Quote:
Originally Posted by brandongilbert  I think it depends on the person and their lifestyle. Some people need some animal products |
Can you prove this? Can you give a biological reason why one would need animal products?
I hope you don't mind me debating this idea with you.
Quote:
|
Humans have relied on animal products for a really long time. It is certainly natural.
|
Do you mean natural as in needed and healthy? Or natural as in "could exist in nature"?
If we rely on looking at history to determine if meat is necessary or healthy, I'll argue that history & mankind's evolution shows otherwise.
Take a look at our body physiology:
-- Animals that eat alot of meat (even omnivores) have pointy teeth for tearing the meat. Even dogs, which can eat whatever is available, have canine teeth. We have: flat not pointy teeth in the front and lots of big flat molars. Our teeth look more like a horse's teeth than a dog or cat's.
-- Look at our intestinal track: it's longer and similar in design to that of a heribivore. We also don't have the protections to eat raw meat. Humans can get very sick or die from eating old or tainted meat. Compare that to something like a domestic dog which can eat raw or scavenged meat.
-- Look at the rest of our body for clues on how we should obtain our food: we have long flexible fingers, like a primate. No claws. No ability to hunt without tools. I challenge any of the non-veg*ns here to take down a small animal and then eat it raw, without the help of others, tools, and cooking.
Or look at it from the angle of evolution of the human race:
The more advanced a population became, the more civilized they are said to be, yes? Civilized is a word that means civil which in turn means commonwealth or state. What transformed humans from a wild band of roaming hunter/gatherers is
agriculture. For a village to remain in one spot, they needed a steadier food source than the seasonal fluctuations of wildlife. Agriculture allowed people to stay in one spot and grow. If we were meant to be mainly meat-eaters, we'd all still be wandering the tundra in small bands, looking for a mammoth to spear.
If we were meant to eat meat, we wouldn't get so many health problems directly linked to diet. We know meat is the major reason why people get problems with cholesterol and heart disease. We know cardiovascular problems are one of our modern nation's top killers. How can we say it's "natural" (=good), if it's killing us?
People used to ingest
lead compounds. Lead adds a sweet taste to food. Lead is also toxic, and the longer you take it, the more damage is done. But lead is natural, and people can tolerate tiny doses of it. If lead is good to eat because it's natural, is that enough of an argument to prove meat should be eaten?