Vegetarianism is a Higher level View

[MJA]

MJ...I love all animals...I respect all of life's creations...not just some of them.....


Mikal

Thats good, but from your prior post regarding giving dogs anti-depressants you have a hard time thinking animals can get depressed? Or did I misunderstand you?

=
MJA

[MJA]

" In their behavior toward creatures, all men are Nazis.
Human beings see oppression vividly when they're the victims.
Otherwise they victimize blindly and without a thought."

To see the truth of this, One need only visit the concentration camps for mustangs in Nevada that the BLM maintain.
But not all men work for or behave like them.
History repeats itself again.

=
MJA

[Mikal]

Hi MJ....the question can dogs and cats get depressed is not at issue in my post...at issue is the problem of assuming when animals might be in a depressed state and using that to drug dogs and cats thereby simply increasing the huge coffers of Corporations....its an industry..that was the issue in my post....

Brainwashing people as to what states of mood animals "ARE" in....has allowed people to be duped....showing up in the scenario of false charity is one of the biggest propaganda tools used today on a very gullible society...


Mikal

[MJA]

Hi MJ....the question can dogs and cats get depressed is not at issue in my post...at issue is the problem of assuming when animals might be in a depressed state and using that to drug dogs and cats thereby simply increasing the huge coffers of Corporations....its an industry..that was the issue in my post....

Brainwashing people as to what states of mood animals "ARE" in....has allowed people to be duped....showing up in the scenario of false charity is one of the biggest propaganda tools used today on a very gullible society...


Mikal

Thanks, and sorry for the misunderstanding.
A happy dog is easy to see, some wag their tails and some don't.
I did find asprin helped my dog in later years.
=
MJA

[labelwench]

Dear Melanie,

As you note in your most recent post, elephants are herbivores, therefore they eat vegetation. The largest whale eats plankton, while sharks and killer whales eat other fish.

The cat (Felis catus), also known as the domestic cat or house cat to distinguish it from other felines and felids, is a small predatory carnivorous species of crepuscular mammal that is valued by humans for its companionship and its ability to hunt vermin, snakes, scorpions and other unwanted household pests. It has been associated with humans for at least 9,500 years.[5]

My cat only suffers to eat commercial food during the winter when he cannot secure mice, birds or red squirrels.

Despite descending from wolves (and classified in the order Carnivora), the domestic dog is an omnivore.[23] Unlike an obligate carnivore (such as the cat family with its shorter small intestine), a dog is neither dependent on meat-specific protein nor a very high level of protein in order to fulfill its basic dietary requirements. Dogs are able to healthily digest a variety of foods, including vegetables and grains, and can consume a large proportion of these in their diet. In the wild, canines often eat available plants and fruits.[23

We may have more success with some breeds of dog when it comes to reducing meat in their diet, although some working breeds, notably Eskimo dogs and Alaskan Huskies will become ill when fed grain based commercial foods.

The questions are hard, Melanie, and if I had all of the answers, I would not be tasking yourself or others with them.
I guess the point I wish to make is that debating the moral high ground brings us no closer to solving the real concerns.

How can we, respectfully, address the very real concerns of animal suffering, human health, and environmental degradation.

We really do want the same things, just coming at them from different cultures and perspectives. The First Peoples of this land are very respectful of the planet and all life forms. (They even saved the first arrivals when they would have perished of scurvy.) I defend their values and I respect yours as well.

This thread would be a much poorer forum without your thoughtful posts, Melanie. Labelwench is not your enemy. We share a common cause and if we create a marketplace with more organic produce and far less meat, we will both have contributed much.

Labelwench

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Greg; Good reply and I understand exactly your point.

In reply to yours, I am no longer convinced that 'realisation' is separate from natural selection, but rather, is just another adaptation.

Hi Greg,

Agreed.

The only life species that can confirm that Homo Sapiens has a special gift of 'realisation, is Homo Sapiens.

Further, in order to reach our current sapient state it was necessary to eat meat. Some sages say that the end can never justify the means, because the end is the outcome of the means employed. In a simpler format ... 'Doing bad never leads to good'

To me, this thinking eventually leads to some form of intelligent design and is contrary to natural selection

The end is always unknown and the means are ends in themselves. We are here discussing today because all our ancestors found a form of hi-protein diet, responsible for our large brains (relatively speaking) in marrow and meat.

Is this a fact? IMO this is a misconception even if the experts state it. I subscribe to the hypothesis that modern humans have made a key evolution for speech ability that thus has developed this specie to the current dominance stage. The large brains development is not necessary as a result of a diet that have to included meat, even if that development was through the circumstances of meat eating.

FYI, I had done a project involving around two-hundred Campbell hamsters to observe their gene mutation with selective breeding through many generations, they were all on strict herbivorous diet. Every known mutation that would develop a specific ability for this breed had occurred accordingly. Unexpectedly, a mutation that does not occur to omnivorous Campbell hamster had occurred in those vegetarian Campbell hamsters instead. What in the omnivorous diet that inhibit that specific mutation is not known, but conclusively it shows that the strict herbivorous diet did not inhibit any of those known gene mutations.

It is known that all ancestor species of Panda have carnivorous digestive system, this suggests that all panda species were originally carnivorous, what exactly had happened that their survived offspring of two subspecies are all herbivorous and how did they adapt to it is not conclusively known. What known conclusively is meat diet is not an absolute prerequisite in the course of nature for animal specie to successfully survive in their evolution that adapts to changed environments.

These were the ends employed. These were the 'means' employed that enabled 'realisation'. To 'realise' now, that our ancestors were in error is illogical. If it was 'good' to do 'bad' to reach a final outcome of 'good' is to forecast and justify ourselves as the 'end' product. This is a self-centric view (the universe wheels on its course just for us)

The issue here is not on judging that our ancestors were in errors by looking back, the issue in on our conscience realizing that eating meat is inhumane and that is not necessary the best course for humanity in looking forward. And all sticking to an old habit of meat diet could be a mistake that would lead to disastrous consequences instead.

Lincoln agenda to put forced slavery to a stop was not welcome by most middle and upper class Americans who own slaves and in their norm did not feel that this tradition is inhumane at all, in fear of the change in their rationalization, they had probably thought that it was an absolute mistake and America with that legislation would collapse and turn for the worst in upheavals of this tradition. USA did not fall on that legislation as it was feared and it is now indisputable that forced slavery is inhumane.

IMO, the universe wheels on its course for everything that paradoxically appears as it is center to everything. The self-centric view is merely an illusion of localized perception in a delusion of a cognitive paradox. We are inherently evolved to perceive the self-centric view in all aspect of things pertaining to nature, and believed that abiding to such perceptions is pragmatic for survival, however, this is merely a belief that could be reified through all sorts of intelligence designs.

Once again the only life species that can confirm that Homo Sapiens has a special gift of 'realisation, is Homo Sapiens. I liken this to organising a race, where we are the only competitor entered, we donate the trophy, and award it to ourselves, because we are the only winner. This is a subjective view and always leads to some form of intelligent design.

I understand your point clearly on intelligent design, and understand the pitfalls of self-fulfilling prophecy with the tautology of intelligent designs in a belief system based on myths. There is too much mythically driven intelligent design out there that are very convincing but are based on false facts. I have come from a long way to know such fallacies quite well and share your sentiments. However, what we have confidently believed might not be the true, and we believe as not true could be based on a wrong perception build on an intelligent design that negates the true.

Barack Obama has yet to prove himself, but I admire him so far. In my view an equal, if not more interesting president of the US was Thomas Jefferson, he said 'Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong.'

This very interesting individual could be an elected president of USA at all was indirectly granted by the humane realization of Lincoln with his empathy for fellow humans and rationality for a better nation that had put an end to legalized forced slavery in this country. Whether Barack Obama could prove himself or not is another issue, if he truly made that statement (some say that news report is a hoax) at all as reported, it indicates that he has arrived at the point of this realization similar to his benefactor. His humane realization if legislated and executed successfully could bring that great good deed of Lincoln to a higher level, which would make them a very great and interesting pair in history.

To not eat meat because you don't like it is reasonable.

This is just a matter of choice, nothing to do with consciously being humane.

To not eat meat because it is 'inhumane' (not-human) is to set yourself apart from all other species, and in effect is simply to establish a ritual or obeisance.

I understand your point that the act should not be based on reified concepts with moot explanations that would irrationally establish rituals with circular reasoning.

All species, flora and fauna, (bar the phyto-plankton who get their energy from the sun) dine on each other

The above statement is not true.

In India, many areas, are vegetarian, and this food is wonderful. These areas are vegetarian on the face of it for ritualistic reasons, but I believe it came about thru natural selection working in a climate of heat and hi-humidity and food preservation without contamination.

This is a reasonable view that correlates with the observation. Like this view of yours, I would also prefer to make educated assessment rationally based on accurate facts with correct logic within reasonable doubts, on a pragmatic basis with empirical studies on how things are developing on Earth for humanity, how I saw it IMO in a general view can be found in my web page on OWNER.

Best regards,

[Graybeard]

Hi Vincent .....

Thanks for a really great reply. I look forward to digesting your post ... which will take some time .. You have posted on a broad spectrum and I will try to reply in separate posts to each issue ... otherwise there will be quotes upon quotes.

Please be patient .. I am reading and re-reading

cool bananas ... greg

[Graybeard]

The only life species that can confirm that Homo Sapiens has a special gift of 'realisation, is Homo Sapiens.

I think that we have agreed ... so far .. that what we are discussing can only be, in the main a subjective view. That is .. we are discussing ourselves, and we are therefore subject to our own limitations in arriving at a conclusion.

I cannot state anything as 'necessary' or an absolute fact and be certain of such even tho I use these terms for discussion. OK ?

Further, in order to reach our current sapient state it was necessary to eat meat.

Is this a fact? IMO this is a misconception even if the experts state it. I subscribe to the hypothesis that modern humans have made a key evolution for speech ability that thus has developed this specie to the current dominance stage.

The large brains development is not necessary as a result of a diet that have to included meat, even if that development was through the circumstances of meat eating.

I believe it to be a prime cause. I will try to explain my reasoning.

To address your first sentence: I fully concur with your view that modern humans have made a key evolution or natural selection for speech ability. That is, the ability to communicate. But this could not be the prime cause, other adaptations had to occur first. Earlier hominids could not speak .. in the literal sense of language, but they were capable of 'realisation'. They already had a large brain comparatively speaking in relation to all other species.

The ability to master the lungs and voice box, and they're present locations, was initiated by an upright stance.

Fossil evidence shows the following order:

* Upright Stance (towards bi-pedal)
* Increase in Brain capacity
* Communication
* Organisation
* Speech (as in language)


This is not a textbook list, but a general one.

The upright stance, first developed by lemur-like creatures (our ancestors) that used it as a locomotion thru trees came into its own at the time of the formation of the great rift valley. This caused a rapid drying out of Africa. The environment went from rainforest to semi-arid forests separated by grasslands.

Many different hominid species (bi-pedal or upright) now appeared in reflection of this rapid environmental change.

* Australopithecus ramidus - 5 to 4 million years
* Australopithecus afarensis - 4 to 2.7 million years
* Australopithecus africanus - 3.0 to 2.0 million years
* Australopithecus robustus - 2.2 to 1.0 million years
* Homo habilis - 2.2 to 1.6 million years
* Homo erectus - 2 to 0.4 million years
* Homo sapiens - 400,000 to 200,000 years
* Homo sapiens neandertalensis - 200,000 to 30,000 years
* Homo sapiens sapiens - 130,000 years to present

This is not a complete list, and many hominid species are not on here. Further evidence in the future may alter this list somewhat. More detailed lists can be found HERE and HERE

Many of these hominids were contemporary and lived side by side. Our DNA shows that we can only have descended from one of them. IMO it was Homo Habilus.

Homo Habilus is the first hominid fossil to evidence a large brain (half our size)

He could not speak. He walked upright. He invented the first stone tools (a massive step forward) He was curious. He was a scavenger. He was not a specialist. He was tiny, three foot or one metre tall. His 'nickname' is Handyman

From a previous POST

Handyman. He was just a little guy, only coming up to our waist ... bullied and pushed out of the good territories. The only way he could get food was to scavenge and keep out of everyone else's way.

He made an incredible discovery ... He did this because he was incredibly curious, starvation makes you investigate every possible source. (his memory banks were larger than Lucys) By waiting his turn, until all the other predators had left the kill site, he collected the bones. Using rocks he smashed open the bones in a safe location and feasted on the marrow. He was the only, and the first, creature that worked this out.

Marrow and Brain are made from the same matter.

He had found a continuous source of food, easily collected. His brain, owing to this rich diet of pure brain matter grew in size and the cross connections grew with it. The single leg bone of a Giraffe can contain 10kgs of marrow !

He was the first of our ancestors to make cross connections. He had made a connection between Stone and Bone to release food. They were 2 different compounds but in some way that he did not really understand, they were connected. Even tho he was only a little, small timid curious fellow, he now stood tall amongst all others. He could organise, and he did. Working like a trained commando unit, they would throw rocks at Lions and Hyenas that had made a fresh kill. The lions were bigger and stronger, but they were frightened by the swarm of Handyman and missiles approaching.

There are many methods of communication. One of the first (and very important IMO) was the selection of 'whites' to the eyes (Homo Ergaster ... Homo Erectus ??). This gave hominids the ability to 'realise' what another was 'realising'. Hunting became sophisticated because a glance was enough to indicate intention of when and how to act/react. Even today the first thing we do when we meet another is to focus on their eyes. A relict of our first communications ... To avoid eye contact is still taken today as not wanting your feelings to be read by another. Handyman did not have whites to his eyes.

All of this came before speech. Even the mastery of fire, (campfires especially) which gave us the freedom and security to relax our guard and to be introspective came before speech (altho of this I am not so sure)

Sorry about the long post, and I have still only responded to your first paragraph ... lol

more soon ... greg

[Graybeard]

All species, flora and fauna, (bar the phyto-plankton who get their energy from the sun) dine on each other

The above statement is not true.

This is simply a description of the food chain.

All Species require energy ... or die.

Plankton, algae, slime, etc get their energy from the sun or from the remaining heat within the earth resulting from its cataclysmic formation.

The Earth consists of Rocks, metals and water (general statement)

When the first life forms left the sea they colonised rock. Their dead bodies formed the first soils. Other species adapted to live in, and on these soils (organic material)

Fauna adapted to live on both flora and fauna. And Flora lives on soils.

Both Flora and Fauna donate their bodies back to the earthworms to be converted back to soils on their death.

Why is this not correct ?? And where do you see a break of any significance in this food chain.

The carbon cycle explains this ??

Many species switch between predator carnivores, herbivores, and omnivores as they speciate.

Mouse >> Carnivorous Dog >> Whale ...
grains >> meat >> plankton

Total time to evolve about 70 million years. This is an adaptation to circumstance.

Thanks Vincent ... look forward to your reply

cool bananas ... greg

[austintorn@aol.com]

The Answers

Science discovers the real life lessons;
Religion just makes for bigger questions;
Philosophers just sit around in chairs;
Evolution explains how we got somewheres.