Animal rights and sexuality discussion (no connection)

[T0Mi]

I'm not sure if those debates are really enjoyable. Sometimes they indeed are, but they also leave me finding no sleep all too often.
The energy source for this post was anger. And anger usually produces the opposite effect of what you want to achieve.

I hope we can chat someday or even have a thread on the forum about that pedestal mankind puts itself on top of for no apparent reason and the general concept of our specism.

If we finally became what we claim to be, then we are to be put on that podestal we stand on all the time.
The thing is: we won't feel the need to do so if we finally are there.
One day maybe. Not yet. And still quite far from it. Until then that podestals only purpose is allowing us to stand kneedeep in blood and gore. And not up to the chin.

It's just training, it's not spontaneous creativity

Prove to me, what you are doing is not simply a combination or variation of things you have already learned. Prove it! If I'm not willing to see, it would be impossible for you to make me see. Just like most people refuse to see the connection all living beeings on this planet/universe/godly thing (whatever your deal is) share. That we are equal, having the same roots, sharing everything that makes us feel alive. Because: for all that matters, we are alike.

Let us stick to Paya (that painting elefant) for a moment. Imagine her keeper is not around and she gets hold of paint and brush and does her painting thing. Alone. For fun. And if you can point out the difference between the work you do and what she can do (which you probably can with some effort), does this also make what she does so overly less worth than what you do? What about the bum waiting in a row with you at the supermarket (easily outclassed by Koko and Michael). Shouldn't you be allowed to get your stuff before he does? What about the triple doctor behind you. Isn't his time worth more than yours?

Surely she is pushing the limits of her own species far beyond of what we have seen of them so far (with a little help from our side). Ask yourself (all of you): are you pushing the limits of your own species? Do you take full advantage of the possibilities of this gift to be human? (and there are people who would happily trade that for being "just" an animal)

"just animals"

This is what annoys me most. Making me feel angry in a way I can not describe. We've had it all before. It's just the name of the scape goat that changes.
(Funny BTW we use animal names for swearing and also put animals as labels on fancy cars)

If a cow (and a whole herd with her) protects her calf, risking her own life, we call it instinct and little more than protecting DNA.
If a human mother protects her child, we call it morality. And if the same mother tries to flush her newborn down the toilet (with a little help of a hand-held blender) we give it nice sientific names.

The animal holocaust is happening every minute, every hour. Billions of lifes every year. Taken for granted.
For what? For stuff we could well get along without. And if we find a valid excuse in a special case, we take this and generalize it to excuse everything else we do.

let me ask:
Why don't we breed humans without brain for food? We could put one human next to another aligned in endless rows, saving a whole lot of space. Feeding them with stomach probes they could be farmed in a very efficent way.

Why not?
For a less reason we shouldn't do what we are doing to non-humans. And those usually have brains.

[Gambit37]

The amount of things I've just had to do to get your post moved to this thread is quite immense: fine motor control, problem solving, linking, building relationships, etc.

While other animals may exhibit some or all of those behaviours or mechanisms, none have developed them to the level humans have. That's what makes us evolutionarily superior to all other animals. You simply can't escape that fact.

@Tomi: I'm not sure what you mean about being angry at the "just animals" comment? From which perspective? Animals or Humans?

[Zyx]

That's what makes us evolutionarily superior to all other animals.

I wouldn't choose that word. Evolutionarily, roaches and bacterias are far superior. They existed for a longer time and will outlast humanity.
I think the only immediate advantage humans have over other animals are their brain capacities.
I speak of advantage and not superiority because there is no hierarchy between species. (There is a genetic tree connecting them; being on an older or a newer branch doesn't mean superiority. The pyramidal chain of food is really a loop, and anyway eating vegetable or flesh and being eaten by virus and bacterias only means you're part of an ecosystem, not that you're superior or inferior. There is genetic complexity: humans are far behind.)
I say "immediate" because on the long term the human is so plastic than it can shortcut his hardwired survival program and destruct himself - as an individual up to the whole species -, which is not so superior, evolutionarily. Destroying what surrounds us doesn't make us superior either. In fact, it cancels our existence, be it superior or not, and the existence of the rest, be it inferior or not.

I don't consider mankind as the king of nature. I don't even see the point, unless it is about ego caressing. Since what matters to us are the human traits we are programmed to recognize and care about, it seems to us that the humans are the best at it, which is probably true, and we conclude anthropocentrically that they're the best in all that matters.
It reminds me of a humorist who said: "in France, we have the best experts of the world about french politics."

I do think our brain skills achieved a unique combination and high levels to allow an incredible potential (we're still young and flawed, though). I think it's an historical moment, nothing more (or less). These skills can be taught to other species by the way, whether culturally - some apes can learn to speak through symbols for example -, or genetically - dogs were selected to lose fear from humans and gain empathic insights of their emotions for example. These skills can also be understood and reproduced, and will be one day on computers. These skills can also be enhanced, corrected, diversified. We're at the bottom of the well and we shouldn't sit on our current mediocre state of "intelligence". In particular when all our "twig technology" is doing more harm than good and when we need so much what we're destroying.

So instead of this debate "non-humans vs humans" I think it would be much more interesting to understand what can do each species and how we can live without destroying each other.

[Gambit37]

I think we're actually talking about the same thing Zyx, though you are more precise in your language.

What I mean is that the process of evolution has given humans an array of capabilities that are not yet matched by any other animal. Our adaptability, creativity and power of abstract thought allows us to do things far in advance of any other animal. In my book, that's good enough to say that we are superior (in a popular acceptance of the meaning of the word.) You can argue semantics all you like, it doesn't really matter: we are top of the food chain for very clear and obvious reasons that we all understand.

There are clearly dumb, selfish, stupid things that the human race continues to do. But one can't ignore all the evidence of what we've created (and destroyed) and simply say we're the same as other animals. We very obviously are not.

So instead of this debate "non-humans vs humans" I think it would be much more interesting to understand what can do each species and how we can live without destroying each other.

I agree with this.

[Sophia]

Prove to me, what you are doing is not simply a combination or variation of things you have already learned. Prove it! If I'm not willing to see, it would be impossible for you to make me see. Just like most people refuse to see the connection all living beeings on this planet/universe/godly thing (whatever your deal is) share. That we are equal, having the same roots, sharing everything that makes us feel alive. Because: for all that matters, we are alike.

Let us stick to Paya (that painting elefant) for a moment. Imagine her keeper is not around and she gets hold of paint and brush and does her painting thing. Alone. For fun.

I never said that what I do isn't a combination or variation of things I've learned. In fact, I'm pretty sure it is. However, the key words there are combination and variation. It's not all simple repetition. I don't know what to make of your example because I don't know if that kind of thing would even happen. If she actually grabs the paint and does the painting thing alone for the sake of her own fun and creativity, then I think you've got a lot more of a point-- but my point is that she doesn't do that. Painting elephants are taught to replicate a painting, and do so based on a memory of the overall appearance and the the exact motor skills required to replicate that one image. They don't combine or vary. You can't just put a bowl of fruit or whatever other object in front of an elephant and expect that elephant to be able to look at the object in the world and apply their skills in new and creative ways to be able to paint that object, like a human artist can. They can only paint what they've been taught the exact ways they have to move their trunk to create.

The animal holocaust is happening every minute, every hour. Billions of lifes every year. Taken for granted.
For what? For stuff we could well get along without. And if we find a valid excuse in a special case, we take this and generalize it to excuse everything else we do.

It'd be happening with or without us. "It's a jungle out there" isn't just a saying-- it really is. Forget any romantic concepts because those are for people who get out into the woods on the weekends and then retreat to their comforts of civilization. For the animals that live in it, nature is a brutal, dangerous place and death is frequent and unpleasant.

Why don't we breed humans without brain for food? We could put one human next to another aligned in endless rows, saving a whole lot of space. Feeding them with stomach probes they could be farmed in a very efficent way.

I think that there are various health problems with eating your own species. Chickens/pigs/etc. without brains could work, though, as long as they weren't pumped so full of drugs that the current problems of the rather excessive approach we currently take to farming aren't just multiplied.

[Adamo]

The animal holocaust is happening every minute, every hour. Billions of lifes every year.

Animal holocaust? It`s not that bad. There were at least 5 global disasters in the past ("extincion events"), that almost completely destroyed the life on earth, probably because of the meteor collision or so:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
That could be called a disaster. And it wasn`t caused by a humans, but just a simple chance.
Plus, I wouldn`t use a word "holocuast" for animal kills.

[Zyx]

The animal holocaust is happening every minute, every hour. Billions of lives every year. Taken for granted.
For what? For stuff we could well get along without. And if we find a valid excuse in a special case, we take this and generalize it to excuse everything else we do.

It'd be happening with or without us. "It's a jungle out there" isn't just a saying-- it really is. Forget any romantic concepts because those are for people who get out into the woods on the weekends and then retreat to their comforts of civilization. For the animals that live in it, nature is a brutal, dangerous place and death is frequent and unpleasant.

I think T0Mi sees a difference between gratuitous killing and unavoidable killing. I understand this difference. I don't think massive gratuitous killing (ie, not for survival) would happen without the humans.
I understand your sarcasm about hypocrite or contradictory romantic concepts but I don't share your reduction to this behaviour. For example, many persons are willing to loose the comfort of eating meat for the sake of animals. (I'm not stating my position but describing reality).

Animal holocaust? It`s not that bad.

Then what's left to be bad ?

As for massive animal extinction, it's unprobable that mankind would survive it since it depends on an ecosystem which is deeply interconnected with the disappearing species. Even if it would, its environment would be desolate. Such a future would be full of soylent green, though.

Anyway, the resources (in this case the biodiversity) are being depleted, and denying the importance, the consequences and causes of that fact surprises me coming for you two, Sophia and Adamo. I think I don't understand the scope you're talking from (or it's you who don't).

[T0Mi]

A: "A to B, please report."
B: "we have reached the beacon of our probe. There is a little blue planet onscreen. Scanning..."
A: "lifeforms?"
B: "Yeah. lots of them. Data coming in now."
A: "Come on, we've got lots of work to do. Talk to me."
B: "It's quite intriguing. Know what? They can only move freely withhin 3 of 27 dimensions."
A: "You're kidding, right?"
B: "Yeah, isn't that lame? The fourth dimeansion is just linear for them."
A: "You mean, they still die?"
B: "It's just the icing of the cake. Know what: they are limited by light speed! Can you imagine?"
A: "You're pulling my leg. Why would they even try to leave their shitty little planet? They can't go anywhere"
B: "Instinct probably."
A: "Yeah, most likely."
B: "They do put nice colors on their nests though."
A: "What do they taste like?"
B: "Chicken."
A: "Thats good. I like chicken."

[Sophia]

I think T0Mi sees a difference between gratuitous killing and unavoidable killing. I understand this difference. I don't think massive gratuitous killing (ie, not for survival) would happen without the humans.
I understand your sarcasm about hypocrite or contradictory romantic concepts but I don't share your reduction to this behaviour. For example, many persons are willing to loose the comfort of eating meat for the sake of animals. (I'm not stating my position but describing reality).

And what I'm saying is that in most of the wild, untamed world, there is no distinction between "gratuitous killing" and "unavoidable killing," because most of the time the animals doing the killing don't moralize about the significance or the necessity of the killing. They just do it. In some cases, this is because they lack the mental capacity to even form those kinds of thoughts, but we've seen that animals are often smarter than we give them credit for, so, I'd say that a lot of the time, they just plain don't care. Of course, cases of sadism, revenge, etc. have been documented in Orcas, so I guess that smart animals can be malicious just like humans can. I wonder if there are Orca vegetarians.

Anyway, the resources (in this case the biodiversity) are being depleted, and denying the importance, the consequences and causes of that fact surprises me coming for you two, Sophia and Adamo. I think I don't understand the scope you're talking from (or it's you who don't).

In my case, I think you did misunderstand. I wasn't trying to trivialize extinction and whatnot-- that is a definite problem, and perhaps more deserving of hyperbolic rhetoric. What I was trying to do was question the use of hyperbole like "animal holocaust" to refer to the simple act of farming and eating meat.

[Zyx]

And what I'm saying is that in most of the wild, untamed world, there is no distinction between "gratuitous killing" and "unavoidable killing," because most of the time the animals doing the killing don't moralize about the significance or the necessity of the killing. They just do it.

I don't think T0Mi ignores the fact of death in the wild. Yes, most of the time, animals do hardwired, instinctive killing, without thoughts allowing another option, while humans can choose other paths over their instincts. They have choice and thus, the responsibility of their choice.
So when T0Mi says that this "holocaust" has no valid global excuse, he's talking, I think, about humans choosing to kill when they could have not, that is without a good enough reason. In other words, besides the necessary quantity of killing - that is yet to be analyzed, maybe it's zero -, there is a superfluous killing in the human behaviours.
When you answer that "It'd be happening with or without us", you're talking about the quantity of necessary killing, which is not what T0Mi is talking about.
The fact that only (or mostly) humans can find, feel and think the optionality of their killing habits while animals don't doesn't mean that there would be as much superfluous killing without humans as with them. In fact, there would be none at all, only hardwired, unavoidable, necessary killing. I suppose this is based on the assumption that animals can't change or be changed, so they have no options, while human can and have. (I'm not judging your respective positions, I repeat. )

[T0Mi]

*sigh*
Sorry, long post ahead. I can't compress my thoughts the way you do.
I do think it is worth a read, though. Calm down. Relax. Enjoy yourself.




[Sophia pointing to the laws of nature]
there is some misunderstanding at this point.
The organised industrial massmurder of non-humans certainly wouldn't exists without us. It's a whole different scale of what happens in a natural enviroment.

I'm refering to:

- the smilie face on the sausage we give to our kids.
- 3000 milk cows 'living' on a giant farm in Poland and the shredder in the backyard in which they throw in the calfs. Alive.
- Street dogs in Slowenia which are put to death with garbage presses. (Recently seen a video. With sound. I won't link it)
- Dogs been thrown into boiling water in Korea because the meat then becomes "more tasty" because of the adrenaline.
- Deforming their bodies (breeding, genetics) to a point they are no longer able to survive on their own.
- the general anonymisation, the industrialisation, the ignoring of the individual beeing, ...
- ... (the list is endless)...

I'd have a lot less problems with our being omnivore (which is a choice, not a given natural constraint) if each of us had to actually make his/her food like it was done some hundred years ago. And not buying nice vacuum sealed stuff from the mall without ever witnessing the act itself except on TV ("Oh, those poor animals. I'm gonna make us some sandwiches").

I wonder if there are Orca vegetarians.

Not that I have every heard of a veggie orca. (Interesting thought though)
I can give two examples of other species:

Canines have been companions of mankind for several thousand years. In some part of the world they seldomly or never ever got to eat meat. It was simply to valuable to give them to your dogs, causing a kind of enforced evolution toward a herbivore feeding habbit. Time was still too short to alter the appearance of teeth and much of their digestive system. So they mostly have been feed with vegetables and what was left from the table. Some strains of Kangals are unable to feed on meat until today. They can even die from the animal protein. (My dog was a Kangal mix, and she always picked the carrotts from her meal before eating the rest)
What I do find intersting: They are one of the largest breeds ("lionfighters" reaching up to 90 kg) known, yet they can reach biblic ages of 16 years and more (a great dane of equal weight usually has a life expectation of about 5-7 years)

Another (opposite) example would be the "great trek". The deportation of the Trakehner horse from russia. Several thousand miles to walk with very little food and water. So they had to feed the horses with the meat of their fallen companions. It worked for some of them. And those survived. (Mine don't even sniff on pizza if I bring any. They want beer and honey candy bars.)



[Sophias proof of the non-creative way an elefant paints a portrait]
You are right probably and proving your superiour (and individual) intelligence all the way, even more so because most likely you have never meet an elefant in person. I've been studying the behaviour of equines for almost all my life. Every day of the year. Face to face. They have not yet ceased to amaze me and I'm far from understanding their behaviour in all of its complexity. (*scratched head* Now does this make me just more stupid or more curious?)

Also horses arn't exactly clever. Mice (about the size of a horses eyeball) from a scientific view have a far superiour intelligence than horses have. Maybe, in the end, it's not all about intelligence. Nature isn't thriftless when it comes to distributing it. What should a beeing that spends 10-14 hours on getting enough energy from herbivore sources gain from extended cognitive abilities? While thinking about running or staying they'll get eaten. Instead they developed a central nervous system that outclasses ours in exactly the way they need it: speed and reaction time. (and a kind of 6th sense I've solely found in equines, not in humans. Whatever that means without proof.)



[superiour intelligence] / [tiresome and repetitive]
There is no doubt about that. Our cognitive array certainly outclasses those of any other species on this planet.
The one question is: does it give us the right we claim to have to completely judge what's happening to them, including their birth, their DNA, their death? Keeping in mind, that for about 99% it is not at all needed and for luxury only.

And yes, it is a kind of boring discussion. Especially if it's not a subject of (your) heart. I've had it probably a hundred times already, both on the inet and in RL.
What makes it even more tiresome is the fact that most of the time (not at this place, which I hope does mean something) it is needed to 'teach' the very basics. Our common design (symmetry, organs, senses), the more recent scientific proofs (cognitive thinking, creativity, even the not exactly adorable ability to lie) and most of all (and most important) their general ability to suffer the same way we do.

Again (like Sophy and Gambit alread have done) I want to stress, that we are the only species joining all advanced abilities in one animal kind and have developed this without (direct!) help from other species (...). And in the very same way I'd like to stress that it is plainly stupid to be proud of the mere fact to be human and to justify what we do because we are what we are. So still: the one question remains.




"twig technology"
( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZG8HBuDjgc )
Douglas Adams at his best. Great insight on the evolutionary development of the reproductive circle. I found that example of the blind river dolphin to be both sad and a real eye opener. (For those who havn't watched the vid: River dolphins in the Yangtze in China developed a complex and very sensitive sonar-based hearing because mankind polluted the river with the outcome of their agricultural activities lasting several thousand years, making it impossible for the dolphin to navigate by sight only. Then (all of a sudden) man invented the diesel engine, the noises making it impossible for the dolphin to use it anymore. And to put an end to all this, the chinese built the biggest dam in history of mankind, ensuring the extinct wholley and completely.)

@Tomi: I'm not sure what you mean about being angry at the "just animals" comment? From which perspective? Animals or Humans?

I cannot answer that question, because I'm not sure I do understand it correctly. Animals don't care what we think of them. They care about the way we treat them. It's a general anger I feel whenever the annoying way of looking down at non-humans comes to light. Which seldomly enough happens on this forum. This and my ongoing problems I have because of the neigbour thing (never thought it'll make such a complete and whole mess out of myself). In the end it turned out to be good. I've learned something (from Zyx as usual), got some distraction for the time waiting for the date at the court other than trying to do work and I do hope some of you have gained insight what "animal-people" like me feel like.

[Sophia]

Yes, most of the time, animals do hardwired, instinctive killing, without thoughts allowing another option, while humans can choose other paths over their instincts. They have choice and thus, the responsibility of their choice.

I think it could be said there are plenty of humans who, due to culture, education, natural (lack of) intelligence, or whatever, wouldn't consider other options, too. While I see your point, and I do agree that human intelligence gives us an ability to reflect that many other creatures do not have-- I don't think it automatically means all of the killing that goes on in nature is "necessary" and "excusable." I contend that even pragmatism is too romantic. Nature's savagery simply is.

only hardwired, unavoidable, necessary killing

Hardwired, perhaps so. Then again, even we humans have some hardwired killer instincts within us. We suppress them to function in "civilization," but they're there. As for avoidable and necessary, I'm not quite sure about them at all. For that matter, there are probably tense situations that a human could get out of without causing death, by thinking the matter through, that a simpler animal would just force its way through.

Maybe, in the end, it's not all about intelligence. Nature isn't thriftless when it comes to distributing it. What should a beeing that spends 10-14 hours on getting enough energy from herbivore sources gain from extended cognitive abilities? While thinking about running or staying they'll get eaten. Instead they developed a central nervous system that outclasses ours in exactly the way they need it

Well, I agree with this. Nowhere was I trying to say that "humans are inherently better at everything than all other creatures." I was just trying to point out that accepting your point-- that humans are part of nature, we ourselves are animals and not some special class of being-- is a true and valid assertion, but with that comes with accepting the unseemly side of nature that is also part of our nature, being animals from that world. A paltry few thousand years of civilization isn't going to wipe out all that evolution and instinct. At least our compassion has somewhat expanded as well with all this growth of intelligence and capability.

The organised industrial massmurder of non-humans certainly wouldn't exists without us.

And here is what I mean. It is the merging of intelligence and the killer instinct that is still with us. The shift happened when a human first picked up a rock and realized that throwing it at his dinner was a safer, quicker, and more effective way of killing it than trying to physically take it down like every other predator does. Everything thereafter has just been a refinement.

- Street dogs in Slowenia which are put to death with garbage presses. (Recently seen a video. With sound. I won't link it)
- Dogs been thrown into boiling water in Korea because the meat then becomes "more tasty" because of the adrenaline.

To be fair, even most people who quite happily eat meat and don't think about the moral consequences thereof would find these practices objectionable.

- Deforming their bodies (breeding, genetics) to a point they are no longer able to survive on their own.
- the general anonymisation, the industrialisation, the ignoring of the individual beeing, ...

Yeah, the worst part about these is, we're doing them to ourselves. What chance do animals stand?

I'd have a lot less problems with our being omnivore (which is a choice, not a given natural constraint)

It was largely due to the eating of meat that our brains got so big and we got so smart to begin with, so I'm really not sure about this...

each of us had to actually make his/her food like it was done some hundred years ago. And not buying nice vacuum sealed stuff from the mall without ever witnessing the act itself except on TV ("Oh, those poor animals. I'm gonna make us some sandwiches").

Not even when we hunted, did everyone hunt. Some people hunted, others built shelters, others gathered herbs and twigs, others sat around and thought-- developing the beginnings of science, philosophy, religion, and storytelling. The women mostly cared for the children. While I see your point, that you want people to accept the moral consequences directly of the killing that goes into what they eat, part of me thinks that only because of "civilization" does this even matter. If we were all used to killing to eat, perhaps we'd be desensitized to it. The worst part is, perhaps this would lead to less compassion for animals, not more.

[T0Mi]

I'm slowly starting to enjoy this, because we are now reaching realms of the more interesting and more seldomly discussed points.
(although we are leaving the more obvious and more understandable "they are our brothers - you shalt not kill")

If we were all used to killing to eat, perhaps we'd be desensitized to it. The worst part is, perhaps this would lead to less compassion for animals, not more.

You are right, going back in time is not a solution (letting aside the linear nature of time and we can not really do something about it), but a hint.

Let us travel back some 100 years and see. A farmer losing one of his cows. This was a more devasting disaster for the whole family than losing a son/daughter (I've been told this eye-to-eye by my farmer). Not exactly what we want, you are right about that. Still, the animal had a complete different value. They guaranteed the survival of the family by giving milk, warmth and when it was about time: meat. These were times when meat was an exception to the rule. Something special, eaten once a week by wealthy people if at all (none at all for the poor and none for most during the winter). So the main advantage I see is: we would eat -much- less of that stuff, making more room for the animals, giving them a life that is more (somewhat) worth living.

There are ways of producing meat that are vegan! We do not have to go withhout it. I may explain if needed. Yet, the price for a kg of meat would rise to something like 100 bucks, causing us to reduce our consumption to a more healthy level. The recommended medical dose (not the needed dose, which simply doesn't exist) is about 150 gramms of meat per week. It would also give the meat the value it deserves. If we can't go withhout it (because it tastes sooooo good), we should at least honour it in a way that fits at least somewhat.

I'd have a lot less problems with our being omnivore (which is a choice, not a given natural constraint)

It was largely due to the eating of meat that our brains got so big and we got so smart to begin with, so I'm really not sure about this...

From what I know this is but a widely spread myth (and a cheap excuse for what we do today if I might say) when it comes to the development of the human brain.
(It is true, most carnivore/omnivore species possess a more developed intelligence than herbivore species, because it was needed to form alliances, to form packs, to work together as a team to take down a larger animal too strong for a single individual.)

So let us assume for a moment, that this theory (mankind grows bigger brains because of meat consumption) is still right.

Why is the human digestive system so very ineffective when it comes to drawing energy from meat?
Why didn't a carnivore species take control if it was meat that causes the brain to grow?
Why did societies of the past which feeded almost solely on vegan sources develop at all?
Why did the (very little) carnivore characteristics of mankind vanish more and more while the evolutionary process was taking place?

And most of all:
our brains won't get any bigger if we continue eating meat, now do they?

The organised industrial massmurder of non-humans certainly wouldn't exists without us.

And here is what I mean. It is the merging of intelligence and the killer instinct that is still with us. The shift happened when a human first picked up a rock and realized that throwing it at his dinner was a safer, quicker, and more effective way of killing it than trying to physically take it down like every other predator does. Everything thereafter has just been a refinement.

A huge part of mankinds becoming what it is today also were territorial fights, war, slavery and discrimination.
Yet we try to evolve further without going to war, without enslaving and discriminating others.
In the same way we should try to do less harm to our enviroment and to other beings.

- Deforming their bodies (breeding, genetics) to a point they are no longer able to survive on their own.
- the general anonymisation, the industrialisation, the ignoring of the individual beeing, ...

Yeah, the worst part about these is, we're doing them to ourselves. What chance do animals stand?

You are not suggesting to put our hands into our pockets, are you?
I guess you're merely thinking of the original natural evolutionary process we are no longer part of, right?

[Zyx]

So let us assume for a moment, that this theory (mankind grows bigger brains because of meat consumption) is still right.

Why is the human digestive system so very ineffective when it comes to drawing energy from meat?
Why didn't a carnivore species take control if it was meat that causes the brain to grow?
Why did societies of the past which feeded almost solely on vegan sources develop at all?
Why did the (very little) carnivore characteristics of mankind vanish more and more while the evolutionary process was taking place?

I'm talking about geologic time and species, not lifetimes and individuals. This is an approximation, so don't expect the details to be exact.
Having a enhanced brain suck up more energy which means that you are soon blocked by your diet. Becoming more carnivorous (and other things like a bigger skull, a vertical spine, etc.) allow to maintain a bigger brain. Developing canines (through mutations etc.) for example, helps for the early stage of carnivorism. But then the bigger this new brain becomes (new because of cortex, neocortex, language centers, etc), the smarter the species become and the more it obtains meat*, which allows reaching new livable mutations increasing the brain, at the same time that the body tools become less determinant for survival since they're compensated by social strategies, fabricated tools, cleverness, etc. So at a certain threshold of this virtuous circle between carnivorous diet and brain size, the carnivorous genetic weapons are obsolete (not needed) and vanish with the pass of generations.

*: ie, between 30 000 to 10 000 years ago a macrofauna existed in every continent and went extinct due to the presence of man. Once you know how to build a trap for mammoths, you can feed your clan of 40 members through the whole winter with just one day of successful hunt.

Digesting proteins is highly effective, I think you're confused on the terms. Any predator needs to invest in genes and in fabricating a few kind of enzymes to digest meat, but it's well worth it: it allows to make muscle, blood and heat: 3 characteristics that allow fast movement and reflexes (compared to plants but even herbivores who have a harder time to reach high speeds - if they could compete in velocity with their predators then these last ones would go extinct quickly). Human tribes that live under very cold climates require very efficient diets: Inuits, Eskimos or North-Siberians eat almost exclusively meat.
Eating cellulose or starch (very long, resistant molecules) requires hours or days, a digestion in several steps, up to 4 stomachs, and the help of hundred of collaborative bacterium species. Much less efficient.
On the other side, degrading proteins and high metabolism produce lots of free radicals which burn your body, wounding cells that use up the telomeres while self-repairing and accumulate errors, withering us and producing cancers: shortening our life.


Early societies discovered agriculture and increased the daily calories that could be eaten, but this reached a cap because of the digestive cost and the technical or technological difficulties to produce more vegetarian food at the dawn of civilization.

So why most carnivores (or herbivores for that matter) didn't develop bigger brains?
Probably because they don't currently have modules that would benefit from a bigger size.They don't have hands, don't have vocalization capacities, so any mutation leading to a protolanguage center or protomanual abilies would be useless and costy in terms of energy. There are exceptions among the superior animals (birds, mammals and reptiles), but they confirm the correlation: parrots are language intelligent because they're gregarious and can emit a great variety of sounds and thus could mutate useful brain areas tapping on this potential. Elephants have great "manual" abilities because their trunk allowed their brain to develop the corresponding areas (and they're probably more dexterous single-handedly than us since they manipulate 6 groups of 100 000 muscle units each)

I think it could be said there are plenty of humans who, due to culture, education, natural (lack of) intelligence, or whatever, wouldn't consider other options, too.

Sorry for making this post long, but I think this may be one of the keys distinguishing the human intelligence, which is in part behind this whole debate: "considering other options". Even among humans we consider dumb a person that doesn't see or understand alternatives. Even ourselves, after childhood, if we're not careful, we slowly start thinking with our mental routines, not listening anymore to "alien" ideas really. We don't credit them with the same epistemologic value, we shortcuts our analysis by using learned strategies (ie, does the knowledge come from an ideology, person, organization, media, etc. we trust? does it fit with my ideas?). There's a point in our psychosclerosis when we can only really and deeply think about things that share most of our accumulated paradigm. I think most of the deep misunderstanding and disputes (skeptics vs religious, science vs magic) come from these rigid states of mind, and not from the intrinsic (if any) value of the arguments. (That's why I usually don't say my opinion during deep debates, it would only add more confusion).

[Sophia]

So the main advantage I see is: we would eat -much- less of that stuff, making more room for the animals, giving them a life that is more (somewhat) worth living.

What is your definition of "worth living"? An animal raised for food on a traditional farm has a pretty good life, all things considered. By traditional farm, I mean, the usual idea of a farm, with a barn and a pasture and whatnot, with free range animals-- rather than animals all being contained in some Borg-like industrial structure pumped full of drugs and hormones. Anyway, living a peaceful life on a farm and then being killed quickly and humanely when it's time seems favorable to a life full of strife and stress in the wild, where death could come from any number of hazards, diseases, or of course predators that care far less about killing painlessly than the farmer.

From what I know this is but a widely spread myth (and a cheap excuse for what we do today if I might say) when it comes to the development of the human brain.

It's widely spread because there is ample evidence for it. No offense, but if you're deeply into the vegan etc. movement, you've probably mostly been exposed to very biased literature-- it's somewhat like a devout Christian being under the impression that evolution is nothing but a widely spread myth because that's what he/she is exposed to. The general anthropological consensus is that meat eating helped humans develop a larger brain. You can Google this if you don't believe me.

Why is the human digestive system so very ineffective when it comes to drawing energy from meat?

The human digestive system is, by the standards of many animals, ineffective at drawing the energy from just about anything. If you think meat is hard to digest, try eating grass or leaves, which many herbivores have no problem doing. I would suspect human evolution (and primate evolution, really) has always tended toward an easier-to-digest diet, using our intelligence to pick out more nutritious sources.
This article puts forth an interesting idea: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8543906.stm Humans have known about fire and cooked food for long enough that the act of cooking the food itself became part of our evolutionary heritage. That is, the "pre-digestion" that cooking offered became almost essential to us, particularly in the case of meats. This, too, could help answer your question.

Why didn't a carnivore species take control if it was meat that causes the brain to grow?

It's not so much as "meat causes the brain to grow." It's that primates are among the smartest of animals, so the ability to grow a big, intelligent brain was already in their genome. Proto-humans that had a taste for meat won out in the process of natural selection, so they thrived and got the necessary nutrition to develop a big brain. Certain other carnivores aren't evolutionarily predisposed to growing a big brain, I'd think.

Why did societies of the past which feeded almost solely on vegan sources develop at all?

Which societies? I'd guess it was something simple like lack of availability of meat, though without the benefits of a modern diet they probably needed at least some meat. I can research it more knowing the specific societies involved. I should also point out that by the time we're getting to the point that "societies" develop, we're almost at the end of the road of human evolution.

Why did the (very little) carnivore characteristics of mankind vanish more and more while the evolutionary process was taking place?

Because we're omnivores, not carnivores, and our evolution was based on fighting smarter, not fighting harder.

our brains won't get any bigger if we continue eating meat, now do they?

Maybe, maybe not. I have read that there is some evidence (but more than likely not conclusive proof) that our brain size relative to body size has actually gone down somewhat in the past 10000 years, corresponding to the shift in human civilizations from hunting/gathering to agriculture.

A huge part of mankinds becoming what it is today also were territorial fights, war, slavery and discrimination.
Yet we try to evolve further without going to war, without enslaving and discriminating others.
In the same way we should try to do less harm to our enviroment and to other beings.

You are not suggesting to put our hands into our pockets, are you?
I guess you're merely thinking of the original natural evolutionary process we are no longer part of, right?

I agree with your first assertions so I was not suggesting simply putting hands into pockets. It was more the sort of thing you say while grimly shaking your head and looking at the ground-- feeling like there is such a vast problem, we are doing these things to our own species, so how will the lot of animals ever improve?

[zoom]

So the main advantage I see is: we would eat -much- less of that stuff, making more room for the animals, giving them a life that is more (somewhat) worth living.

What is your definition of "worth living"? An animal raised for food on a traditional farm has a pretty good life, all things considered. By traditional farm, I mean, the usual idea of a farm, with a barn and a pasture and whatnot, with free range animals-- rather than animals all being contained in some Borg-like industrial structure pumped full of drugs and hormones. Anyway, living a peaceful life on a farm and then being killed quickly and humanely when it's time seems favorable to a life full of strife and stress in the wild, where death could come from any number of hazards, diseases, or of course predators that care far less about killing painlessly than the farmer.

Predators don´t necessarily kill their prey.
There is still luck involved,
hunger and general state of being.
luck: shelter etc. in nature, luck often epically fails
hunger: normally not an issue(being fed well enough) but happens with pets like the cat,
our cat brought 3 mice in succession. the first got killed and eaten(next to the normal ration, far too much of cat food) the second, too(killed in the living room and eaten, too ) and the third was only being brought inside, played with(hurt but not lethal ) and probably survived outside for another day.
(general state of being: the cat was not hungry anymore. While a mouse is fascinating and releases reflexes in the cat, 2 already was enough.
So the mouse was a kind of toy and eventually not interesting any more)
True, you can hardly compare pets with wild life animals but what I wanted to say here, is that animals have maybe a slight chance of choice when they are not induced with adrenalin or hormones over and over and have lived for quite some time. Having felt pain due to claws of another cat in a fight maybe lets the cat very very very dimly realise how much pain it can inflict with their own claws. If it has a good day. This is highly complex because there is ranking involved, too.

Well, I would prefer to live a life in the wilds, probably dying famine death or getting killed by a beast, touching the soil and grass, seeing sunshine, hearing thunderstorms getting wet, being ill, experiencing every day perils and exitements anew over a farm live(however friendly) with no sexual partner. But most animals don´t enjoy it.
Take cattle.
The bulls get a dummy cow-attraption (great) and their load gets spread to 10 000 cows.
In the modern, industrialised world there is hardly any other way.
There is more efficiency and less mating accidents involved.
There is no way back to the shiny nice meadows for all animals.Humans ,while a necessity back then , eat far too much crap nowadays and too much meat for sure.
but can you blame them? every single one of them?

Anyway, living a peaceful life on a farm and then being killed quickly and humanely when it's time seems favorable to a life full of strife and stress in the wild, where death could come from any number of hazards, diseases, or of course predators that care far less about killing painlessly than the farmer.

Seems favourable from the perspective of a farmer, true.
Would be much more stress to collect in the wilds.Simply not doable and inefficient for the demand of today.
From a perspective of an animal it is difficult. Pets do live a life, it is different from wild living animals but not bad per se. It is very very different and once you live one way you would not/cannot choose the other. I would not say a is more favourable than b.

I don´t know, maybe there is really no need for predators to kill painlessly?
The shock (I hope ) is like a sedation and clouds -(put a veil on )what is going on. at least to a certain extend.
(body drugs , adrenal flush, panic, pressure loss and fainting)

[T0Mi]

Sorry. I'm awully busy right now. (very much enjoyed reading your post, zoom!)

Still had a little time to do some basic research concentrating on the sudden change that happened between habilis and ergaster some 2 million years ago. (In just about 300k years the most significant increase of the brain volume took place, going from 600cm³ to something like 900cm³.)
I still havn't found more than imprecise evidence for meat being the driving force for this though (in most studies I came across it is not even mentioned), but since the two of you (Sophy+Zyx) are so overly sure, maybe I'm looking at the wrong place or even the wrong time of evolution. So the question if it was the meat itself or just the ability to get enough food at all (to constantly support a growing brain) for me is not yet answered (letting aside Zyxs explanation of the temporary evolutionary need to feed on it).

My looking for answers (which I thorougly enjoyed, while being at the hardware store on a workday, looking into empty fishy eyes usually makes me ashamed of being a human myself, raising a feeling and urge need to develop a virus causing humans to grow fur again) also made me visit places I havn't been at for years and I found it saddening the fractions still waste their energy in senseless flamewars. The raw vegan extremists going so far to condemn the washing of fruits in ocean water because of the salt therein - what a utterly crap. They really could do better with their energy. Then again, maybe I just dont understand. To be honest: I don't even want to know. I just have a horses head resting on my shoulder, him blowing his warm and aromatical breath into my ear and I know what mankind does is plainly wrong. Then he slobbers all over my new shirt and I start to reconsider. Damm, I need to go to work with this you... horse. Oh well, there you are.

until the weekend (1. May! YAY!) and the date at the court (urgh!)
gives me more time: have fun!

[Zyx]

I still havn't found more than imprecise evidence for meat being the driving force for this though (in most studies I came across it is not even mentioned), but since the two of you (Sophy+Zyx) are so overly sure, maybe I'm looking at the wrong place or even the wrong time of evolution. So the question if it was the meat itself or just the ability to get enough food at all (to constantly support a growing brain) for me is not yet answered (letting aside Zyxs explanation of the temporary evolutionary need to feed on it).

Humans did evolve better diet capacities. For example:

[...]people in aboriginal cultures that eat mostly meat or fish carry fewer copies of the gene and produce less of the enzyme than do nearby aboriginal people who consume lots of starch. For instance, the Yakut people of the Asian Arctic, who subsist on seafood, carry fewer copies of the amylase gene than their close genetic kin the Japanese, who get lots of starch from rice. The same pattern holds for two Tanzanian tribes: The Datog, who raise livestock, have fewer copies than the Hadza, who primarily gather tubers and roots.

As for the relation of diet and About brain and guts energetic costs, I quote an interesting part about the 11% decrease of absolute size of brain in the last 10 000 years:

Far-reaching dietary changes over the last 10,000 years. This leaves us with the indication that there has likely been some kind of recent historical shortfall in some aspect of overall human nutrition--one that presents a limiting factor preventing the body/brain from reaching their complete genetic potential in terms of absolute physical development. The most obvious and far-reaching dietary change during the last 10,000 years has, of course, been the precipitous drop in animal food consumption (from perhaps 50% of diet to 10% in some cases) with the advent of agriculture, accompanied by a large rise in grain consumption--a pattern that persists today. This provides suggestive evidence that the considerable changes in human diet from the previous hunter-gatherer way of life have likely had--and continue to have--substantial consequences.
Brain growth dependent on preformed long-chain fatty acids such as DHA. The most plausible current hypothesis for the biological mechanism(s) responsible for the absolute decrease in brain size is that the shortfall in consumption of animal foods since the late Paleolithic has brought with it a consequent shortfall in consumption of preformed long-chain fatty acids [Eaton and Eaton 1998]. Specifically, for optimal growth, the brain is dependent on the fatty acids DHA (docosahexaenoic acid), DTA (docosatetraenoic acid), and AA (arachidonic acid) during development to support its growth during the formative years, particularly infancy. These are far more plentiful in animal foods than plant.

Eaton et al. [1998] analyze the likely levels of intake of EFAs involved in brain metabolism (DHA, DTA, AA) in prehistoric times, under a wide range of assumptions regarding possible diets and EFA contents. Their model suggests that the levels of EFAs provided in the prehistoric diets was sufficient to support the brain expansion and evolution from prehistoric times to the present, and their analysis also suggests that the current low levels of EFA intake (provided by agricultural diets) may explain the recent smaller human brain size.

[T0Mi]

Finally had some time to continue this and ended up with a lenghty thing noone would read. It's a sad thing in general these kind of discussions leave behind the points of common agreement. So I started to compress it and kicked out most of the research done on human evolution. As usual I'm using my small words only.

It started with human evolution though. First goal: The ideal diagram.
Time and major events on the x-axis. Brain weight, intelligence, av. temp. / climate, other major stuff (fire, settling, growing, sharing) happening and on the y-axis. Won't find any. Or maybe a simulation? Now that would be interesting to see. And hard to setup, as there is so much chaos involved.
Also this is where the coders come in. And cubicles. And pizza. (*damn*)

Now. One thing we do to generate work around here is to assume the "worst case" to become true, and raise the one fundamental question:
"meat consumption. Do we need it?". (also assuming "It was largely due to the eating of meat that our brains got so big and we got so smart" is a valid excuse for our todays habit to feed on meat)

There is one quote I came across at the very beginning (on beyondveg):

As a significant part of the range of diets we are adapted to by evolution, meat, specifically the lean meat and organs of wild animals, can be considered natural (food). However, as humans are intelligent, we can use our intelligence to choose a different diet, if we wish.

At this point I had a (lengthy) summary of studies, pointing out the minor or even negligible influence of meat consumption on todays brains/intelligence, let alone the (major) negative effect of our excessive meat consumption on both brain and health. Our intelligence is not driven by what we eat, but by what we become.

However, beside showing how little there is left to even come close to justify todays way of consuming meat, it is all very redundant. Compared to the social evolution which is happenening at a timewarping speed, our genetical becoming so far is a rather static platform.

Now one could think of a society that jumps in place for evolution, creating surrounding and enviroment in a similar altering (or supporting) way, replacing the wild and untamed nature "outside". Which kind of persons would be those chosen ones whos DNA is allowed to be carried onward to the next generation? Not to become a brave new world.

Wouldn't it be a good long term strategy for a nation (as long as we still think in these kind of stupid terms) to increase the quality of their gene pool, their intelligence? Is it wise to not think these kind of thoughts because it has gone terribly wrong some time? Would those individuals become the 'new' animals, even though they can live healthy and fully, giving them the right to reproduce only if they can achieve a certain level withhin this 'artifical' society?

I hope our social development is just so much faster than anything genetical, we don't have to worry about it right now. (Clone a plant seven times (for a pure breed) and you've broken the DNA. I do not wish to know how much it takes for humans to 'break' and how thin (or thick) our DNA is right now.

There is no way back to the shiny nice meadows for all animals.Humans ,while a necessity back then , eat far too much crap nowadays and too much meat for sure. but can you blame them? every single one of them?

This is a wonderful question.

We enjoy (moral) luxury if it doesn't directly interfere with our believes, our feelings. And our purse. Injecting poison to each and every living being around you, spreaded equally - it becomes abstract, while killing a living being, no, we won't do that ourself.

A vegetarian person is still responsible for the deathroll of the consumed product, in a more indirect way. (...and vegans buying that radio for 3.99$...)
So we may jump to conclusion: "Life isn't vegan". A truth. At this point humans tend to make another jump: "if I can not achieve it at a 100%, I'd let go completely". Humans do that. You may have done it before. I'm still there.

as a (personal) example:

There is a bumper sticker on my car saying: "go vegan - drive a chevy". Very funny. Ha-ha.
I'm ignoring my responsibility toward the enviroment. Wholly and completely. Willently.
And probably doing more harm to living beings by this choice, my ignorance and personal well-being.

So...
Can you blame them for not changing? No.
Can you blame them for not knowing? No.
Can you blame them for knowing and still not changing? Yes.
And thats why we (as a whole) indeed do slowly change.

In the end, it's about choices and "personal priorities". And about belief.


People Are Not Animals!

Why put sheep, cows, pigs, horses, all of them onto the wallpaper of our childs room? Why all that folklore, mythology, fairy tales, when they are called for dinner and and feed on exactly the same animals they dream about at night. Black Beauty, Lassy, Babe, Bremen Town Musicians, whatever. Maybe this all goes back to the first man-made paintings found on some cave walls. And what did they paint? I have a feeling they didn't do it because they want to to quicken their appetite.




I pity those who don't have a feeling for this. (My asshole neighbour for example broke into the garden of another neigbour stealing the candle that was put upon the grave of his dog. His explanation: only humans are valuable enough to put candles on their graves. What a shithead.)

Why would a horse, who learned (in a hard-wired evolutionary way) for millions and millions of years to buck off anything that got on his back come to a such complete and wholly harmony with its most feared enemy? It's certainly not just humans. There are two of each needed for this. I've wittnessed this in first hand-experience with a few of those horses I trained when I was still (younger and) a active rider. It's something that goes beyond all words. We just use way too many of them anyway.

Walk up to an animal, try to lure him or her to come closer, or to go away, to concentrate the interest on a certain object or whatever. You will use the same signs, the same signals you can use on a human who doesn't speak your language and has adopted to a different culture. This may go up to the point of someone (Monty Roberts) actually joining a herd of wild horses, ending up on the back of one of them. By adopting their language and withhout any force. Just by the common way of understanding each other. Simply because we do share so many things. Alot more than makes us different by evolutionary definition, appearace, intelligence, body or brain mass, whatever. We should finally start (or continue) to treat them accordingly.

[Mindstone]

Hi all,

Hope this isn't a threadomancy, I just wanted to put an idea out there.

1) Wouldn't it be fun if companies who sold animal products had to put pictures of tortured and slaughtered animals on their packagaing. i.e. Bernard Matthews Factory farm fresh turkey could have an image of numerous turkeys who starved to death and died in their own shit because of leg abscesses.

I would love to see an honest restaurant with images from a slaughterhouse plastered all over the walls. If you're going to eat meat - cool, just try to remember where it came from! Slogans like 'We cull and torture ducks for your delectation" are needed in every French restaurant. Anything else is false advertising.



2.) Sex is fun. Hugs are fun too. I think like all things in life we should fall in love in moderation and not get too sucked in to any one person