't surviving on muscle tissue alone at all) diet is possible; there's just no reason to do it.

What's the reason behind vegetarianism then? It's possible.

[decius]

elaborate on the ethics of an ovo-lacto vegetarian diet.

In short:
Premise: Killing animals, or causing/supporting others to kill animals is wrong.
Observation: Eating products that consist of dead animals causes/supports the killing of animals.
Conclusion: Eating products that consist of dead animals is wrong.
Action: I will refrain from eating products that consist of dead animals.

Observation: Consuming milk and unfertilized eggs does not cause or support the killing of animals.
Conclusion: Consuming milk, unfertilized eggs, and products derived from these is neutral with regard to the current premise.

Others may have different sets of premises that this one; I know some people who simply do not enjoy the taste of animal products, and have no ethical reason for it. And there is nothing wrong with that, either.

[lordnincompoop]

A meat-only (or I should say animal-product-only, since you aren't surviving on muscle tissue alone at all) diet is possible; there's just no reason to do it.

What's the reason behind vegetarianism then? It's possible.

Religious reasons, such as Hinduism or Buddhism (excepting some sects). Ethical reasons, such as animal cruelty. Physical reasons, such as intolerance.

[rephikul]

A meat-only (or I should say animal-product-only, since you aren't surviving on muscle tissue alone at all) diet is possible; there's just no reason to do it.

What's the reason behind vegetarianism then? It's possible.

Religious reasons, such as Hinduism or Buddhism (excepting some sects). Ethical reasons, such as animal cruelty. Physical reasons, such as intolerance.

Aside from intolerance, are there any reasons you listed cannot be considered as groundless belief?

[decius]

I think it's important to mention that all these "can" occur because while it's possible to live off just one spectrum of food, we are designed to be omnivores and thus many things are done with the assumption that we eat both. That's why we dont synthesize vitamin c as one person has pointed out.

Emphasis mine:
What do you mean by "designed to be omnivores"? I thought that it was the fact that individuals who could find enough food cheaper had more descendants than individuals who starved. Since different forms of food had different costs from month to month, (Try foraging for berries during late winter) people who could eat whatever was available had more descendants. Also, periods of famine helped select for people who could store and use fat reserves, or build granaries. With widespread food storage technology, fat as a reserve of energy became nonsurvival.

In short, it's not that we were 'designed' for anything. There have been times where humans have been 'selected' for some characteristic, but that doesn't mean that being an omnivore (or storing fat) is prosurvival now, much less that it is in any manner imperative.