How many people interested in ethics here put their ethics where their plate is, Whilst The religious masses have an excuse for eating the flesh of our fellow mammals and other species, What is your excuse!!!! ( unless of course you are already Vegan)...

Views: 1427

Replies to This Discussion

I am pretty sure that the deaths I have witnessed are indicative of the accuracy of the stats I mention.

Present science doesn't even agree on what is a low risk diet... cholesterol is loosing its the top position to grains

Science agrees that high cholesterol diets are a health risk, So do all those who do the autopsies.

As for grains It has long been known that gluten is a digestive problem. I personally don't consume wheat spelt or barley as my wife is celiac. I actually have a much healthier life because it prevents me from consuming junk food.

Autopsies merely show the presence of cardiovascular disease; they contribute NOTHING to the concept of WHY it occurs. The studies that blamed red meat and cholesterol were chosen by political representatives with no scientific background to push an agenda -- that is very clearly explained in Taubes' book. And ever since reading that book, and several others, I cast a jaundiced eye on ANY book or govt. policy that pushes one concept -- there are just too many variables, and nothing yet that incontrovertibly explains the facts. Meanwhile, I will eat in a way that preserves MY health as best as possible, and it AIN'T vegan.

The studies that blamed red meat and cholesterol were chosen by political representatives with no scientific background to push an agenda

So you hunk the Vegan lobby group is larger than that of the meat industry....come on you have a larger axe to grind than I do. At worst I am just depriving my self of easy protein, at best I am respecting the lives of other sentient beings. where as At best you are just murdering anther sentients and achieving easy protein from that, At word's you are violating any ethics you have and killing yourself at the same time. If you think your diet of meat and dairy is better for you than the vegan alternative you are ignorant, I would agree it might be easier though. Have a look at the acid levels created from the breakdown of animal products. Also have a look at the studies of seventh day eventists.

We are not carnivores, we are omnivores and have digestive tracts only adapted to tolerating small amounts of meat. As natural selection selects for procreation not old age, The fact that meat will reduce lifespan is not selected against. Meat consumption was clearly sporadic as b12 levels last in the system for years. In any case you would be silly to use evolutionary arguments if your goal is to live beyond middle age. Evolution will get you to 40, Science will get you to old age. The science says a plant based diet is healthier by a long shot. Have a look at "The china study" people in china that consumed no meat had 0 heart disease. The biggest argument for a vegan life is to prevent radical climate change, the elimination of animal production would have a more positive effect than taking every vehicle off the road!!!

Oh come now, the China study is a farce and has been multiply debunked. Percentage of meat in earlier humans was entirely dependent on geographic location. Moutain Ecuadorians had almost none, North American Indians had plenty of small trapped mammals/eals, etc in their diets. Other than NOT living fully, most humans only achieve longevity pas 'middle age' through being high maintenance and medicated. How many seniors do you know who are not under medical maintenance. Longevity is a high maintenance joke.

I can give ou an example of many seniors in australia who are receiving far more improvements in life from doctor guided diet change than pills. I have a hiatus hernia that  required acid inhibitors for years, whilst I was Vegetarian My acid levels were  high, Soon as I went vegan I no long needed Acid inhibitors.

   As for the china study it has not been debunked, yes there were a view flaws but much of the data is very valid. 

  Most medication seniors are on is for cholesterol and heart issues caused by diet....

If you think you can just eat what ever you wan't and medicate in your old age, you are in for a rude shock. You do realise that most western world illness in middle age is self inflicted and not as genetically caused as you suggest. Smoke and it is likely  you will die earlier than you would have, Drink and it is likely you will die earlier than you would have, eat poorly and it is likely that you will die earlier than you would have.....

The only question is....Are you being honest with yourself and do you really wan't to shorten your life?

Abuse of nicotine shortens a lifespan, but not limited use.
Abuse of alcohol shortens a lifespan, but limited amounts have been amply demonstrated to be beneficial.

So what if vegetarians live statistically a few more months than meat inclined folks. There are many behaviours with a much greater impact. Is all the fuss worth a few months, even if it were truly demonstrated, which it isn't... How much tweaking and fussing must we be coerced into?

The 'whatever you want' and 'medicate' attitude is what most people do. I'm somewhere in between, I've been moderately careful about behaviours, to the extent of convenience and budget, but NOT religious about any of these behaviours... I don't think the fuss is worth it.

I can say this with certainty, had I been a person of more means, I would certainly have imbibed in much more recreational drugs/alcohol/partying in my life, notwithstanding a remote possibility of a shorter life. But I have the fun I can with my modest budget. My priority in life is quality not quantity years. I'll gladly chose death at 60 rather than an extra 20-30 years on meds and maintenance and precautions.

Edit... I do encourage my peers to reduce flesh intake to a few meals a week, and add greens to their diet, but I don't proselytise. I spend more time chiding my single mom friend over thinking that her 12 y/o's life is being saved by a stupid foam helmet.

Abuse of alcohol shortens a lifespan, but limited amounts have been amply demonstrated to be beneficial.

This is very disputed, It was at first considered to only be red wine and port that had the effect. New evidence considers all alcohol consumption to be a risk. This makes sense as all alcohol contains formaldehyde and methanol in varying amounts. neither of these are a good thing.

Which would completely belie French and Italian longevity, pre-colonial indigenous peoples. There are so many problems with human studies, they simply aren't very reliable, due to the number of variables which are impossible to control for. Humans population studies are the most error-prone of the biological sciences, which is the reason behind the 100s of books in bookstores claiming to have "the" solution to long life, each with different theories.

Its not about the solution to long life, more the risks associated with short life. Your argument is more likely evidence that you drink.





Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service