[Closed] Macca on vegetarianism

Paul McCartney is just about the most annoying person alive today. Anyone listening to him is surely an eegit?

I like meat, I like vegetarian food. I also think that Paul McCartney should perhaps use his vast fortune to attempt to fly a hot air balloon into the center of the sun.

However, its widely accepted that an optimal diet for Humans, requires meat.

You know, I've noticed something on STW.

Whenever someone states "it is widely accepted that..." or variations on that theme such as "everyone knows" or "it's obvious to anyone with half a brain", it's pretty much always followed with a random 'fact' the poster has just pulled out of their arse with no evidence whatsoever to back it up.

Bit daft to make comparisons about inteligence across species!

Must be cooked meat that does it JY.

Here we go, same ole, same old.

I can't help but wonder about some folk when they honestly think I'd write a post, containing just made-up stuff. Please don't judge me by your standards. Making stuff up might be for some. I don't waste my time with it. Thanks.

[i]A diet mostly of plants. We certainly didn't evolve to need the vast quantites of meat we typically consume in prosperous countries.[/i]
Please don't put words into my mouth. I'm not saying anyone should eat [b][i]vast quanities of meat[/b][/i]
Have you heard of the inuit ?. Not many plants available to them for ages past. This hasn't stopped them hunting very big fish and subsisting mostly on, err, meat and fat !.

[i]Solo's point about evolution is also kind of silly[/i]
Very disappointed with that Molgrips. You refuse to accept the observations of experts in their field (not me), wrt evolution because it doesn't suit your lifestyle. I'd call that silly, but then I won't cos I don't want to come down to your level. Sorry.
Your post is also a reading a post, 'Fail'. Here.
[b]You:[/b]
[i]We evolved to be very flexible, that's why we (and other omnivores) are successful.[/i]

[b]Me:[/b]
[i]This demonstrates the flexibility that has evolved in the Human body, in order to give us the best chances of survival. In accordance with our surroundings and the foods sources available therein.[/i]

So, ^^^ you're repeating what I posted, that we are flexible, adaptable to whatever food source may be available, within reason.
Oh, and, no !, don't eat the sand, you don't know where its been !.

[i]I'm genuinely interested[/i]
Not going to get too far though, calling people [i]silly[/i]

So, I'm out. Have fun, kids.
😉

Ah so meat only makes certain species clever but not others

We're not really suggesting meat is in fact a magic potion that will turn any old animal into the world's dominant species. That would be really stupid, wouldn't it? At the risk of being offensive, for someone who was so keen on the scientific method on the religion thread you aren't really doing it justice.

What we (and many anthropologists) are saying is that as humans were evolving dietary factors allowed evolution stimulated by OTHER factors to progress rapidly and successfully.

According to Alice Roberts (iirc) current thinking is that it was the high availability of omega fatty acids from shellfish and sea food that allowed the species to evolve a big brain.

So it seems unlikely we'd have evolved such high intelligence without eating lots of meat and animal products in our evolutionary history.

And in any case, it would seem to me that meat eating animals do tend to be a bit more intelligent and advanced than vegetarians. Herbivores spend most of their time wandering around eating grass and leaves. Meat eaters (omnis and carnis) have to be more intelligent to trap the herbivores, and they tend not to have to do it all the time which means they can spend their time lounging around in the sun, relaxing, arguing with each other, playing, learning to hunt, learning to use tools and evolving into sentient beings.

However this is a moot point, since now that we ARE evolved and can farm the stuff we need to live on, do we still need to eat meat? The answer is no.

Very disappointed with that Molgrips. You refuse to accept the observations of experts in their field (not me), wrt evolution because it doesn't suit your lifestyle.

Wot?

And I did see your previous post after I posted. I did warn you I hadn't read the whole thread.

Please don't judge me by your standards

You refuse to accept the observations of experts in their field (not me),

To be fair it not amongst the worst ones

I'd call that silly, but then I won't cos I don't want to come down to your level. Sorry.

Moral High Ground Fail.

There weren't anywhere near enough emoticons in Solo's posts. Have another burger (hand minced Tesco's finest Fillet de Cheval) mate.

alex222 - Member

Paul McCartney is just about the most annoying person alive today. Anyone listening to him is surely an eegit?

I like meat, I like vegetarian food. I also think that Paul McCartney should perhaps use his vast fortune to attempt to fly a hot air balloon into the center of the sun.

I would just like to applaud Alex's sentiments there 😀

Thanks; I'm glad someone noticed.

Making stuff up might be for some. I don't waste my time with it. Thanks.

Cite your sources then, back up what you're saying.

At the risk of being offensive, for someone who was so keen on the scientific method on the religion thread you aren't really doing it justice.

What we (and many anthropologists) are saying is that as humans were evolving dietary factors allowed evolution stimulated by OTHER factors to progress rapidly and successfully.

According to Alice Roberts (iirc) current thinking is that it was the high availability of omega fatty acids from shellfish and sea food that allowed the species to evolve a big brain.

So it seems unlikely we'd have evolved such high intelligence without eating lots of meat and animal products in our evolutionary history.

Meat eaters (omnis and carnis) have to be more intelligent to trap the herbivores,

and they tend not to have to do it all the time which means they can spend their time lounging around in the sun, relaxing, arguing with each other, playing, learning to hunt, learning to use tools and evolving into sentient beings.

cougar liked your long post especially the bit about letting others do the "wet processes". For me if you can't face watching or being involved with the slaughter process you should not be eating meat.

You also wrote this later

"Purely from a land perspective, it's more efficient to let animals eat crops and then eat animals. If the whole world was vegetarian, we wouldn't have the farmland to feed everybody"

Have you any source for that?

it is obvious eating meat alone does not make a human or any other species clever

Yes, and it's so bloody obvious there's no point in saying it really

I would not say this and I dont think the evidince supports it
... Other primates shared our diet but remained dumb.

Ok well this is a valid point. But again I'm not saying eating meat MADE us clever, it ALLOWED us to evolve to be clever. And it's not just my theory.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120420105539.htm
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/lives-the-brain/201001/was-seafood-brain-food-in-human-evolution

Without a non meat eating control of the same population its fairly meaningless.

Well maybe there's a reason for that. Perhaps herbivores diet is so poor that they don't have the spare capacity to evolve? I dunno, but here's my off the cuff list of intelligent/ creatures - feel free to add:

Chimps: omni
Gorlias: herbi (but apparently lots of insects and rarely meat, so they have the ability)
Orang-Utans: not sure
Dolphins: fish
Whales: fish/seafood
Bears: omni
Racoons: omni
Crows: omni
Pigs: omni
Dogs: carni
Cats: carni
Otters: fish
Elephants: herbi
Octopi: fish/seafood

Lots of meat in that list, and the top three (people, chimps, dolphins) are all meat eaters.

"Purely from a land perspective, it's more efficient to let animals eat crops and then eat animals. If the whole world was vegetarian, we wouldn't have the farmland to feed everybody"

I think that's wrong actually, but it might depend on how you feed your meat. There's plenty of land in the UK that's not suitable for crops but IS suitable for rearing meat. Dunno about the rest of the world.

It stinks of passive aggressiveness in here.

Tee Hee.

Yes, and it's so bloody obvious there's no point in saying it really

you would think wouldn't you but i have also had to point out size of brain does not equal intelligence.

I'm not saying eating meat MADE us clever, it ALLOWED us to evolve to be clever. And it's not just my theory

All the "brightest" will be top predators so therefor ethey will all eat meat but agian i dont think it is causal - your time to chill argument for example

McCartney came over as a [s]gentleman[/s]hobby farmer. It's handy to have a big pot of money to support your wool producing pets, a luxury that upland sheep farmers don't have. If they don't sell the meat they go bust and the habitat becomes degraded/non-productive which our small island can ill afford.

I apologise for going back on-topic.

Is the bar still open Captain or have you called time?

You also wrote this later

"Purely from a land perspective, it's more efficient to let animals eat crops and then eat animals. If the whole world was vegetarian, we wouldn't have the farmland to feed everybody"

Have you any source for that?

Hoist by my own petard. That's a very good question.

Not one that I can readily quote, I'm afraid. I read it in Wired a while back, they ran a story hypothesizing what would happen if the world went veggie. One of the conclusions they drew was that we (globally) didn't have the suitable arable land to grow enough food to sustain the population directly.

I suppose it's entirely likely that they were wrong, and equally likely that I'm not remembering it accurately; but I'd trust Wired's articles over, say, Hello magazine.

Tee Hee.

Random Fact of the day: that's Peter Davison, under all that make-up.

i have also had to point out size of brain does not equal intelligence

No, you haven't.

All the "brightest" will be top predators so therefor ethey will all eat meat but agian i dont think it is causal

Nor do I, but that's not what I'm saying.

I'll go with the mainstream scientific opinion, rather than your lack of being convinced, if that's all the same to you.

However as I said, even if we did evolve eating meat, doens't mean we still need to now. I am not anti-veggie.

One of the conclusions they drew was that we (globally) didn't have the suitable arable land to grow enough food to sustain the population directly.

This is an interesting topic. I've now seen it being argued both ways.

How much land, labour and energy would be required to grow enough legumes to feed everyone? One or two men in the UK can manage a herd of a couple of hundred cows, can they? Is it possible to grow enough beans to replace that much meat with the same labour force? I'd imagine beans are a fairly resource intensive crop?

Not one that I can readily quote, I'm afraid. I read it in Wired a while back, they ran a story hypothesizing what would happen if the world went veggie. One of the conclusions they drew was that we (globally) didn't have the suitable arable land to grow enough food to sustain the population directly.

Got the feeling I read it [url= http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727691.200-veggieworld-why-eating-greens-wont-save-the-planet.html ]here[/url], registration required.

Basically, you can support the greatest number of people by reducing meat consumption but not completely eliminating it - mainly because animals likes goats and pigs can live on land that is useless for arable farming.

even if we did evolve eating meat, doens't mean we still need to now.

I meant to say that in my monologue a couple of pages back. It's where I was going with "just because we can do something doesn't mean we should" but I sidetracked myself.

The whole 'evolution' argument is bunk. Are we seriously suggesting that because something probably have had an influence on our evolution a few hundred thousand years ago, that's reason enough to do it today? (I wonder if we ate each other back then too?)

If you want to eat meat because you like it, great. But don't kid yourself that it's somehow mandatory due to some sort of legacy evolutionary obligation.

Got the feeling I read it [in New Scientist], registration required.

You know, that could be the article I'm thinking of. It was my OH's magazine and she bought both Wired and New Scientist from time to time.

EDIT - [url= http://veganbodybuilding.userboard.net/t350-veggieworld-why-eating-greens-won-t-save-the-planet-new-scientist-article ]bingo[/url]. Transcript of the NS article.

Two good points well made.

I also read just now on a site on bean cultivation that beans won't tolerate standing water. Seems possible that we in the UK would have had a terrible bean harvest this year, then.

But food reliability is another issue. A short drought or other weather event that could wipe out a crop might not damage livestock...? Once that crop is flattened by a hurricane say, it's gone for the rest of the year.

I could be (in fact, I might actually be) a veggie-wot-eats-fish; except when it becomes even the *slightest* bit difficult. That might sound useless but probably leads to being a VWEF about 99% of the time. It falls down when one can't bring oneself to care if a yummy desert uses the wrong sort of gelatine, or if one goes to a restaurant and doesn't want nut roast. Or goes to a dinner party and doesn't want nut roast.

Can't be bothered reading the labels of everything and if I'm going out I want yummy nom noms, so what if I don't usually eat meat? I don't usually have three courses and a bottle of wine either. This is a treat.

And although the ideological veggies (wot eat fish) would say that doesn't count, it's 99% of the way there, with 0% of the hassle.

Sorry. Back by special request, but not for arguing.

[i]If you want to eat meat because you like it, great. [b]But don't kid yourself that it's somehow mandatory due to some sort of legacy evolutionary obligation.[/b][/i]

I'm just disappointed that folk post stuff like this.

Ever heard of Essenitial Amino Acids ?.
Here is your starter for 10.
😐

[url] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_amino_acid [/url]

I could be (in fact, I might actually be) a veggie-wot-eats-fish; except when it becomes even the *slightest* bit difficult.

Ah! You're a pesky-tarian.

Ever heard of Essenitial Amino Acids ?.

Of course I have. Do you have a point to go with that, or are you just randomly quoting things?

Sorry. Back by special request, but not for arguing.

Here is your starter for 10.

Maybe others wouldn't argue, if you were not quite so rude and patronising.

Solo, is this thread about vegetarianism or veganism?

I'll go with the mainstream scientific opinion, rather than your lack of being convinced, if that's all the same to you.

So your position is that humans would have evolved the same intelligence without eating meat, yes?

Incidentally, the Macca show is on Radio 4 now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01q7gvn

Basically, you can support the greatest number of people by reducing meat consumption but not completely eliminating it - mainly because animals likes goats and pigs can live on land that is useless for arable farming

Are you sure about that? I can just about see it for hill sheep, but even then they tend to be brought indoors for winter.

Growing food to feed animals for slaughter is inherently lossy - the laws of thermodynamics tell us that.

Growing food to feed animals for slaughter [s]is[/s] [b]has an [/b]inherently [b]high number of [/b][s]lossy[/s] [b]losses[/b] - the laws of thermodynamics tell us that.

Excellent work - poor grammar followed by citing 'the laws of thermo dynamics'.

Excellent work - poor grammar followed by citing 'the laws of thermo dynamics'.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lossy

Excellent work. Criticise a post for using a word in common usage and listed in the dictionary, then incorrectly change "thermodynamics" to "thermo dynamics".

If you wish to engage in pedantry rather than debate the issue, do at least try to be better at it.

I stand corrected.

I can just about see it for hill sheep, but even then they tend to be brought indoors for winter.

Do they? I thought they brought them down low, but IANAF. Still seeing loads of sheep outside in the snow, anyway. And even with low lying pasture it's not necessarily good land for crops, as I sugested up there.

Do they? I thought they brought them down low, but IANAF. Still seeing loads of sheep outside in the snow, anyway. And even with low lying pasture it's not necessarily good land for crops, as I sugested up there.

Some sheep certainly are supplemented with feed in winter and kept in barns, but I don't know the percentage. I recall a study suggesting that NZ lamb had a lower environmental impact than ours because the carbon cost of providing feed (NZ lamb being exclusively pasture-fed) is more than the cost of shipping the meat over here.

Wow, no moral argument?

If we accept that animals have rights, then killing and eating them is morally wrong. the animal's 'right to life' trumps ( in a south Gloucester tractor stylee) the humans trivial* right to eat meat

* trivial in the sense that the animals right is a greater right.

Agriculture violates the right to life of the animals it grows in lots of ways, living naturally, free choice, life free from fear and pain, life without medical intervention, natural diet, normal life of its species, off the top of my head.

Having said all that, if you square all that in your own head, and are happy with your choices, feel free to stuff, nay gorge yourself with whatever takes your fancy, it's a moral slide rule.

Me? I eat eggs, and drink milk, don't eat meat.

Are you sure about that? I can just about see it for hill sheep, but even then they tend to be brought indoors for winter.

Er, I was actually thinking about the land round my wife's home village in rural Extremadura, bringing the animals indoors for winter isn't a major concern when the weather rarely dips below 5C.

Me? I eat eggs, and drink milk, don't eat meat.

Commercially produced eggs and milk both rely on the slaughter of animals...

Wow, no moral argument?

Tis a good question. Not sure I have an answer.

Animals would seem to have a right to life. But it's quite complex. When an owl kills a mouse to feed to its chicks, whose rights are being violated?

And agriculture is a double edged sword. The life of a prey animal in the wild is pretty tense I would imagine - you never know when you're going to get eaten. Life in an organic beef herd could be pretty easy by comparison.

Then there's the question of intelligence. Swat a fly? Sure. Eat a fish? Well they are pretty witless, aren't they? Are they? What about cows then? Are they intelligent enough to know wtf is going on when they go to slaughter? Is it any different to being chased all over the plains daily by lions? And what about pigs? They are much more intelligent after all.

How do you think the chickens feel when you steal their eggs every morning? I have no idea.

It's a moral minefield.