Guest guest Posted November 19, 2003 Report Share Posted November 19, 2003 Hi! I think it was Paul who said that he didn't think that a vegan diet was natural for humans. If that's the case, why are *you* vegan? Just curious!!=) Elisabeth=) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 19, 2003 Report Share Posted November 19, 2003 >Hi! > >I think it was Paul who said that he didn't think that a vegan diet >was natural for humans. If that's the case, why are *you* vegan? > >Just curious!!=) > Firstly it depends on how you define " natural " , as this is a much mis-used word. But let's assume natural means the way in which we would behave if we still lived like animals, i.e. with little or no technology or agriculture. There seems to be a vague feeling among the new age/raw food types that this kind of " natural " existence is some kind of panacea for all the ills of modern life (although they tend to be very selective as to which of the benefits of modern life they choose to cast out). But even if there were some good reason for returning to a pre-civilised state, the notion that a 100% raw food diet is some part of this is just plain wrong. We've been cooking food for hundreds of thousands of years and our bodies have adapted to his via evolutionary changes. Anyway, to get to your actual question: I'm vegan for a variety of ethical reasons: not wishing to cause suffering to animals, concern for the environment, concern over unfair distribution of resources (food, water, energy) between developed and developing world, etc. The undisputed health benefits of a vegan diet are a nice perk, but not my primary reason for being vegan. I think it's silly to argue that a vegan diet is the most " natural " diet available - it's certainly one of the healthiest diets and there are plenty of good health reasons to go vegan even if you don't share any of the ethical concerns, but arguing from the position that man is a natural herbivore is idiotic and makes vegans appear irrational, which in turn weakens our cause. Regards, Paul -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 19, 2003 Report Share Posted November 19, 2003 , Paul Russell <prussell@s...> wrote: > There seems to be a vague feeling among the new age/raw food types > that this kind of " natural " existence is some kind of panacea for all > the ills of modern life (although they tend to be very selective as > to which of the benefits of modern life they choose to cast out). I've noticed this too! They're convinced that the raw diet will colve all world problems! Well, it wuld improve health no end and improve a lot of eco-concerns etc too with all the related benefits, but it wouldn't change people's greediness and craze for wealth, power and so forth. That's just plain unrealistic.... > But even if there were some good reason for returning to a > pre-civilised state, the notion that a 100% raw food diet is some > part of this is just plain wrong. We've been cooking food for > hundreds of thousands of years and our bodies have adapted to his via > evolutionary changes. That I have to disagree with. We have indeed been cooking for thousands of years but I've seen no evidence to suggest that we have made any 'evolutionary' change to adapt. We've got used to it culturally for sure, but our physiology hasn't changed. Just because we can eat and process a food, doesn't mean we're adapting to it and so forth. > concerns, but arguing from the position that man is a natural > herbivore is idiotic and makes vegans appear irrational, which in > turn weakens our cause. I think this would only be because your average person is convinced that we are genuinely omnivorous and don't like to be told otherwise. I read a quote by an anthropologist who said something to the effect that humans are fructivorous by nature and omnivorous by choice. Many of us may eat an omnivorous diet, but we are not biologically omnivores. Our digestive systems bear little resemblance to carnivores and so on(apart from the obvious shared characteristics with all digestive systems, such as having a stomach, mouth, intestines etc). On the other hand, our herbivorous characteristics are even more pronounced than the accepted herbivores'! Most people will point to having canine or incisor teeth to 'prove' the omnivore line, but the herbivores have these too. Anyway, interesting to hear your thoughts on why you chose veganism. I share most of those too, well all really. The only reasons I don't go for are religious ones - you won't find the Essene Gospel on my shelf!!LOL! Health is my main concern but I am also concerned about ecological, economical, compassionate and other issues. OK, best head off to bed or I'll be in no shape for a full day tomorrow including human biology class in the evening! G'night! Elisabeth=) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 19, 2003 Report Share Posted November 19, 2003 > I think it was Paul who said that he didn't think that a vegan diet > was natural for humans. If that's the case, why are *you* vegan? I never said that, but I would agree with it. We are all omnivores, not much doubt about that really from a biological stand point. But we also have the ability to think for ourselves and decide that this is not necessary and take an ethical choice to do otherwise. We are naturally naked but no one questions why we aren't all nudists (at least where the climate allows). We have evolved to the stage where we can make such decisions and no longer simply rely on instinct. I dare say a heart transplant is highly unnatural too. As Paul says trying to deny the obvious just makes us look foolish and makes it very easy for others to dismiss us. Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 20, 2003 Report Share Posted November 20, 2003 , mavreela <ndisc@m...> wrote: > I never said that, but I would agree with it. We are all omnivores, > not much doubt about that really from a biological stand point. There's plenty of doubt about that! I don't agree with that one little bit! Just because we can chew something up and prcess it does not mean that our digestive systems were designed for it and there's no evidence to suggest that we have adapted in the least - except culturally. That adaptation has been so complete as to have convinced us that anything other than it is plain wierd etc. Comparative anatomy shows that our digestive systems are highly herbivorous with many herbivorous characteristics that are in excess of the accepted herbivores. Our canine teeth are even duller than theirs are and intestinal tract even longer for example. Also, the sheer amount of disease experienced by those on mixed diets which vegans largely avoid, (depending on their other habits and quality of what they do eat - vegan junk food is only marginally better than meat-based junk food), strongly supports the idea that our digestive systems are not ideally suited to a mixed diet and have not changed an adapted so as to be so. These diseases are on the increase, not the decline, with people younger and younger falling prey to formerly old-age degenerative ills and cancers. Yes, that has to do with overall diet quality too, but it is food for thought as well as for an early grave! Yours, Elisabeth=) Vegan - by design!LOL!!=) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.