Well that's a oxymoron when it comes to diet for carnivorous animals.
The problem here is that I provided a lot of strong evidence that this is not the case. I didn't think that you were the type of guy to simply ignore evidence. You don't present yourself in that way.
They cannot convert plant forms of nutrients into necessary forms like most humans can. They don't have the enzyme pathways. Their digestive systems are not made for that type of food.
Any missing nutrients - including taurine - are simply added to the food. If their digestive systems could not handle this type of food, then how is it that there
are so many healthy vegan cats and dogs?
Not only that, you're a hypocrite, because you think that keeping pets is akin to slavery since you force them to live with you, yet you are perfectly happy forcing a carnivorous animal to eat a vegan diet because of your belief system!
Here, you present one supposed "harm" - the supposed "forcing" of an animal to eat a vegan diet - totally out of the context of the opposing harm which avoiding it would entail: the forcing of multiple farm animals to die ghastly deaths across that animal's lifetime. It is obvious which is the worse harm, and this is consistent with my ethics rather than hypocritical, especially given that there is strong evidence that vegan diets are
not harmful to companion animals.
In any case (and this is simply an aside and not in the spirit of argument), I do not keep any animals myself, so the issue for me is not a personal one.
By the way, I have not said anything as definitive as "keeping pets is akin to slavery", but yes, there
are parallels that can be made. Typically, we talk about pet "owners" "owning" pets - and whilst, as Vault313 notes, the language of pets-as-property is slowly changing, it is not difficult to see the parallel with the language of humans-as-property. In this respect, the biggest problem with the pet paradigm that we currently have is one that I haven't even mentioned yet: the mass slaughter of "stray" companion animals in pounds. This is a direct consequence of our artificial requirement that dogs and cats be "owned" and contained within a private residence.
Put down some veggies and oatmeal next to a piece of chicken or fish and see what the cat freely chooses.
Many people who feed their companion animals a vegan diet say that their animals prefer the vegan food to what they were previously fed. Sometimes it takes a period of adjustment. In any case, this is irrelevant: as I wrote above, even
if an animal does not prefer a vegan diet, this is by far the lesser harm, especially because vegan pets do tend to be healthy.
This is complete non-sense. It's not a belief system! It's called our natural diet.
OK, so, tell me something: how many people in the West would chow down into a nice steak of dog, or a bit of roast cat leg, or some tender rat? Or a horse? How about some fried locusts? Locusts are plentiful in the USA, and I've heard that it is quite satisfying when you pop their crisp outer shell and their intestines explode into your mouth.
These are foods that are eaten in other cultures, yet in ours, they are taboo. We privilege certain animals as either "not food" or "disgusting to eat". This is not because eating those animals is "unnatural", but
because of our belief system.
We
could grant all animals and plants the privilege of being taboo as food, but
our beliefs condition us not to.
(An acknowledgement: this is the basis of Dr. Joy's work; these insights are not original to me).
We have historical, physiological, and paleoanthropological data that shows we not only ate meat
Sure, and there is also historical, physiological, and palaeoanthropological data that shows that in some cultures and during some periods, the proportion of meat was very small, sometimes only opportunistically-acquired, and that in some religions, such as Jainism, there have for a long time been strict vegans.
In any case,
none of this matters. What we did in the past is irrelevant to the present. If we were to restrict ourselves to what we did in the past, we would not drive cars, watch televisions, use computers, use modern pharmaceutical medicines or wear clothes made with synthetic fabrics. Do you think that immersing ourselves in a near-constant bath of electromagnetic radiation is "natural"? It is very probably harmful, but we do it because we perceive it to have benefits that outweigh the harms. Vegan-fruitarianism doesn't even have such harms, it is
all benefit!
but eating meat was key in the development of our brains and social aspects.
That is a strongly contested idea - in particular, many experts believe in contrast that it was the introduction of
cooked food, and not meat eating, that served that purpose - and for you to assert what you've asserted as a fact is far from reasonable or cautious. In any case, again,
even if it were true, it wouldn't matter. However instrumental meat
might have been in our development to this point, it is no longer a necessary part of our diets.
Our digestive systems are much closer to that of a predator than an herbivore, since we lack all the additional stomachs, produce strong stomach acid, etc.
These are rash and contestable statements. The case can
easily be made that our comparative anatomy is closer to that of a herbivore rather than that of a predator. Note that I do not take a strict position on this, because the argument for vegan-fruitarianism is ethical, and doesn't rely on anything historical or whatever it is that might be declared "natural" for us, but
here is an example of a strongly argued case very much the opposite of yours. Below, I've duplicated the table at the end.
We don't need "additional stomachs" because we are not ruminants! i.e. we do not need to digest grass. And we do
not produce strong stomach acid compared to carnivores and omnivores, as the table below shows:
Code:
Facial Muscles
Carnivore Reduced to allow wide mouth gape
Herbivore Well-developed
Omnivore Reduced
Human Well-developed
Jaw Type
Carnivore Angle not expanded
Herbivore Expanded angle
Omnivore Angle not expanded
Human Expanded angle
Jaw Joint Location
Carnivore On same plane as molar teeth
Herbivore Above the plane of the molars
Omnivore On same plane as molar teeth
Human Above the plane of the molars
Jaw Motion
Carnivore Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion
Herbivore No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
Omnivore Shearing; minimal side-to-side
Human No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
Major Jaw Muscles
Carnivore Temporalis
Herbivore Masseter and pterygoids
Omnivore Temporalis
Human Masseter and pterygoids
Mouth Opening vs. Head Size
Carnivore Large
Herbivore Small
Omnivore Large
Human Small
Teeth (Incisors)
Carnivore Short and pointed
Herbivore Broad, flattened and spade shaped
Omnivore Short and pointed
Human Broad, flattened and spade shaped
Teeth (Canines)
Carnivore Long, sharp and curved
Herbivore Dull and short or long (for defense), or none
Omnivore Long, sharp and curved
Human Short and blunted
Teeth (Molars)
Carnivore Sharp, jagged and blade shaped
Herbivore Flattened with cusps vs complex surface
Omnivore Sharp blades and/or flattened
Human Flattened with nodular cusps
Chewing
Carnivore None; swallows food whole
Herbivore Extensive chewing necessary
Omnivore Swallows food whole and/or simple crushing
Human Extensive chewing necessary
Saliva
Carnivore No digestive enzymes
Herbivore Carbohydrate digesting enzymes
Omnivore No digestive enzymes
Human Carbohydrate digesting enzymes
Stomach Type
Carnivore Simple
Herbivore Simple or multiple chambers
Omnivore Simple
Human Simple
Stomach Acidity
Carnivore Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
Herbivore pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach
Omnivore Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
Human pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach
Stomach Capacity
Carnivore 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
Herbivore Less than 30% of total volume of digestive tract
Omnivore 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
Human 21% to 27% of total volume of digestive tract
Length of Small Intestine
Carnivore 3 to 6 times body length
Herbivore 10 to more than 12 times body length
Omnivore 4 to 6 times body length
Human 10 to 11 times body length
Colon
Carnivore Simple, short and smooth
Herbivore Long, complex; may be sacculated
Omnivore Simple, short and smooth
Human Long, sacculated
Liver
Carnivore Can detoxify vitamin A
Herbivore Cannot detoxify vitamin A
Omnivore Can detoxify vitamin A
Human Cannot detoxify vitamin A
Kidney
Carnivore Extremely concentrated urine
Herbivore Moderately concentrated urine
Omnivore Extremely concentrated urine
Human Moderately concentrated urine
Nails
Carnivore Sharp claws
Herbivore Flattened nails or blunt hooves
Omnivore Sharp claws
Human Flattened nails
1. Vegan diets don't supply all necessary nutrients and also lack many conditionally essential nutrients. I thought we agreed not to get into posting a bunch of research? There is plenty out there showing deficiencies/insufficiencies for vegans, including insufficiencies of conditionally essential nutrients often lacking in vegan diets, which you seem to dismiss as even being a health concern, as if the only nutrients that matter are vitamins.
What I dismiss is that there are widespread negative health effects for all of these supposed deficiencies which you hypothesise. You want to say vegans are necessarily deficient in some nutrient X - OK, fine, so then why are there so many healthy vegans out there
not showing any symptoms of deficiency?
2. You wish to promote a foreign diet as being perfectly fine for everyone, which already should raise a red flag because not everyone does well on the same sort of diet:
As I wrote in an earlier post, a vegan diet is more a spectrum of possibilities than a single diet.
There is in any case evidence that our anatomy is well-adapted to an herbivorous diet. It is not "foreign" to us. Whether or not humans have in the past included meat in our diet is irrelevant to our capacity to not do so in the present
due to our physiological capacity to survive on an herbivorous diet.
a) It is unethical to put developing children on a vegan diet, to force an unnatural diet based on a faulty belief system, that could affect their development. Particularly, the fat soluble vitamins are vital for genetic expression, which is involved in things like proper bone structure so they don't have crowded teeth or develop cavities!
None of
these vegan parents and kids agree with you, and nor do any of the major membership-based national associations of experts in nutrition in the USA, Australia, UK and Canada,
despite being biased by the commercial interests of the meat, dairy, egg and fast food industries.
b) It is racially biased because not all ethnic backgrounds can do as well on a vegan diet which you ignore. Many Native American tribes do not handle plant-based diets well at all, since their ancestral diets have made them genetically more reliant on animal products.
If a cat - a so-called "obligatory carnivore" - can handle a vegan diet without "reliance on animal products", then any human race - at best
adapted to an omnivorous diet - certainly can too.
c) You completely ignore the reality of research that you wish to claim supports your position by looking at averages and say that everything is okay. People are individuals, not averages! To ignore the people that do poorly on a vegan diet because the average may do okay and then say that they should also follow a vegan diet because "on average it is okay" is unethical.
No, what is unethical is the unnecessary taking of life, regardless of whether it benefits our health. In an earlier post, you mentioned depression, and you say that you think animal products cured that. I am very sympathetic to such problems, and I mean no lack of regard for your personal suffering in what I'm about to say, I genuinely wish you ongoing relief. I have experienced very, very low points myself - and I have for about fifteen years now suffered from psycho-spiritual problems which have at times become so bad that other people have felt the need to have me detained (involuntarily, always - but that's a topic for another thread) in psychiatric wards. I literally can't count (remember) the number of times that this has happened to me over those fifteen years, but if I thought that killing or otherwise harming animals or plants was a potential solution to those problems, I would anyway be aghast at the thought of implementing it. Our problems are our own to deal with, not for us to inflict on other beings.
d) There are many diseased states that make a vegan diet contraindicated, since either enzyme pathways converting plant forms of nutrients into the necessary forms may be compromised (possibly severely), or their digestive systems may not be capable of handling a plant-based diet for a variety of reasons. To say that these people should also be on a vegan diet is unethical.
To say that other beings should bite the bullet of our own problems is unethical. There is always a way. I linked to the meal replacement
Soylent in an earlier post. That's one possible solution to otherwise apparently-intractable cases. If that doesn't work for some reason, then it just takes the effort to find the right solution.
Oh! It's okay to mangle the animals because scavenger birds will eat most of the rotting carcasses. Got it.
I am not sure how you could have gotten that from all that I have written on this issue. I have never said that it is "okay" that animals are mangled by harvesters. I have said that we should aim for a world where this does not occur. But I notice that you ignored the paper by Gaverick Matheny which I shared with you, and the arguments he presents.
Another page that I link to in my pre-written response which you probably skipped is the animalvisuals.org page,
Number of Animals Killed to Produce One Million Calories in Eight Food Categories. Here, they take as one of their sources the same study that was used in the original argument (by Davis) that an omnivorous diet is least harmful, and they calculate the following figures. These assume that those original figures which Davis used are correct, which is a big assumption - the study wasn't, as far as I can tell, even designed to calculate animal deaths during harvest. In any case, based on existing plant agricultural practices, let alone after improving those practices, the figures for deaths per one million calories of various food categories (total, by slaughter, and by harvest) are:
Code:
Food | Total | Slghtr | Hrvst
-----------+--------+--------+------
Chicken | 251.1 | 237.6 | 13.5
Eggs | 92.3 | 83.3 | 9
Beef | 29 | 1.7 | 27.4
Pork | 18.1 | 7.1 | 11
Milk | 4.78 | 0.04 | 4.74
Vegetables | 2.55 | 0 | 2.55
Fruits | 1.73 | 0 | 1.73
Grains | 1.65 | 0 | 1.65
Animal products entail far more animal deaths than do vegan products, even without any agricultural reforms, and not to mention the cruelty and suffering that animal products entail pre-death, which in most cases (most animals in the West at least are farmed in factory farms) is probably even worse than death.
You might be wondering: how can beef entail 27.4 deaths by harvest? I can only presume that this figure is due to taking into account those cattle which are fed grain in feed-lots. And you might be tempted to respond: but wait! This doesn't apply to me! I eat free-range beef! But in this respect you are and can only be a privileged minority in the current world: there is no way that there is enough space in the world with its current population for everybody to eat free-range beef (or free-range
any animal). It is only possible for everybody to eat meat through farming animals in feed lots and/or industrial factories. So, in promoting the view that humans are dependent on animal products for health, and that we should all eat them, you are condemning animals to the cruelty that you say that you would like to see stamped out.
So eating their seeds, which they intended for reproduction, is in their best interest?
If we are farming these plants in the first place, then obviously there is no problem with their reproduction: it is in both our interests and the plants' that they reproduce. Plants produce and always have produced an excess of seeds.
What I am noticing is that when regarding ethics, the belief system behind veganism is internally inconsistent, while the belief system behind the ethical concerns of an omnivorous diet is not.
The reason for this seems to revolve around the belief that it is ethically wrong to kill, harm, or exploit any living thing in order to eat. [emphasis Laird's]
The bolded is a misstatement of the principle on which at least my own vegan-fruitarianism is based: that avoidable harm should be avoided. There is no inconsistency in veganism given that principle.
In contrast, omnivorous diets ignore this principle. You are yet to respond to it over this entire exchange.