PDA

View Full Version : is being vegetarian against nature or with nature?



akash
07-22-2020, 10:02 PM
My dad is from a hindu family and my mom muslim. The two families could not be more opposite, my mom side heavy eaters, while my dad side mostly vegetarians only eating chicken or fish once in a while.

For me obviously I am meat eater, because being vegetrian trully restricts you to expolore so many amazing cusines in the world, but I also like Indian vege food mostly at home.

My question though is, what is more against nature? being vegetarian or non vegetarian?

Sometimes I trully felt sad for the cousins in my dad side of the family, who never tasted beef burger for example or even so many different types of meat kebabs

Varun R
07-22-2020, 10:24 PM
To me, this seems like a weird question. Humans are naturally omnivorous and well adapted to absorbing nutrients from plant and animal sources. Historically, diet was constrained by the climatology and ecology of a given region, with wide differences in diet between dissimilar regions. These days, we have much greater freedom in choice of foodstuffs available, so it is possible to obtain adequate nutrition from a combination of plant and animal sources or plant sources alone. Neither diet type is against nature, as the cultural and technological climate we've created around food consumption and distribution supports both =/

Ana2354
08-16-2020, 03:52 PM
I have been vegan for several years, I am so strict on this issue, that I was struggling for several months with an issue related to my hair loss. Until I found a vegan product to take care of my hair (https://camiconestilo.com/cual-es-el-mejor-tratamiento-para-el-cabello-graso/) , I did not apply it to my body, I do the same with my diet and so far I have felt many improvements in my state of health.

Saetro
08-16-2020, 08:34 PM
Not sure what "nature" is.
What have people mostly done in the past?
They have eaten the foods that are available.
But at some times, some very abrupt swings can be made.
Some groups along the sea shore, for example, ate lots of shellfish at one time, as we can see from enormous mounds of shell middens.
And then they stopped abruptly, and would only eat land-based forms of protein.
So some of our habits are choices for no apparent biological reason.

Going way back, there is evidence that people we may think of as meat eaters seldom ate meat - perhaps mainly when an annual migration of animals came through.
The rest of the time they ate root vegetables, grains, fruits and other plant parts.

I have direct and indirect evidence of the diets of most of my ancestral lines 100 years ago.
One stated "we ate a lot of porridge [when he was young], fish and porridge".
Others were miners and could not write. But visitors to the area recorded that miners there had large cottage gardens.
And also that they ate a lot of porridge. (Made from grain.)
When some bad years came through and the vegetables in their gardens rotted, they could not make a living and migrated elsewhere.
A third group had been farming intensely on small acreages, with a patch of grain and lots of vegetables.
Not sure about their animals, but they usually had a cow for milk.
When they came to their new country, they were noted for the same methods at first.
They produced a great surplus of vegetables which they sold to others.
Not sure about other animals.
Know someone from that family who preferred vegetarian.
(Sources of vegetable protein then were not adequate to go vegan.)

Observations by others of diets over the centuries - even Western European ones - suggest that the level of meat consumption now common is usually much higher than historically over the last say 10 centuries.
Numerical analysis of food sources into the future suggests that traditional animal protein sources will decline in quantity.
While most people will choose to eat meat when they can, it will be less often than now.

There are always personal health reasons why one diet or another suits an individual.
Recently, some sports people in my country have said they never felt so good eating a ..... diet.
I have seen the gap filled by "vegan" (mostly) and "meat based".
I have known people who have sensitivities to ingredients in various food items: some plant, some animal.

So, eat what keeps you healthy.
Your individual nature is probably what matters most.
In the past, people have usually eaten what was available - mostly plants.

C J Wyatt III
08-16-2020, 08:45 PM
If you are vegan, just do not try and make your cat vegan. It does not work.

Andour
08-16-2020, 08:53 PM
I'll risk a politically incorrect statement here (I occasionally allow myself to produce one!).

In the light of what I know of my five hundred years of rural ancestry, I tend to think that being a vegan is somehow a spoilt brat's privilege. Veganism is an option you consider only on a full stomach.

As a father of two and grandfather of four, I keep my fingers crossed that, if the planet keeps running on its collision course with disaster, no-one in my family will ever go hungry.

I strongly advise reading this short story: it's only three pages long, and tells a lot about the complacency that prevails in some circles - which can afford it:

http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/SpeaEngl794.shtml

JerryS.
08-16-2020, 09:25 PM
people who select a special diet (as in turn away from natural foods be they plants or animal based), have never really been hungry.

evon
08-16-2020, 09:33 PM
By nature, do you mean genetics? As that is a question with many answers for different peoples, such as the example of lactose tolerance.

JMcB
08-16-2020, 09:46 PM
My dad is from a hindu family and my mom muslim. The two families could not be more opposite, my mom side heavy eaters, while my dad side mostly vegetarians only eating chicken or fish once in a while.

For me obviously I am meat eater, because being vegetrian trully restricts you to expolore so many amazing cusines in the world, but I also like Indian vege food mostly at home.

My question though is, what is more against nature? being vegetarian or non vegetarian?

Sometimes I trully felt sad for the cousins in my dad side of the family, who never tasted beef burger for example or even so many different types of meat kebabs

Judging from the history of humanity, I would think the only option that is against nature, is the one that says you should exclusively choose one over the other.

digital_noise
08-17-2020, 02:11 AM
I think we were primarily vegetarians with occasional animal based protein when we could. I try to mimic this in my daily life to the best of my ability. I’ve stopped consuming factory farmed proteins. The meat I do consume is more expensive, tases better and is “healthier”, if I can say that? I also don’t eat it as much.

I don’t think we were designed to eat as much meat as we do and the fall out is health issues and pollution. There’s a large cattle farm on I-5, north of LA, maybe by Bakersfield area? Anyways, Driving past these farms is disgusting. It’s like a huge cow fart cloud, and the smell is repulsive.

Afshar
08-17-2020, 05:20 AM
Against imo. I dont think there ever existed a vegetarian community (not religion-based).

evon
08-17-2020, 08:13 AM
Against imo. I dont think there ever existed a vegetarian community (not religion-based).

The same can be said for meat though.

Riverman
08-17-2020, 09:05 AM
Veganism is unnatural for humans insofar, as their dietary predisposition is omnivorous with a high proportion of animal proteins being practically everywhere included in the traditional diets. Without which, the human body and brain suffers individually and on the population level and the latest human evolution wouldn't have been possible at all. The same applies to Vegetarianism in an allevieted form. Basically its an artificial lifestyle created which is more sustainable than sheer Veganism, but its based on animal products which character is even more "unnatural" than eating meat for primates, especially milk and milk products.

What one could say, to sum it up, is that humans can live very well primarily from meat and animal products, but not exclusively from a plant based diet without a more artificial compensations based on industrial supplements and non-regional food production.

The best and healthist option is of course a mixed diet with a low percentage of industrial and highly processed foods, whether vegetarian or not. Vegan is an extreme and non-healthy choice on the long run, especially for pregnant women and young kids. Later in life and with modern options it can be balanced out of course, but only if sticking to a nutritional plan.

Ibericus
08-17-2020, 11:32 AM
I think a mixed diet is probably the healthiest. But mixed doesn't mean veggies for lunch and steak for dinner, it means red meat once or twice a month, maybe once a week max.

In fact there's not enough farm land to feed the entire world on the kind of diet we have in the west. It's not only unhealthy but physically impossible.

Finn
08-17-2020, 11:58 AM
Eating meat means a higher ecological footprint that's clear.

But I must admit I still eat meat but in fact mostly chicken and fish. When possible biological.

Johnny ola
08-17-2020, 12:23 PM
It depends where you live actually.I cannot imagine someone from Scandinavia,North Germany or Netherlands being 100% vegetarian...this is actually suicide :lol:

Pylsteen
08-17-2020, 12:37 PM
It's fully up to yourself what you eat and what not, as long as your cultural surroundings allow you to make a choice about that, and as long as you are able to get enough nutrients, it doesn't matter much whether it is unnatural or not - most we do is unnatural, e.g. being online all the time :p I myself are a huge fan of the Meditteranean diet, I should eat more fish for that though.

Finn
08-17-2020, 02:06 PM
It depends where you live actually.I cannot imagine someone from Scandinavia,North Germany or Netherlands being 100% vegetarian...this is actually suicide :lol:


I don't know in the Netherlands we are now nearly committing suicide ;) because of the overproduction. Picture this: take a map compare the US with the Netherlands, tiny Dutch big US nevertheless the Netherlands is the second large agricultural exporteur in the world.....
https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2018/01/the-netherlands-is-the-second-largest-agricultural-exporter-after-us/

The agricultural sector is high tech, nevertheless animals produce manure .... nitrogen emissions, which makes nature in our country even a monoculture .....

Johnny ola
08-17-2020, 02:38 PM
I don't know in the Netherlands we are now nearly committing suicide ;) because of the overproduction. Picture this: take a map compare the US with the Netherlands, tiny Dutch big US nevertheless the Netherlands is the second large agricultural exporteur in the world.....
https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2018/01/the-netherlands-is-the-second-largest-agricultural-exporter-after-us/

The agricultural sector is high tech, nevertheless animals produce manure .... nitrogen emissions, which makes nature in our country even a monoculture .....

I know these things, but as northern you go then more the human body needs Meat. It is Harder for people in northern EU to be vegetarian compared to people in more meditteranid, tropical climates. It is not by luck or preference that Scandinavians and northen europeans or northern Americans eating the most Meat. The human body needs Meat to survive in Low Temperature. As a person who live in South europe(Greece) it is easier for me to have a non-meat diet compared to average Russian,Swedish, danish, canadian etc. So, climate plays a role as well.

Finn
08-17-2020, 03:05 PM
I know these things, but as northern you go then more the human body needs Meat. It is Harder for people in northern EU to be vegetarian compared to people in more meditteranid, tropical climates. It is not by luck or preference that Scandinavians and northen europeans or northern Americans eating the most Meat. The human body needs Meat to survive in Low Temperature. As a person who live in South europe(Greece) it is easier for me to have a non-meat diet compared to average Russian,Swedish, danish, canadian etc. So, climate plays a role as well.

I guess it's more a habit. Indeed in the days of my grandparents with hard labor work on the field....But nowadays. We just got a nine days tropical heat record. And the last time the 200km skating event called "elfstedentocht (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elfstedentocht)" is already 23 years ago ;(

I guess with our whole day online lifestyle- with some lockdowns in between- a mediterranean or veggie meal will do.

But I must admit when I cook at home then especially in winter I am the stamppot champion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamppot

Not an export product johnny :biggrin1:

jstephan
08-17-2020, 03:05 PM
Vegans need B12 supplements, because human body can't produce it, and the only source is animal. I think just this proves that humans are not shaped to be strictly vegans, vegetarians maybe.... Personally I can't live without beef but at the same time I not totally in phase with the industrial way to produce meat.

Johnny ola
08-17-2020, 03:11 PM
I guess it's moe a habit. Indeed in the days of my grandparents with had labor work on the field....But nowadays. We just got a nine days tropical heat record. And the last time the 200km skating event called "elfstedentocht (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elfstedentocht)" is already 23 years ago ;(

I guess with our whole day online lifestyle- with some lockdowns in between- a mediterranean or veggie meal will do.

But I must admit when I cook at home then especially in winter I am the stampot champion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamppot

Not an export product johnny :biggrin1:

Cool. I remember from my trips in Netherlands the street-fish method.Fish is healthy and really good for visibillity.

Kirtan24
08-17-2020, 03:34 PM
I would like to present my two cents. Firstly, I do not know how you define "against nature" or "for nature". I will define "for nature" as "causing only as much harm to nature as necessary". I do realize, that even this is not a very rigorous definition and subject to many "subjectivities", but as Bertie Wooster would say - dash it, can't always have it all! So let's consider some points:

1) Negative impact on the environment: All the evidence suggests that a meat-heavy diet causes a more negative footprint on the environment. This is especially the case in today's times, where most of the meat comes from factory farming and meat consumption in many countries can only be called excessive.

Animal products account for only 18% of overall calories consumed worldwide, but still use up 83% of the land.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth

A ton of beef requires 16730 cubic meters of water on average. Pork takes it home with 5470 cubic meters. Compare these numbers to 1440 cubic meters for wheat, 740 for milk and only 130 for potatoes.

One could go on and on. The article sums it up well, for anyone interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production#Consumptio n_and_production_trends

2) Nutritional necessity: I would argue that today there is no necessity for a meat-heavy diet or even a moderately meat-based diet. A plant-based/plant-and-dairy-based diet covers all the nutrients that humans need. I am not using terms like vegan because I do not want to promote the cult-like propaganda radiated by many so-called vegans, but my point is that a plant-based diet is nutritionally more than adequate.

Author and researcher Dan Buettner set out to find whole communities where the occurrence of centenarians is most common. Not anecdotal cases here and there, but populations which consistently live to a hundred, and that too in good health.
He summarized his findings in his book called "The Blue Zones". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Zone

He attempted to figure out the common lifestyle factors among these communities, to better narrow down the reasons for their health and longevity. One of the common characteristics was a predominantly plant-based diet.
Now, most of the communities do not comprise of some holier-than-thou, you-shall-come-to-the-fold-or-die vegans, but of people who have incorporated a plant-based diet since generations - in harmony with their surroundings, with nature.

3) Our responsibility as humans toward animals: This one may sound a bit controversial, but have we not, as a collective civilization, come to a point where we are in the fortunate position to reflect upon the consequences of our dietary choices? I am not talking about those who are suffering from hunger or poverty, but those of us, who can make a conscious decision. It is no secret that animals are kept in horrible conditions and go through terrible pain before their deadened flesh lands on our plates.
If we ask ourselves - is there truly a reason for me to kill an animal and make it suffer (apart from just the momentary tingling of the good old taste buds)? Do I have an alternative? If the honest answers to those questions are "no" and "yes", respectively, then we do have some thinking to do.

And with the sincere hope that I have not come across as a ghastly proselytizer and that I haven't hurt anyone's feelings all that much, I rest my case.

Finn
08-17-2020, 03:35 PM
Vegans need B12 supplements, because human body can't produce it, and the only source is animal. I think just this proves that humans are not shaped to be strictly vegans, vegetarians maybe.... Personally I can't live without beef but at the same time I not totally in phase with the industrial way to produce meat.

B12 is part of eggs, milk and cheese...(most-Northern-Europeans are eating/drinking lots of them). When you are veganist it's another story.

Kirtan24
08-17-2020, 03:36 PM
Vegans need B12 supplements, because human body can't produce it, and the only source is animal. I think just this proves that humans are not shaped to be strictly vegans, vegetarians maybe.... Personally I can't live without beef but at the same time I not totally in phase with the industrial way to produce meat.

Neither are animals a source for B12. Animals can't produce it themselves. Most of the times it is injected in the meat. B12 is produced by microbes in the soil.

jstephan
08-17-2020, 03:47 PM
Neither are animals a source for B12. Animals can't produce it themselves. Most of the times it is injected in the meat. B12 is produced by microbes in the soil.

Yes, still the main source for humans remains animal and I think it was the case for our ancestors too even if the B12 found in meat is not produced by the animal himself.

Johnny ola
08-17-2020, 03:49 PM
The point is vegetarian or not our diet nowdays is not the best. Lucky people those who have a farm or something. Injections taking place everywhere in the western world.

Kirtan24
08-17-2020, 03:53 PM
Yes, still the main source for humans remains animal and I think it was the case for our ancestors too even if the B12 found in meat is not produced by the animal himself.

I agree, that the primary source of B12 for humans today are animal products, but I would beg to differ with the claim that it must have been the case for our ancestors too. As late as a century or two ago, water had enough B12, as it was not sanitized and purified as much as today. So water back then had enough B12 from the soil. Now we don't get that B12 with water anymore, but we don't get Cholera as well :D


In earlier times, humans acquired vitamin B12 in the same way. Our ancestors spent most of their daytime hours foraging for foods and most of their calories came from roots and tubers pulled up from the ground. Those plant parts were eaten without first being washed in (modern-day) chlorinated drinking water. As a result, humans ingested bacterial B12 from the surface of root vegetables, just as the grazing animals did (and do).



When humans were thirsty, they would drink their fill from a stream and, in so doing, swallowed more B12-producing organisms in the stream water. Later, when wells were dug, vitamin B12 was present in almost every bucket of well water.



Thus, until the beginning of the 20th century, humans (vegan or not) lived more earth-connected lives, ate harvested plants and drank from streams, rivers, and wells. As a result, there was ample B12 flowing through human bodies from the same, natural sources as swallowed and ingested by grazing animals, which means even vegans could expect to handily meet B12 needs without consuming animal flesh or dairy products.

https://www.doctorklaper.com/b12

jstephan
08-17-2020, 03:59 PM
I agree, that the primary source of B12 for humans today are animal products, but I would beg to differ with the claim that it must have been the case for our ancestors too. As late as a century or two ago, water had enough B12, as it was not sanitized and purified as much as today. So water back then had enough B12 from the soil. Now we don't get that B12 with water anymore, but we don't get Cholera as well :D



https://www.doctorklaper.com/b12

Thanks for this very interesting . Makes more sense in term of evolution that way.

Riverman
08-17-2020, 07:02 PM
I think a mixed diet is probably the healthiest. But mixed doesn't mean veggies for lunch and steak for dinner, it means red meat once or twice a month, maybe once a week max.

In fact there's not enough farm land to feed the entire world on the kind of diet we have in the west. It's not only unhealthy but physically impossible.

I like the movie "The Road to Wellville", if you want to know where the whole Vegetarianism is coming from, and which ideas were floating around in the "health & wellness" scene of the 19th and early 20th century, this movie is an entertaining instruction. The humour might be sometimes silly, but many references are quite important.

What I think is particularly important to note is what was written on one of the banners in the Vegetarian institutions (analogously): "The purpose of life is to prolong it."

And that's a very fundamental problem, because its the wrong perspective. The goal of life is to live it full, to found a family, to achieve something which persists after ones death. Whether someone gets 60, 70 or 110 years is, in comparison to what really matters, insignificant. If people could really survive some years longer, by having no sex, no kids, no risk, no fun, no meat, no adventure, so what?

Besides, the studies produce conflicting results and talking about the effects of diet on health, much more depends on the individual lifestyle as a whole and its genetic predispositions! There are simply diets which might be best for one, but not for the next. Many studies which compare dietary styles just use one set of disposition, but "forget" to mention that the very same diet causes, oftentimes, other negative effects, which are, however, in the Western world not as widespread. But they would, once a different dietary regime would be established.

And the idea that people in the past have eaten meat very, very rarely, is for most of the world, especially its better developed and fed parts, concrete for Europe, wrong. It comes from the poorest people and situations in the early industrial age, that people think meat was eaten so rarely. But that was not the normal situation, not even in Medieval times.

Besides, its more important to build up a strong body and brain in young age, this was always more important, because humans don't get their kids with 80 years. Women never, men rarely, but between 16-45 primarily. People were physically much more active, which ameliorates many side effects of a meat-rich diet, and had so many other risks and causes of death, that the cases of disease and death beyond the 50's is not so important for individuals and surely not for selection. This is also the reason why humans prefer the taste and consumption of meat and foods which are not that healthy, especially if being consumed in excess. But usually worse are the highly processed foods, this is even true for red meat, like a high quality steak is better than a cheap industrial sausage full of bad ingredients added to the low quality meat.
But even a highly salted, processed meat sausage won't have the same negative effects on everyone. Most studies show that people with a predispositon for some diseases will suffer the most, while for others its largely irrelevant. In some years everyone might take a genetic test to determine the best individual dietary recommendations. There is just not one recipe true for all.


Eating meat means a higher ecological footprint that's clear.

Almost everything of value needs more energy. Without higher energy consumption, no higher structure is possible. Its the excess of energy the sun provides to us, which allows higher life to exist on this planet. The same is true for human cultures and individuals, the less energy you put into it, the lower the complexity and niveau. If reducing the energy, level by level, in the end you destroy even the most basic human culture, until one eats another. Energy is the base of everything and the only way to keep up the standards of living and culture currently widespread without ruining it, is to invent and use better energy sources.
One of the biggest polluters being not even known by many people, because its large cargo ships powered by heavy fuel oil. Interestingly there are always debates about things which will deteriorate the living conditions of low and middle income families, like animal products and private cars, while many higher effect pollutions from the industrial sphere being not even mentioned on a regular basis.

That doesn't mean that especially the cheap processed meat products are healthy or good, or that meat consumption shouldn't be reduced. But some, especially mainstream media perspectives on the issue seem to be rather biased and manipulated.

Finn
08-17-2020, 07:48 PM
I like the movie "The Road to Wellville", if you want to know where the whole Vegetarianism is coming from, and which ideas were floating around in the "health & wellness" scene of the 19th and early 20th century, this movie is an entertaining instruction. The humour might be sometimes silly, but many references are quite important.

What I think is particularly important to note is what was written on one of the banners in the Vegetarian institutions (analogously): "The purpose of life is to prolong it."

And that's a very fundamental problem, because its the wrong perspective. The goal of life is to live it full, to found a family, to achieve something which persists after one'd death. Whether someone gets 60, 70 or 110 years is, in comparison to what really matters, insignificant. If people could really survive some years longer, by having no sex, no kids, no risk, no fun, no meat, no adventure, so what?

Besides, the studies produce conflicting results and talking about the effects of diet on health, much more depends on the individual lifestyle as a whole and its genetic predispositions! There are simply diets which might be best for one, but not for the next. Many studies which compare dietary styles just use one set of disposition, but "forget" to mention that the very same diet causes, oftentimes, other negative effects, which are, however, in the Western world not as widespread. But they would, once a different dietary regime would be established.

And the idea that people in the past have eaten meat very, very rarely, is for most of the world, especially its better developed and fed parts, concrete for Europe, wrong. It comes from the poorest people and situations in the early industrial age, that people think meat was eaten so rarely. But that was not the normal situation, not even in Medieval times.

Besides, its more important to build up a strong body and brain in young age, this was always more important, because humans don't get their kids with 80 years. Women never, men rarely, but between 16-45 primarily. People were physically much more active, which ameliorates many side effects of a meat-rich diet, and had so many other risks and causes of death, that the cases of disease and death beyond the 50's is not so important for individuals and surely not for selection. This is also the reason why humans prefer the taste and consumption of meat and foods which are not that healthy, especially if being consumed in excess. But usually worse are the highly processed foods, this is even true for red meat, like a high quality steak is better than a cheap industrial sausage full of bad ingredients besides the meat.



Almost everything of value needs more energy. Without higher energy consumption, no higher structure is possible. Its the excess of energy the sun provides to us, which allows higher life to exist on this planet. The same is true for human cultures and individuals, the less energy you put into it, the lower the complexity and niveau. If reducing the energy, level by level, in the end you destroy even the most basic human culture, until one eats another. Energy is the base of everything and the only way to keep up the standards of living and culture currently widespread without ruining it, is to invent and use better energy sources.
One of the biggest polluters being not even known by many people, because its large cargo ships powered by heavy fuel oil. Interestingly there are always debates about things which will deteriorate the living conditions of low and middle income families, like animal products and private cars, while many higher effect pollutions from the industrial sphere being not even mentioned on a regular basis.

That doesn't mean that especially the cheap processed meat products are healthy or good, or that meat consumption shouldn't be reduced. But some, especially mainstream media perspectives on the issue seem to be rather biased and manipulated.

But the agriculture in my country is over the top Riverman! Nothing wrong with the farmers a such. No comment on that. But they feel themselves kind of trapped into a rat race, higher with more efficiency etc etc.

We ship soja from Latin America to feed the cows here. The livestock is so huge that nitrogen emissions has become a big problem.

I know very well this are welfare kind of problems. And an ecological way of producing needs even more space etc. So all dilemmas no easy way out.

Agriculture in the Netherlands:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=207&v=D7p20YEyEtg&feature=emb_logo

Kanenas
08-17-2020, 08:14 PM
Neither is againist nature.

Essentially even the things that we would consider unethical based on our personal ethical systems (or innate insticts) are not against nature.

I am not a vegetarian but my subjective opinion is that there are many vegeterian dishes which taste much better than beef burgers or meat kebabs.

It seems that ancient Athenians and Ionians were eating a lot of fish dishes but I think most people from whom I descend were meat eaters, not that often though. Their diet had a lot of beans, lentils, even boiled 'greens' etc.

From Wikipedia: "In Greek cuisine, khorta (χόρτα, literally 'greens') are a common side dish, eaten hot or cold and usually seasoned with olive oil and lemon.[6]

At least 80 different kinds of greens are used, depending on the area and season, including black mustard, dandelion, wild sorrel, chicory, fennel, chard, kale, mallow, black nightshade, lamb's quarters, wild leeks, hoary mustard, charlock, smooth sow thistle and even the fresh leaves of the caper plant."

Johnny ola
08-17-2020, 08:29 PM
Neither is againist nature.

Essentially even the things that we would consider unethical based on our personal ethical systems (or innate insticts) are not against nature.

I am not a vegetarian but my subjective opinion is that there are many vegeterian dishes which taste much better than beef burgers or meat kebabs.

It seems that ancient Athenians and Ionians were eating a lot of fish dishes but I think most people from whom I descend were meat eaters, not that often though. Their diet had a lot of beans, lentils, even boiled 'greens' etc.

From Wikipedia: "In Greek cuisine, khorta (χόρτα, literally 'greens') are a common side dish, eaten hot or cold and usually seasoned with olive oil and lemon.[6]

At least 80 different kinds of greens are used, depending on the area and season, including black mustard, dandelion, wild sorrel, chicory, fennel, chard, kale, mallow, black nightshade, lamb's quarters, wild leeks, hoary mustard, charlock, smooth sow thistle and even the fresh leaves of the caper plant."

What are your roots? Vlach? They have the best Meat in Greece. The most vegetarian ethnic group are Pontic Greeks. Our cuisine contains a lot of Green.

Riverman
08-17-2020, 08:39 PM
@Finn: Some of the biggest problem of that kind of industrialised breeding of animals is, since the animals look fairly clean and not that battered, the use of medicines, especially antibiotics and hormones. Otherwise one could say that more people could work in agriculture if they want, since many other tasks will be taken over by automatisaion, digitisation and robots. But many people have a somewhat romantic view on agriculture without machines. Especially something like harvesting potatoes is a hard and dirty work - not even healthy either. I know veganes which consume foods which being transported from one end of the world to the other and for these foods too whole forests being cut down.
One of the main problems is not the meat production alone, but wrong economical incentives. Like today its often cheaper to use soy from the other end of the world, than to use the own grassland, even were enough would be available. And the animals, especially the cows, even get more flatulences and produce more methan if getting the industrial food, instead of being able to graze.
There are economies of scale, against which a normal sized, more natural farmer can't compete, but a lot would be possible in this field, but the incentives pull in a different direction, taxes, benefits, very cheap transport etc. But that's a long and complex debate, with probably no ideal solution for anyone and anything being possible. It will be always some sort of compromise.
One of the problems of the Netherlands is that so much being packed in such a small country probably? Would be interesting to compare the natural surface area vs. cultural land vs. land for intensive agriculture and production plus agglomerations for different countries. I guess the Netherlands would be on top, but also that some of the countries with the best living standards would be not that far from it.

In any case, meat consumption is a natural human behaviour insofar, as humans would exist without it and adapted to it, evolved with it. There are even some extreme veganes which claim that humans are herbivores, but that's furthest from the truth. Many Hominids lived, especially those with larger bodies and brains, from meat and even our closest living relatives, the Chimpanzees, consume animal proteins on a regular basis.

Saetro
08-18-2020, 12:08 AM
1) Negative impact on the environment: All the evidence suggests that a meat-heavy diet causes a more negative footprint on the environment. This is especially the case in today's times, where most of the meat comes from factory farming and meat consumption in many countries can only be called excessive.

Animal products account for only 18% of overall calories consumed worldwide, but still use up 83% of the land.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth

A ton of beef requires 16730 cubic meters of water on average.


I find many of the points in your post fairly accurate. And appropriate for the current readership.
However, here in Australia we have a vast amount of rangeland used for growing cattle for meat.
They are not fed soya or corn or grain. They just graze grass.
The rainfall is inadequate to grow other crops.
Where groundwater is available it is certainly used to water cattle, but it is often a little too mineralised for agriculture.
So these lands are growing a harvest that could not otherwise be obtained.

I quite agree that kangaroos would be a better option as they do less damage to the land.
But the usual calculations of vast amounts of water or land that could be used for something else, while appropriate to some other location using feed lots, are totally irrelevant and erroneous to Australian rangeland beef raising.
Some of our sheepmeat is raised in the same way, but the specialised feed plants make it an expensive gourmet item and not for my regular consumption.
Most of our sheepmeat grows on lush grass land.
Even some of that, tending towards being boggy, is not suitable for vegetable food crops, so again some herding makes use of some land that otherwise would have no use.

While I rarely eat beef, I make sure that it is certified grass-fed. I consider it more sustainable and therefore ethical.
And also for the Omega 3 fatty acids, considered anti-inflammatory, which should be healthier for me than feed lot beef containing mainly Omega 6.

Uzi
12-14-2020, 11:41 AM
With nature. Although its nothing wrong eating meat either, especially if done in moderation.

vasil
12-14-2020, 12:58 PM
I feel like i need to defend meat in here. First of all a lot of scientists believe that what alowed us to grow bigger more complex brains as compared to other apes was higher amounts of meat consumed, the way i like to think of it is genus homo is steppe/savanah apes forced to rely more heavily on meat vs the other apes that live in the jungle and still consume insects and hunt(chimps) but whose diet is heavier on fruit. Second this hole thing about being on this or that diet is first world problem historicaly people ate whatever was available for instance in medieval europe for commoners it was mostly poridge and on holidays an animal would be slaughtered and they would eat the whole thing(muscle meat, organ meat, tongue, eyes, brain, ears, feet, stomach EVERYTHING) which i can attest is still a thing in the Balkans i myself get sick from the smell but older people are savages.

Uzi
12-14-2020, 02:52 PM
I feel like i need to defend meat in here. First of all a lot of scientists believe that what alowed us to grow bigger more complex brains as compared to other apes was higher amounts of meat consumed, the way i like to think of it is genus homo is steppe/savanah apes forced to rely more heavily on meat vs the other apes that live in the jungle and still consume insects and hunt(chimps) but whose diet is heavier on fruit. Second this hole thing about being on this or that diet is first world problem historicaly people ate whatever was available for instance in medieval europe for commoners it was mostly poridge and on holidays an animal would be slaughtered and they would eat the whole thing(muscle meat, organ meat, tongue, eyes, brain, ears, feet, stomach EVERYTHING) which i can attest is still a thing in the Balkans i myself get sick from the smell but older people are savages.

What's your view if people would start eating less meat? I know of people who eat meat based meal up to 3x a day. Not sure that is sustainable in the long term.

Riverman
12-14-2020, 04:00 PM
What's your view if people would start eating less meat? I know of people who eat meat based meal up to 3x a day. Not sure that is sustainable in the long term.

Like smarter people said, "On the long term we are all dead." :P

Uzi
12-14-2020, 07:02 PM
Like smarter people said, "On the long term we are all dead." :P

Agree. ;) But everything in moderation even if that is the case.

okarinaofsteiner
12-15-2020, 07:25 AM
What's your view if people would start eating less meat? I know of people who eat meat based meal up to 3x a day. Not sure that is sustainable in the long term.

Nothing wrong with that; we probably didn't evolve to eat meat 3 times a day. Those of us who have substinence farmer ancestors certainly did not.

Riverman
12-15-2020, 04:37 PM
What's your view if people would start eating less meat? I know of people who eat meat based meal up to 3x a day. Not sure that is sustainable in the long term.

I want to add that some of the tallest, most robust, largest brained modern humans were the steppe mammoth hunters. It didn't hurt their evolution and they survived, by eating a lot of meat, the harshest times known, the last Ice Age in Eurasia. You might get some diseases over life span, which you could avoid with a plant based diet, but those with a plant based low calory diet have other and much worse problems.

However, that was the past, today nutrition and dietary habits can be much better planned than in the past, so some arguments from the past are not necessarily valid for the present. But humans as a species are definitely meat eaters and did well with it. No way they could have evolved the way they did without a heavily meat based diet.

Another aspect is that human populations adapted to different habitats and ways of life. Like the same caloric intake, the same food, can cause a good health or medical problems, depending on the genetic profile and habits of a population. If a population selected for a low calory, heavily plant based diet starts to live a sedentary life, with almost no physical activity and gets extremely fatty foods, well, you can guess what will happen.
On the other hand a mountain farmer in Europe, used to a protein rich diet, living a hard work life, with lots of physical activity and being adapted to eating a lot of animal proteins, needs the same intake to survive and thrive.

But we have now much less mountain farmers and herders than office workers, so that's the main problem - as is the quality of the animal protein based food. Yet low quality plant based food is even worse as all studies show. So the quality of the food and life is much more important than the question whether its vegetarian or not. Too much red meat in particular seems to correlate with specific diseases, especially in people predisposed to it. Like if you have a specific genetic weakness in particular, you are more likely to get specific forms of cancer. But that needs to be added, its the amount of red meat, how processed it is and whether you have a genetic predisposition for cancer development.

The future is about personalised dietary recommendations. There is no "one fits all".

Uzi
12-15-2020, 08:33 PM
I want to add that some of the tallest, most robust, largest brained modern humans were the steppe mammoth hunters. It didn't hurt their evolution and they survived, by eating a lot of meat, the harshest times known, the last Ice Age in Eurasia. You might get some diseases over life span, which you could avoid with a plant based diet, but those with a plant based low calory diet have other and much worse problems.

However, that was the past, today nutrition and dietary habits can be much better planned than in the past, so some arguments from the past are not necessarily valid for the present. But humans as a species are definitely meat eaters and did well with it. No way they could have evolved the way they did without a heavily meat based diet.

Another aspect is that human populations adapted to different habitats and ways of life. Like the same caloric intake, the same food, can cause a good health or medical problems, depending on the genetic profile and habits of a population. If a population selected for a low calory, heavily plant based diet starts to live a sedentary life, with almost no physical activity and gets extremely fatty foods, well, you can guess what will happen.
On the other hand a mountain farmer in Europe, used to a protein rich diet, living a hard work life, with lots of physical activity and being adapted to eating a lot of animal proteins, needs the same intake to survive and thrive.

But we have now much less mountain farmers and herders than office workers, so that's the main problem - as is the quality of the animal protein based food. Yet low quality plant based food is even worse as all studies show. So the quality of the food and life is much more important than the question whether its vegetarian or not. Too much red meat in particular seems to correlate with specific diseases, especially in people predisposed to it. Like if you have a specific genetic weakness in particular, you are more likely to get specific forms of cancer. But that needs to be added, its the amount of red meat, how processed it is and whether you have a genetic predisposition for cancer development.

The future is about personalised dietary recommendations. There is no "one fits all".

I agree with your view. Although, a lot of those 3xdaily meat-based meals are processed food with loads of added preservatives and other substances that were not part of diet for tallest, most robust, largest brained modern humans that were the steppe mammoth hunters.

Riverman
12-15-2020, 09:24 PM
I agree with your view. Although, a lot of those 3xdaily meat-based meals are processed food with loads of added preservatives and other substances that were not part of diet for tallest, most robust, largest brained modern humans that were the steppe mammoth hunters.

Crap food is crap food, whether its meat or vegetarian. I think that humans contributed to the disappearance of the megafauna in many regions and both the Western as well as the Eastern steppe hunters had to change their ways, simply because the large meat supply was gone.

To this day Mongols eat a lot of meat by the way, they transitioned directly from hunting to herding.

However, its nearly impossible to feed every human with highest quality meat three times a day. It won't work out. US Americans eat a lot of meat at a cheap price, it can't be prime quality, not even there.

Its more of a supply problem. But a lot of high quality food beside meat are a supply and costs problem too.

Finn
12-16-2020, 10:14 AM
Hahaha last week I was at the dentist and the dental hygienist....she said spontaneously: 'I guess you ancestors ate a lot of meat!'.

I smiled and said ok: why?

She said something about the third molar/ 'wisdom teeth' and the space for them.

I still have all 'wisdom teeth'.

I always thought most people would have them....but obviously somewhere in the evolution they have get lost. 'Just like the tail in our evolution' she stated....

Ok is this humbug or makes this real sense?

Riverman
12-16-2020, 10:23 AM
Hahaha last week I was at the dentist and the dental hygienist....she said spontaneously: 'I guess you ancestor ate a lot of meat!'.

I smiled and said ok: why?

She said something about the third molar/ 'wisdom teeth' and the space for them.

I still have all 'wisdom teeth'.

I always thought most people would have them....but obviously somewhere in the evolution they have get lost. 'Just like the tail' in our evolution she stated....

Ok is this humbug or makes this real sense?

Its not true, but usually more archaic and tall-robust populations have it more often, so do males, as a consequence, very gracile and reduced or female populations have it less often. Its more kind of a frequency trait. For example some of the early Neolithic samples in Northern Africa had very low rates for wisdom teeth, in part being explained by their close genetic relationship, together with their overall gracile character.

Basically if you have smaller and more gracile jaws, they get more problematic. Some people have dental problems more often with the wisdom teeth, because of our modern nutrition and the habit of brushing them, "at the back", not as good. Sometimes they don't grow properly, so they can cause other problems in the dentition. So a dentist will see them as a "problem case" and some even extract them by default, especially in women and if there is any sort of minor problem. Overall, they are just strong teeth you can use, so I wouldn't compare it with a tail, but obviously people do well without in the post-Neolithic context.

CopperAxe
12-16-2020, 10:58 AM
Wisdom teeth are weird.

I only have them on the bottom, I don't have the top ones. I never needed to get them pulled as they fit perfectly.

But I definitely inherited my jawline from my Kenyan side, and they got pretty slim faces and jaw.

Could it be related to jaw development as you age by way of how you eat? In western Europe people rarely eat meat from the bones, we use cutlery and stuff.

Meanwhile I grew up with a very meat heavy diet, pretty much always ripping meat off bones with my teeth given how my mom cooked old country Kenyan style.

Riverman
12-16-2020, 11:09 AM
Wisdom teeth are weird.

I only have them on the bottom, I don't have the top ones. I never needed to get them pulled as they fit perfectly.

But I definitely inherited my jawline from my Kenyan side, and they got pretty slim faces and jaw.

Could it be related to jaw development as you age by way of how you eat? In western Europe people rarely eat meat from the bones, we use cutlery and stuff.

Meanwhile I grew up with a very meat heavy diet, pretty much always ripping meat off bones with my teeth given how my mom cooked old country Kenyan style.

If anything, a lot of biting and chewing should make your jaws develop more regularly. Like the overbite too is much more common now, than it was in the past. And this is more influenced by environmental stress, as e.g. the Inuits prove. But whether you develop wisdom teeth or not, is mostly genetic. A lot of people have them, but they just don't grow properly, you only see them under x-ray. These cause even more problems and are sometimes difficult to extract obviously. Since many of those teeth develop badly, they cause troubles.

If people would have to live without dentists and chew hard stuff, those with properly developed wisdom teeth would be slightly advantaged. But even then, it won't be a big win I guess, just a small asset. But its nevertheless interesting that many develop so badly, because the complications caused are more problematic. So I guess there was some selective pressure for reducing the jaws, most likely because of sexual selection, primarily in females, as well as reduced costs with less bony and teeth material in usage.

CopperAxe
12-16-2020, 11:18 AM
If anything, a lot of biting and chewing should make your jaws develop more regularly. Like the overbite too is much more common now, than it was in the past. And this is more influenced by environmental stress, as e.g. the Inuits prove. But whether you develop wisdom teeth or not, is mostly genetic. A lot of people have them, but they just don't grow properly, you only see them under x-ray. These cause even more problems and are sometimes difficult to extract obviously. Since many of those teeth develop badly, they cause troubles.

If people would have to live without dentists and chew hard stuff, those with properly developed wisdom teeth would be slightly advantaged. But even then, it won't be a big win I guess, just a small asset. But its nevertheless interesting that many develop so badly, because the complications caused are more problematic. So I guess there was some selective pressure for reducing the jaws, most likely because of sexual selection, primarily in females, as well as reduced costs with less bony and teeth material in usage.

I genuinely do not have the top row of wisdom teeth however, confirmed by x-ray.

To be clear I meant the development of proper placement of wisdom teeth due to hard chewing, as opposed to them developing due to hard chewing.

Riverman
12-16-2020, 11:22 AM
I genuinely do not have the top row of wisdom teeth however, confirmed by x-ray.

To be clear I meant the development of proper placement of wisdom teeth due to hard chewing, as opposed to them developing due to hard chewing.

Ah ok, well, that could be in small part environmental indeed, if there is enough space in the jaws. But for that kind of thing you need to do a study on people living such a lifestyle vs. relatives which abandoned, without admixture. And even then its not absolute, but could give some hints. Probably it was done, I don't know.

Finn
12-16-2020, 11:50 AM
Wisdom teeth are weird.

I only have them on the bottom, I don't have the top ones. I never needed to get them pulled as they fit perfectly.

But I definitely inherited my jawline from my Kenyan side, and they got pretty slim faces and jaw.

Could it be related to jaw development as you age by way of how you eat? In western Europe people rarely eat meat from the bones, we use cutlery and stuff.

Meanwhile I grew up with a very meat heavy diet, pretty much always ripping meat off bones with my teeth given how my mom cooked old country Kenyan style.

I do eat with a knife and fork....:behindsofa: But I agree with Riverman I do have something 'archaic and tall-robust' ;)

My great grandfather of mothers' side (bushbush of Drenthe ;) died when he was far 80+ and according the 'legend' with all his teeths still complete....#nojunkfood #noorlesssugar

Riverman
12-16-2020, 11:56 AM
I do eat with a knife and fork....:behindsofa: But I agree with Riverman I do have something 'archaic and tall-robust' ;)

My great grandfather of mothers' side (bushbush of Drenthe ;) died when he was far 80+ and according the 'legend' with all his teeths still complete....#nojunkfood #noorlesssugar

I have all my wisdom teeth too, just one is a little bit crooked, so didn't grow straight. There are also people which get all of them, but their jaws are too small, so they shift all the other teeth in a rather unfortunate way if not being extracted. There are actually all combinations possible. Really its a strong male : female divide also, even in families in which they appear.

FionnSneachta
12-16-2020, 07:55 PM
I think that I only have one wisdom tooth (I find it hard to tell on my upper mouth but I don't think that I do). The one wisdom tooth that came up is on the side of my mouth where I had a pre-molar removed. The pre-molar was removed in the hope that one of my lateral incisors would move into place. It didn't. I'll probably get it corrected at some point.

JMcB
12-16-2020, 08:37 PM
I had one pulled when I was in my late teens because the dentist said it was growing in crooked. Then 50 years later I had a mass growing on my jaw that had to be removed and when I saw the X-Ray, there was another wisdom tooth, lying flat on it’s side inside my jaw. It looked all ready to go but never ascended.

Edit: Technically, what I was seeing was an impacted wisdom tooth that never caused any problems. Unfortunately, when you get older they can lead to the growth of non-cancerous cysts on your jaw. Which is what happened to me.