Can anyone help with bigger brain evoloution discussion?

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

Has anyone encountered the below in a debate before? Not that I want to get into a debate right now, but somebody said this to me and I'd like to know if there's another "truth" to this bigger better brain from meat eating business? Reliable scientific facts would be good to refer to. I have a deep instinctual feeling here that the suffering of other living beings does not lead to "better".

 

Of course we have to consider whether there's any point believing anything on our brain washing boxes, whether presented as scientific fact or otherwise. The "higher powers" use TV to attempt to tailor our lives to the letter, and that's not just by using adverts. Hidden interests that the "higher powers" might have? Well there's taxes from the meat and dairy industry for a start!

 

Thanks for any help with this

 

Jak

 

"I caught a fragment of a science show on television last night on human evolution. They were working in the long-ago. An important part of our evolution was meat-eating. There came a time when tool-making entered the picture. Those who could make the best tools survived those who could not. One integral aspect of the best tool-makering was that they ate meat and developed larger brains than those monkey-types that preferred greens and fruit-type foods. The climb to the larger brain, a chain which led to humans, required meat as fauna grew larger intestines, and high-powered energy food, meat, caused larger brains. There came a loop as meat-eating, tool-making, and superior hunting with superior tools joined forces. Those forces led to the evolution of the human."

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

Bit of a ramble ahead, and please bear in mind that I'm not an expert in

evolutionary science. But that said...

 

It is true (probably) that one of the major leaps forwards in evolution

towards human beings was the advantage gained, for a variety of reasons

including the ones you gave below, from eating of meat. However, that does

not, I think, constitute an argument against veganism today. Our monkey

ancestors thrived on meat because it was the easiest way of getting

everything (nutrients, energy, etc.) they needed, which gave them bigger

brains, which allowed tool-making, which allowed them to eat better, etc.

And meat is still probably the easiest way of getting everything we need

today. But today we can also get everything we need from a careful diet

without meat, so there is no longer that particular evolutionary advantage

to be gained from eating meat.

 

Eating meat was necessary to the evolution leading to man, but that does not

mean it is necessary now. Evolution is a fickle thing, and what is an

advantage at one point in evolution may be a disadvantage at another.

Pandas, for example, thrived by occupying an evolutionary niche no one else

was 'using', by eating only bamboo. Now, however, that same trait which

allowed them to thrive is threatening them with extinction as bamboo becomes

scarce.

 

It may be true that, with hindsight, it will be seen that meat-eaters in

today's society do better than vegans. But equally, the opposite might turn

out to be true. And given the current health and environmental advantages of

being vegan, I think this likely (a vegan uses less resources to survive,

may well live longer from health advantages, etc).

 

As a somewhat frivolous aside, it is also worth noting that an imporant

aspect of evolutionary success is being able to mate - those

creatures/people who mate and breed are those who pass on their genes. So if

being a vegan makes you more attractive to a potential mate in today's

society, that gives veganism an evolutionary advantage!

 

Also consider that vegan parents are likely to produce vegan children,

whilst meat-eating parents are less likely to pass on their love of meat

with as much zeal - those who are vegan believe it is right, so will pass on

their morals, whilst meat-eaters probably haven't thought about it at all,

so won't deliberately pass on the message that one should eat meat. (In a

way, veganism is a dominant meme, whilst meat-eating is a passive one.) So

if vegans produce vegans, whilst meat-eaters produce either meat-eaters or

vegans, it is clear that this would, if couched evolutionary terms, give

veganism an evolutionary advantage. Of course, there is a lot of debate on

just how far evolutionary theory can be applied. But that is probably for

another list!

 

Hope this helps,

 

John

 

 

 

-

" Jak " <jak.remec

 

Wednesday, July 30, 2003 9:54 AM

Can anyone help with bigger brain evoloution discussion?

 

 

Hi,

 

Has anyone encountered the below in a debate before? Not that I want to get

into a debate right now, but somebody said this to me and I'd like to know

if there's another " truth " to this bigger better brain from meat eating

business? Reliable scientific facts would be good to refer to. I have a deep

instinctual feeling here that the suffering of other living beings does

not lead to " better " .

 

Of course we have to consider whether there's any point believing anything

on our brain washing boxes, whether presented as scientific fact or

otherwise. The " higher powers " use TV to attempt to tailor our lives to the

letter, and that's not just by using adverts. Hidden interests that the

" higher powers " might have? Well there's taxes from the meat and dairy

industry for a start!

 

Thanks for any help with this

 

Jak

 

" I caught a fragment of a science show on television last night on human

evolution. They were working in the long-ago. An important part of our

evolution was meat-eating. There came a time when tool-making entered the

picture. Those who could make the best tools survived those who could not.

One integral aspect of the best tool-makering was that they ate meat and

developed larger brains than those monkey-types that preferred greens and

fruit-type foods. The climb to the larger brain, a chain which led to

humans, required meat as fauna grew larger intestines, and high-powered

energy food, meat, caused larger brains. There came a loop as meat-eating,

tool-making, and superior hunting with superior tools joined forces. Those

forces led to the evolution of the human. "

[Guest guest]

Hi John,

 

you brought up some interesting points. The evoloution one really makes

sense. Just because something developed in the past does not mean it always

remains. The nature of evoloution is change afterall!

 

Yes I agree, it could also be true that veganism is a dominant meme, whilst

meat-eating is a passive one

 

Thanks for your thoughtful and interesting response. Given me some good

ideas

 

Jak

-

John Davis

 

Wednesday, July 30, 2003 12:04 PM

Re: Can anyone help with bigger brain evoloution

discussion?

 

 

Hi,

 

Bit of a ramble ahead, and please bear in mind that I'm not an expert in

evolutionary science. But that said...

 

It is true (probably) that one of the major leaps forwards in evolution

towards human beings was the advantage gained, for a variety of reasons

including the ones you gave below, from eating of meat. However, that does

not, I think, constitute an argument against veganism today. Our monkey

ancestors thrived on meat because it was the easiest way of getting

everything (nutrients, energy, etc.) they needed, which gave them bigger

brains, which allowed tool-making, which allowed them to eat better, etc.

And meat is still probably the easiest way of getting everything we need

today. But today we can also get everything we need from a careful diet

without meat, so there is no longer that particular evolutionary advantage

to be gained from eating meat.

 

Eating meat was necessary to the evolution leading to man, but that does not

mean it is necessary now. Evolution is a fickle thing, and what is an

advantage at one point in evolution may be a disadvantage at another.

Pandas, for example, thrived by occupying an evolutionary niche no one else

was 'using', by eating only bamboo. Now, however, that same trait which

allowed them to thrive is threatening them with extinction as bamboo becomes

scarce.

 

It may be true that, with hindsight, it will be seen that meat-eaters in

today's society do better than vegans. But equally, the opposite might turn

out to be true. And given the current health and environmental advantages of

being vegan, I think this likely (a vegan uses less resources to survive,

may well live longer from health advantages, etc).

 

As a somewhat frivolous aside, it is also worth noting that an imporant

aspect of evolutionary success is being able to mate - those

creatures/people who mate and breed are those who pass on their genes. So if

being a vegan makes you more attractive to a potential mate in today's

society, that gives veganism an evolutionary advantage!

 

Also consider that vegan parents are likely to produce vegan children,

whilst meat-eating parents are less likely to pass on their love of meat

with as much zeal - those who are vegan believe it is right, so will pass on

their morals, whilst meat-eaters probably haven't thought about it at all,

so won't deliberately pass on the message that one should eat meat. (In a

way, veganism is a dominant meme, whilst meat-eating is a passive one.) So

if vegans produce vegans, whilst meat-eaters produce either meat-eaters or

vegans, it is clear that this would, if couched evolutionary terms, give

veganism an evolutionary advantage. Of course, there is a lot of debate on

just how far evolutionary theory can be applied. But that is probably for

another list!

 

Hope this helps,

 

John

 

 

 

-

" Jak " <jak.remec

 

Wednesday, July 30, 2003 9:54 AM

Can anyone help with bigger brain evoloution discussion?

 

 

Hi,

 

Has anyone encountered the below in a debate before? Not that I want to get

into a debate right now, but somebody said this to me and I'd like to know

if there's another " truth " to this bigger better brain from meat eating

business? Reliable scientific facts would be good to refer to. I have a deep

instinctual feeling here that the suffering of other living beings does

not lead to " better " .

 

Of course we have to consider whether there's any point believing anything

on our brain washing boxes, whether presented as scientific fact or

otherwise. The " higher powers " use TV to attempt to tailor our lives to the

letter, and that's not just by using adverts. Hidden interests that the

" higher powers " might have? Well there's taxes from the meat and dairy

industry for a start!

 

Thanks for any help with this

 

Jak

 

" I caught a fragment of a science show on television last night on human

evolution. They were working in the long-ago. An important part of our

evolution was meat-eating. There came a time when tool-making entered the

picture. Those who could make the best tools survived those who could not.

One integral aspect of the best tool-makering was that they ate meat and

developed larger brains than those monkey-types that preferred greens and

fruit-type foods. The climb to the larger brain, a chain which led to

humans, required meat as fauna grew larger intestines, and high-powered

energy food, meat, caused larger brains. There came a loop as meat-eating,

tool-making, and superior hunting with superior tools joined forces. Those

forces led to the evolution of the human. "

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Evolution hasn’t stopped . there are

higher humans who live compassionate lives and the more brutal ones who still

believe that taking life is fun.   Luckily we are in the more highly developed

group

-----Original

Message-----

Jak

[jak.remec]

30 July 2003 09:55

 

Can anyone help

with bigger brain evoloution discussion?

 

 

Hi,

 

 

 

 

 

Has anyone encountered the below in

a debate before? Not that I want to get into a debate right now, but somebody

said this to me and I'd like to know if there's another " truth " to

this bigger better brain from meat eating business? Reliable scientific facts

would be good to refer to. I have a deep instinctual feeling here that the

suffering of other living beings does not lead to " better " .

 

 

 

 

 

Of course we have to consider

whether there's any point believing anything on our brain washing boxes,

whether presented as scientific fact or otherwise. The " higher

powers " use TV to attempt to tailor our lives to the letter, and

that's not just by using adverts. Hidden interests that the " higher

powers " might have? Well there's taxes from the meat and dairy industry

for a start!

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for any help with this

 

 

 

 

 

Jak

 

 

 

 

 

" I caught a fragment of a

science show on television last night on human evolution. They were working in

the long-ago. An important part of our evolution was meat-eating. There came a

time when tool-making entered the picture. Those who could make the best tools

survived those who could not. One integral aspect of the best tool-makering was

that they ate meat and developed larger brains than those monkey-types that

preferred greens and fruit-type foods. The climb to the larger brain, a chain

which led to humans, required meat as fauna grew larger intestines, and

high-powered energy food, meat, caused larger brains. There came a loop as

meat-eating, tool-making, and superior hunting with superior tools joined

forces. Those forces led to the evolution of the human. "

 

 

 

 

~~ info

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please remember that the above is only the opinion

of the author,

there may be another side to the story you have

not heard.

---------------------------

Was this message Off Topic? Did you

know? Was it snipped?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>

Un: send a blank message to

-

 

Your use of

is subject to the

Terms of Service.

 

 

---

Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release 18/07/2003

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release 18/07/2003

[Guest guest]

I feel there are different types of humans too. Sometimes I wonder if it's being snobish and higher than thou but really it does seem there are different forms of humans. Personally I think the ones who think more about their existance, who then are usually more likely to think about others existance too, allowing for compassion and this is a more superior human to be

 

Jak

 

-

Angie Wright

Wednesday, July 30, 2003 7:43 PM

RE: Can anyone help with bigger brain evoloution discussion?

 

 

Evolution hasn’t stopped . there are higher humans who live compassionate lives and the more brutal ones who still believe that taking life is fun. Luckily we are in the more highly developed group

Jak [jak.remec] 30 July 2003 09:55 Subject: Can anyone help with bigger brain evoloution discussion?

 

 

Hi,

 

 

 

Has anyone encountered the below in a debate before? Not that I want to get into a debate right now, but somebody said this to me and I'd like to know if there's another "truth" to this bigger better brain from meat eating business? Reliable scientific facts would be good to refer to. I have a deep instinctual feeling here that the suffering of other living beings does not lead to "better".

 

 

 

Of course we have to consider whether there's any point believing anything on our brain washing boxes, whether presented as scientific fact or otherwise. The "higher powers" use TV to attempt to tailor our lives to the letter, and that's not just by using adverts. Hidden interests that the "higher powers" might have? Well there's taxes from the meat and dairy industry for a start!

 

 

 

Thanks for any help with this

 

 

 

Jak

 

 

 

"I caught a fragment of a science show on television last night on human evolution. They were working in the long-ago. An important part of our evolution was meat-eating. There came a time when tool-making entered the picture. Those who could make the best tools survived those who could not. One integral aspect of the best tool-makering was that they ate meat and developed larger brains than those monkey-types that preferred greens and fruit-type foods. The climb to the larger brain, a chain which led to humans, required meat as fauna grew larger intestines, and high-powered energy food, meat, caused larger brains. There came a loop as meat-eating, tool-making, and superior hunting with superior tools joined forces. Those forces led to the evolution of the human."

~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, there may be another side to the story you have not heard.---------------------------Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>Un: send a blank message to -

[Guest guest]

Yes ,and vegans who care about animals

tend to be caring about people too.

Animal eaters especially those who

don’t like animals are not very nice people (from observation)

 

I expect hunters are really nasty people .

Luckily I don’t know any

-----Original

Message-----

Jak

[jak.remec]

30 July 2003 22:02

 

Re: Can anyone

help with bigger brain evoloution discussion?

 

 

I feel there are different types of

humans too. Sometimes I wonder if it's being snobish and higher than thou but

really it does seem there are different forms of humans. Personally I think the

ones who think more about their existance, who then are usually more

likely to think about others existance too, allowing for compassion and this is

a more superior human to be

 

 

 

 

 

Jak

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release 18/07/2003

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release 18/07/2003

[Guest guest]

I'm not sure of the details, and I might have heard it from the same TV

program, but it makes sense to me. It makes sense to me that an

omnivorous diet would have provided hominids with more protein, and

enabled them to grow larger brains.

 

(Obviously, we're talking about hominids on the african savannah, in

real danger of running out of food. Not modern humans, in real danger of

obesity.)

 

There are a couple of other factors which would also mean that an

omnivorous diet could accelerate the evolution into a more intelligent

population.

 

Firstly, if an omnivorous diet does yield more fat, that might help

power the brain. Your brain eats up a disproportionately big amount of

your calorie intake. (I can't remember what it is, but I'd guess a

third.) This makes it easier to grow a bigger brain.

 

Secondly, you have to be substantially smarter to catch antelopes than

to catch blackberries. (Not that either is an absolute no-brainer.) This

increases the evolutonary pressure towards higher intelligence.

 

So, although I'm not providing any real evidence either way here, my gut

instinct is that the program is probably right.

 

The important thing for vegans to realise is that this has no bearing on

either the health of modern western humans (who can get all the protein

their brain and body needs), or on morality (which, IMHO, does not

depend on being 'natural'.) So I think it's completely irrelevant to

veganism.

[Guest guest]

i'm not sure that it's particularly nice to think of those who are more compassionate to be more superior or those not compassionate as inferior.... as anyone who is compassionate will know that those who are not compasssionate have their particular lifestyle for reasons often beyond their control...

 

isn't that what being compassionate is all about ?

 

to think you are superior is arrogant... and can only destroy one's compassion by turning it into a game of oneupmanship

 

'i'm compassionate to animals therefore i am superior to you' ??!!

 

then why are you not compassionate to the person you are talking to? why make them feel like an inferior schmuck?

 

compassion extends to everything... not just animals...

 

to think about one's existence is fine ... but they are no greater a person than the person who doesn't think about their existence and just gets on with participating in their own life...

 

it is being snobbish...

 

let's go back to measuring head sizes and shoe sizes and colour of skin to judge intelligence shall we?

 

sort the UberMensch from the cavemen?

 

it's merely a form of racism...

 

 

Jak [jak.remec]

I feel there are different types of humans too. Sometimes I wonder if it's being snobish and higher than thou but really it does seem there are different forms of humans. Personally I think the ones who think more about their existance, who then are usually more likely to think about others existance too, allowing for compassion and this is a more superior human to be

 

Jak

[Guest guest]

There are no reasons beyond their control

unless they are a child /mental defective /elderly and dependant /imprisoned in

some way/living on the streets with no money . Most adults can get their

own food and have enough money, to be vegan (cheaper).

 

So yes I do feel superior to

rapists/murderers/animal killers/vivisectionists /child beaters/millionaires .

The person I am speaking to won’t

know I feel superior, as I am trying to get them to change (and if they do then

I won’t be superior)

 

Its hunters and the like and those who

think AR people are idiots . I KNOW I am superior to them. Not only will

they abuse me first but they will continue in their evil way having been told .

They do understand so don’t defend the scum

 

All vegans are superior so animal abusers

because they are compassionate . I’ll stake my life on it that they are

nicer to people as well . It is something they have cultivated in themselves

over the years of helping others less fortunate in whatever way they can.

 

Cruel people have blinded themselves to

the cruelty or worse have cultivated their cruel streak.

 

Angie (Happy to be arrogant

,as I know Vegans-- especiallyAR vegans-- are superior, and they

don’t just get on with their own life, they actively try to help animals

do the same, and try to hinder the cruel bastards )

 

-----Original

Message-----

Oliver Slay

[oliver]

31 July 2003 11:35

 

RE: Can anyone

help with bigger brain evoloution discussion?

 

 

i'm not sure that it's

particularly nice to think of those who are more compassionate to be more

superior or those not compassionate as inferior.... as anyone who is

compassionate will know that those who are not compasssionate have their

particular lifestyle for reasons often beyond their control...

 

 

 

 

 

isn't that what being

compassionate is all about ?

 

 

 

 

 

to think you are superior

is arrogant... and can only destroy one's compassion by turning it into a

game of oneupmanship

 

 

 

 

 

'i'm compassionate to

animals therefore i am superior to you' ??!!

 

 

 

 

 

then why are you not

compassionate to the person you are talking to? why make them feel

like an inferior schmuck?

 

 

 

 

 

compassion extends to

everything... not just animals...

 

 

 

 

 

to think about one's

existence is fine ... but they are no greater a person than the

person who doesn't think about their existence and just gets on with

participating in their own life...

 

 

 

 

 

it is being snobbish...

 

 

 

 

 

let's go back to

measuring head sizes and shoe sizes and colour of skin to judge intelligence

shall we?

 

 

 

 

 

sort the UberMensch from

the cavemen?

 

 

 

 

 

it's merely a form of

racism...

 

 

 

Jak

[jak.remec]

 

I feel there are different types of

humans too. Sometimes I wonder if it's being snobish and higher than thou but

really it does seem there are different forms of humans. Personally I think the

ones who think more about their existance, who then are usually more

likely to think about others existance too, allowing for compassion and this is

a more superior human to be

 

 

 

 

 

Jak

 

 

 

 

 

~~ info

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please remember that the above is only the opinion

of the author,

there may be another side to the story you have

not heard.

---------------------------

Was this message Off Topic? Did you

know? Was it snipped?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>

Un: send a blank message to

-

 

Your use of

is subject to the

Terms of Service.

 

 

---

Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release 18/07/2003

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release 18/07/2003

[Guest guest]

so why aren't they all vegan then? what is it about them that stops them from doing it ? ... is it personal? something they've lived with all their lives and their parents before them ... is it culturally induced .... promoted by big industries ? ... marketed ? ...

 

don't most people judge what is ok by what everyone else around them is doing ? ... by whether the majority is doing it ? ... one big massive mutual consensus on ok-ness?

 

true we stepped out of that ... and saw for ourselves ... we were lucky ... not superior...

 

 

 

Angie Wright [angiewright]

 

Most adults can get their own food and have enough money, to be vegan (cheaper).

 

[Guest guest]

you're right, I agree with you.

 

but hey you being a compassionate person will understand the frustration that leads one to such "snobbish" thinking when seeing humans act in such barbaric ways. like you say, be compassionate to the person you're speaking to and don't make them feel an inferior schmuck. i agree. yes we all have our reasons for our reactions and lifestyles, including you and me.

 

if you read my other posts you will see I do often attempt to understand what leads people to do what they do.

 

it's easier to talk about this at the "drawing board" so to speak, but when you go out there in practice around people who don't care, it's a lot harder. i'm sure you being a compassionate person can understand that

 

Jak

 

-

Oliver Slay

Thursday, July 31, 2003 11:35 AM

RE: Can anyone help with bigger brain evoloution discussion?

 

i'm not sure that it's particularly nice to think of those who are more compassionate to be more superior or those not compassionate as inferior.... as anyone who is compassionate will know that those who are not compasssionate have their particular lifestyle for reasons often beyond their control...

 

isn't that what being compassionate is all about ?

 

to think you are superior is arrogant... and can only destroy one's compassion by turning it into a game of oneupmanship

 

'i'm compassionate to animals therefore i am superior to you' ??!!

 

then why are you not compassionate to the person you are talking to? why make them feel like an inferior schmuck?

 

compassion extends to everything... not just animals...

 

to think about one's existence is fine ... but they are no greater a person than the person who doesn't think about their existence and just gets on with participating in their own life...

 

it is being snobbish...

 

let's go back to measuring head sizes and shoe sizes and colour of skin to judge intelligence shall we?

 

sort the UberMensch from the cavemen?

 

it's merely a form of racism...

 

 

Jak [jak.remec]

I feel there are different types of humans too. Sometimes I wonder if it's being snobish and higher than thou but really it does seem there are different forms of humans. Personally I think the ones who think more about their existance, who then are usually more likely to think about others existance too, allowing for compassion and this is a more superior human to be

 

Jak~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, there may be another side to the story you have not heard.---------------------------Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>Un: send a blank message to -

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

I think you're both touching on two different points here, which are perhaps

becoming confused.

 

The first is cultural determinism: namely, to what extent are we responsible

for our thoughts and actions, and/or to what extent can we alter them?

 

If we are entirely at the whim of nature and nurture, then it could be

argued that vegans are not 'superior', but, as you say, lucky our nature has

allowed us to break free from society's general acceptance of meat-eating.

In the same way an athlete, a great thinker, a musician, all of these people

are lucky that they have the skills and environment in which to nuture them

that they do, not superior.

 

On the other hand, if we are all, to a greater or lesser extent, free to

choose our morals, and decide our own actions, then if judged on a scale of

'cruelty to animals', with not being cruel as better than being cruel, then

vegans are superior to meat-eaters. Of course, it is also worth bearing in

mind that on other scales someone who is vegan may not be superior to

someone who is not. Take, for example, a meat-eater who devotes time and

energy to human rights movements, and compare them to a vegan who does not.

In terms of animal cruelty, the vegan is superior; in terms of human

cruelty, the meat-eater is superior.

 

 

The second point is more one of semantics. If we are entirely determined by

nature and nuture, it might make sense to say someone vegan, or gifted, or

strong, is lucky rather than superior. But even then, only if the word

superior is taken as including an aspect of self-alteration, the praise of

which we wish to remove by using the word lucky instead. If, on the other

hand, the word superior simply means 'better' according to a particular

scale, then someone stronger than someone else, in terms of strength, is

superior. And someone who is vegan is superior, in terms of animal cruelty,

than someone who eats meat.

 

John

 

-

" Oliver Slay " <oliver

 

Thursday, July 31, 2003 12:54 PM

RE: Can anyone help with bigger brain evoloution

discussion?

 

 

so why aren't they all vegan then? what is it about them that stops

them from doing it ? ... is it personal? something they've lived with

all their lives and their parents before them ... is it culturally

induced .... promoted by big industries ? ... marketed ? ...

 

don't most people judge what is ok by what everyone else around them is

doing ? ... by whether the majority is doing it ? ... one big massive

mutual consensus on ok-ness?

 

true we stepped out of that ... and saw for ourselves ... we were lucky

.... not superior...

 

 

 

Angie Wright [angiewright]

 

 

 

Most adults can get their own food and have enough money, to be

vegan (cheaper).

 

 

 

 

 

**

[Guest guest]

simply put .... it's all a matter of 'choice'.

 

if you think that we have something we can call 'choice' then we are superior...

 

if you think that choice is an illusion ... then we are lucky...

 

i don't have any control over which way the neurons in my head fire ... one day left .. the other right ... depends if it's raining .. or if someone shouts at me ... or if i have found previous situations like this pleasurable or painful ... every turn is a complex mishmash of history, memory and external events ...

 

when i have a 'choice' ... i am very much biased by everything that has already happened ... as to what i 'choose' ... so can one really say i have 'willfully chosen' anything ...

 

and if i can't willfully choose then how can i be superior to someone else who hasn't willfully chosen and hasn't yet connected to veganism ? ...

 

which is basically what you have said from a different viewpoint ... :-)

 

there is no self ... just a flow of percepti into the brain and out again as an intention, an action... and these pathways are modified and remodified from the moment of birth or before... when we find these pathways forming structures that cause us to repeat certain actions ... we see a larger pattern emerging ... and we start to identify with it ... it appears as tho we have a self ... one we can define ... by it's actions which are unique to ourselves... but one that is only a complicated pathway through the brain, a pattern reinforced by constant repitition ... one that can only break by severe external events ... trauma ... like seeing a cow being slaughtered ... and people laughing as they slaughter it ... then your pathways must be broken ... or by our pathway joining with another pathway as it develops ... the 'Eureka' event ...

 

 

 

 

 

John Davis [mcxg46] Hi,I think you're both touching on two different points here, which are perhapsbecoming confused.The first is cultural determinism: namely, to what extent are we responsiblefor our thoughts and actions, and/or to what extent can we alter them?The second point is more one of semantics. If we are entirely determined bynature and nuture, it might make sense to say someone vegan, or gifted, orstrong, is lucky rather than superior. But even then, only if the wordsuperior is taken as including an aspect of self-alteration, the praise ofwhich we wish to remove by using the word lucky instead. If, on the otherhand, the word superior simply means 'better' according to a particularscale, then someone stronger than someone else, in terms of strength, issuperior. And someone who is vegan is superior, in terms of animal cruelty,than someone who eats meat.John

[Guest guest]

Hi Oliver,

 

> which is basically what you have said from a different viewpoint ... :-)

 

But probably rather more clearly!

 

>there is no self ... just a flow of percepti into the brain and out

>again as an intention, an action.

 

Hmm. That's a tough issue. And probably one for a science list rather than a

vegan one, so apologies to anyone I'm about to bore! But to briefly mention

a few points...First, I think it is wrong to say that 'all there is' the

firing of neurons, and the reinforcement of neural paths (or social

conditioning, if you prefer nurture over nature). Certainly that is all

there is physically, but the sense of self, or the mind, does have an

existence of sorts, in so much as we are aware of it. It is, if you like, an

emergent property of the brain. An illusion, in so much as it has no

physical existence, but an illusion which 'exists'. In the same way as the

qualia 'red' exists, in so much we experience the colour red, even though it

has no physical existence.

 

Second, it fairly common knowledge now that we act and make decisions before

we are aware of having done so. The famous 'ruler' experiment, where people

were told to hold a ruler against a wall and decide when to drop it, and

measurements taken of the brain showed that the instruction to the arm to

drop the ruler fired off before the decision did. Which has now been

repeated more accurately. And from that, it is easy to conclude that there

is no free will. What we consider our sense of self is merely 'watching' our

body and brain, being informed of what it has decided to do or think.

 

But there are several other theories, which explain this fact, and suggest

that there may be free will. The simplist - and one of the few I can get my

head round myself - is the idea that yes, the firing of neurons to decide to

move/think/act begins before we are consciously aware of having made the

decision. But we are aware of it before the movement occurs, and, if we

choose, we can cancel that decision. So the mind, in affect, chooses which

actions to allow and which to over-rule. This makes sense in evolutionary

terms of how the brain evolved, too, as it allows the speed of instinctive

reaction, coupled with the advantage of more considered thought.

 

I could go on - and on and on! - as this is one of the subjects that

interests me. But I'm aware that this is a vegan site not one on EP or

neural science, so will be quiet now. If you want to continue this

discussion off-list, though, by all means email me.

 

Cheers,

 

John

 

-

" Oliver Slay " <oliver

 

Thursday, July 31, 2003 1:38 PM

RE: Can anyone help with bigger brain evoloution

discussion?

 

 

simply put .... it's all a matter of 'choice'.

 

if you think that we have something we can call 'choice' then we are

superior...

 

if you think that choice is an illusion ... then we are lucky...

 

i don't have any control over which way the neurons in my head fire ...

one day left .. the other right ... depends if it's raining .. or if

someone shouts at me ... or if i have found previous situations like

this pleasurable or painful ... every turn is a complex mishmash of

history, memory and external events ...

 

when i have a 'choice' ... i am very much biased by everything that has

already happened ... as to what i 'choose' ... so can one really say i

have 'willfully chosen' anything ...

 

and if i can't willfully choose then how can i be superior to someone

else who hasn't willfully chosen and hasn't yet connected to veganism ?

....

 

which is basically what you have said from a different viewpoint ... :-)

 

there is no self ... just a flow of percepti into the brain and out

again as an intention, an action... and these pathways are modified and

remodified from the moment of birth or before... when we find these

pathways forming structures that cause us to repeat certain actions ...

we see a larger pattern emerging ... and we start to identify with it

.... it appears as tho we have a self ... one we can define ... by it's

actions which are unique to ourselves... but one that is only a

complicated pathway through the brain, a pattern reinforced by constant

repitition ... one that can only break by severe external events ...

trauma ... like seeing a cow being slaughtered ... and people laughing

as they slaughter it ... then your pathways must be broken ... or by

our pathway joining with another pathway as it develops ... the 'Eureka'

event ...

 

 

 

 

 

John Davis [mcxg46]

 

 

Hi,

 

I think you're both touching on two different points here, which

are perhaps

becoming confused.

 

The first is cultural determinism: namely, to what extent are we

responsible

for our thoughts and actions, and/or to what extent can we alter

them?

 

 

The second point is more one of semantics. If we are entirely

determined by

nature and nuture, it might make sense to say someone vegan, or

gifted, or

strong, is lucky rather than superior. But even then, only if

the word

superior is taken as including an aspect of self-alteration, the

praise of

which we wish to remove by using the word lucky instead. If, on

the other

hand, the word superior simply means 'better' according to a

particular

scale, then someone stronger than someone else, in terms of

strength, is

superior. And someone who is vegan is superior, in terms of

animal cruelty,

than someone who eats meat.

 

John

 

 

 

 

**

[Guest guest]

sorry ... i thought that because you were of superior brain .. that you could cope with this level of discussion ...

 

i'm sensitive ... not necessarily compassionate...

 

frustration ...

my girlfriend's ex-partner thought (and told her) that my girlfriend needed therapy when they were together... because he was ok ... he loved her... he was sane ... and she behaved in strange ways that he couldn't understand... and if he was ok then something was wrong with her ... so he thought she should go to a therapist ... but it was quite simple ... she didn't love him the same way ... he never listened to her - she could never tell him because he would get all upset immediately and sulk - ie not listen... and so he could never see why she behaved the way she did ... and to him she was going mad ... so (to his mind) she needed therapy ... and he was pretty frustrated by the whole thing ... and she is far from needing any therapy ...

 

his frustration was caused by a) not listening ... and not giving her the space to say what she needed to say without arguing back immediately... b) not respecting her as an individual with her own mind and reasons for acting... c) suggesting she did things that were not right for her so that she would eventually live the life he thought they should be living ... whether or not it was right for her... but it was right for him ...

 

 

 

 

Jak [jak.remec] 31 July 2003 13:11 Subject: Re: Can anyone help with bigger brain evoloution discussion?

you're right, I agree with you.

 

but hey you being a compassionate person will understand the frustration that leads one to such "snobbish" thinking when seeing humans act in such barbaric ways. like you say, be compassionate to the person you're speaking to and don't make them feel an inferior schmuck. i agree. yes we all have our reasons for our reactions and lifestyles, including you and me.

 

if you read my other posts you will see I do often attempt to understand what leads people to do what they do.

 

it's easier to talk about this at the "drawing board" so to speak, but when you go out there in practice around people who don't care, it's a lot harder. i'm sure you being a compassionate person can understand that

 

Jak

[Guest guest]

is that not an assumption? ... that a 'sense of self' has an existence separate from the physical workings of the brain? ...

 

this argument has been done in JCS ... (Journal of Consciousnes Studies) ... www.imprint.co.uk ... check the archives ...

 

 

 

 

John Davis [mcxg46] Hmm. That's a tough issue. And probably one for a science list rather than avegan one, so apologies to anyone I'm about to bore! But to briefly mentiona few points...First, I think it is wrong to say that 'all there is' thefiring of neurons, and the reinforcement of neural paths (or socialconditioning, if you prefer nurture over nature). Certainly that is allthere is physically, but the sense of self, or the mind, does have anexistence of sorts, in so much as we are aware of it. It is, if you like, anemergent property of the brain. An illusion, in so much as it has nophysical existence, but an illusion which 'exists'. In the same way as thequalia 'red' exists, in so much we experience the colour red, even though ithas no physical existence.

[Guest guest]

Gilbert Ryle wrote a good book on this ... it has a good chapter on Will ...

er...

The Concept of Mind ... written a while ago ... but very lucid...

 

 

 

John Davis [mcxg46]

 

But there are several other theories, which explain this fact, and suggestthat there may be free will. The simplist - and one of the few I can get myhead round myself - is the idea that yes, the firing of neurons to decide tomove/think/act begins before we are consciously aware of having made thedecision. But we are aware of it before the movement occurs, and, if wechoose, we can cancel that decision. So the mind, in affect, chooses whichactions to allow and which to over-rule. This makes sense in evolutionaryterms of how the brain evolved, too, as it allows the speed of instinctivereaction, coupled with the advantage of more considered thought.

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

Haven't read that one. If I recall, I was first very depressed by Figments

of Reality, which described the brain in entirely deterministic fashion,

then given hope by Horgan's The Science of the Mind, which suggested

alternative conclusions from the 'ruler' experiment.

 

Out of interest, do you have a science background? I don't - I just read the

occasional popular science book...which is to say justabout enough to

pretend I know what I'm talking about at dinner parties!

 

John

-

" Oliver Slay " <oliver

 

Thursday, July 31, 2003 3:06 PM

RE: Can anyone help with bigger brain evoloution

discussion?

 

 

Gilbert Ryle wrote a good book on this ... it has a good chapter on Will

....

er...

The Concept of Mind ... written a while ago ... but very lucid...

 

 

 

John Davis [mcxg46]

 

 

But there are several other theories, which explain this fact,

and suggest

that there may be free will. The simplist - and one of the few I

can get my

head round myself - is the idea that yes, the firing of neurons

to decide to

move/think/act begins before we are consciously aware of having

made the

decision. But we are aware of it before the movement occurs,

and, if we

choose, we can cancel that decision. So the mind, in affect,

chooses which

actions to allow and which to over-rule. This makes sense in

evolutionary

terms of how the brain evolved, too, as it allows the speed of

instinctive

reaction, coupled with the advantage of more considered thought.

 

 

 

 

**

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

>is that not an assumption? ... that a 'sense of self' has an existence

>separate from the physical workings of the brain? ...

 

I would not like to try and argue that it is separate from the physical

workings of the brain - it emerges from the physical workings of the brain,

and is so entirely reliant on it for existence. I'd like to say it is a part

of the brain, save that it doesn't have a 'physical' existence, which is why

I prefer to say emergent, and compare it to qualia.

 

But I do think it has an existence. I think I'd argue that there is no way

we can think, or act, or think about acting, without utilising this sense of

self. How can we think without thinking that we think? How can I write this

without thinking about it?

 

In a way it is a self-referential argument, I know, that a sense of self

must exist because a sense of self is the thing that allows me to think, and

I know I think because I'm thinking about a sense of self. But I'm not sure

that makes it less so.

 

So I wouldn't say that the sense of self itself is an assumption, as it is

not only, in a sense, observable, but it is not possible to conceive of a

world-view - or indeed, anything - without it being present.

 

Oh, and I'm heading off for a long weekend in about half an hour. So if I

don't reply to anything you say next, it isn't because I'm ignoring you!

 

John

 

 

 

-

" Oliver Slay " <oliver

 

Thursday, July 31, 2003 3:02 PM

RE: Can anyone help with bigger brain evoloution

discussion?

 

 

is that not an assumption? ... that a 'sense of self' has an existence

separate from the physical workings of the brain? ...

 

this argument has been done in JCS ... (Journal of Consciousnes Studies)

.... www.imprint.co.uk ... check the archives ...

 

 

 

 

John Davis [mcxg46]

 

 

Hmm. That's a tough issue. And probably one for a science list

rather than a

vegan one, so apologies to anyone I'm about to bore! But to

briefly mention

a few points...First, I think it is wrong to say that 'all there

is' the

firing of neurons, and the reinforcement of neural paths (or

social

conditioning, if you prefer nurture over nature). Certainly that

is all

there is physically, but the sense of self, or the mind, does

have an

existence of sorts, in so much as we are aware of it. It is, if

you like, an

emergent property of the brain. An illusion, in so much as it

has no

physical existence, but an illusion which 'exists'. In the same

way as the

qualia 'red' exists, in so much we experience the colour red,

even though it

has no physical existence.

 

 

 

 

**

[Guest guest]

Because they are selfish and don’t

give a toss about animals . It is an easier life if you go around with your

eyes closed. Just putting money into someones tin occasionally but not

altering your lifestyle. So many people donate to shac and then give to cancer

research and don’t think about the anomaly

 

We saw and we acted They saw

(or were told by us ) but did nothing because it is easier/less hassle.

We did not have to act (not luck !) we chose the harder path because we are

kinder/more caring /nicer people i.e. superior

 

Angie Who looks up to know one

but vegans ,and who looks down on animal eaters (and cannot eat with them ) and

hunters etc etc

 

-----Original

Message-----

Oliver Slay [oliver]

 

31 July 2003 12:54

 

RE: Can anyone

help with bigger brain evoloution discussion?

 

 

so why aren't they all

vegan then? what is it about them that stops them from doing

it ? ... is it personal? something they've lived with all their

lives and their parents before them ... is it culturally induced

..... promoted by big industries ? ... marketed ? ...

 

 

 

 

 

don't most people judge

what is ok by what everyone else around them is doing ? ... by whether the

majority is doing it ? ... one big massive mutual consensus on ok-ness?

 

 

 

 

 

true we stepped out of

that ... and saw for ourselves ... we were lucky ... not superior...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Angie Wright

[angiewright]

Most adults can get their

own food and have enough money, to be vegan (cheaper).

 

 

 

 

 

~~ info

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please remember that the above is only the opinion

of the author,

there may be another side to the story you have

not heard.

---------------------------

Was this message Off Topic? Did you

know? Was it snipped?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>

Un: send a blank message to

-

 

Your use of

is subject to the

Terms of Service.

 

 

---

Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release 18/07/2003

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release 18/07/2003

[Guest guest]

i grew up in a house in the country ... no neighbours... i have a background in which there was lots of science ... then languages and philosophy ... then to computing ... and the odd bit of alternative medicine... i read some science and some popular science ... mixtures of the two ...

 

maybe the individual brain is .. in isolation ... deterministic ... but it develops in a social environment where it must interact and is subjected to many different outside (seemingly random) influences...

 

Gilbert Ryle is expertly rational ... i haven't finshed it ... it's tough going ...

 

 

John Davis [mcxg46] Hi,Haven't read that one. If I recall, I was first very depressed by Figmentsof Reality, which described the brain in entirely deterministic fashion,then given hope by Horgan's The Science of the Mind, which suggestedalternative conclusions from the 'ruler' experiment.Out of interest, do you have a science background? I don't - I just read theoccasional popular science book...which is to say justabout enough topretend I know what I'm talking about at dinner parties!John

[Guest guest]

have you read any Krishnamurti ? ... looks like you might like it ... (totally non-religious stuff)...

 

i dunno ... i thought those people who live in the moment .... or do fast sports... in rock climbing, car racing, archery... one can lose one's sense of self ... by being in the Here and Now...

 

 

 

John Davis [mcxg46] But I do think it has an existence. I think I'd argue that there is no waywe can think, or act, or think about acting, without utilising this sense ofself. How can we think without thinking that we think? How can I write thiswithout thinking about it?

[Guest guest]

so it's an easier life ... and their actions of giving money to the odd tin to temporarily relieve their own guilt supports their easy life ... and isn't all about comfort ... and avoiding disruption of what is felt to be normal ... because change is stressful ... questioning oneself is hard ...

 

perhaps we had to question ourselves ... it had become a personal issue ... the pain we see ... was no longer a comfort to eat meat ... we had to become vegan because we knew what was happening ... we had connected with it ... we had connected the meat on the plate to the abattoirs and slaughterhouses and dairy industry ... we looked into it ... to relieve our pain ...

 

so perhaps they don't feel the pain ... because they are numb? ... or rather distracted from it ... not connected... but they feel comfortable being distracted from the pain they might feel ... why would they want to feel pain .. when the other choice is what they know? ...

 

people switch off violence if it upsets them ... then calm down and watch something else ... very few watch it, get all enraged and then start a big campaign against the producers and broadcasters...

 

perhaps most people's reactions to veganism is merely avoidance of thinking about all the suffering involved ... it's about protecting themself from pain ... and perhaps only when they can no longer deny it to themselves by first hand experience of the suffering involved ... or thinking about a part of it that causes them to investigate further ... only then will they have to face it ... and then move away from it by avoiding meat ... etc ...

 

 

 

Angie Wright [angiewright]

 

Because they are selfish and don’t give a toss about animals . It is an easier life if you go around with your eyes closed. Just putting money into someones tin occasionally but not altering your lifestyle. So many people donate to shac and then give to cancer research and don’t think about the anomaly

 

We saw and we acted They saw (or were told by us ) but did nothing because it is easier/less hassle. We did not have to act (not luck !) we chose the harder path because we are kinder/more caring /nicer people i.e. superior

 

Angie Who looks up to know one but vegans ,and who looks down on animal eaters (and cannot eat with them ) and hunters etc etc

 

Oliver Slay [oliver] 31 July 2003 12:54 Subject: RE: Can anyone help with bigger brain evoloution discussion?

 

 

so why aren't they all vegan then? what is it about them that stops them from doing it ? ... is it personal? something they've lived with all their lives and their parents before them ... is it culturally induced .... promoted by big industries ? ... marketed ? ...

 

 

 

don't most people judge what is ok by what everyone else around them is doing ? ... by whether the majority is doing it ? ... one big massive mutual consensus on ok-ness?

 

 

 

true we stepped out of that ... and saw for ourselves ... we were lucky ... not superior...

 

 

 

Angie Wright [angiewright]

Most adults can get their own food and have enough money, to be vegan (cheaper).

 

~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, there may be another side to the story you have not heard.---------------------------Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>Un: send a blank message to -

[Guest guest]

Doing a demo helps you to lose the sense

of self  What is so special about Self  when lives are being lost ? Self only

lasts for 70 odd years ?

-----Original

Message-----

Oliver Slay

[oliver]

31 July 2003 15:51

 

RE: Can anyone

help with bigger brain evoloution discussion?

 

 

have you read any

Krishnamurti ? ... looks like you might like it ... (totally

non-religious stuff)...

 

 

 

 

 

i dunno ... i thought

those people who live in the moment .... or do fast sports... in rock

climbing, car racing, archery... one can lose one's sense of self

.... by being in the Here and Now...

 

 

 

 

 

 

John Davis

[mcxg46]

But I do think it has an existence. I think I'd argue

that there is no way

we can think, or act, or think about acting, without

utilising this sense of

self. How can we think without thinking that we

think? How can I write this

without thinking about it?

 

 

 

 

~~ info

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please remember that the above is only the opinion

of the author,

there may be another side to the story you have

not heard.

---------------------------

Was this message Off Topic? Did you

know? Was it snipped?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>

Un: send a blank message to

-

 

Your use of

is subject to the

Terms of Service.

 

 

---

Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release 18/07/2003

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release 18/07/2003

[Guest guest]

They don’t bother to feel the pain

because if they did they would have to act on it and stop eating animals.

We cant stop all the cruelty but by not eating animals we can easily stop our

bit of cruelty , but they want to be able to socialise etc so don’t allow

themselves to think about it .

 

How often have you known people at stalls

refuse to take a leaflet “because it upsets me”. We want it to

upset them so they will get active . But being selfish they want an easier life

..

 

I agree with the last paragraph

-----Original

Message-----

Oliver Slay

[oliver]

31 July 2003 16:06

 

RE: Can anyone

help with bigger brain evoloution discussion?

 

 

so it's an easier life

.... and their actions of giving money to the odd tin to temporarily relieve

their own guilt supports their easy life ... and isn't all about comfort ...

and avoiding disruption of what is felt to be normal ... because change is stressful

.... questioning oneself is hard ...

 

 

 

 

 

perhaps we had to

question ourselves ... it had become a personal issue ... the pain we see ...

was no longer a comfort to eat meat ... we had to become vegan because we knew

what was happening ... we had connected with it ... we had connected the meat

on the plate to the abattoirs and slaughterhouses and dairy industry ... we

looked into it ... to relieve our pain ...

 

 

 

 

 

so perhaps they don't

feel the pain ... because they are numb? ... or rather distracted from it ...

not connected... but they feel comfortable being distracted from the pain

they might feel ... why would they want to feel pain .. when the other choice

is what they know? ...

 

 

 

 

 

people switch off

violence if it upsets them ... then calm down and watch something else

.... very few watch it, get all enraged and then start a big campaign

against the producers and broadcasters...

 

 

 

 

 

perhaps most people's

reactions to veganism is merely avoidance of thinking about all the

suffering involved ... it's about protecting themself from pain ... and

perhaps only when they can no longer deny it to themselves by first hand

experience of the suffering involved ... or thinking about a part of it that causes

them to investigate further ... only then will they have to face it ...

and then move away from it by avoiding meat ... etc ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Angie Wright

[angiewright]

Because they are selfish

and don’t give a toss about animals . It is an easier life if you go

around with your eyes closed. Just putting money into someones tin

occasionally but not altering your lifestyle. So many people donate to shac and

then give to cancer research and don’t think about the anomaly

 

We saw and we acted

They saw (or were told by us ) but did nothing because it is

easier/less hassle. We did not have to act (not luck !) we chose the

harder path because we are kinder/more caring /nicer people i.e. superior

 

 

Angie Who looks

up to know one but vegans ,and who looks down on animal eaters (and cannot eat

with them ) and hunters etc etc

 

-----Original

Message-----

Oliver Slay

[oliver]

31 July 2003 12:54

 

RE: Can anyone

help with bigger brain evoloution discussion?

 

 

so why

aren't they all vegan then? what is it about them that stops

them from doing it ? ... is it personal? something they've lived

with all their lives and their parents before them ... is it

culturally induced .... promoted by big industries ? ... marketed ? ...

 

 

 

 

 

don't

most people judge what is ok by what everyone else around them is doing ? ...

by whether the majority is doing it ? ... one big massive mutual

consensus on ok-ness?

 

 

 

 

 

true we

stepped out of that ... and saw for ourselves ... we were lucky ... not

superior...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Angie Wright

[angiewright]

Most

adults can get their own food and have enough money, to be vegan (cheaper).

 

 

 

~~ info

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please remember that the above is only the opinion

of the author,

there may be another side to the story you have

not heard.

---------------------------

Was this message Off Topic? Did you

know? Was it snipped?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>

Un: send a blank message to

-

 

Your use of

is subject to the

Terms of Service.

 

 

 

~~

info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please remember that the above is only the opinion

of the author,

there may be another side to the story you have

not heard.

---------------------------

Was this message Off Topic? Did you

know? Was it snipped?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>

Un: send a blank message to

-

 

Your use of

is subject to the

Terms of Service.

---

Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release 18/07/2003

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release 18/07/2003

 

 

 

 

~~ info

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please remember that the above is only the opinion

of the author,

there may be another side to the story you have

not heard.

---------------------------

Was this message Off Topic? Did you

know? Was it snipped?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>

Un: send a blank message to

-

 

Your use of

is subject to the

Terms of Service.

 

 

---

Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release 18/07/2003

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release 18/07/2003