Veganism?

[Shai Gar]

While looking for the information to prove you wrong ZC, I came across this little beautiful critter.

this is off topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monito_del_Monte

The Monito del Monte ("little mountain monkey", Dromiciops gliroides) is a semi-arboreal South American marsupial which is thought to be more closely related to the marsupials of Australasia than to those of the Americas. Many scientists believe that marsupials traveled from South America to Australia via Antarctica, where fossils of marsupials have been found.[3] The existence of the Monito del Monte in South America suggests that some marsupials reached South America from Australia, as did a monotreme (Monotrematum), fossils of which have been found in Argentina.

Also known as the Colocolo or Chimaihuén, it is only a little larger than a mouse: about 8 to 13 centimetres (3.1 to 5.1 in) long with a thick-based, moderately prehensile tail about the same length again. Weight varies between 17 and 31 grams (0.60 and 1.1 oz). It has a coat of short, dense, silky fur, brown on the upper side with a number of ashy white patches, and paler underneath. The ears are short and rounded, and there are black rings around the eyes.

Monitos del Monte are found only in the mountains of Chile and Argentina, preferring dense, humid forests, particularly where there are areas of Chilean bamboo. It is reported to be reasonably common within its restricted range. Pairs make nests of leaves and sticks, about 20 cm in diameter and lined with grass or moss, in a variety of places: under rocks, in hollow trees, on branches, or suspended in thick shrubbery.
Monitos del Monte are largely carnivorous. Most of their diet is insects and other small invertebrates, although they may also take some fruit. They are nocturnal, and excellent climbers with both feet and tail, but equally at home on the ground. They have an extraordinary ability to rapidly accumulate a reserve of fat in the tail, being able to double their body weight within a week. This reserve is enough to sustain them through periods of cold weather, during which they hibernate.

Mating takes place in the spring and early summer, and results in a litter of between one and five young, which are carried in the well-developed pouch. Sexual maturity is reached in the second year.

There are a number of superstitions concerning the Monito del Monte. Some think that it has a venomous bite that induces convulsions, while others have been known to burn down their homes if they see a Monito del Monte inside.

 

[ZenCat]

Right. But dogs are still classified as Carnivores. Developing omnivorous eating habits as a means of survival does not make them not carnivores. Being a scavenging Carnivore allows for survival by eating omnivorously when ideal food sources can not be obtained.

As far as the Giant Panda question goes, it may be an oddity (like your Australian egg-laying mammals) or an animal in the midst of an evolution. Pandas are not particularly good at being herbivores yet, due to their still-carnivorous physiology:

Pandas are carnivores at the origin, and while herbivorous mammals can digest 80 % of what they eat, pandas do it for just 17 % (that's why they eat so much).

Panda will also consume meat when it has the chance, like rabbits, small rodents and fish, for completing the protein requirements, and other plants, besides bamboo.

List of extant carnivores

• Felines, ranging from domestic cats to lions, tigers, cheetahs and leopards.
• Some Canines, such the Gray Wolf and coyote. Domestic dogs and red foxes are broadly considered carnivorous but are able to digest some vegetable matter making them somewhat omnivorous. The Smithsonian Institution has listed them as carnivores, because of their dental makeup and digestive tract.

Columbia Encyclopedia: carnivore Home > Library > Miscellaneous > Columbia Encyclopedia
(kär'nəvôr') , term commonly applied to any animal whose diet consists wholly or largely of animal matter. In animal systematics it refers to members of the mammalian order Carnivora (see Chordata). This large order is divided into two suborders, the Fissipedia, or land carnivores, and the Pinnipedia, or fin-footed carnivores. The Fissipedia encompasses two superfamilies: one (Canoidea) includes the dog, bear, raccoon, and weasel families and the other (Feloidea) includes the cat, civet, and hyena families. The Pinnipedia, often classified as a separate order, includes the seal, sea lion, and walrus families. The term herbivore refers to animals whose diets consist wholly or largely of plant matter; omnivore refers to animals that eat both animal and plant matter. Unlike the term carnivore, these terms do not refer to any one group in animal systematics.Bibliography
See R. F. Ewer, The Carnivores (1986); J. L. Gittleman, Carnivore Behavior, Ecology, and Evolution (1989).

 

[Shai Gar]

See my post about the puppy prefering to eat my vegemite sangas, rather than prime blade steak.

 

[ZenCat]

Right.

I know of several dogs who have eaten cellphones. Does that make them Electrovores? And even more who have eaten television remote controls... Audiovisualvores? How about the panty-eating dogs? Lingerievores?

My own dog, unbeknownst to me when I adopted him, ate (at the age of 12 weeks) a Pokeball, containing Gengar. Does that make him an Animevore?

I had a greyhound who, if you gave him a piece of lettuce, would grab it with bulging eyes and dash into the living room, guarding it as he gulped with growls and hackles raised. My other two dogs won't eat lettuce even if I drop it on the floor.

I don't know a single dog who wouldn't eat chocolate if it was offered to them, or if they found it laying around, and yet it is one of the most toxic substances to their physiology. I can't count the number of cases of dogs killed by eating deliberately-poisoned meat. It's all part of the scavenger mindset.

Goats, apparently, eat tin cans, yet they are ruminants. I don't care HOW many stomachs you have, you're never going to digest a tin can. *shrug*

ETA: Goats don't typically eat tin cans, it's an urban legend. However they can and do eat things made from plant matter (cardboard, books, etc.) and plants toxic enough to kill them.

 

[Roddy]

I completely agree. Humans beat out animals on the hierarchy. That's just the way it is. Humans hunting animals has been going on for thousands of years, and it is practically written in our DNA. No need to overdue it; we should only take what we need for a healthy diet. I know there may be "substitutes" for meat, but in my opinion there is none.

Just one quick point. This idea that we are higher up on the animal heirarchy than other animals and hence should eat them is a bizarre argument.

We might well have evolved sharp teeth that are perfect for tearing up flesh, but since then we have also evolved a massive brain. With this brain we can now understand nutrition enough to choose our own diet. We can also use our free will and compassion to end a lot of suffering. What I'm saying is that it comes down to a choice - do you want to eat other animals or not?! Simple as that. No evolution argument necessary. We used to burn witches and think the world was flat, now just because we done it in the past doesn't make it necessarity right, does it.

Back to the health benefits of a vegetarian diet for humans. It's been proven that avoiding eating meat can increase life expectancy. It lowers your risk of heart disease, certain cancers, diabetes, osteoporosis and cholestorol. So claiming that we need meat in our diet in order to be healthy is a complete falacy. I'm going to try and find studies that show what a SAD diet (standard American diet) does to your health. It showed that most obese people were actually malnourished! Even though they eat plenty, all the food they do eat including a large quantity of meat contains very little nutrients.

 

[arbygil]

Hello, Roddy!

I do think it's a choice, though. A study was done in the early part of this century (and I apologize for not finding the scientist's name and/or reference) regarding different cultures and their natural food sources. All around the world, people were at their healthiest when they ate foods directly related to their environments. Certain African tribes ate nothing but cattle and cow's blood, and they were extremely healthy (teeth, body condition, etc. all were in peak condition). While other Asian cultures had strictly vegetarian diets, and were in their peak conditions for their culture.

With the advent of more processed foods and people moving from place to place, and folks marrying different cultures, we no longer know exactly what we should eat for our culture. Some Americans will do quite well on a vegetarian diet, while others must have red meat to supplement to be at their healthiest.

Tl;dr: We're all different, and we need to discover what foods are best for ourselves, on an individual basis. You're right - many obese people are malnourished. But it might not be meat. It might be sugars or white flour or processed foods making them obese. Or even starches.

 

[Zanshin]

This idea that we are higher up on the animal heirarchy than other animals and hence should eat them is a bizarre argument.

It's not really that bizarre, and it doesn't mean we have to eat them. What I meant was IMO God put animals on this earth for us to eat/use. Meaning I believe we have priority over animals, hence we can eat them. I am a strong believer in using as much of the animal as possible when killing though - I hate to be wasteful. Unfortunately, this only really happens in tribes.

About being healthy, if you can find alternate sources of protein and other goodies found in meat, go for it. However, I think that man was meant to eat meat and I've heard that if you don't you get sick. That's just hearsay though, but I don't want to test it... seems unnatural, and that's really what it boils down to for me. Again, we shouldn't go buck wild with killing for food. I think it should mainly be kept to livestock, and no extravagant dishes such as shark fin soup. Killing sharks just for their fins to make an unnecessary dish is unacceptable.

You bring up a good point about us evolving brains, so we can find more food options out there today. I agree, but does anyone really love cows that much? Is that what being a vegan/vegetarian is about? To save cows and other animals killed for food? Maybe I'm missing something.

I'm not judging anyone who is or isnt a vegan/vegetarian. You can eat what you want. It's your body and your choices. I'm just stating my view on the subject.

 

[arbygil]

Sometimes, Zanshin, the argument is about farmers and livestock destroying the land with artificial chemicals, or about soil erosion because the livestock ate all the grass/weeds protecting the good soil. And of course, there's the whole big corporation argument.

I believe in a balance, and I want to support my local farmers. I'd love to be part of a co-op, but I neither have the money nor is one near me.

More's the pity.

 

[Shai Gar]

Hydroponicly grow all your veges.

 

[arbygil]

That's a thought, as long as it's not too expensive. I've thought about planting a small garden (I have room for a tiny one) and growing root veggies, and lettuce. Maybe a tomato plant, if I can handle it.

My green thumb is brown (literally and figuratively).

 

[Shai Gar]

My green thumb is red... (i've gotta put away my whiteboard markers)

 

[dylan]

I don't have much to add about veganism itself, y'all have pretty much covered all the bases, but to add to what arbygil brought up about localism (yay local! boo agro-business!), and tying in the sad SAD, here's an interesting Bill Moyers interview from a few weeks back...

Pt. 1:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/11282008/watch.html

Pt. 2:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/11282008/watch2.html

 

[slant]

For some reason the majority of religious people seem to think that animals were put on the planet to be eaten. Well, what if they were put on the planet for other uses? Fertiziling the grasses with their shit could be one of them. And why is it that I never hear from a religious person's mouth that we are 'upsetting the natural course of nature by killing what god created'? Eh? I just don't get it.

Man and animal coexist in a partnership besides just eating them. Take horses for example. We used to use them a lot, because they were helpful with labor back when technology hadn't grown so much. Now we don't need them so we slaughter them and serve dishes of meat that are pumped up with so much hormones that kids are hitting puberty early. Maybe eating meat isn't the problem; Maybe it's the ways it's done that's unappealing to a lot of vegans.

I think being and atheist/agnostic go hand in hand with veganism for this reason.

I won't drink milk because of the hormones. I can taste them. It's gross. Red meat is particularly bad for females to eat a lot of, poultry isn't that bad. =/ I guess what I'm saying here is that I'm not really on either side, I'm not a vegan, but I can see the benefits of being one. I don't really see any cons to it if you're getting enough protein. There a lot of negatives to being a meat eater, so I don't understand why anyone would want to be one. The only reason I eat meat is because economically, meat is the cheapest kind of protein. Soy products are hitting the roof in prices now-a-days. Good health seldom comes cheap.

 

[Reon]

Slant: The basic 'idea' still persist, the animals were placed on this earth and, with that thought in mind, we should preserve them; I think, anyway haha.

Edit: I read the two links posted by dylan, I think everyone should.

 

[Shai Gar]

Are you kidding? Chickens are pumped full of estrogen so that 11 year old girls are getting large tits.

 

[Zanshin]

For some reason the majority of religious people seem to think that animals were put on the planet to be eaten. Well, what if they were put on the planet for other uses? Fertiziling the grasses with their shit could be one of them. And why is it that I never hear from a religious person's mouth that we are 'upsetting the natural course of nature by killing what god created'? Eh? I just don't get it.

I see your point, but keep in mind some animals won't hesitate to kill you. Does God forgive them for killing one of his humans? Animals need food too and you may look tasty to them. What if the natural cycle is the food chain? God didn't speak to animals and have a bible written for them. Seems implied that God favors humans over animals. There's probably something in the bible that says something like this, but i'm not sure. What it comes down to is necessity - if you don't need it, then don't kill it. I love animals. Just not the ones I eat. That would just be weird.

BTW i'm all about organic and all natural products. Artificial shit wasnt meant to be in our diet and society is seeing the consequences. Most milk that I see for sale dont have hormones in it. Really its just about looking for things that say 100% natural, organic, or "no hormones added" and staying away from artificial stuff in foods.

 

[ZenCat]

Sometimes, Zanshin, the argument is about farmers and livestock destroying the land with artificial chemicals, or about soil erosion because the livestock ate all the grass/weeds protecting the good soil. And of course, there's the whole big corporation argument.

I believe in a balance, and I want to support my local farmers. I'd love to be part of a co-op, but I neither have the money nor is one near me.

More's the pity.

I'm with arbygil 100% on this. Could not have said it so concisely myself (thanks for that!). In fact, need to add...

• Factory farming. Whether or not you "love" cows (or chickens, turkeys, pigs, etc.) if you research or better yet visit a factory farm, you'd have to be a hard person indeed to look it in the face and not feel like a greedy, entitled, elitist over-consumer.
• Global imports of unseasonable produce. Why should we be demanding - for example - a steady supply of strawberries in the frozen Northeast US in the middle of January?. The first time I went to a grocery store in another country (Italy) I was STUNNED. I had never realized how incredibly entitled and demanding of EVERYTHING we are here in the U.S. It changed my food consumerism tendencies forever. I not only try to buy organic, but locally (under 100 mile rule applies) as well as seasonally as appropriate to the area where I live.
• Prepackaged/Processed food. It serves no other purpose than to feed our moral downfall of demanding instant and superficial gratification and destroys any real, wholesome, even respectful "relationship" we might have with food and nurturing our bodies.

 

[slant]

I see your point, but keep in mind some animals won't hesitate to kill you. Does God forgive them for killing one of his humans? Animals need food too and you may look tasty to them. What if the natural cycle is the food chain? God didn't speak to animals and have a bible written for them. Seems implied that God favors humans over animals. There's probably something in the bible that says something like this, but i'm not sure. What it comes down to is necessity - if you don't need it, then don't kill it. I love animals. Just not the ones I eat. That would just be weird.

Why wouldn't hypothetical god forgive an animal for killing a human? And if you're going that way [ I see what you're trying to get at 'Well if god forgives animals why wouldn't he forgive humans?'] Why wouldn't god forgive a man for killing another man? The bible's concept of killing seems very vague. Let's kill animals. They don't matter. Saying god favors humans over animals is like saying my mom favors me over my other sister. We're all brothers and sisters if god made us, right? And then, if we're going on that tangent and you still disagree, does that mean ANIMALS are beneath us, yet killing isn't?

 

[ZenCat]

If religion is going to be brought into it, there are plenty of faiths - including some Christian faiths (Seventh Day Adventits, Catholics during lent and on Fridays), as well as the Muslim and Jewish faiths - which prohibit the eating of "unclean" meat (predominantly pork) and many faiths - i.e. some Hindus, particularly Brahmins, and Buddhists - which consider the consumption of meat altogether "ungodly".

So I think it's fairly narrow to assume that god "wants" us to kill and eat meat and favors us over animals, unless you choose to believe that there is more than one god or that there is only one and all the rest are false and irrelevant. But if there is only one god (the Christian god), and he forbids some Christians to eat meat, how is it safe to assume that he considers us above animals?

But that's a whole other debate, isn't it?

 

[arbygil]

Slant & Zan, I think religion should come out of the equation. Honestly? There are vegetarian religious people just as there are atheist, hard-core meat eaters. And are you talking about all religions, or just one in particular--?

Because a lot of Buddhists are vegetarian, as are Hindi.

ETA: ROFL! ZC beat me to it.

One more thing: I would say yes, a good number of Christians are meat eaters, but vegetarians in *general* are rare. I think the reasons why people become vegetarian can change - and therefore, some Christians [the ones I'm assuming you're talking about] will be vegetarian, but they would become vegetarians because of health reasons, and less for ethical ones.

Is the reason more important than the cause? I hope not.

I think there are quite a few Christian vegetarians. It's just that the more vocal Christians are hard-core meat eaters who haven't closely examined (or don't live through) Genesis.