Vegetarianism and INTP

[aaaw]

"There's a video I'm having a hard time finding where a MD shows that actually we are not designed as carnivores."

You're right, we are not designed as carnivores. We have evolved to be omnivores.

I stand by the statement that there is nothing inherently healthier about a vegetarian diet.

 

[Agapooka]

No offense but this post is nearly 100% misinformation.

Actually, he used the word "usually" and I believe that it's justified, considering the relative difficulty of organising one's diet in a way in which we receive all the necessary nutrients, if it does not include meat. This means that research normally needs to be done in order to design a diet that can provide all the amino acids that we cannot produce ourselves, for example. This also means that when no research is done, it is incredibly likely that the resulting vegetarian diet (especially if it is vegan) will lack something.

On the other hand, if it is carefully planned, researched and structured, I believe that it is capable of exceeding the health benefits of a diet that includes meat, although I have not tried it, myself. An interesting point was brought up, though. It is only recently that widely available food is diverse enough to allow a substantial part of the population to do this. Imagine more remote civilisations surviving without meat. The Inuit are an extreme example, because agriculture and plant life are extremely rare in their part of the world. I would have said that agriculture is impossible, but technology has changed this slightly, albeit recently. Hydroponics and powerful controlled lighting are used in Antarctica to grow avocados, for example (and the method used would be equally effective in the arctic).

The point is, many of the foods that vegans depend upon for a wholesome diet cannot/are not be/ing produced locally in sufficient quantities to feed a substantial part of the population, with the exception of warmer places. The fact that they are available is very often a result of transportation over thousands of kilometers. Or perhaps we are not aware of how rich our natural environments really are?

I am interested in the fine line that distinguishes vegan from vegetarian. Would eating the droppings of hares constitute a violation of the definition of "vegan"?

 

[gps]

hello.
this is my first thread.

so anyways this thread is about being a vegetarian intp,i am a vegetarian, i was wondering if its common or not.... that's all.

Hmmm ... a good question.
I've often heard it said, "You are what you eat."
And this seems a related topic.

If I am what I eat then I MUST be a vegetarian, because I eat vegetarians.

 

[childish_intellect]

I don't think I could ever manage being a straight on vegetarian. The temptation to eat meat is just too great. Currently I haven't sampled rabbit and duck. I wonder how they taste

 

[Architect]

No this information is decades out of date, goes back to the old 'Diet For a Small Planet' thinking, the protean combining nonsense. We know a few things now, one, you don't need a complete set of amino acids in one meal to get what you need, the body will happily combine and do without on it's own. Second, protean isn't that important, actually in excess of around 10% of your calories it has a definite deleterious effect on health and longevity. The data shows that 7% is probably best. This should be obvious, your body burns glucose (sugar) which is converted from complex carbohydrates, very little protean is needed, especially in an adult. The body can convert protean to glucose in a very dirty and complex process, but it's hard on you (this is what the idiotic Atkins diet depends on, the process is called Ketosis and it spews all sorts of shit into your body). Finally, check the full nutritional charts on meat versus any plant other than iceberg lettuce - meat has very little nutritional content other than excessive fat and protean, while your average plant is a chemical storehouse with protean, carbohydrates, fiber, vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients. It's another discussion on the relationship between phytonutrients (anti-oxidents primarily) and health.

Fact is that every great culture the earth has ever produced was based on some major grain. Asians and rice, Europeans and Barley, Rye or Wheat, Americas and corn, Incas and Quinoa. You know why Egypt was always at war? Their granaries (based on Nile delta agriculture) where a big, fat, prize (they lived on Emmer, a type of wheat.) Most smaller cultures are centered around some mono plant culture. There are tribes of peruvians in the mountains whose way of living hasn't changed much. In fact their lives are quite toxic, the men go into these long smoke houses where you can cut the tobacco smoke with a knife. Guess what the cancer rates are in these tribes? Basically zero. Guess how much meat they eat? Basically zero. Diet? A couple different types of sweet potatoes.

The National Institute of Health, National Cancer Institute, Kaiser et. al. know the exact score - eat plants and very little meat, the research is dead clear on this, no argument. Problem is people don't like to change.

Actually, he used the word "usually" and I believe that it's justified, considering the relative difficulty of organising one's diet in a way in which we receive all the necessary nutrients
...

I am interested in the fine line that distinguishes vegan from vegetarian. Would eating the droppings of hares constitute a violation of the definition of "vegan"?

I don't know of anybody who eats rabbit shit, but I do know many cultures that eat rotten meat. The Icelanders and some South Americans, the first being sharks which are rotted for a few months and the latter where they let meat rot in piles for days and then eaten. Since rotted meat contains mould, maggots and bacteria, is that still carnivorous?

Further, via a process called 'rendering', modern meat production in the US takes rotted carcasses and (not kidding) roadkill and turns it into food to be fed back to the cows, in the form of little pellets. This is why they dose the animals so much with antibiotics, because ruminants aren't designed to eat that much protean (and especially all the corn they feed them is way too acidic.) At any rate is it still being a carnivore to eat rendered meat fed animals, or is that more like a scavenger such as a vulture? Seems like a fine line.

 

[Architect]

You're right, we are not designed as carnivores. We have evolved to be omnivores.

I stand by the statement that there is nothing inherently healthier about a vegetarian diet.

That's cool, stand by your statement. It's just that a few billion dollars of research shows your wrong.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

There are so many combinations of food you can make from non-meat products, there's more variety than there seems to be.

It would be great if the business of the world focused the factors of production on efficient and healthy means of producing and cultivating fruits & vegetables. It's too competition focused right now.... In a socialist state this could all be fixed in no time.

 

[CBadfeather]

I've been a Vegan for about a year now. I just got into it for the health benefits of a plant based diet. I got interested in nutrition when I began running/working out and that led me to reading books like the China Study and Food Rules and documentaries like Forks Over Knives and Food Inc. and the facts were there to support a plant based diet, so it was kind of hard to not put into practice.

I don't think it's unhealthy to eat fish or meat occasionally for the b12 and DHA/ALA fatty acids (I just don't because I don't really feel like I need to anymore) You get over that whole craving/not feeling full thing after a week or so your body just has to adjust.

I think there would be a high number of INTPs who are vegetarian, but for more... reasoned out reasons*, rather than "animals are so cute, I could never eat one!", "those slaughterhouse pictures just make me feel sick!".

I agree. ^ I could care less if people eat a steak except for the fact that it supports a factory farming system that's environmentally irresponsible

 

[WhatTheFunction]

Well, I'm vegan. I also don't eat gluten. Don't know if there's any correlation.

 

[snafupants]

I would argue it's not all that healthy to embrace a vegetarian diet as an extended way of life. Meat is chock full of fat soluble vitamins, amino acids, essential minerals and an excellent balance between calcium and phosphorous. The well-rounded protein found in animal meats also provides cholesterol and good fats for hormone production and blood-sugar stabilization over time. So by not eating meat you're not only losing out on that but potentially introducing less nutritious protein sources into your diet; most vegetarians I know cheat anyway by eating animal protein via eggs and dairy products. But to speak to less nutritious protein sources, a lot of vegetarians think it's a swell idea to down pounds of tofu every day; check out phytic acid and its relation to tofu and other foods that humans are not meant to eat because we're not ruminants. Thanks for playing, but humans were meant to consume animal meats on a daily basis. I'm a recovering vegetarian, by the way. As far as type goes, I would expect all four introverted and intuitive personalities to show equal amounts of vegetarianism because of an unorthodox approach to life in general among that pool of folks. Unorthodox does not, necessarily, mean more informed; often it means just the opposite: ignorant, perfunctory rebellion. This is sort of like compulsively thumbing your nose at those who raised you or deriding perceived authority figures.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I'm sort of vegetarian for several reasons:

1. Meat=$ which I don't like to spend.
2. That veggie stuff actually tastes good.
3. It is apparently healthier over the long term.
4. There are real environmental benefits. It's less about the suffering of cute charismatic critters and more about land used to produce livestock feed that could be put to better use producing food for people, actually providing ecosystem services, etc. In my world hunting is strongly encouraged because it partially fills the role of the predators we tend to extirpate and it results in a cheap self-sustaining food source so long as we don't overharvest. Deer, bear, rabbit, squirrel, beaver, alligator, goose, many fish; all have entered my oral orifice, all are ethically fair game.

Mother: ESFP
Father: ISTP
Myself: INTP
Sister: ISFP
Brother: ENTP

The problem isn't with S's, it's with SJ's, especially if they're your boss.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Even though the disagreements between Architect, aaw, and Agapooka are now older than dirt, a few things to point out for purposes of clarification (because I can, and because I had already typed it up before looking at the post dates):

Canines in humans, and essentially all other primates, aren't adapted for a carnivorous lifestyle, they're made to chaw through fruit husks.

We are an omnivorous species, but evolutionarily speaking, we're made to eat a different "meat" than anything mooing in a pasture (insects, shellfish, small vertebrates, carrion, things that can be harvested efficiently), although given the bacterial cultures in our guts, we're more than capable of digesting that rump roast and it shouldn't cause many issues.

While rainforest is indeed destroyed for soy production, that soy isn't feeding people, it's feeding cows.

I would argue that the nutritional resources are present to ensure a diet heavily composed of local vegetation possibly to the point of successfully excluding meat, it's just that we aren't using them for several reasons, not the least of which are lack of awareness and lack of suitability to modern agriculture techniques. I guarantee I can find over 100 different native edible plants/fruits/nuts within a mile radius, many of which have higher nutritional quality than what can be found in the local supermarket, none of which anyone without botanical experience and a field guide would have a clue what to do with.

 

[snafupants]

Even though the disagreements between Architect, aaw, and Agapooka are now older than dirt, a few things to point out for purposes of clarification (because I can, and because I had already typed it up before looking at the post dates):

Canines in humans, and essentially all other primates, aren't adapted for a carnivorous lifestyle, they're made to chaw through fruit husks.

We are an omnivorous species, but evolutionarily speaking, we're made to eat a different "meat" than anything mooing in a pasture (insects, shellfish, small vertebrates, carrion, things that can be harvested efficiently), although given the bacterial cultures in our guts, we're more than capable of digesting that rump roast and it shouldn't cause many issues.

While rainforest is indeed destroyed for soy production, that soy isn't feeding people, it's feeding cows.

I would argue that the nutritional resources are present to ensure a diet heavily composed of local vegetation possibly to the point of successfully excluding meat, it's just that we aren't using them for several reasons, not the least of which are lack of awareness and lack of suitability to modern agriculture techniques. I guarantee I can find over 100 different native edible plants/fruits/nuts within a mile radius, many of which have higher nutritional quality than what can be found in the local supermarket, none of which anyone without botanical experience and a field guide would have a clue what to do with.

Right, I'm not saying that excluding or severely limiting meat is unsustainable, but one would have to be extremely vigilant and knowledgeable about on a host of minerals and vitamins, and deficiency symptoms, to ensure long-term success. Animal meats confer so many benefits that forgoing them for anything but religious/ethical reasons seems nonsensical; today I am in too good a mood to disparage religion much. If my kid told me he wanted to follow in Gandhi's footsteps, though, I would kindly ask him what protein sources he planned on banking on. Nuts and beans are clearly insufficient.

 

[scorpiomover]

Interesting that you mention that. I'm not a vegetarian, or a vegan. I do eat meat, but sparingly so. I just never liked eating a lot of meat on a regular basis. My health-conscious friends who are big meat-eaters, say that means that my body is much more efficient when it comes to eating meat.

 

[crippli]

I admire vegetarians. The same way I admire anyone who are able to succeed in specialization in something I would surely fail in. For me it's enough that the sustenance is organic, and preferably, but not necessarily, off high quality and low pollution.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I admire vegetarians. The same way I admire anyone who are able to succeed in specialization in something I would surely fail in.

IMO, it's not a specialization, it's a blank slate and a challenge, something an INTP would succeed at. "Here are ingredients x, y, and z. Create something worth consuming or fail".

 

[Otherside]

Everything seems to indicate that we are herbivores, but I was surprised to learn that some primates are cannibalistic.

If you were starving, however, I doubt that anyone's instinct would be to hunt down a mouse and eat it raw.

I stopped eating meat for the most part when a work assignment required me to survey some food processing facilities and a modern chicken "farm".

 

[GYX_Kid]

If you were starving, however, I doubt that anyone's instinct would be to hunt down a mouse and eat it raw.

I'd do it


Anyone else think that the big "female" labeled part of the hand, looks kind of tasty (on a real hand)?

 

[snafupants]

Interesting that you mention that. I'm not a vegetarian, or a vegan. I do eat meat, but sparingly so. I just never liked eating a lot of meat on a regular basis. My health-conscious friends who are big meat-eaters, say that means that my body is much more efficient when it comes to eating meat.

Meat is not innately bad. A lot of vegetarians I see have severe deficiencies of basic minerals and fat-soluble vitamins, but they've retained their dignity, so way to go guys. I would, quite honestly, prefer not to chomp down on the entire cast of Animal Farm but nature has simply not allotted the resources in which to forgo the good stuff. When some fuzzy chinned, beanie-soaked vegan invites me to slather on the beans in the stead of beef, I first tell him to get out of my face and, then, how all proteins are not created equal. Some proteins are total slop but these people just look at the back of the can and nod approvingly. In an idyllic world we would not have to worry about inferior grain-fed diets, antibiotics and harsh ecological conditions gravitating around raising livestock, but until then I would advocate eating quality meats raised by conscientious farmers. Getting pissed at the system and nutritionally short-changing yourself only really hurts you.

 

[A22]

It was a thread on this forum that first made me think about vegetarianism and a friend of mine that "convinced" me into it. Almost a year w/o meat now. I do it mostly because I think that if one wouldn't kill or inflict pain to an human, one shouldn't do it to an animal.
...

Why do people think eating eggs and dairy is "cheating"? There's a big difference between getting milk from a cow or eggs from a chicken and killing them.

 

[tepellian]

Anyone else think that the big "female" labeled part of the hand, looks kind of tasty (on a real hand)?

Thenar eminence...well, it does have a cool name.

What's that chart?

 

[fxntyjhnretytc]

I've been a vegetarian for about 20 years now ( aside from a handful where it was literally impossible to abstain). The more I read about it (i.e. Singer , Balcombe, Serpell , etc. ) , the more pleased and intellectually satisfied I am with the decision.

The livestock industry has begun to strike me as a wonderfully efficient energy-wasting machine inasmuch as it takes something in the order of 15 kgs of plant protein to produce 1kg of animal protein. I suppose I see this as a behaviour the planet perhaps can't afford anymore, given that the population doesn't appear to be decreasing.

The rise in antibiotic resistance in humans is now, from what I've read, increasingly understood to stem from the liberal use of these in the animal industry. Sadly , antibiotics only seem to be used on such animals in order to ward off the infections acquired from such putrid "living" conditions.


Factor in the extra deforestation, water consumption, methane emissions (i.e a gas supposedly up to 20 times more climate damaging than carbon dioxide) the deathstock industry brings about and I begin to lose sight of any reasonable argument in favour of meat-eating...


As for the myth that gets around - you know the one : "...oh but humans are meant to eat meat " ; "I had a friend who was vegan/vegetarian and they were really unhealthy" , etc., etc., don't believe the hype. I participated in an energy -intensive, physical contact sport for quite some time and had no trouble whatsoever keeping up with the carnivores.

From what I've read, B12 is the sole vitamin not obtainable from non-animal sources but the supplements cost little and may,in fact, be unnecessary as most soy products these days are fortified with B12. If Vitamin C is taken with each meal , this enhances the body's ability to absorb iron from non - animal sources ( which may something to bear in mind for women ) .If anxiety regarding potential malnutrition persists, please consult your doctor for a blood test.


Oh ... almost forgot to mention that whole cruelty aspect.



I apologise if the above seems overly rant-ish . As a new member, it really isn't my place to do this. I hope it goes without saying that none of it was meant as a sneer.

 

[BigApplePi]

What about this as a theory?

Vegetarian food is the natural direct clean way to obtain nutrition. The drawback is, can one miss something within all that variety?

Eating animals enables one to get the main necessity (protein) because the animal has done the job of eating vegetarian for you. The drawback is you get the bad stuff along with the good.

 

[snafupants]

It was a thread on this forum that first made me think about vegetarianism and a friend of mine that "convinced" me into it. Almost a year w/o meat now. I do it mostly because I think that if one wouldn't kill or inflict pain to an human, one shouldn't do it to an animal.
...

Why do people think eating eggs and dairy is "cheating"? There's a big difference between getting milk from a cow or eggs from a chicken and killing them.

That's right. Cheating in the sense that saying so, flippantly, knocks righteous poseur vegans down a few pegs. Anyway, pasteurized milk is basically worthless. For one thing, they add the fat-soluble vitamins later because they have been destroyed in the heating process. Sugar water. Eggs are quite nutritious, and the cholesterol demerit is essentially hokum. Please tactfully sidestep the feral ponytailed New Agers outside Whole Foods.

 

[BridgeOfSighs]

I'm not a vegetarian and don't know that I have the will power to completely avoid eating meat. I enjoy meat, but I've been trying to cut back (esp. red meat) because I feel better when I don't bog down my body with it. This is really difficult when you have a boyfriend who could probably eat meat for every meal and love it. Trying to stick more to fish and chicken.

Mother: INFP
Father: INTJ

 

[A22]

That's right. Cheating in the sense that saying so, flippantly, knocks righteous poseur vegans down a few pegs. Anyway, pasteurized milk is basically worthless. For one thing, they add the fat-soluble vitamins later because they have been destroyed in the heating process. Sugar water. Eggs are quite nutritious, and the cholesterol demerit is essentially hokum. Please tactfully sidestep the feral ponytailed New Agers outside Whole Foods.

Sorry but I didn't understand most of what you said Gotta go back to English school I guess.

About the milk: Yeah I know that, I never tasted the "original", but I don't like thick liquids so I doubt I'd prefer it over the industrialized one.

 

[snafupants]

I'm not a vegetarian and don't know that I have the will power to completely avoid eating meat. I enjoy meat, but I've been trying to cut back (esp. red meat) because I feel better when I don't bog down my body with it. This is really difficult when you have a boyfriend who could probably eat meat for every meal and love it. Trying to stick more to fish and chicken.

Mother: INFP
Father: INTJ

Try eating organic grass fed red meat and then comparing the two post-eating experiences, sensations and feelings. The meat you have been consuming your entire life is probably compromised by antibiotics and unenriched diet. (This is a different issue, but the government should really stop subsidizing the corn industry.) I anticipate you'll feel an immediate boost from the zinc, amino acids and fat-soluble vitamins if you follow my advice and consume better meat.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

What about this as a theory?

Vegetarian food is the natural direct clean way to obtain nutrition. The drawback is, can one miss something within all that variety?

Eating animals enables one to get the main necessity (protein) because the animal has done the job of eating vegetarian for you. The drawback is you get the bad stuff along with the good.

Yes and no. It's not because the other animal eats a vegetarian diet, it's because the other animal posesses the genes required to synthesize all of the necessary amino acids from a vegetarian diet that may not contain complete proteins. Variety in the human diet (i.e. access to complete proteins; animal, vegetable, or otherwise) provides access to all of these amino acids.

As far as inheriting the "bad stuff" and bioaccumulation from other organisms upon eating meat, that's what the miniature ecosystem of microbes in your gut is for.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

That's right. Cheating in the sense that saying so, flippantly, knocks righteous poseur vegans down a few pegs. Anyway, pasteurized milk is basically worthless. <--Agreed. For one thing, they add the fat-soluble vitamins later because they have been destroyed in the heating process. Sugar water. Eggs are quite nutritious, <--Depending on where they come from. the nutritional content of an egg is a direct reflection of the diet of the bird. Mass produced eggs are basically empty protein globs produced by chickens with artificial coloring in their feed to make the yolks a color other than gray. and the cholesterol demerit is essentially hokum. Cholesterol is all about your HDL/LDL ratio. Hokum status depends on the individual. Please tactfully sidestep the feral ponytailed New Agers outside Whole Foods. <--ad hominem fail.

.

 

[snafupants]

.

Fail? Perhaps...as a lot, however, vegans tend to be a stereotypical gaggle of Southern Californian eco-friendly driving granola-crunching spiritual but not religious art history majoring meditating beat-up sneaker wearing beaded pseudo-intellectuals and hypocrites. You might be more justified in flunking my humor than my caricature's applicability as those folks clearly exist; proportion may be an issue. That was a cool way of quoting, by the way. Neat color.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Fail? Perhaps...as a lot, however, vegans tend to be a stereotypical gaggle of Southern Californian eco-friendly driving granola-crunching spiritual but not religious art history majoring meditating beat-up sneaker wearing beaded pseudo-intellectuals and hypocrites. You might be more justified in flunking my humor than my caricature's applicability as those folks clearly exist; proportion may be an issue. That was a cool way of quoting, by the way. Neat color.

It's easier than multi-quoting the same message and stands out against a dark background. What can I say, other than that my projective identification senses are tingling?

 

[snafupants]

It's easier than multi-quoting the same message and stands out against a dark background. What can I say, other than that my projective identification senses are tingling?

In addition to being the reigning Blast Billiards Champion and Breakout Champion, you have a lot to boast about. Watch those spots...

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

In addition to being the reigning Blast Billiards Champion and Breakout Champion, you have a lot to boast about. Watch those spots...

Boredom is one powerful mofo.

 

[snafupants]

Boredom is one powerful mofo.

Boredom, low stimulation, is perhaps preferable to stress, high stimulation, because boredom at least can be shunted and be told to behave reasonably.

 

[BridgeOfSighs]

Try eating organic grass fed red meat and then comparing the two post-eating experiences, sensations and feelings. The meat you have been consuming your entire life is probably compromised by antibiotics and unenriched diet. (This is a different issue, but the government should really stop subsidizing the corn industry.) I anticipate you'll feel an immediate boost from the zinc, amino acids and fat-soluble vitamins if you follow my advice and consume better meat.

A lot of the reason I don't eat a lot of red meat is the cost -- even if I do it's usually lean ground meat for burgers.

But I may have to give it a try, soon.

 

[fxntyjhnretytc]

I have to confess I don't really understand the to-ings and fro-ings over the potential lackings in a V-diet. Any individual ad-hoc diet a particular person follows can be inadequate - it's hardly a conundrum confined to V-diets.


As Singer has mentioned, The American Academy of Pediatrics (hardly a hotbed of radicalism) has stated that vegan diets can promote normal infant growth . Further to this , the American Dietetic Association says that "...Well planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy , lactation , infancy, childhood and adolescence...".


As for the chat about complete proteins , soy and quinoa ARE complete proteins ( sorry , didn't mean to scream). Other incomplete proteins (i.e. those short in essential amino acids) featured in plant food can combine ,when consumed over the day's meals , to form complete proteins . There really is no difficulty in managing this.


Lastly, and just to reiterate from a previous post , I suppose I don't see why the benefit of the doubt goes to the doubt instead of the animals . On the off-chance that some vague nutritional deficiency may occur (which it won't), thus inducing harm , the guaranteed , definite, certain harm and death that will occur to the animal gets dismissed.

It's genuinely hard not to see the supposed "nutrition concern" as some post-hoc justification for moral evasiveness.

Hang on a second ... what that's noise ?! Oh, that's just Dale Carnegie spinning in his grave...

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Lastly, and just to reiterate from a previous post , I suppose I don't see why the benefit of the doubt goes to the doubt instead of the animals . On the off-chance that some vague nutritional deficiency may occur (which it won't), thus inducing harm , the guaranteed , definite, certain harm and death that will occur to the animal gets dismissed.

It's genuinely hard not to see the supposed "nutrition concern" as some post-hoc justification for moral evasiveness.

Animals are killed by mother nature on a routine basis, with much more inhumane and painful methods (invenomation, disembowelment, strangulation, cannibalism, etc.). A hunter with a rifle is milquetoast to that old hag. Pain is a fact of life for all life with nerve tissue.

The true argument is for wise, realistic use of resources. While livestock farming has become an industry that wastes vast amounts of food, water, energy, and spatial resources left and right, wild populations sustain themselves (for free) based on habitat characteristics and can be harvested at a predictable rate over an infinite period of time until either humans degrade the habitat or the sun swallows the Earth. (Nutritionally speaking, most wild game has higher nutrtional content than livestock as well).

It's a matter of combining two ecological theories: fitting maximum sustainable yield into trophic cascade.

 

[fxntyjhnretytc]

Animals are killed by mother nature on a routine basis, with much more inhumane and painful methods (invenomation, disembowelment, strangulation, cannibalism, etc.). A hunter with a rifle is milquetoast to that old hag. Pain is a fact of life for all life with nerve tissue.




Firstly , should say how much I enjoyed the posts made by both Architect and yourself. Judging from this thread (which of course I'm not doing), things are looking a bit shaky for the carnivores.


However, I don't know that I agree with the part-post I've quoted above. Was re-reading a Balcombe book last night which threw up all sorts of figures pertaining to wildlife mortality ; in particular the rates at which , most notably, ungulates get picked off by non-human predators. It appeared as though the odds of any individual , having reached maturity, being snaffled for lunch were as low as about 1 - 2% per year. Actually I might run off and have a quick look back at the text. I don't want to blather gibberish all over the forums and waste everyone's time and patience. Back soon (-ish)...

 

[snafupants]

No this information is decades out of date, goes back to the old 'Diet For a Small Planet' thinking, the protean combining nonsense. We know a few things now, one, you don't need a complete set of amino acids in one meal to get what you need, the body will happily combine and do without on it's own. Second, protean isn't that important, actually in excess of around 10% of your calories it has a definite deleterious effect on health and longevity. The data shows that 7% is probably best. This should be obvious, your body burns glucose (sugar) which is converted from complex carbohydrates, very little protean is needed, especially in an adult. The body can convert protean to glucose in a very dirty and complex process, but it's hard on you (this is what the idiotic Atkins diet depends on, the process is called Ketosis and it spews all sorts of shit into your body). Finally, check the full nutritional charts on meat versus any plant other than iceberg lettuce - meat has very little nutritional content other than excessive fat and protean, while your average plant is a chemical storehouse with protean, carbohydrates, fiber, vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients. It's another discussion on the relationship between phytonutrients (anti-oxidents primarily) and health.

Fact is that every great culture the earth has ever produced was based on some major grain. Asians and rice, Europeans and Barley, Rye or Wheat, Americas and corn, Incas and Quinoa. You know why Egypt was always at war? Their granaries (based on Nile delta agriculture) where a big, fat, prize (they lived on Emmer, a type of wheat.) Most smaller cultures are centered around some mono plant culture. There are tribes of peruvians in the mountains whose way of living hasn't changed much. In fact their lives are quite toxic, the men go into these long smoke houses where you can cut the tobacco smoke with a knife. Guess what the cancer rates are in these tribes? Basically zero. Guess how much meat they eat? Basically zero. Diet? A couple different types of sweet potatoes.

The National Institute of Health, National Cancer Institute, Kaiser et. al. know the exact score - eat plants and very little meat, the research is dead clear on this, no argument. Problem is people don't like to change.







I don't know of anybody who eats rabbit shit, but I do know many cultures that eat rotten meat. The Icelanders and some South Americans, the first being sharks which are rotted for a few months and the latter where they let meat rot in piles for days and then eaten. Since rotted meat contains mould, maggots and bacteria, is that still carnivorous?

Further, via a process called 'rendering', modern meat production in the US takes rotted carcasses and (not kidding) roadkill and turns it into food to be fed back to the cows, in the form of little pellets. This is why they dose the animals so much with antibiotics, because ruminants aren't designed to eat that much protean (and especially all the corn they feed them is way too acidic.) At any rate is it still being a carnivore to eat rendered meat fed animals, or is that more like a scavenger such as a vulture? Seems like a fine line.

You were so close when you invoked war and Egypt. The actual advantage to grain, and raison d'être for its widespread acceptance by warring nations (ironically any noteworthy nation historically), is so that troops could be fed on the fly with little preparation and preservation and cultivation given to the food. Sort of like salted beef jerky for cowboys thousands of years later. And there are some drawbacks to vegetables, like phytotoxins. I still consume some vegetables but beans and whole grains are clearly inferior foods unless they are soaked and ridded of toxins and so forth. Cholesterol, good fats and essential amino acids and proteins are needed for proper hormone function and neurotransmitters and so forth; many, not all, vegetarians suffer subtle degeneration years down the line from excluding meat; what I see most is decayed teeth, from phytotoxins and lack of minerals from meat, blunted intellect, anxiety and susceptibility to depression. The body cannot store protein easily, so in that sense it's similar to the brain and glucose, and protein is pretty much the only dietary source of nitrogen; protein would also theoretically promote satiety. Just because some companies engage in unethical and stupid and environmentally baneful practices, people should not throw the baby out with the bathwater and nix all meat. (Many companies sell only grass-fed organic meat, so check that out.) There is maybe one exception to the foregoing discussion throughout modern human history, and that is the Ayurvedic system of India. They truly seem to understand how minerals and smaller constituents impact our health. Very balanced system, but a unique one in that in some cases meat is eliminated and health does not wane gradually years later. My impetus for disseminating this information is to help folks long-term; your life is your life, I just feel everyone should have access to the same beneficial data and then make a coherent decision. Most vegetarians, including myself years ago, get into the practice for vague spiritual or lifestyle or ethical reasons, but then pay the ultimate price (i.e., one's health) later; the body demands certain things. That simple.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

However, I don't know that I agree with the part-post I've quoted above. Was re-reading a Balcombe book last night which threw up all sorts of figures pertaining to wildlife mortality ; in particular the rates at which , most notably, ungulates get picked off by non-human predators. It appeared as though the odds of any individual , having reached maturity, being snaffled for lunch were as low as about 1 - 2% per year. Actually I might run off and have a quick look back at the text. I don't want to blather gibberish all over the forums and waste everyone's time and patience. Back soon (-ish)...

I'm not saying predators would normally decimate prey populations left and right (in fact the success rate among wolves is all of 8%, when they decide to pursue ungulates in general as opposed to other prey, i.e. rabbits), I'm saying that when they do manage to avoid antipredator strategies and take something large, it isn't pretty. It's worse for prey species like rodents and lagomorphs, which not only support the bulk of the food web but host a large diversity of diseases and parasites as well (just google the phrase "squirrel bot fly").

Now for the scientific tangent/wall of text...

The actual health of the ungulates depend on the life history of the ungulate species in question, the habitat, predator density/extirpation, and ungulate density. I'll use stats for Pennsylvania as an example, but the same phenomenon occurred throughout the eastern and midwestern U.S.:

The pre-colonial habitat equipped with both a Native American population and several healthy natural predator populations (eastern cougar, eastern timberwolf, red wolf, and black bear) could support approximately 14-16 whitetail deer per square mile sustainably without a negative impact on the deer population size. Because the deer population was kept in check with what the habitat could provide, does had no problem finding readily available nutrition, which resulted in two things: 1. they often became reproductively mature at 6 months old as opposed to 18 months, able to birth a single fawn during their first pregnancy, and 2. they gave birth to twins or occasionally tripletts every year after. Rates of disease were low because the density was low enough so that individuals rarely came into contact with eachother outside of the rut and the occasional bachelor herd.

Beginning in the mid-19th century most of the state had been deforested (most of the native trees were white pine, which were used for naval ship masts) and by the early 20th century all of the native predators had been extirpated with the rare evidence of a black bear being the exception, and deer and wild turkeys were nearly extirpated (if you saw a deer track walking to school you ran back home and grabbed your dad and neighbor to come look at it). Market hunting didn't help the situation either.

In the 1930s market hunting was banned and a lot of farm land fell out of use, which allowed the forests to begin to regrow. This reduced deer mortality, and all of a sudden deer had access to a predator-free utopia full of food within reach (seedlings, saplings, and shrubs growing in the understory) for the next 40-50 years. The patchwork of forest regrowth and farmland was able to support an average of 70-80 deer per square mile, which caused massive crop damage, an untold of number of vehicle collissions, and the eventual rise of diseases such as chronic wasting disease, epizootic hemorrhaging disease, increased mass kills from botulism and anthrax, etc.

As the forests matured into the 1980s, suddenly there were more deer than the habitat could support (120+ per square mile in places like Gettysburg National Park, which didn't and still doesn't allow hunting because the land is federally owned), which led to massive habitat degradation. They literally ate themselves out of house and home and changed the composition of the forest, which is now largely devoid of palatable species such as the sugar maple and dominated by unpalatable species like black locust and black cherry. The understory has been reduced from a diverse plant community to a carpet of unpalatable hay-scented fern.

The lack of nutritional availability let to delayed reproductive maturation, smaller fawns, an average of a single fawn produced per year per doe, and an increased fetal resorption rate (deer undergo delayed embryonic implantation, meaning that a fertilized egg only implants and develops if the doe has enough fat reserves, and then the embryo can be resorbed if conditions aren't favorable in the spring). The habitat has been degraded to the point where it can only support 10-12 deer per square mile on average, and it continues to degrade in spite of the fact that disease, starvation, road mortality, and increased hunting incentives (the number of hunters in PA has declined since the 70s) and eradication programs have reduced average densities to the 40 per square mile range.

Every February the PA Game Commission in cooperation with the state university system (Penn State included) conducts stream-walking surveys to count the number of parched dead deer with nothing in their guts but brown pine needles and dead grass to get an estimate of regional overpopulation.

I would argue that this is an extreme waste of several resources because the degraded habitat impacts all the species in the habitat, not just the deer. The habitat still cannot support a predator population and will not in the foreseeable future, given urbanization. Right now their predators have 4 wheels and a windshield.

Reducing densities to an average of 10 deer per square mile would allow the habitat to recover to the point where it can again support densities in the 15-20 range, and given that we can expect twice the birth rate due to increased nutritional availability, hunters would be able to harvest the same number of deer as they do today with a density of 40.

 

[fxntyjhnretytc]

I'm not saying predators would normally decimate prey populations left and right (in fact the success rate among wolves is all of 8%, when they decide to pursue ungulates in general as opposed to other prey, i.e. rabbits), I'm saying that when they do manage to avoid antipredator strategies and take something large, it isn't pretty. It's worse for prey species like rodents and lagomorphs, which not only support the bulk of the food web but host a large diversity of diseases and parasites as well (just google the phrase "squirrel bot fly").

Now for the scientific tangent/wall of text...

The actual health of the ungulates depend on the life history of the ungulate species in question, the habitat, predator density/extirpation, and ungulate density. I'll use stats for Pennsylvania as an example, but the same phenomenon occurred throughout the eastern and midwestern U.S.:

The pre-colonial habitat equipped with both a Native American population and several healthy natural predator populations (eastern cougar, eastern timberwolf, red wolf, and black bear) could support approximately 14-16 whitetail deer per square mile sustainably without a negative impact on the deer population size. Because the deer population was kept in check with what the habitat could provide, does had no problem finding readily available nutrition, which resulted in two things: 1. they often became reproductively mature at 6 months old as opposed to 18 months, able to birth a single fawn during their first pregnancy, and 2. they gave birth to twins or occasionally tripletts every year after. Rates of disease were low because the density was low enough so that individuals rarely came into contact with eachother outside of the rut and the occasional bachelor herd.

Beginning in the mid-19th century most of the state had been deforested (most of the native trees were white pine, which were used for naval ship masts) and by the early 20th century all of the native predators had been extirpated with the rare evidence of a black bear being the exception, and deer and wild turkeys were nearly extirpated (if you saw a deer track walking to school you ran back home and grabbed your dad and neighbor to come look at it). Market hunting didn't help the situation either.

In the 1930s market hunting was banned and a lot of farm land fell out of use, which allowed the forests to begin to regrow. This reduced deer mortality, and all of a sudden deer had access to a predator-free utopia full of food within reach (seedlings, saplings, and shrubs growing in the understory) for the next 40-50 years. The patchwork of forest regrowth and farmland was able to support an average of 70-80 deer per square mile, which caused massive crop damage, an untold of number of vehicle collissions, and the eventual rise of diseases such as chronic wasting disease, epizootic hemorrhaging disease, increased mass kills from botulism and anthrax, etc.

As the forests matured into the 1980s, suddenly there were more deer than the habitat could support (120+ per square mile in places like Gettysburg National Park, which didn't and still doesn't allow hunting because the land is federally owned), which led to massive habitat degradation. They literally ate themselves out of house and home and changed the composition of the forest, which is now largely devoid of palatable species such as the sugar maple and dominated by unpalatable species like black locust and black cherry. The understory has been reduced from a diverse plant community to a carpet of unpalatable hay-scented fern.

The lack of nutritional availability let to delayed reproductive maturation, smaller fawns, an average of a single fawn produced per year per doe, and an increased fetal resorption rate (deer undergo delayed embryonic implantation, meaning that a fertilized egg only implants and develops if the doe has enough fat reserves, and then the embryo can be resorbed if conditions aren't favorable in the spring). The habitat has been degraded to the point where it can only support 10-12 deer per square mile on average, and it continues to degrade in spite of the fact that disease, starvation, road mortality, and increased hunting incentives (the number of hunters in PA has declined since the 70s) and eradication programs have reduced average densities to the 40 per square mile range.

Every February the PA Game Commission in cooperation with the state university system (Penn State included) conducts stream-walking surveys to count the number of parched dead deer with nothing in their guts but brown pine needles and dead grass to get an estimate of regional overpopulation.

I would argue that this is an extreme waste of several resources because the degraded habitat impacts all the species in the habitat, not just the deer. The habitat still cannot support a predator population and will not in the foreseeable future, given urbanization. Right now their predators have 4 wheels and a windshield.

Reducing densities to an average of 10 deer per square mile would allow the habitat to recover to the point where it can again support densities in the 15-20 range, and given that we can expect twice the birth rate due to increased nutritional availability, hunters would be able to harvest the same number of deer as they do today with a density of 40.

Don't be mistaken ,H-Doctor, I enjoy the wall of text ( and prior to that, your emphasis on the word "when"). Thanks for responding to my query so thoughtfully.

But I'm afraid this is where I have to gird my loins and dive back into some further texts. Yes, it's because I'm worried about how wrong I could be. Additionally (and I'd like to blame you for this), I need a little bit more time to think through.... the wall of text.

Just quickly, in response to your first paragraph , of course (sorry for the tone) I don't think non-human predators are likely to decimate prey species ( and ,again, I should have clarified that I was reading about African predation , not North American ).


I (yet again) need some time to think through the moral logic of your position (I know that's a dreadful phrase but ....well.... you know what rhetorical emphasis is...)....

 

[fxntyjhnretytc]

H-Doc , I suppose what I meant by "a bit more time" ( now that I've had it ) is that there could be holes in your argument for hunting ?

I know it looks like ( and probably is ) a pre - meditated attempt to lure you into the killing ground ( to quote an old army phrase) , but are you sure your attitude to hunting isn't just fatalism ?

 

[snafupants]

Anyone who looks at meat dies immediately. You have been warned.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Don't be mistaken ,H-Doctor, I enjoy the wall of text ( and prior to that, your emphasis on the word "when"). I need a little bit more time to think through.... the wall of text.

Wall of text=of classic INTP fame

H-Doc , I suppose what I meant by "a bit more time" ( now that I've had it ) is that there could be holes in your argument for hunting ?

I know it looks like ( and probably is ) a pre - meditated attempt to lure you into the killing ground ( to quote an old army phrase) , but are you sure your attitude to hunting isn't just fatalism ?

Moral arguments are best confronted by a combination of arguments, in this case moral and logical. BEHOLD! Rhetorical triangulation at work!

I'll try to make this one a little less wall of text-ish...

If it's fatalism, it's well documented peer-reviewed fatalism

We've already hit on max sustainable yield (i.e. half as many deer with better nutrition produce the same number of offspring), now we're entering the realm of trophic cascade in food webs, where things get just a little complicated (an example food web based on just a single species, the Atlantic Cod: http://www.ma.utexas.edu/users/davis/375/LECTURES/L24/trophic.jpg )

The basic idea is that the population of predators regulate the population of prey, and the population of prey determine the number of individuals in the predator population. If too many prey are consumed, some predators starve, which allows the prey population to recover, which in turn allows the predator population to increase, which reduces the pery population, etc. This is illustrated in the classic example of lynx and snowshoe hare fluctuations, which is now one of the longest continuous datasets on predator-prey interactions known to man: https://fp.auburn.edu/sfws/ditchkoff/images/Lecture Images/Carnivores/lynx-hare_cycle.gif

But that's just 2 species, when in reality prey populations support multiple predators which in turn feed on multiple other types of prey. And then there are multiple levels to it as well, meaning that an increased lynx population would not only reduce the hare population, but would increase the amount of available vegetation that the hares would otherwise eat, which in turn fuels growth in the hare repopulation after the lynx population declines. Just imagining all the repurcussions in the cod food web gives most people headaches.

The key with deer (and most other herbivores/omnivores) is that they eat things in a certain order based on palatability, and deer in particular have a wide range of palatability. Most people will choose ice cream over broccoli over burnt toast over styrofoam, and herbivores are the same way. In the deer example, because they've been overpopulated without natural predators for so long, the ice cream never stood a chance, the broccoli is gone, and now they're depleting the burnt toast .

They're not just eliminating one or two plant species, they're mowing down the entire trophic level of plants, which affects all other herbivores and omnivores in the system (mice, squirrels, insects, etc.), which then affects all of their predators (snakes, birds of prey, foxes, etc.) and so on. Imagine if everything in the bottom row of the cod food web except the isopods and ostracods were drastically reduced.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Most of my deer-related arguments appear fatalistic in nature because they're most often used on the masses, where it works a bit better.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Anyone who looks at meat dies immediately. You have been warned.

 

[snafupants]

Good call! There was this running joke that, because she dressed as an egg and then meat-man, Lady Gaga was halfway to a Denny's Grand Slam breakfast combo. She tends towards weird for weird's sake, which I find obnoxious. That's more of a death in life though. Who knows, she could be one of those Austin Power's sexbots: Gaga has already done the tommy gun breast routine. Damn, beef is expensive, she's likely wearing one hundred dollars in the good stuff. I find her totally sexless.

 

[Kairoh]

I'm vegan when I cook for myself, but on social outings or when visiting my parents, I'll expand my diet depending on what my gut tells me. Though, if I do eat meat, I'm extremely aware of what I'm doing, and mindful of how that meat got there. I can only eat white meat, the last time I had a hamburger (after a year of being vegetarian) I had to go to the hospital for intestinal bleeding. Spent a bit over an hour writhing on the floor of the bathroom, trying not to throw up as it felt like my insides were burning. (In retrospect, I should've just vommed.) I'd always thought vegetarians were lying about their bodies physically rejecting meat, as if it were psychological, but wow, never doubting that again. It's hard to go back to eating meat.

I don't really care what other people choose to eat, I don't get on people's cases about their diets, obviously since I'm fairly laid back about my own diet. Not going to argue over it, it's a personal decision, and it's too much work to have to explain ethics, anatomy, and meat production to other people.

 

[snafupants]

I'm vegan when I cook for myself, but on social outings or when visiting my parents, I'll expand my diet depending on what my gut tells me. Though, if I do eat meat, I'm extremely aware of what I'm doing, and mindful of how that meat got there. I can only eat white meat, the last time I had a hamburger (after a year of being vegetarian) I had to go to the hospital for intestinal bleeding. Spent a bit over an hour writhing on the floor of the bathroom, trying not to throw up as it felt like my insides were burning. (In retrospect, I should've just vommed.) I'd always thought vegetarians were lying about their bodies physically rejecting meat, as if it were psychological, but wow, never doubting that again. It's hard to go back to eating meat.

I don't really care what other people choose to eat, I don't get on people's cases about their diets, obviously since I'm fairly laid back about my own diet. Not going to argue over it, it's a personal decision, and it's too much work to have to explain ethics, anatomy, and meat production to other people.

Intestinal bleeding? Writhing on the floor? This seems somewhat hyperbolic when discussing the consumption of a Happy Meal. Just my impression.

Congratulations on surviving that harrowing ordeal though. That sounded like Christ's scourge at the pillar or something.

 

[Wasp]

Hi there. INTP and vegetarian for a year now. If someone wants to eat meat who am I to stop them? If I stop eating chicken, the fox (or in this case my ESFJ mother) will still eat it. Whenever I ate meat it was always poultry. I would occasionally eat red meat because my ISFP father really likes to BBQ so when I told him that from now on I would be vegetarian he nearly had a heart attack (lol all that red meat).

I never liked fish. The taste and smell were just awful to me so a vegetarian diet was no problem. Suprisingly, for an Italian-Mexican family, they were really supportive of me (except for Dad of course). Also, a vegetarian diet sounded like a good idea to me because on my mother's side of the family diabetes type 2 and heart disease run rampant.