PDA

View Full Version : Human Nature questioned with development of civilization



sHaRp12
05-30-2006, 06:09 PM
As society gets more and more developed and urbanized the natural order of things continue to be challenged.

From this development illogical groups continue to be formed, i.e Green Peace, PETA ect.

Why must we challenge human nature. It was proven ages ago that humans were omnivores. Its in our nature to eat meat and in our nature to use tools such as wood. Yet some people insist on contradicting this. It really gets my blood boiling when PETA exploits our emotions to get more naive people on their side.

In conclusion I realize that they have every right to do this as well they should. I just see it as unnecessary and superfluous because we'll never change.

If you disagre please express your opinion. OPEN TO DISCUSSION.

cuppajoe_9
05-30-2006, 08:16 PM
Point 1:
We were almost certainly herbivores before the last ice age. Vegetarianism makes sense right now because there are WAY too many people on the planet, and eating plants is a more efficient use of energy than eating meat.

Point 2:
Wood isn't a tool. Wood is something that you make tools out of. If we run out of that, not as many tools. So use less. Please.

Point 3:
I have some serious issues with PETA's tactics too.

Point 4:
'Human nature', as you call it, has been changing constantly for a few thousand years, and I see no reason why it should stop now.

Point 5:
Good thread.

Virgil
05-30-2006, 08:51 PM
eating plants is a more efficient use of energy than eating meat.

I'm not taking a position on any of this, but this statement is absolutely wrong. Meat is way more efficient of energy and nutrients than plants.


Vegetarianism makes sense right now because there are WAY too many people on the planet
:confused: What exactly are you saying here? Why should we be vegetarians if it will lead to less of us? Is it supposed to kill some of us faster?


We were almost certainly herbivores before the last ice age.
I believe chimps also eat meat. I'm skeptical that this is true.


Frankly vegetarianism has absolutely no appeal to me.

cuppajoe_9
05-30-2006, 09:12 PM
I'm not taking a position on any of this, but this statement is absolutely wrong. Meat is way more efficient of energy and nutrients than plants.Sorry man, I took this crap in bio not six months ago. All the energy in food comes from the sun originally. Plants get it direct, which is the most efficient way. Next is eating the plants. If you eat somthing that ate the plants, then a good bit of the energy that the animal got out of the plants is used up by the animal before you can get to it. If you eat something that ate something that ate the plants even more energy falls out of the system. This is why you rarely see food chains more than six or seven links long.
What exactly are you saying here? Why should we be vegetarians if it will lead to less of us? Is it supposed to kill some of us faster?On the contrary, you'll probably live longer. It's just that there's more food and water for the rest of us. (Raising animals uses way more water than raising plants, particularly in a factory farm)
I believe chimps also eat meat. I'm skeptical that this is true.Insects, maybe, cows, no. This hypothesis stems from the fact that we are physiologically a bit more like strict herbivores than strict carnivores, particularly in terms of intestine length (carnivores need to have relatively short intestines so the meat doesn't get rotten while they're still digesting it.)
Frankly vegetarianism has absolutely no appeal to me.Try it. 'S fun.

sHaRp12
05-30-2006, 10:37 PM
Dont get me wrong there is nothing wrong with plants, I enjoy a salad just as much as the next guy but telling a human not to eat meat is like telling a fish not to swim. Its just in their nature.


Wood isn't a tool. Wood is something that you make tools out of. If we run out of that, not as many tools. So use less. Please.

When you use something to make something it is therefore a tool and wood is a tool. Its there for our benefit and for us to use. Its been proven that trees are not running out any time soon here is the proof link (http://www.tappi.org/paperu/all_about_paper/earth_answers/EarthAnswers_RunOutTree.pdf)


'Human nature', as you call it, has been changing constantly for a few thousand years, and I see no reason why it should stop now.


Correct. Weve been changing. Culturally. Technologically. Artistically ect. However we havent been changing in the way were built. Every human born has the necessity for meat. As I said before Its the natural order of things.

mono
05-30-2006, 11:21 PM
Dont get me wrong there is nothing wrong with plants, I enjoy a salad just as much as the next guy but telling a human not to eat meat is like telling a fish not to swim. Its just in their nature.
I feel as though vegetarianism and veganism have no implication regarding the progress of humans, human development, or the evolution of civilization; both, if I may say, seem more like a different lifestyle, and, I agree, many of the more preaching vegetarians and vegans can get as annoying as a preaching meat-eater (I speak this as a long-term vegetarian, by the way).
I do not feel offended by your comment, but feel that this has no application to civilization or human development. Both lifestyles seem in human nature, just as running does as opposed to walking - two different means to the same end; one eats to survive, but another person may eat in a different way to survive.
PETA, Green Peace, and co., yes, can have their moments of disagreement with most individuals, yet I do not know how they entirely connect with a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle; some members of either organization may adopt such lifestyles, but the organizations themselves do not seem to preach its necessity.
In terms of the human body itself, it, in fact, does not require meat substances to surive in a healthy manner (and I say this as a 3-weeks-from-graduating nurse). Most of the substances required that seem commonly found in meat: iron, protein, and B-complex vitamins.
- Dark green vegetables have proven also saturated with iron, though not absorbed as easily as with meat; with a mixture of ascorbic acid (vitamin C), however, it makes the iron astoundingly easier to absorb, thus one sees less and less anemic vegetarians and vegans - additionally with lower cholesterol than common meat-eaters in comparison.
- Whole grains, eggs (for ovo-lacto vegetarians), all dairy products, green-leaf vegetables, beans, and citrus fruits all remain very rich with all of the necessary B-complex vitamins; if this does not coincide with a common diet, B vitamins seem also the easiest to attain from multi-vitamin supplements.
- Proteins consist entirely of very tiny molecular bits called amino acids - 22 in total, 8 of them entirely necessary (meaning not independently synthesized by the human body as the other 14 without an external source). For the average person, dieticians, doctors, nurses, and dietary aides recommend 50-65 grams of protein per day in the diet. According to the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS), the listed order of foods richest with essential amino acids, and easiest to digest, in order: soy, egg white, casein, milk, whey, beef, kidney beans, rye, whole wheat, lentils, peanuts, seitan. I find this very important, conclusive, evident, and good to know, though, in no way, preach a vegetarian or vegan diety to anyone not interested.

sHaRp12
05-31-2006, 12:07 AM
I respect what you said mono but I dont think that you completely understood what I was trying to get across with this thread. You're looking at it the wrong way.

cuppajoe_9
05-31-2006, 12:10 AM
Every human born has the necessity for meat.Then why am I still alive?

A lot of very smart people (Einstein, to pick a name at random) have speculated that evolution will eventually make vegetarians of us all. I'm not sure I buy that, but hey, try it. 'S fun.

mono
05-31-2006, 11:16 AM
I respect what you said mono but I dont think that you completely understood what I was trying to get across with this thread. You're looking at it the wrong way.
Thank you, but what I meant to have said regarded that the development of humans and human civilization has no connection with the more commonly forming vegetarian and vegan lifestyles. If the two lifestyles point out anything, they would emphasize the ability to conform not only to external sources, but internal beliefs, whether they regard religion, spirituality, morality, etc., finding alternatives to living. If you want to perceive it this way, I find it more as a compliment toward the vegetarian/vegan lifestyle than a hindrance to human development and civilization; evolution seems all about conforming.

PeterL
05-31-2006, 03:21 PM
If you are thinking of human nature simply in terms of diet, different people like different things, and some people require more od some nutrients than do other people. Humans have been a mixed diet for a few million years, and while chimps usually eat vegetable matter, they have been seen killing and eating small animals, little furry things.

If you are considering human nature in a broader sense, people like to think that they are more than animals with large brains, so there is an effort to differentiate people from animals.

cuppajoe_9
05-31-2006, 08:11 PM
There is an effort to differentiate people from animals.Won't work. We are unique animals, but we are certainly animals. (Well, we ain't plants, fungi or protozoans).

PeterL
06-01-2006, 03:07 PM
Won't work. We are unique animals, but we are certainly animals. (Well, we ain't plants, fungi or protozoans).

Agreed. Humans aren't plants or minerals, not even Achaea.

water lily
06-02-2006, 02:55 AM
If the question is whether it is "natural" for humans to be vegetarians or meat-eaters, then let's look at our physiology. We have very generalized dentition: strict herbivores like horses and cows have big thick teeth all the way around--those would be the equivilant to our molars; carnviores have canines and incisors, which we also have. This suggests a variety of diet. The intestinal system too shows that we are omnivores. It is medium length, and our cecum (the place where fiber is broken down in herbivores) is reduced to our tiny little appendixes and thus we cannot digest fiber.

In the past we were omnivores and our anatomy reflects this. But perhaps we are looking at this in the wrong way. We should realize that our bodies evolved this way, because of what was available to eat. It's not there are certain things humans were meant to or meant not to eat. It just depended on what was available and over the years our body plans changed to accomodate that. For example, in most humans, when you grow past childhood you loose to ability to digest milk (youo become lactose intolerant), however people from areas of the world where their acestors kept domesticated cows, like Europe and India, developed the ability to drink milk as adults.

So I don't think that just because our ancestors ate meat to survive means that we have to, because it is "the natural order of things", this so called natural order changes as our environment changes. And now vegetarians have access to all they need all year round to live perfectly healthy lives.

Psycheinaboat
06-02-2006, 12:45 PM
I think we may be digressing here, but I agree with Water Lily. There is nothing wrong with being vegetarian or vegan, but I was under the understanding that in order to be healthy this way one must take vitamin supplements. I have been told supplements are especially important for children growing up in a vegetarian household.

smoothherb
06-02-2006, 03:00 PM
I know I may be a little of topic but when I think of human nature i think off things like instinct and survival I'm sure that the first humans were meat eaters and that things like compassion and empathy toward animals were manufacted by fools who had a choice I don't mean that all vegans are fools just that the idea is foolish.

cuppajoe_9
06-02-2006, 04:13 PM
I know I may be a little of topic but when I think of human nature i think off things like instinct and survival I'm sure that the first humans were meat eaters and that things like compassion and empathy toward animals were manufacted by fools who had a choice I don't mean that all vegans are fools just that the idea is foolish.Sorry, no, the original humans were not the mighty hunters that they're made out to be. They were cat food. Read this article: http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=2wcp99rrtpgl57l94q30t37zbdwj34m6

Compasion towards animals is not any more foolish than compasion towards other humans. The smartest dolphin is smarter than the dumbest human, no? So what's the difference?

water lily
06-02-2006, 08:56 PM
but why does it matter what the ancient humans ate? We live in a different world than they did.

cuppajoe_9
06-02-2006, 11:54 PM
It doesn't, we're just off topic.

Omniglot
03-24-2007, 02:44 PM
Every human born has the necessity for meat.

Strange then why children will always go for fruit before meat until they have be de-sensitized by adults forcing dead animals down their throat.

Strange also, why kids have to have their 'meat' disguised in their food at an early age until they have been force fed the stuff, then unfortunately its then veges that have to be disguised.

brainstrain
03-24-2007, 03:11 PM
Sharp, your avatar reminds me of the cover of a book called "stig of the dump". Sorry, off topic, heh.

Omniglot, and sharp, you should avoid making such bold generalizations unless you have and PROVIDE concrete evidence for it. That being said, I hope to disprove both points

We do not 'force feed' our kids meat, and last time I checked a baby can't eat an appple =P. My poinst being - it's all a matter of personal taste. Some people like fruits (like me), some people like vegtables, some people like meat, and most of us like them in varying combinations.

You can get just as sick from eating too many vegtables as you can from eating too much meat. Personally I think a vast majority of vegies are disgusting, but i eat them anyway because the chicken and hamburgers i love so much cannot provide everything I need to be healthy.

This arguement, thought interesting, is absolutley pointless if you keep on making unproven generalizations...

edit - I'm sorry if that didn't make much sense. I'm a little crazy today >_<

.shuu.
03-31-2007, 11:10 PM
What we often call 'human nature' is really just human habit.

I'd also like to challenge that meat is a necessity to humans, since I have a friend whose parents raised her completely vegan/vegetarian (so many definitions, I'll just say she has had no meat, eggs or milk, okay?) and the first time she tried meat, the moment it hit her tongue she threw up. This happened 4 times, with varrying types of meat. Furthermore, I hate the taste, texture, smell of meat and have been happily meat free for 4 years. Necessity my white, teenage fanny. ^_~

Lote-Tree
04-11-2007, 09:19 AM
What we often call 'human nature' is really just human habit.

I'd also like to challenge that meat is a necessity to humans, since I have a friend whose parents raised her completely vegan/vegetarian (so many definitions, I'll just say she has had no meat, eggs or milk, okay?) and the first time she tried meat, the moment it hit her tongue she threw up. This happened 4 times, with varrying types of meat. Furthermore, I hate the taste, texture, smell of meat and have been happily meat free for 4 years. Necessity my white, teenage fanny. ^_~

Meat is not necessary to humans. Millions of Indians are vegetarians.

hbacharya
04-14-2007, 12:09 PM
As society gets more and more developed and urbanized the natural order of things continue to be challenged.

From this development illogical groups continue to be formed, i.e Green Peace, PETA ect.

Why must we challenge human nature. It was proven ages ago that humans were omnivores. Its in our nature to eat meat and in our nature to use tools such as wood. Yet some people insist on contradicting this. It really gets my blood boiling when PETA exploits our emotions to get more naive people on their side.

In conclusion I realize that they have every right to do this as well they should. I just see it as unnecessary and superfluous because we'll never change.

If you disagre please express your opinion. OPEN TO DISCUSSION.


Yes I do. I disagree. You have a wrong notion of man labelling him as omniverous. No, you can not brand him so. Maybe you can gather scirntific reasons or come up with arguments built upon logics and reasoning. But I defy all this. I do not advocate for vegetarinsm, albeit I am a vegetarin by convention.

I am not critical of all those who eat meat. I do not praise all those who are vehetarians. To do this is to show vanity, a sense of superirty, a bad complex.

Yet we must live by proportion. I do critique only those who animals for fun, those merciless hunters. This is totally against the law of nature. This we call civilization- to kill animals for fun, to destroy their natural habitat, their homes. We are tresspassers, transgressors. Animalbeings do not tresspass. Wall themselves.

I do not beleive that man must expand his civilzations. Now we all face environmental degredations, a variety of thjreats it posses to human life. Why all this. This is all owing to the fact that man deems himself a free creature to do any thing, to kill any animals for his insatiable feast and for his unethical entertainments-hunting them.

I feel sensitive enough to even pluck a bunch of flowers to put at the idol of Lord Krishna. This is unnatureal. Plants must not be deprived of this right to flower, to blum and frutification .

Maybe I sound arrogant, and maybe you may say this i expressed out of vanity. Ok. It is the domain of your rights to criticize.
I detaste and condemn this modern civilzation built upon the destruction of our natural environments. This technology has eased our living conditions, and it has narrowed our gaps, gaps of culture, geography and understanding, and it has strung us together. This is not a vice to go technologically advancing, yet if it threatens our natural homes we must decline. that is what I beleive in.

This is an open discussion.

Bii
04-14-2007, 04:43 PM
Why must we challenge human nature.

Perhaps it is human nature to challenge human nature so, by asking the question, you are answering your question.....