Adam writes;
>But I can't resist. You seem to think that we vegetarians/vegans ignore
>history, a history that you, among the intelligntsia, are priveleged to
>understand. We just ignore it all, huh?

There is a species of penguin on Antarctica that appears to be wired to live
a certain way. It is dying out as a result of the shelf ice receeding from
it's preferred habitat where it nests. It is so hard wired in the brain that
if one penquin trips on a pebble or slips, all the other penguins will mimic
the same motion that the first penquin made even if there are no apparent
reasons for the motion. They are like sheep but even more 'wired'.

I quess the argument that Steve B. is making is that meat eating is okay
because that is what humans have done for 3.5 million years based on
dentition, and paleological investigation. But 3.5 million years ago the
human species may have lived in dense rainforests of Africa along with the
present day bonobo ape. What does the bonobo eat? Does it eath beef, pork,
salmon, or does it eat bananas, cashews, leaves, fruit and insects?

But my real point is that if in fact we as a species are carnivores, that
does not give me any indication why we need to continue to be carnivores
other than from a pure pleasure basis...if you like the taste of meat, then
that is really the only real reason to eat meat. It is neither better for
health, nor better for the environment than eating a vegetarian diet, so
where is the ethics of an imperative that supports eating meat? Is this
'imperative to chow down on pork' demonstrative of compassion for the pork
industry with it's antibiotics, chemical dependency, etc., and water
contamination?

The only really ethical imperative to maintain the health of the planets'
biosphere is to reduce meat consumption, not eliminate meat consumption.

Eating to win means eating 1/4 pound of beef per week. And that amount still
entails the consumption of about 13 pounds per year per person, and for
North America would involve about 3.9 billion pounds of beef.

That translates into about 6.5 million beef slaughtered per year, mostly
steers aged two years old, and about 65 million acres of grazing land just
support the annual slaughter. Add in the cows and bulls and you have a
carrying capacity of approximately 150 million acres, or 61 million
hectares. That is not bad of a carrying capacity you know to supply a per
consumption of 1/4 pound of beef.

However as we know we are eating five times that amount of beef. Which is
about 2-3 pounds per week, and the carrying capacity is much greater than
150 million acres in North America.


Chao,

John Foster





>
>YOU can't reckon with the facts of what we're saying; it's you who ignore
>us. We HAVE looked at history, and biology, and the medical facts, and they
>ALL point to the evidence that the human species is herbivorous. That's why
>we get intestinal cancers when we rely on meat--its digestion takes a
strong
>digestive acid which we herbivores aren't eqipped with; acid balances are
>highly conducive to tumors. That's why we get arteriosclerosis. That's why
>we get osteoporosis. Did you know these things are unheard of primitive
>societies where vegetarianism is common? Did you know that we have about
the
>highest rates of osteoporosis in the world? Why? Animal protein,
>unequivocably. But you won't find mainstream doctors saying this. It's
>incontovertibility is new, but more important it flys in the face of
massive
>monied interests.
>
>You made a comment some time ago about are teeth being carvivores';
couldn't
>be further from the truth. Every aspect of our biology is that of
>herbivores. Do you have an answer for that or are you just going to ignore
>me so you can feel justified eating steak and hunting?
>
>How about history? The evidence I've seen is this: a) primitive folks with
>primitive tools were highly unsuccessful in their hunting escapades. This
>had to have been the case. The classis example of tribe is NA running large
>animals off the cliffs was ritualistic, very occcasional to say the least.
>Hunters today have small success rates, even with high-powered artillery;
>imagine the success rate with stones and sticks... b) meat eating is an
>appropriation from the rich to the poor. Poor European populations looked
to
>royalty, for example, and decided that when they had enough money, they
>wanted to be like the rich folks. Enter Economic Growth as a religion, the
>French revolution, etc.
>
>How about the medical evidence that vegetarianism makes people thrive,
while
>meat eating tends to me folks week and susceptible to a wide variety of the
>most severe degenerative diseases? Do you ignore the medical facts? This is
>common knowledge among doctors. The sort of doctors (like my
>neurologist/psychiatrist Yale brother) who say that vegetarianism is
>"dangerous" are hopelessly out of date with the medical facts (my brother
is
>so lost in his research he hardly knows a thing outside of his speciality.)
>Do you know that doctors in this country receive about 4 hours of nutrition
>training during their entire careers.
>
>Once again (I should go on, but I won't waste my breath), you seem to go on
>what the simplistic, superfical, mainstream assessments are. YOU don't look
>hard enough at medicine, biology, history. Don't go making slanderous
>statements about huge sections of the population, especially when you're
>information is flat out wrong. Why don't respond to some of the specifics
>mentioned above? Scared? Worried that their answers prove you wrong.
>
>I'm sick of people thinking that vegetarians are trying to foist our
beliefs
>on the innocent. On the contrary, we know the facts and are worried that
>folks like you (hunters, meat eaters) are hurting yourselves, our world and
>the animals. It's not your world alone. The things you do affect all those
>around you. Have some compassion.
>
>Adam



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%