Is breeding animals wrong?

[mchale]

Ok, just so we have a basis for examing the facts. Here is an online article by a professor at USC.

www-rcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html

With respect your science is flat out wrong!

Chimpanzees, our closest biological relatives are frugivores. Some groups of chimanzees have been known to kill and eat colobus monkeys. This is not a regular part of their diet however, and it has been shown that these killings happen in times of food shortage. I don’t have my stats in front of me–but a chimpanzee’s diet consists of 1 or 2% meat and/or termites. What percentage of the human diet is meat?

Ok, according to the article in question, “Chimpanzees are largely fruit eaters, and meat composes only about 3% of the time they spent eating overall…”. Now I happily grant that that means that meat is not a huge part of their diet, but I would hardly equate that with stating it is not a regular part or an insignificant part of their diet (Remember meat is generally denser in calories both by volume and mass than fruit). In any case, the fact that it represents any percentage of their diet, that they ever deliberately seek out meat, means they are by definition, not simply frugivores – they are omnivores. After all, if you ask a vegetarian if you can be one and still eat meat occasionally, they will likely tell you no.

Kind of the same reason that man began eating meat. Finding himself in a harsh climate (for instance a winter climate) with not enough plant-based diet choices.

You mean kind of like the Savannah’s of Africa where Man evolved?

We are no longer a pre-agricultural society.

True, but we were pre-agricultural at longer than we have been agricultural.

1. All natural omnivores have the physical attributes of carnivores: claws, sharp teeth, etc. Example of a mammilian omnivore: bear, raccoon… Meat eaters have much less intestine than plant eaters. Meat eaters digest their food quickly. Plant eaters have substantially more intestine, as more time is needed to digest the fibrous plant materials.

Herbivores also have physical attributes that adapt them to their plant based diet. The fact of the matter is that the modern homo sapien’s body is not particularly well adapted to any natural diet (i.e., a diet procured and eaten without tools). We evolved under conditions where our ancestors were using tools and our brains to survive. Therefore, our teeth and jaws are considerably undersized compared to other primates (as an example). Modern humans are not particularly adept at climbing into trees to reach fruit, nor are they particularly adept at digging for tubers. We are not particularly well adapted to any particular sort of diet until tools are taken into account. Then all sorts of food items become practical.

1. OK that’s just dumb. If you want to argue that we are so smart and that our brains help us to figure out how to make tools to eat with–what are you going to do if lost in the woods without your tools? Starve to death because you don’t have a gun or culinary equipment and a stove? If we are meant to eat meat then even the little child lost in the woods would be able to survive eating what is natural to him. And that would hardly be meat. Using our brains to develop things to make our lives easier was progressive and took centuries to develop. If we took a few people who were not aquainted with modernity and dropped them on a desert island, how long would it take for them to develop all these tools from scratch? The particular bunch *may never *figure some things out. How long will it take this bunch to figure out how to build a refrigerator? Will they figure out how to pasteurize the milk so that it doesn’t kill them? That is if they get the idea to steal some other animal’s milk?

If you drop 99.9% of people into the woods without tools, they will die relatively quickly whether they try to eat meat or plants. The remaining .1% will either come from cultures where the skills were never completely abondoned, or will be just lucky enough to do the right thing for the particular woods that you drop them in. And I am not sure you assume that a whole lot of tools are necessary to eat meat. All that is really necessary is fire, spears and some sort of knife to help with butchering. The rest is just convenience.

Shoot given the desert island scenario you posit above, a meat based diet (most likely fish) would actually be consideably safer than for someone who wasn’t familiar with the island than a plant based diet. An awful lot of tropical plants are toxic to humans. Even breadfruit, the staple of polynesia is not edible without considerable processing.

Eating of grains…I’m with you brother…who needs 'em? Eat raw–it’s more natural.

And yet grains, along with legumes are the stable food for the bulk of the world. It would be hard to replace the calories and protien in meat for every person on the Earth without grains and legumes, both of which require cooking to be reasonably edible,

And cooking–what’s natural about that? If we are supposed to eat meat we wouldn’t have to cook it. What other animal cooks it’s meat? The chimpanzees who occassionally eat a colubus monkey don’t cook it first. If humans do not cook their meat they will likely die from the bacteria inherent to raw meat.

Thats because we have become accustomed to eating cooked meat. The Mongols ate raw meat with little ill effect. Likewise, Japanese to this day (and many who go to Japanese restaurants) happily eat raw fish.

The basic issue here though is that people have been cooking food since before homo sapiens evolved. Its why our jaws are so small… we are evolved to eat prepared food, not food in its most natural state.

–
Bill

 

[mchale]

Meat is not a natural food for humans, the human body is healthier without it, but in times of food shortage it can, and has been used to supplement the diet. Man would perhaps have not survived certain harsh climates, had he not turned to animals for food. This is hardly the case today, however.

Its hardly proven that meat is not a natual food for humans. Nor is it proven that we would be healthier without it. About the only thing that is proven is that the extremely large quantities of very fatty meats that are a staple in the Western Diet are bad for us.

–
Bill

 

[JRKH]

As that Great philospher Yukon Cornelious said,

"You eat what you like and I’ll eat what I like…"

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Peace

 

[Marfran]

Its hardly proven that meat is not a natual food for humans. Nor is it proven that we would be healthier without it. About the only thing that is proven is that the extremely large quantities of very fatty meats that are a staple in the Western Diet are bad for us.
Bill

Bill–I skimmed your article–not familiar the specific anthropologist–basically says what I told you–chimpanzees (and this is not** all **groups of chimpanzees) have been known to kill colubus monkeys. When Jane Goodall first brought this to the attention of the scientific community, no one believed her because no one else had witnessed this behavior. Then other researchers set out to investigate her findings–the findings were proven to be accurate. You will see this behavior in some communities of chimpanzees and it is tied to food shortages–and will more often occur in larger communities as opposed to smaller ones. I guarantee that no zoo feeds its chimpanzees meat. It is not a significant part of the diet, and the reasons for chimpanzees killing and eating colubus monkeys have nothing to do with necessary nutrition, but rather from finding a food source in times of food shortage. And there are some other aggressive and sexual and tribal community issues as well–which have nothing to do with being a neccessary nutritional item, which it is not.

Meat is not neccessary for human health. Affluent peoples eat meat not out of neccessity, but for other complex social and traditional reasons, including the belief that is it essential to their diets as the propaganda put out by the meat industries would have us believe. And in all our years of meat eating–the means of procuring that meat has become more barbaric, not less. Factory farming is barbaric. Are you a savage beast that desires, wants and kills, or are you a human being with a brain (to see unneccessary savagery for what it is) and a heart filled with love and mercy fashioned in the image of God Himself?

 

[Marfran]

As that Great philospher Yukon Cornelious said,

"You eat what you like and I’ll eat what I like…"

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r65/JRKH/Yukon.jpg

Peace

Is that you??? Great photo!!!

But what if what you want to eat harms living beings, resulting in their suffering, pain, and death, misappropriates resources, damages the environment, keeps less affluent peoples from eating too, and also damages your heart health, increases your cancer risk, propells you into obesity, etc?

 

[jorgeraul3]

Wow how did things go from breeding animals to is eating meat moral?

Well God likes the smell of cooking flesh and I like the taste… That’s good enough proof for me.

 

[Marfran]

Wow how did things go from breeding animals to is eating meat moral?

Right. We should try to steer back to breeding. I think that the relevance is that we breed livestock for the purpose of eating them.

 

[JRKH]

Essentially the original question has been answered - though not to everyones satisfaction.

As to the other issues raised here I will briefly recap.
Current practices in Farming and “Agribusiness” =
Large Scale = Practices used in large scale farming are using up the land and resources without sufficent safeguards against a severe environmental catastrophe such as teh dust bowl of the 1930’s. This will come back to haunt them. This is true in both the poor use of land for crops and also the poor practices in animal husbandry. I do not blame the individual farmers for this as economics drives much of the practices but ultimately nature will shake things out.
Small Scale = Small scale farming, or subsistance farming continues today as it has for millenia. A balanced approach to the use of land for crops and for animals is still the best and most sustanable.

Environmental damage =
The environment is being “damaged” (altered in a negative way) by many different human practices. Farming and Industry are main culprits, but these continue to be driven soley be the demands of the economy.

Diet =
There is no diet which will prevent the ultimate fate of the individual human from dying. This is a fact. The vegen will die, just as the omnivore will. What disease or injury ultimately claims the person may or may not be diet related. But regardless we must all pass through deaths door in order to come to judgement and hopefully heaven.

Survival of Species =
Whether due to econimic or environmental issues or a pandemic of some kind, there will eventually be a meltdown of civilization. This will result in a restabilization of the world with fewer humans who are more self reliant than we are today. It is unlikely, given the adaptability of humans, that anything short of an aseroid strike would wipe out the species as a whole.

Personally I have more confidence in the human species to survive than a lot of people who cry that this or that will wipe out humanity. Such is unlikely. It will merely wipe out current civilizations.

Besides, I fully expect that Our Dear Lord will be coming back before then.

I haven’t time to cover all the aspects of the above, but that is the gist of things.

Peace
James

 

[mchale]

Bill–I skimmed your article–not familiar the specific anthropologist–basically says what I told you–chimpanzees (and this is not** all **groups of chimpanzees) have been known to kill colubus monkeys. When Jane Goodall first brought this to the attention of the scientific community, no one believed her because no one else had witnessed this behavior. Then other researchers set out to investigate her findings–the findings were proven to be accurate. You will see this behavior in some communities of chimpanzees and it is tied to food shortages–and will more often occur in larger communities as opposed to smaller ones. I guarantee that no zoo feeds its chimpanzees meat. It is not a significant part of the diet, and the reasons for chimpanzees killing and eating colubus monkeys have nothing to do with necessary nutrition, but rather from finding a food source in times of food shortage. And there are some other aggressive and sexual and tribal community issues as well–which have nothing to do with being a neccessary nutritional item, which it is not.

Well we can debate all day about whether the amount of meat that chimps eat is significant. That wasn’t my point. My point was, and remains that chimps are omnivores (regardless of the reason), and so are humans. With at least 4 million years of evolution separating us from chimps, and having developed in a very different environment, I think it is safe to say that the proportions of meat in the diet, as well as their necessity would be different for humans and chimps.

In fact, if we examine human cultures prior to the development of agriculture around 10,000 years ago, you would be hard pressed to find a culture that did not rely on meat as a significant source of calories. The development of cereal gains and legumes allowed humans to get a much smaller percentage of their diet from animal sources. But of course, the last 10,000 years is only roughly 5% of the period that homo sapiens have been around.

Meat is not neccessary for human health. Affluent peoples eat meat not out of neccessity, but for other complex social and traditional reasons, including the belief that is it essential to their diets as the propaganda put out by the meat industries would have us believe. And in all our years of meat eating–the means of procuring that meat has become more barbaric, not less. Factory farming is barbaric. Are you a savage beast that desires, wants and kills, or are you a human being with a brain (to see unneccessary savagery for what it is) and a heart filled with love and mercy fashioned in the image of God Himself?

I think the means of procuring meat have varied over time. Hunters using spears to kill an animal can be every bit as ugly as the modern factory slaughter houses.

Should westeners eat less meat? Almost certainly. Should animals be treated as humanly as possible? Absolutely. Is there a moral imperative in Christianity to end meat consumption? Nope. Quite the opposite, it is clear in the Bible that there were times when God even mandated the eating of meat (Passover anyone?).

–
Bill

 

[JRKH]

Is that you??? Great photo!!!

No - Not Me - I could never grow a beard like that.
That’s Yukon Cornelious - haven’t you ever seen Rudolph the REd Nosed Reindeer?

But what if what you want to eat harms living beings, resulting in their suffering, pain, and death,

If I eat a sald I am eating a living thing that I harming by eating it, resulting in it’s pain and suffering and death.

misappropriates resources,

Since the resources were used to produce somthing I wanted, I’d say they weren’t misappropriated. (that by the way is to say that people by meat therefore people will produce meat)

damages the environment,

Cows don’t damage the environment. Those "Factories’ that have done damage will come to know the value of recycling as fuel oil becomes more expensive. Many are already turning their animal wastes into methane for use on the farm and elswhere.

keeps less affluent peoples from eating too,

This is a far more complex issue than simply whether I eat meat. (which by the way I can and have produced myself - rabbits and chickens)

and also damages your heart health, increases your cancer risk, propells you into obesity, etc?

Well I am 6’ 1" tall and weigh 180, which is the most I’ve ever weighed. So it’s lot likely I’ll ever be obese. As far as health issues go, I lean more toward the diabetic, which is a function, in my particular case, of eating too many carbs and not enough meat.
But as I said earlier. I’ll choose to eat meat and you’ll choose to not eat meat and we will both still die.

Finally, I’ll point out that the biggest problem with diets today are not what we eat but rather how we work. Not enough exersize, particularly among the young is the biggest culprit and not what we eat.

Anyway - It’s been fun.

Peace
James

 

[Ione]

Well God likes the smell of cooking flesh and I like the taste… That’s good enough proof for me.

How did you come to that conclusion?

 

[Marfran]

No - Not Me - I could never grow a beard like that.
That’s Yukon Cornelious - haven’t you ever seen Rudolph the REd Nosed Reindeer?

I knew that dude looked familiar!!! I loved the Red Nosed Reindeer narrated by Burl Yves!!!

 

[Marfran]

keeps less affluent peoples from eating too,

This is a far more complex issue than simply whether I eat meat. (which by the way I can and have produced myself - rabbits and chickens)

It **is **a complex issue!!! Eating factory farmed meat has a negative global impact. Anyone who eats it should understand how doing so affects the globe. James, if you raise your own rabbits and chickens for food you have already taken yourself out of that loop. And you are not ingesting the antibiotics and hormones given to factory farmed animals.

 

[Marfran]

No - Well I am 6’ 1" tall and weigh 180, which is the most I’ve ever weighed. So it’s lot likely I’ll ever be obese. As far as health issues go, I lean more toward the diabetic, which is a function, in my particular case, of eating too many carbs and not enough meat.
But as I said earlier. I’ll choose to eat meat and you’ll choose to not eat meat and we will both still die.

Part of the reason that I changed my diet is because I am pre-diabetic (have the diabetic gene). The book ***Defeating Diabetes ***by Brenda Davis approaches type 2 diabetes using a plant-based diet. Since changing to this plant-based diet my blood sugar is always on an even keel. And I have more energy and do not need to nap in the afternoon. amazon.com/Defeating-Diabetes-Brenda-Davis/dp/1570671397/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248736071&sr=8-1

Yes, James, we will both still die, but cancer is a horrible disease. I’d rather skip that mode of death if possible. Cancer has been linked to an animal product based diet. Check out **The China Study.

 

[jorgeraul3]

How did you come to that conclusion?

It’s in the bible somewhere… I can’t remember where though

 

[JRKH]

It’s in the bible somewhere… I can’t remember where though

What do you think the Jewish priests were sacrificing on the Altars? They were sacrificing animal flesh. Maybe that is where this comes from.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Part of the reason that I changed my diet is because I am pre-diabetic (have the diabetic gene). The book ***Defeating Diabetes ***by Brenda Davis approaches type 2 diabetes using a plant-based diet. Since changing to this plant-based diet my blood sugar is always on an even keel. And I have more energy and do not need to nap in the afternoon. amazon.com/Defeating-Diabetes-Brenda-Davis/dp/1570671397/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248736071&sr=8-1

Yes, James, we will both still die, but cancer is a horrible disease. I’d rather skip that mode of death if possible. Cancer has been linked to an animal product based diet. Check out ******The China Study.

Interesting that you went to vegen.
My Doctor told me to buy Dr. Atkin’s book.

Yes cancer is a horrible disease, but I can’t think of too many better alternatives except heart attack - Which you also attribute to too much meat. I think I’ll just leave it up to God.

Peace
James

 

[peary]

Your interpretation of the word “dominion” as used in the Bible, does not agree with most scholars and theologians. The Bible was not written in Latin. (Latin is an ancient language that is officially adopted in only one country: Vatican. It has no native speakers. However, most of western countries had influence of this language due to the Roman Empire.) It has been translated from several languages, a very arduous task, to translate some very complex ideas and thoughts. It is generally agreed the word “dominion,” chosen for English texts is more a form of stewardship, man entrusted to care for Creation, in a position that gives him authority and responsibility.

From Bibleinfo.org

The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, and the New Testament was written in Greek.

HISTORY OF TRANSLATIONS

**The first translation of the English Bible was initiated by John Wycliffe and completed by John Purvey in 1388. **

A few chapters of the books Ezra (ch. 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26) and Daniel (ch. 2:4 to 7:28), one verse in Jeremiah (ch. 10:11, and a word in Genesis (ch. 31:47) are written, not in ancient Hebrew, but in Aramaic. Aramaic is about as closely related to Hebrew as Spanish is to Portuguese. However, the differences between Aramaic and Hebrew are not those of dialect, and the two are regarded as two separate languages.

From which language was the KJV was translated. Here is how it came about: 54 college professors, preachers, deans and bishops ranging in ages from 27 to 73 were engaged in the project of translating the KJV. To work on their masterpiece, these men were divided into six panels: two at Oxford, two at Cambridge, two at Westminster. Each panel concentrated on one portion of the Bible, and each scholar in the panel was assigned portions to translate.** As guides the scholars used a Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, a Greek text for the New. Some Aramaic was used in each. They consulted translations in Chaldean, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian and Dutch.** And, of course, they used earlier English Bibles—at least six, including William Tyndale’s New Testament, the first to be printed in English. So what language did they use? Everything that was available.

The first American edition of the Bible was probably published some time before 1752.
The Bible has been translated in part or in whole as of 1964 in over 1,200 different languages or dialects.

The Latin text of the Sacred Scriptures had existed from the earliest times of Christianity. The translator or translators were unknown to St. Augustine (354-430 AD) and St. Jerome (350-420 AD); but the former says that the old Latin version had certainly come “from the first days of the Faith”, and the latter that it “had helped to strengthen the faith of the infant Church.” Made and copied without any official supervision these western texts soon became corrupt or doubtful and by the time of St. Jerome varied so much that that he said that there were almost “as many readings as codices.” The bishop of Rome (pope) employed Jerome to regulate the last revised translation of each part of the New Testament to the original Greek and to set out a new edition in Latin. This St. Jerome did.
Later, between 382-290 AD, he translated most of the Old Testament from the Hebrew into Latin. The Bible was called ‘vulgate’ because that is what the people spoke at the time - Latin, the common language.

The Church’s first *official *translation of the Bible into English was the Douay-Rheims, the New Testament being published in 1578, and the Old Testament published in two volumes in 1609 and 1610 respectively.

Maybe your understanding of bible history doesn’t go back that far. Obviously, you missed quite a bit in the interim.

 

[vz71]

Originally Posted by Marfran
Meat is not a natural food for humans, nor has it ever been.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marfran
…and whether the eating of meat should continue once man had evolved to the place where it is no longer neccessary for survival…

Meat is not a natural food for humans, the human body is healthier without it, but in times of food shortage it can, and has been used to supplement the diet. Man would perhaps have not survived certain harsh climates, had he not turned to animals for food. This is hardly the case today, however.

But you still have not reconciled the two mutually exclusive statements.

 

[vz71]

And personally, I prefer the manure. I’d much rather that than oil and transmission fluids, antifreeze, asbestos from the brakes, etc.

True, all of those are used within a car…but they are not all left on the road as a product of just driving around. They are left on the road if the car is malfunctioning.

I’d have to say you are going against the bible. It’s what’s for the better good of humans not what smells good. You’d rather put chemicals and toxins into the earth than smell some manure?

Biological hazards are among the worst to have around.

What about the children to come? Are you alleviating any suffering for them by leaving these chemicals in the ground or are you adding to the problems they will already face with the destruction of the environment? Sounds a bit selfish.

Yes, think of the children.
They can inherit whatever world we build for them.
So is this world going to be filthy, smelly, and full of disease and bacteria?
There is a reason we don’t use the horse and buggy anymore.

Seems to me it would be selfish to force our children into a less technologically advanced world then we started with.