Bowwowmeow
05-20-2006, 07:23 PM
Arguing that biologically we should not eat meat is absurd when we blatantly can. We would laugh at any one arguing with an elephant that they are not meant to fly. But arguing that culturally there are activities we should not do is a completely different game - murder, rape, stealing, eating meat, speeding, dropping litter etc.
It is only by the fact that vegans choose not to eat meat that they can we can claim any moral authority.
In short, never put forward "its natural" or evolutionary arguments when promoting or defending veganism (or meat eating). The two are unconnected.
If we did evolve into creatures that had to eat meat we could find no objection to it in exactly the same way we do not object to tigers following their prescribed diet with all other things being equal.
Another confusion comes from mixing up ideas of evolutionary biological with those of cultural traits. Veganism is purely cultural - it is not a biological dietary category. There are no vegan species and there are no vegetarian species and there never will be.
There are herbivores but they have made no choice about their diet, it is not cultural. To say a sheep is a Vegan is as silly as calling it a Conservative or a Christian or an atheist.
There are no vegan genes. Vegans to not give birth to baby vegans, they given birth to humans the same as our meat eating counterparts and no matter how we raise them they will still be omnivores.
For there to be any notion of "vegans" becoming a different species we would have to change our chromosomes to a point where we could not mate with other humanoids. But we would still not be a vegan species we would be a herbivore species and no longer human.
Even if we evolved to be a meat eating species we could still choose to be vegans.
Vegans choose their diet on compassionate grounds not on the amoral whims of evolution. This discussion I came across elsewhere has caused me to do a little thinking about the contrast between what it means to be a vegan, and what it means to be an herbivore. I would say that I choose my lifestyle, not just my diet, on compassionate grounds. But must I admit that I am an omnivore making a sacrifice in order to obtain some sort of moral authority over those who do not choose to be vegan? Is there really no connection between what I have evolved into and what I choose to do?
Human beings are the only animals who have no natural instinct about what is correct for them to eat. They may have this as infants, but it is quickly drowned by gallons of cow's milk and choked by pounds of animals' flesh and body fat. Can we claim that humans are omnivorous because they can eat substances derived from the bodies of animals? Shouldn't a truly omnivorous animal thrive on these substances if they are the the "foods" this animal "evolved" to eat? Do omnivorous humans thrive on an animal-based diet, even if they do live into their eighties and nineties, or are they arthritic, suffering from memory loss, hearing loss, loss of control of eliminative functions, riddled with clogged arteries, poisoned livers, and weakened bones? According to some, these are not "diseases" of old age, they are avoidable consequences of living an incorrect lifestyle. What is the unifying lifestyle factor responsible for for these degenerative conditions? You tell me!
I am convinced, by many things, that humans are herbivores. There are plenty of comparisons out there between length of digestive tract, teeth, jaw movement, etc., some of which even vegans find not so convincing. What is most convincing to me is that my instinct tells me I am not an omnivore, and I have been aware of this instinct since I was a very little girl. I fail to understand how recognizing that humans are herbivores weakens the ethical argument in favor of veganism. I believe it strengthens it. There is evidence that meat-eating in humans has a cultural rather than biological origin*, anyway, which indicates to me that omnivorism is not our natural condition, and that we cannot "blatantly" consume animal-derived substances with impunity on either physical or spiritual levels.
My veganism isn't based on acheiving a level of moral superiority over others. It is my attempt to live in harmony with what I know is right. I know I am an herbivore, and this knowledge makes it easy for me to reject animal derived substances as food. I am not an omnivore denying myself of my rightful nutritional heritage by sacrificing "foods" obtained from animals' bodies, and risking nutritional deficiencies by making compassionate but unnatural dietary choices. As human beings we are not exempt from our biological heritage, and we have no more "choice" in the matter of what we are supposed eat than any other animal. This does not preclude our ability to make compassionate choices in how we live, since veganism is about so much more than diet alone. For me, being an herbivore and being a vegan are inextricably linked.
*There is no nutritional requirement to hunt. Organized hunting "began only about 20,000 years ago--some 25,000 years after the emergence of Homo sapiens sapiens" (Mason 72). Prior to that, our ancestors met their nutritional needs by foraging, which sometimes included insects, lizards, and maybe scavenged meat. Hunting developed mainly as a response to female power (women gathered most of the food and bore children, in which the male role was not known). "The hunt, in other words, was not so much about nutrition as it was about acquiring power--the animal's power" (Mason 86). "Hunting also gave men some role, and hence some status, as food providers" (Mason 87).
It is only by the fact that vegans choose not to eat meat that they can we can claim any moral authority.
In short, never put forward "its natural" or evolutionary arguments when promoting or defending veganism (or meat eating). The two are unconnected.
If we did evolve into creatures that had to eat meat we could find no objection to it in exactly the same way we do not object to tigers following their prescribed diet with all other things being equal.
Another confusion comes from mixing up ideas of evolutionary biological with those of cultural traits. Veganism is purely cultural - it is not a biological dietary category. There are no vegan species and there are no vegetarian species and there never will be.
There are herbivores but they have made no choice about their diet, it is not cultural. To say a sheep is a Vegan is as silly as calling it a Conservative or a Christian or an atheist.
There are no vegan genes. Vegans to not give birth to baby vegans, they given birth to humans the same as our meat eating counterparts and no matter how we raise them they will still be omnivores.
For there to be any notion of "vegans" becoming a different species we would have to change our chromosomes to a point where we could not mate with other humanoids. But we would still not be a vegan species we would be a herbivore species and no longer human.
Even if we evolved to be a meat eating species we could still choose to be vegans.
Vegans choose their diet on compassionate grounds not on the amoral whims of evolution. This discussion I came across elsewhere has caused me to do a little thinking about the contrast between what it means to be a vegan, and what it means to be an herbivore. I would say that I choose my lifestyle, not just my diet, on compassionate grounds. But must I admit that I am an omnivore making a sacrifice in order to obtain some sort of moral authority over those who do not choose to be vegan? Is there really no connection between what I have evolved into and what I choose to do?
Human beings are the only animals who have no natural instinct about what is correct for them to eat. They may have this as infants, but it is quickly drowned by gallons of cow's milk and choked by pounds of animals' flesh and body fat. Can we claim that humans are omnivorous because they can eat substances derived from the bodies of animals? Shouldn't a truly omnivorous animal thrive on these substances if they are the the "foods" this animal "evolved" to eat? Do omnivorous humans thrive on an animal-based diet, even if they do live into their eighties and nineties, or are they arthritic, suffering from memory loss, hearing loss, loss of control of eliminative functions, riddled with clogged arteries, poisoned livers, and weakened bones? According to some, these are not "diseases" of old age, they are avoidable consequences of living an incorrect lifestyle. What is the unifying lifestyle factor responsible for for these degenerative conditions? You tell me!
I am convinced, by many things, that humans are herbivores. There are plenty of comparisons out there between length of digestive tract, teeth, jaw movement, etc., some of which even vegans find not so convincing. What is most convincing to me is that my instinct tells me I am not an omnivore, and I have been aware of this instinct since I was a very little girl. I fail to understand how recognizing that humans are herbivores weakens the ethical argument in favor of veganism. I believe it strengthens it. There is evidence that meat-eating in humans has a cultural rather than biological origin*, anyway, which indicates to me that omnivorism is not our natural condition, and that we cannot "blatantly" consume animal-derived substances with impunity on either physical or spiritual levels.
My veganism isn't based on acheiving a level of moral superiority over others. It is my attempt to live in harmony with what I know is right. I know I am an herbivore, and this knowledge makes it easy for me to reject animal derived substances as food. I am not an omnivore denying myself of my rightful nutritional heritage by sacrificing "foods" obtained from animals' bodies, and risking nutritional deficiencies by making compassionate but unnatural dietary choices. As human beings we are not exempt from our biological heritage, and we have no more "choice" in the matter of what we are supposed eat than any other animal. This does not preclude our ability to make compassionate choices in how we live, since veganism is about so much more than diet alone. For me, being an herbivore and being a vegan are inextricably linked.
*There is no nutritional requirement to hunt. Organized hunting "began only about 20,000 years ago--some 25,000 years after the emergence of Homo sapiens sapiens" (Mason 72). Prior to that, our ancestors met their nutritional needs by foraging, which sometimes included insects, lizards, and maybe scavenged meat. Hunting developed mainly as a response to female power (women gathered most of the food and bore children, in which the male role was not known). "The hunt, in other words, was not so much about nutrition as it was about acquiring power--the animal's power" (Mason 86). "Hunting also gave men some role, and hence some status, as food providers" (Mason 87).