posted September 05, 2009 06:38 PM         

quote:

---

I dont need pest control, but, anyway, arent cats more of a nuissance when it comes to dragging dead carcasses into the house and all that? I dunno anybody who uses dogs for herding -- at least, its not a common reason. What do pigs do? They could keep you company, which is 99% of all cat and dog owners' reasons for owning cats and dogs.

---

I meant that as traditionally. Custom and tradition will usually trump even law in the rare cases the law is opposed to custom & tradition. That gets passed down to us even when far removed from farms and rural communities. Speaking of which, in rural communities they're still used that way, as I experienced myself.

quote:

---

I'm sure there are some mean hogs. Does that justify being a mean hog yourself? Or worse? A hog rancher?

---

posted September 05, 2009 09:13 PM         

Hippichick, Are you serious? Credentials? I have a good heart and good mind. You? I know what it is to suffer, but I've never been branded. What credentials do you need, really? I have eyes and ears. I've watched footage from the slaughterhouses. I have seen them suffer. I became Vegan. What other credentials do I need? Honestly. You think because you've been in close quaters you have the right to an opinion and a porkchop?

kat, The claims I am hearing now, in my research, are that "free range" is a marketing ploy, with no real government restrictions or oversight. Scary stuff.

posted September 05, 2009 09:27 PM         

I hate this song, lol.
Damn, I must be committed.

posted September 06, 2009 12:31 AM         

Don't Let Philosophy Become More Important Than What Works

By Dr. Ben Kim

Have you ever watched an animal being butchered? Unless you have experienced it many times, I bet you would feel quite bad watching it, let alone doing it yourself. Watching the butchering of an animal certainly helps people understand the passion that animal rights groups have in promoting a strict vegan (plant-based) diet.

From a moral and ethical perspective, I really appreciate the reasons for being a strict vegan. In fact, if I knew that I could be healthy on such a diet, I believe that I would return to being a strict vegan. The reality is that as far as recorded history is concerned, there has never been a population of people in our world that has lived on a strict vegan diet for an entire lifespan. Some populations have eaten mostly plant foods, but to my knowledge, there has not been a single population that has been on a 100 percent plant-based diet.

Today, there are many organizations that use their books and literature to promote a 100 percent strict vegan diet for optimal health for everyone.

Well, my experiences with my own body and in providing health care to many people over the years have led me to believe that a long term, strict vegan diet is likely to lead to the development of nutritional deficiencies and significant health problems for most people. Whenever I have shared this view with people who are just getting started with and excited about a strict vegan diet, I am usually asked to consider specific people or communities that claim to thrive on a strict vegan diet, some for decades.

I believe that people can survive for many years on a strict vegan diet, but almost always with one or more significant health problems. And I believe that some people who are truly thriving without any health problems, and claim to have been strict vegans for many years usually eat some animal foods, even if it is a small amount. The fact is, you and I can never know with certainty what another person eats on a moment-to-moment basis. The only dietary regimen that you can know with absolute accuracy is your own. Even your dog or cat probably eat things that you don’t know about.

Note: If you have been on a 100 percent vegan diet for more than five years and do not have any health challenges, please know that it is not my intention to say that I think you are being dishonest about your diet. This paragraph refers to people I know who claim to have been strict vegans for many years, but who I know include small amounts of animal foods in their diets. I would appreciate hearing from people who have been strict vegans for five or more years and who are without health challenges via our contact form.

Getting back to the organizations that promote vegan diets, I had the opportunity a short while ago to spend several days with a person who used to work for one of them. This person told me that their organization's recommendation to eat a strict vegan diet is mainly to support their mission of preventing cruel treatment of animals. My guess is that organizations like this are well aware that more people will be persuaded to follow a strict vegan diet if they believe it is for their health than if it’s for the welfare of animals.

I respect animal rights groups that come right out and say that they are promoting a strict vegan diet for the welfare of animals. If you are going to choose to be a strict vegan to spare animals pain, even if this means that your health might suffer, I can respect your decision.

But let’s not confuse compassion for animals with striving to do what’s best for your health.

I believe that people who choose to be strict vegans for the welfare of animals need to consider this question: is promoting a 100 percent vegan diet for the welfare of animals a correct moral path if it leads to significant health problems for humans? Personally, I feel bad about an animal being killed to be my food. But if there were no fishermen or farmers around, I believe that I would gratefully sacrifice an animal with my own hands since I believe that the health of my family requires eating small amounts of animal foods.

What about organizations that promote a 100 percent vegan diet strictly for health reasons? I think that these organizations can thrive because many people who first make the conversion from a highly processed and animal-based diet to a strict vegan diet typically experience incredible improvement with their health. For a few months or even a year or two, many people can thrive on a strict vegan diet, making it easy for them to believe that they have discovered a diet that will best support their health for the rest of their lives. But then, as most of them predictably become deficient in nutrients that are difficult to obtain from plant foods alone, they usually become confused about why their health is suffering.

This is where I believe these organizations fail and even contribute to worsening of health. Rather than consider each person as being unique and having unique requirements for health, in my view, they seem more interested in trying to fit everyone into their programs and philosophies. Health problems that people experience while on their programs are often attributed to detoxification or a period of adapation. Sometimes, the reason given for why you aren't doing well with their programs is that your spiritual or emotional health is suffering. Now, I completely agree that your spiritual and emotional health have significant impact on your overall health, but I really hope that you remain open to tinkering with all areas of your life - including what you eat - when looking to get healthier.

Do I believe that some of these groups know that a strict vegan diet is not healthy for everyone in the long term but continue to promote it to their followers? I cannot say for sure. But I will say that I believe that the decision to stick to recommending a strict vegan diet for the long term is often for business reasons or because of an interest in protecting animals than it is about honestly observing what’s working and what’s not.

Please know that I’m not asking you to blindly believe my opinion about a long term, strict vegan diet being unhealthy for most people in the long term. I’m encouraging you to be honest with yourself about how you feel. If you have been a strict vegan for more than a year and have noticed problems like feeling tired a lot, not sleeping well, weak hair and nails, sensitive and decaying teeth, inability to maintain a healthy weight, constant hunger, unexplained irritability, or depression, isn’t it worth your while to at least consider that your diet isn’t working for you? How long are you supposed to attribute these and other health problems to detoxification or a period of adjustment?

If you are a strict vegan eating mainly whole, unprocessed plant foods, and you are experiencing health challenges, you can probably experience dramatically better health just by adding some organic eggs to your diet. Organic eggs from free range birds and organic butter are two foods that will provide you with essential nutrients that are not abundant or present at all in plant foods and may not conflict with your compassion for animals.

In fact, my experiences have led me to believe that many people don’t need to get more than 10 – 25 percent of their total calories from clean, organic animal foods to be at their best. Just in the past year alone, I have worked with several people who were experiencing significant health challenges on a long term, strict vegan diet and were extremely grateful to see their health improve by adding small amounts of clean animal foods to their diets.

Here’s my final take on this topic: eating lots of plant-based foods is good for your health. Eating ONLY plant-based foods for the long term is not likely to be good for your health.

But don’t blindly trust me or anyone else on this important topic.

posted September 06, 2009 05:31 AM         

Do we base the spiritual point of evolution of each individual based upon their culture?

Do we base the spiritual levels of all Americans based on the social portrayal of Paris Hilton?

How spiritual or compassionate is suggesting that others are not spiritually evolved based upon your own ideals of spirituality?

posted September 06, 2009 08:18 AM         

woah city,

Xodian, Would you happen to know if Dr. Ben Kim is familiar with the work of Dr. Arnold Ehret, Dr. Max-Otto Bruker, Dr. John Christopher, Dr. Johann Georg Schnitzer, Dr. Luis Vallejo Rodríguez, or The Raw Food Diet? Because most doctors are ignorant of this stuff, and they think that all vegan diets are the same. Many, if not most, vegans are ignorant of the methods I would recommend for optimum health. So many vegans still eat mostly processed and cooked foods and then wonder why they arent experiencing the full benefits of the lifestyle. Then they get convinced the answer is to go back to eating some animal products, rather than purify their diets by eating mostly raw, live plant-foods. I believe this would solve the problems of the ones you and Dr. Kim are refering to.

posted September 06, 2009 08:35 AM         

Nowadays it is extensively claimed that man must eat meat to have a balanced diet containing proteins of good quality. Furthermore this is what is said by outstanding doctors like Dr. Francisco Grande Govian who has recently died, considered as the greatest authority on nutrition in Spain. To this we have to add that the Ministry of Health recommend eating meat and that most people eat it and consider to be good food. However, considering all this it is surprising that the most famous naturalists in humanity were vegetarians or, at least, they declared one after the other that man is vegetarian by nature.

We have to consider that the words 'vegetarian' and 'vegetarianism' first appeared about 1838 so before that date they do not appear in any writing and for this reason they speak about vegetable food or vegetable diet. The inexistance of these words makes investigation difficult.

Furthermore we have to add that to know whether or not a famous naturalist was a vegetarian we must read the biographies of each of them. Biographies difficult or impossible to obtain as not all of them have been written. If biographies have been written about famous artists, very little has been written about scientists. To this difficulty we have to add another one: the scarce or no importance which biographers pay to the eating habits of the people they write about. So for example Colin Spencer complains in his book The Heretics Feast that among 60 biographies about Leonardo Da Vinci only two of his biographers mention that he was a vegetarian. Even with all these difficulties the declarations of the most famous naturalists of humanity have had one very clear message and as proof you can read what they have said: John Ray (1628-1704) was called the father of English Natural History and in his honour a society was founded which carries his name: The Ray Society. According to John Ray: "There is no doubt, that man is not built to be a carnivorous animal". And furthermore he declares:

"What a sweet, pleasing and innocent sight is the spectacle of a table served that way and what a difference to a make up of fuming animal meat, slaughtered and dead! Man in no way has the constitution of a carnivorous being. Hunt and voracity are unnatural to him. Man has neither the sharp pointed teeth or claws to slaughter his prey. On the contrary his hands are made to pick fruits, berries and vegetables and teeth appropriate to chew them."
"Everything we need to feed ourselves and to restore and please us is abundantly provided in the inexhaustible store of Nature. What a sweet, pleasing and innocent sight is a table frugally provided and what a difference from a meal composed of fuming and slaughtered animal meat. In short our orchards offer all the delights imaginable while the slaughter houses and butchers are full of congealed blood and abominable stench."
Another famous naturalist was Carl Linnée (1707-1778), a doctor of the Swedish Navy, president of the Academy of Science and professor of Botany at Stockholm and the University of Upsala. Linnée created the method of natural classification of plants and animals that is still used today although more than two centuries have passed. Linnée wrote:
"Edible fruits and plants constitute the most appropriate food for man."
"According to his anatomy, man has not been physiologically prepared to eat meat."
"Fruits are the most adequate food for man according to that demonstrated by the analogy of quadrupeds in the structure in his teeth and digestive apparatus.
The French naturalist George Louis Leclerc, more commonly known as Count Buffon (1707-1788) was member of the Academy of Science, administrator of the Garden of the King and with several collaborators wrote 'Natural History' in 36 volumes. Buffon stated that:
"Man could live on vegetables alone. However the whole of nature is not enough to satisfy his intemperance and the inconsistent variety of his appetite. Man by himself consumes and devours more meat than all the other animals together and not out of necessity but as a form of abuse."
A collaborator of Buffon was Dr. Luis Maria D'Aubenton, more commonly known as Daubenton (1716-1799). He was a professor of Minerology at the Garden of the King and of Natural History at the School of Medicine. D'aubenton said, that:
"It is to be presumed that man, while he lives in a natural state and a graded climate, where the earth spontaneously produces every type of fruit, he feeds himself with these and does not eat animals."
George Cuvier (1769-1832) was a French naturalist, anatomist and geologist. He was a professor at the School and Museum of France, Secretary of the Academy of Sciences and Chancellor of the University. He created the theory of Compared Anatomy and Palaeontology. Thanks to his studies we have been able to reconstruct species which have disappeared. Cuvier received the distinctions and titles of Baron and grand official of the Legion of Honour and was honoured by Napoleon I, Louis XVIII and Louis Philip. Cuvier stated in his work: Lessons of Compared Anatomy, that:
"The compared anatomy shows us that man in every way is like the frugivorous animals and no way like the carnivorous animals... Disguising the dead meat by culinary preparations, the outward appearance is changed and tenderised because the sight of raw and bloody meat only exited horror and disgust in man."
Lets look at some statements made by Cuvier:
"According to the constitution of mans principle organs, it has been demonstrated that his nourishment should not consist of any other thing than vegetables."
"Mans natural food, judging from his structure, should consist of fruits, roots and vegetables."
"The whole of the human body even down to the slightest detail is destined by nature for an exclusively vegetable diet."
"Man appears to be organized to feed on fruits, roots and the succulent parts of vegetables. His short mandibles of medium force, his canines of the same length as his other teeth, and his tuberous molars do not permit him to chew grass or devour meat without preparing these foods through cooking. His digestive organs are formed in accordance with the disposition of his teeth. His stomach is simple and his intestine canal is of medium length and very well fixed to his large intestine."
Alexander von Humbold (1769-1859) was a German naturalist, explorer and geographer. He carried out studies on magnetism and supported the theory of the igneous origin of rocks. He is considered to be the founder of Climathology, Terrestrial Morphology, Physical Geogrophy of the Oceans and the Geography of the Planets. He wrote a book in 30 volumes entitled Cosmos and Trips to Equimoctial Regions of the New World. Humbold stated that:
"Eating animals as food is not far away from athropophagy and cannibalism. The same amount of land used to graze and feed cattle could feed ten people, if however we cultivated it with lentils, kidney beans or peas it could feed a hundred people....The Orinoco basin can produce sufficient bananas to feed the whole of mankind comfortably."
Richard Owen (1804-1892) was an English naturalist who studied with Cuvier, catalogued the Hunter Collection of the British Museum and organized the Natural History Museum in South Kensington. He studied anatomy and compared Physiology and Palaeontology. He wrote A Course in Compared Anatomy and Palaeontology and Physiology in Vertebrae. Owen stated:
"The anthropoids and all quadumanous derive their nourishment from fruits, grains and other succulent vegetable substances and the strict analogy between the structure of those animals and man clearly demonstrates their natural frugivorousness."
"The apes, whose dentition is almost equal to that of man, lives principally on fruit, seeds, nuts and other similar kinds of savoury textures of nutritious value which are elaborated by the vegetable kingdom. The profound similarity between the dentition of quadrupeds and that of humans demonstrates that man was from his origins adapted to eat fruit from the trees in Paradise."
Of course, the most famous of all British naturalists also agreed with the other naturalists. I am referring to Charles Darwin (1800-1882) who at the age of 22 years started on a journey around the world which lasted 5 years. On this journey Darwin collected material which served to publish his most famous book in 1859: The Origin of Species by Natural Selection: Darwin was a member of the Royal Society of London and after his death he was buried in Westminster Abbey with great funeral honours and diplomatic representatives from many great nations were present at his funeral. Darwin wrote:
"The grading of forms, organic functions, customs and diets showed in an evident way that the normal food of man is vegetable like the anthropoids and apes and that our canine teeth are less developed than theirs and that we are not destined to compete with wild beasts or carnivorous animals."
In his book The Origin of Man he tells us:
"Although we know nothing for certain about the time or place that man shed the thick hair that covered him, with much probability of being right we could say that he must have lived in a warm country where conditions were favourable to the frugivorous way of life which, to judge from analogies, must have been the way man lived."
Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895) was an English doctor and anthropologist who supported Darwin's theories and became the president of the Royal Society. Among other books he wrote Zoological Evidences as to Man's Place in Nature and Compared Anatomy. Let's look at some of Huxleys' statements:
"Man came before the axe and fire so he couldn't be carnivorous."
"The length of mans digestive tube is 5-8 meters and the distance between the mouth and the coccyx is 50 to 80 centimetres, which gives us a result of 10 as in other frugivorous animals and not 3 as in the carnivorous or 20 as in the herbivorous animals."
"The only animal with probable omnivorous morphology that exists, is the bear, which has some pointed teeth and others that are flat."
Sir Arthur Keith (1866-1955) was a famous English anatomist and anthropologist. Together with Martin Flack he discovered the sinoauricular nodule which is where cardiac contractions originate. He was Rector of Aberdeen University and wrote: Instruction to the Study of Anthropoid Apes Ancient Types of Man and Essays about Evolution of Humans. This anthropologist tells us that:
"Chimpanzees and gorillas have the same digestive mechanisms as man does. That is the proof of compared anatomy in favour of a diet of crude vegetables which permits the fermentation to produce several disposals daily, soft and free from putrefaction."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are the researches by the most famous naturalists that mankind has had. We have to observe that their studies were frequently supported and made reference by comparing the anatomy of man to that of other mammals, especially the ape family, and speak to us about the formation of teeth and digestive tubes of these animals. In this way all these famous naturalists arrived at the same impressive conclusion: man is vegetarian by nature, and if the word vegetarian does not appear in their writings, it is because the word did not exist before or until 1838 and the studies of all the famous naturalists were written before that date.

We could argue against vegetarianism that the pictures of pre-historic man on the rocks the cavern show him as a hunter. However this does not necessarily mean, that meat is the ideal form of food for man. Furthermore, we have to take into account, that the anthropologist Alan Walker of John Hopkins University, when studying the grooves of fossilized teeth, found a diverse assortment of different foods. He claimed that our first human ancestors did not live predominantly on meat, nor seeds, buds, leaves or grass, neither were they omnivorous. It seems that they subsisted principally on a diet of fruit. Exceptions have not been found. Each tooth was examined and those coming from hominids of the period twelve million years ago, which are in direct line to Homo Erectus, proved to be fruit eaters.

In conclusion I want to ask the reader the following question: Is man by nature a vegetarian? Nowadays most doctors tell us, that he is not, but the most famous naturalists have all deduced, that he is.

If this is really so, only a small minority of the population of developed countries, the people we call vegetarians would be eating correctly, whilst the great majority of the population would be eating incorrectly.

Dr. Luis Vallejo Rodríguez
Secretary of the Canarian Vegetarian Association
Apartado 3557, Las Palmas, Canary Islands, Spain

posted September 06, 2009 08:46 AM         

quote:

---

Chimpanzees and gorillas have the same digestive mechanisms as man does. That is the proof of compared anatomy in favour of a diet of crude vegetables which permits the fermentation to produce several disposals daily, soft and free from putrefaction.

---

posted September 06, 2009 08:55 AM         

Jaw Type
CARNIVORE: Angle not expanded
HERBIVORE: Expanded angle
OMNIVORE: Angle not expanded
HUMAN: Expanded angle

Jaw Joint Location
CARNIVORE: On same plane as molar teeth
HERBIVORE: Above the plane of the molars
OMNIVORE: On same plane as molar teeth
HUMAN: Above the plane of the molars

Jaw Motion
CARNIVORE: Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion
HERBIVORE: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
OMNIVORE: Shearing; minimal side-to-side
HUMAN: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back

Major Jaw Muscles
CARNIVORE: Temporalis
HERBIVORE: Masseter and pterygoids
OMNIVORE: Temporalis
HUMAN: Masseter and pterygoids

Mouth Opening vs. Head Size
CARNIVORE: Large
HERBIVORE: Small
OMNIVORE: Large
HUMAN: Small

Teeth: Incisors
CARNIVORE: Short and pointed
HERBIVORE: Broad, flattened and spade shaped
OMNIVORE: Short and pointed
HUMAN: Broad, flattened and spade shaped

Teeth: Canines
CARNIVORE: Long, sharp and curved
HERBIVORE: Dull and short or long (for defense), or none
OMNIVORE: Long, sharp and curved
HUMAN: Short and blunted

Teeth: Molars
CARNIVORE: Sharp, jagged and blade shaped
HERBIVORE: Flattened with cusps vs complex surface
OMNIVORE: Sharp blades and/or flattened
HUMAN: Flattened with nodular cusps

Chewing
CARNIVORE: None; swallows food whole
HERBIVORE: Extensive chewing necessary
OMNIVORE: Swallows food whole and/or simple crushing
HUMAN: Extensive chewing necessary

Saliva
CARNIVORE: No digestive enzymes
HERBIVORE: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes
OMNIVORE: No digestive enzymes
HUMAN: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes
Stomach Type
CARNIVORE: Simple
HERBIVORE: Simple or multiple chambers
OMNIVORE: Simple
HUMAN: Simple

Stomach Acidity
CARNIVORE: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
HERBIVORE: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach
OMNIVORE: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
HUMAN: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach

Stomach Capacity
CARNIVORE: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
HERBIVORE: Less than 30% of total volume of digestive tract
OMNIVORE: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
HUMAN: 21% to 27% of total volume of digestive tract

Length of Small Intestine
CARNIVORE: 3 to 6 times body length
HERBIVORE: 10 to more than 12 times body length
OMNIVORE: 4 to 6 times body length
HUMAN: 10 to 11 times body length

Colon
CARNIVORE: Simple, short and smooth
HERBIVORE: Long, complex; may be sacculated
OMNIVORE: Simple, short and smooth
HUMAN: Long, sacculated

Liver
CARNIVORE: Can detoxify vitamin A
HERBIVORE: Cannot detoxify vitamin A
OMNIVORE: Can detoxify vitamin A
HUMAN: Cannot detoxify vitamin A

Kidney
CARNIVORE: Extremely concentrated urine
HERBIVORE: Moderately concentrated urine
OMNIVORE: Extremely concentrated urine
HUMAN: Moderately concentrated urine

Nails
CARNIVORE: Sharp claws
HERBIVORE: Flattened nails or blunt hooves
OMNIVORE: Sharp claws
HUMAN: Flattened nails

Hands
Look at the shape of your hands – they are clearly
‘designed’ to eat fruit, etc. and not kill or skin an
animal to eat its flesh. Our nails are not shaped like
claws, and are not strong, but they are designed to
skin an orange. It is obvious that flesh usually needs
cooking before humans ingest it, and cooking is not
a ‘natural’ thing to do. Flesh is NOT easily assimilated into our bodies.

Olfactory
Once we start eating our ‘natural’ food source, rather
than unnaturally eating flesh, we start to turn up our
noses at the smell. An orange is a pleasing emotional
smell. Rotting carcasses are NOT nice to our emotions.
Another clue to the ‘ natural design’ of our bodies.

Visual
Fruit and vegetables are emotionally more pleasing to our eyes.

posted September 06, 2009 09:01 AM         

I don't eat meat, generally. I'm not a vegetarian either. I can be partial to fish on a rare occasion, or when I visit the in-laws once a year the only edible thing is sausages and after not eating for two days, yes, I may have one if I need the food enough. But what I read in your posts is the suggestion that people who do willingly eat meat lack spiritual awareness. I'm not sure this is correct. I understand your argument that people with compassion will not want to eat an animal, but you can't reflect that upon where you perceive they are spiritually. I think I'm a deeply spiritual person. I also think I'm a compassionte person. I don't think I'm any more spiritual than any other person, nor do I think I'm in any way enlightened. I do personally object to being told where people think I am in the spiritual food chain based upon their perceptions of an ideal world.

posted September 06, 2009 09:07 AM         

There was a good counter-argument to that little finding:

quote:

---

Does it mention exactly how he defined "omnivore" (or herbivore & carnivore for that matter-- how strict were his categories?) and what species he used as representative examples of each category??? Because I find myself wearing a skeptical frown and making disgruntled Marge Simpson-esque sounds as I read this...

---

posted September 06, 2009 09:07 AM         

Human Skull:

Herbivores:

posted September 06, 2009 09:25 AM         

quote:

---

Look at yourselves. Then get off of this thread and go do your own thing.

---

You heard him people . Let the thread run its own course and let Valus speak on about his own... "truth."