Strategic Advice For Veggie Evangelists

As I and a couple friends (one of them a vegetarian) were returning from lunch yesterday, a couple of campus hippie kids instructed us to "stop torturing animals" and tried to hand us vegan pamphlets decrying animal suffering in factory farms. Despite the fact that we're more or less on the team and the soulful grey eyes of the wispy little hippie girl caused me to accept a pamphlet, we found the whole experience generally annoying.  I think this is sort of what most meat-eaters' experiences with vegans and vegetarians are like, and as a result vegetarians get a reputation for being irritating moral scolds who prevent you from having a good time.  It's worth it if it prevents tremendous animal suffering, but it may be suboptimal in its tendency to create social pressures against veganism and prevent people from doing the right thing. 

In keeping with Mark Powell's view, linked by Ezra, that environmentalists in the sustainable food movement need to play into people's positive desires more effectively by offering them delicious food of the right kind, I'd like to suggest a similar strategy for veggie evangelists.  Cook some inexpensive yummy vegan food and hand it out for free.  This will create positive gustatory associations with veganism.  Or, for comic effect that undercuts the backlash, wear a chicken costume as you hand out the pamphlets.  It's harder to see someone in a chicken costume as a self-righteous figure, and curiosity about your costume may draw impressionable others towards you. 

Comments

[Stentor]

Moral scolds may be most omnivores' most common encounters with veganism, but in my experience they make up a tiny minority of actual vegans -- if anything, I think most vegans are too quick to downplay the moral basis of their diet or evangelize in any way. Publicly lecturing the moral scolds on how they're hurting their own cause tends to reinforce the damaging assumption among most omnivores that all vegans are moral scolds (as well as coming off as concern trolling, though I note you do sy you're "more or less on the team"). I've seen far too many discussions get sidetracked from "is veganism the right thing to do?" into "are vegans too sanctimonious about it?"

Also, I think a chicken costume would tend to make veganism seem more silly than appealing.

[verplanck colvin]

dispelling the myth that vegetarian food consists of tofu steamed for maximum tastelessness is important. Get out a few woks and start frying up some tofu and serve it with good dipping sauces (asian, BBQ, buffalo sauce w/bleu cheese, whatever), I've been getting my fried food fix at the local thai place with their awesome fried tofu. Their drunken noodles are packed with more flavor than a lot of pizza and burger joints.

Even if you don't get people to convert all the way, getting folks to cut down on meat consumption (say making one more day in the week meatless) is significant.

- from an avid meat eater

[verplanck colvin]

...and avoid meta-conversations at all cost. keep it simple: put good food in people's faces and have them eat it.

[litbrit]

All the vegetarians and fish-eaters that I know are slimmer and healthier (well, healthier-looking, at least--I'm not privy to their medical files) than the average bear, often considerably so. Rather than donning a chicken outfit, then, I'd suggest choosing something form-fitting to show off that nice, trim bod while you're handing out veggie treats. :-)

[rageahol]

speaking as an omnivore not unaware of the forces of rationalization in my own head, i must say that the "slim" that vegans usually are (in my experience) is also suboptimal as far as health outcomes go. obese is suboptimal too, but "a few extra pounds" is the healthiest place in the spectrum to be.

that said, i dont think i could live without cheese. or pork, for tha tmatter. god's own meat, to be sure..

[litbrit]

the "slim" that vegans usually are (in my experience) is also suboptimal as far as health outcomes go.

Are you a doctor or nutritionist, rageahol? Because I'm interested to hear how your experience differs from the vast majority of actual studies on the subject, ones that prove over and over that a plant-based diet significantly lowers cancer risk (for numerous types of cancer), as well as blood pressure, heart disease risk, and incidence of diabetes, for starters. Also, I'm interested to learn how your experience contradicts animal studies (rodents) which show that the ones who were fed significantly fewer calories--the thin creatures--lived longer.

If you love to eat meat because it tastes good to you, fair enough. Say so and own that. But don't delude yourself into thinking "a few extra pounds", at least insofar as what most people mean by "a few", are healthier than being slim.

[yoyo]

Meat is definatly part of an ideal diet, but protein powder and pills are almost as good, and having someone else cook my curries would certainly be worth it.

[mijnheer]

I hear what you're saying about the counter-productiveness of scolding, but I think at least as big a problem is all those veg*ans who insist they would never ever tell anyone else what to eat. (They're all over the Internet.) If you don't eat meat for moral reasons, then you must believe that other people shouldn't eat it either. From the moral perspective, eating meat is no more a matter of strictly personal preference than choosing to rob or rape is. However, few people are persuaded by good ethical arguments unless they are ready to be persuaded. The heart has to change before the mind does.

[rageahol]

"If you love to eat meat because it tastes good to you, fair enough. Say so and own that. But don't delude yourself into thinking "a few extra pounds", at least insofar as what most people mean by "a few", are healthier than being slim."

i did say i love to eat meat because it tastes good.
also:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18031486
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17986696

overweight (not obese) health outcomes are not statistically different from "normal" weight (according to the admittedly flawed BMI) and are in fact better than health outcomes from underweight individuals.

now, you can argue, based on your veganhealth link (no bias there!) that a vegetarian diet contributes to better health outcomes. however, the adventist health study cited has only a 3.82 year life expectancy increase, and i imagine that since five separate factors were attributed to that increase in life expectancy, that the vegetarian diet is a rather small proportion of a rather small life expectancy increase. if i had access to some of these journal articles from home i'd be able to look at this in more detail, but i'm at home getting drunk, so sod off.

[rageahol]

oh yeah, caloric restriction works in many nonhuman animals to extend life, but the number of people attempting to use this to their advantage is vanishingly small, and i cant find any studies of it.

[KathyF]

Comments like this really get my goat. (Ummm...goat cheese?) Tarring all us vegans with the one brush you wield after one encounter with one starry eyed vegan...how many vegans and vegetarians do you imagine are out there not handing out pamphlets?

I've never handed out a pamphlet in my life, yet I'm constantly subjected to comments about how self righteous we all are. In fact, I tend to avoid mentioning the subject to people I meet unless I have to, for fear of being seen exactly as you painted here. Sorta makes me think there are more of us out there, keeping our opinions to ourselves, than there are confronting you over your dinner choices.

As for taking your advice, I've been posting vegan recipes on my blog ever since I started blogging. Delicious recipes, I might add! But I must admit I don't own a chicken suit.

And when you advise us to use more humor, let me just say, will you meateaters please get better jokes? I've heard them all, and they're not funny.

[litbrit]

I've never handed out a pamphlet in my life, yet I'm constantly subjected to comments about how self righteous we all are. In fact, I tend to avoid mentioning the subject to people I meet unless I have to,

KathyF, same here! In fact, I've never even written about it--neither here nor at my two-year-old blog--and this is, I think, the first time I've even entered a discussion about vegetarianism (I do eat some dairy, so I'm not a strict vegan). I was prompted by statements that eating meat and having "a few extra pounds" amounts to being a healthier human being.

I could write on and on about the benefits of a plant-based diet, for the person and the planet, or about the way the human body is designed to consume plant foods and eating meat is a learned behavior, not an instinctive or natural one, but I really don't feel like arguing with anyone at this point. If they can't or won't see the plainly obvious benefits--including but not limited to living a more ethical lifestyle in at least one rather significant way, as well as feeling and looking better--they are welcome to their rationalizations and delusions.

I, too, am tired of the stereotyping, the lame jokes, and the angry carnivors' tirades.

[low-tech cyclist]

KathyF and litbrit: while intellectually you've got a valid point, you can't expect people to factor in the absence of experience, unless the absence is clearly notable. For the average carnivore, people like you are Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns - they don't know you exist and have no reason to think you do.

What they experience of vegetarians and vegans is the occasional self-righteous moral scold, and that's just life, at least until there are a lot more vegetarians.

FWIW, I'd strongly disagree with the notion that "the human body is designed to consume plant foods and eating meat is a learned behavior." I'd say the business with the amino acids says the reverse. Herbivores in the natural world are successful because their bodies are designed to meet their complete nutritional needs from easily available plants.

Ours aren't - we need that balance of those seven amino acids to thrive, and animal protein is one-stop shopping in that department. But relying on vegetable proteins for that balance - wouldn't that have been a tricky business for most humans, 200 or 2000 or 20,000 years ago?

[KathyF]

You obviously need to read up on amino acids. They (all 8 that our bodies can't produce, not 7) are actually quite readily available in plant foods. Quinoa in particular is a powerhouse of amino acids--bet you didn't know that! Humans actually need less, not more, protein than most animals yet we normally get much more than we need. The protein content of breast milk is around 6-7 percent, and infants are the most protein-needy humans. While Atkins called for, what was it, 30%?

And according to my doctor, I'm a pretty successful herbivore myself!

[Lisa Simeone]

How come nobody's mentioned eating the meat of animals who've been humanely raised and humanely slaughtered? I realize that many people do not believe in eating meat no matter what; but there's still a middle ground here for the rest of us.

Also, as for "and eating meat is a learned behavior, not an instinctive or natural one," well, the Maasai traditionally eat raw meat and milk. I kinda doubt that's not an instinctive or natural behavior. I also doubt that the eating habits of people all over the world, from all different societies, are not "instinctive or natural."

[J.W. Hamner]

I find the moral argument for veganism to be fairly weak sauce. It's so reductio ad absurdum... if you pick flowers pollinated on the backs of poor exploited bees then you are a monster!!! I mean, my vegan girlfriend used to not eat honey! That's crazy talk.

If the suffering of animals is your argument, then as Lisa says, humanely raised and killed animals should be fine... in fact, I'd happily argue that someone eating locally and humanely, raised and killed beef is in a morally superior position to some vegan buying GMO pesticide drenched veggies flown in from South America.

My argument would be that people need to know where there food comes from and have a better relationship with it. If someone can't handle seeing a cow butchered or a fish cleaned, then they probably should be a vegetarian/vegan. The current problems with treatment of animals is linked more with treating farms as a factories that produce microwave dinners.

[litbrit]

I also doubt that the eating habits of people all over the world, from all different societies, are not "instinctive or natural."

But they are neither. Eating meat, on the part of Homo sapiens at least, is a learned behavior.

Let's say one were to place a shiny red apple and a live, furry rabbit in front of a three or four-year-old child, American or Masai. Would the little child leap onto the rabbit, pin it down with his hands, and clamp his jaw around the animal's neck, ripping at its jugular vein with his teeth? Of course not.

Yet that is exactly what a juvenile lion (or tiger, or other carnivore) would do, without having been taught. It would ignore the apple and chase the rabbit with the intent to kill and eat it.

Whereas the child would eat the apple and pet the rabbit.

We teach children to eat meat when they are very small--I've seen people cut up steak with knives, mind you, not with their blunt and ill-suited vegeterian's teeth (flat in front for pulling and mortar-like in the rear, for grinding), and place the bite-sized pieces on a toddler's high-chair tray for him to eat with his baby-sized, pastel-colored plastic ergonomic fork.

Look, I'm not out to convert people. I really don't care to get into huge arguments about who is more moral or ethical--I think all human beings have a long, long way to go before we can even approach calling ourselves moral or ethical. And we certainly cause enough suffering, just by being alive. We take a walk in a field to clear our heads and think about life; meanwhile small insect creatures die quietly beneath each footfall.

Just don't throw the "eating meat is natural for humans" and "vegetarians are unhealthy" arguments my way, please. If you love meat, as many members of my family do, it's because it tastes good to you. People all over the world learned to eat it; you learned to eat it; you did not instinctively seek it, kill it, and eat it the way truly carnivorous mammals do. The design of your hands is geared toward groping and plucking fruit, not tearing flesh, the way the flat paws with retractable needle-like claws are. Your intestines are corrugated and long, like those of a horse or a rabbit, not smooth and short, like those of a wolf or a cat (which is why undigested meat sits around festering in your intestines for ages, and one of the reasons why a plant-based diet is beneficial for people who want to avoid health problems in those parts of the body.)

Of course it's better to eat humanely-raised animals than to buy factory-farmed flesh-packets at the grocery store. The thing is, most people can't afford the humanely-raised ones, and our culture bombards them with messages that being a vegetarian is dangerous, weird or unnatural.

Further, even humanely-raised animals require a fair bit of land and water; the same quantity of resources can produce considerably greater amounts of plant food, with far less impact on global warming (cows produce copious amounts of methane gas, for example.)

At the end of the day, though, we have to own our habits and be honest about the fact that that's what they are: learned behaviors. Drinking milk beyond toddlerhood is not instinctive or natural, either, and I must therefore own that: I eat dairy, and it's really not the best thing for me or the planet. I'm working on it. But I don't go around telling straight-up vegans that they're delusional, weird, unhealthy, or worse.

I ask them for recipes.

[J.W. Hamner]

Drinking milk beyond toddlerhood is not instinctive or natural

How can what a human being does be unnatural? How did we get outside of nature?

Your food choices are your food choices. I hate rye bread with the fire of a thousand suns, but I don't need to make up some preposterous hypothesis about how rye is "against nature" to justify my dislike.

[Lisa Simeone]

J. W. Hamner, I agree that the term "natural" is highly problematic, no matter what subject we're discussing. It's always amusing, for instance, that people tout certain "natural" things as being automatically better than "chemical" things. Every substance is made of chemicals! Our bodies have a chemical make-up. Plants have a chemical make-up. Aspirin is made of salicylic acid, which comes from the bark of a tree. Yet I've actually heard people say they won't take aspirin because it's a "chemical." Well, so is that salicylic acid!

Poisonous mushrooms are natural. That doesn't mean it makes sense to eat them.

Is shaving "natural"? Our hair grows naturally; why bother shaving it? Is flying "natural"? Yet we go up in airplanes all the time. Is fermenting and drinking wine "natural"? (It is in my book!) Humans have cultivated all sorts of things throughout history, and I would argue that that very cultivation is "natural," even though it has meant changing things along the way.

(But I do draw the line at that pregnant man making the rounds of news and talk shows these days -- to my mind, he is totally UNnatural, and is a one-man freak show!)

[Ronnie P]

People who don't want to be vegetarians will awlays claim that veggie scolds are to blame, just as those who don't want to believe in gloabl warming often cite Al Gore's personality as the reason. People frequently give disnigenuous reasons for their beliefs.

[Stephen]

Eating meat, on the part of Homo sapiens at least, is a learned behavior

Oh, I don't know about that. And I've read plenty of tooth-based arguments in favor of the idea that we are evolutionarily designed as omnivores.

Historically - well, pre-historically, humans were hunter-gatherers. Meat is a fairly nutrient and energy-dense foodsource, and eating animals that are able to consume plants that we can't is a fairly efficient way to live when you don't know how to plant fields of wheat or something. Winters would have been especially hard for the hunter-gatherers if meat was truly such a horrible, unhealthy thing to eat.

Having said that, it should be obvious to everyone that omnivorous Americans eat way too much meat. However, people that do manual labor for a living can eat much more meat than those who make their living sitting on their asses. My farmer/rancher relatives can pretty much eat all the red meat they want. They usually live to around 100, never get put in nursing homes, keep their memories, take fewer medicines than I do, etc.

The protein content of breast milk is around 6-7 percent, and infants are the most protein-needy humans. While Atkins called for, what was it, 30%?

Babies need fat too. Lots of it, since that's what we use to make brains. Meat, dairy and eggs are really good sources for that. Plus, I worry about the levels of estrols in vegetarian diets for children, especially with how soycentric veggie food products are.

Would the little child leap onto the rabbit, pin it down with his hands, and clamp his jaw around the animal's neck, ripping at its jugular vein with his teeth? Of course not.

I guess you have nicer kids than I do. :-)

[KathyF]

Babies need fat too. Lots of it, since that's what we use to make brains. Meat, dairy and eggs are really good sources for that.

Actually, breast milk is the best source for that. Please tell me you wouldn't feed an infant meat and cheese! All fats are not created equal, as I'm sure you know--saturated fat is certainly not helpful for brain development. Omega 3 fats, which are lacking in many Americans' diets, are crucial to brain development. N-3s (ALA and DHA) are found in plant foods, which is where the animals you eat get them in the first place.

Plus, I worry about the levels of estrols in vegetarian diets for children, especially with how soycentric veggie food products are.

You may, but pediatricians don't. Dr. Spock advocated a vegan diet for children, and the American Dietetic Assoc. thinks it's perfectly healthy. The soy fear is overblown. The only people who need to worry about soy are people who are allergic to it.

[rageahol]

"about the way the human body is designed to consume plant foods and eating meat is a learned behavior, not an instinctive or natural one"

why dont we have multiple stomachs like ruminants then?
the use of the word "design" presupposes one ideal state that doesnt actually exist. we have evolved the ability to consume lots of energy sources so as to be flexible and opportunistic about our consumption. and saying that ANYTHING is "instinctive or natural" in the field of behavior went out of style at least 30 years ago. if you realized how big a role enculturation and conditioning play in what determines our "normal" baseline of behavior, you'd find that phrase laughable.

as other commenters have said, you'll get no argument from me on the benefits of humanely raised meat, or that americans eat far too much meat. but by not responding to my rebuttal, and then going on to claim horseshit like this, you're really shooting yourself in the foot. not that i give a flying monkey fuck, but you seem dedicated to it enough to post a flurry of comments in its defense. that's preaching. if this is genuinely the first time you've done this sort of thing, then you should probably shut the fuck up in the future because 1) you're bad at it, and b) who really gives a rat's ass what other people eat. if this isnt the first time, then you should probably shut the fuck up because a) you're bad at it, and b) you're a liar.

oh, and Dr. Spock hasnt been taken seriously in decades. if you're going to try and make an appealto authority like that, at least use up to date research.

[Lisa Simeone]

Wow. I guess your moniker indicates you're addicted to rage? No need to insult litbrit. I know the blogosphere can be a nasty place, but good grief.

[litbrit]

rageahol, are you responding to one or two commenters here? Perhaps your perception of a "flurry of comments" stems from your inability or unwillingness to read people's names.

You want rebuttal, though? Fine.

1. I never said humans were ruminants.
2. If the word "design" bothers you because you think (wrongly) that I'm invoking some creation science or something, substitute the word "structure", as in, "the structure of your hands...". How is the structure of the hand, as it stands right now after all this evolution, in any way suited for ripping apart a living creature for food? (Saying we have opposing thumbs in order to pick up a package of pork sausages does not count.)
3. I agree that humans have evolved to derive nutrition from varied sources in order to survive. I maintain that humans are not natural carnivores, however, based on the structure of our teeth, limbs, and digestive tracts.
4. Lying about what? Humans don't need to eat the flesh of animals in order to live; humans who eat no animal flesh are generally healthier, slimmer, and longer-lived than those who do; humans are not born with animal-killing/animal eating behaviors but rather, learn to eat meat, usually in a pre-killed form that doesn't require them to chase down and slaughter their own dinner. All of those things are true. If not, I'm interested in any hard science that proves otherwise. Links, please.

I'm not, however, interested in any ad-hominem attacks--You're a liar; you're preaching; you should shut the fuck up, etc.--you feel inclined to disgorge here as a result your discomfort when more than one person calls you on your rationalizations. Believe it or not, your type is a pretty commonplace one: it's your habit and preference to eat dead animals; they taste good to you; and you don't care to hear about anthropology, biology, nutrition, behavioral science, or, most saliently, the reasons why others choose not to eat them.

The nastiness is, I suppose, just gravy.

[J.W. Hamner]

litbrit:

Chimps eat meat, and in fact, sharing meat is thought to be crucial to their social structure. So are they acting in a way contrary to the way they evolved? Do you believe the 1% or whatever DNA we don't share with them is what made us natural vegetarians?

There is honestly nothing to support your assertion that human beings "are not natural carnivores". There are no vegetarian hunter gatherer tribes that I'm aware of. Our species has been eating meat as long as it has been a species.

We can certainly choose to not eat meat and still find adequate nutrition, but it's nonsense to suggest that we were born to be vegetarians.

[rageahol]

litbrit, i did not call you any names, except a liar, as one possibility.

i told you to shut the fuck up. that is not an ad hominem attack, it is a directive or suggestion.

1. if we were "designed" to get all our nutrition from plant sources, wouldnt we have more adaptive features, like multiple stomachs?
2. tool use has been around as long as homo sapiens
3. what features, exactly, suggest that we are unsuited to an omnivorous diet. please be specific.
4. by this rationale, birds are TAUGHT to eat insects. this, more than any other of your statements, shows how rigid your thinking is on the subject. more on that later.

now, on to "anthropology, biology, nutrition, behavioral science" etc.

in my anthropology classes in college, we were told that, at the very least, pre-humans (australopithecines) were scavengers of meat, and progressed to hunting at some point early in our evolution, once we learned how to make tools. indeed, many nonhuman primates hunt for meat cooperatively today, without the use of tools, suggesting support for a hypothesis that we were hunting even before archaeological evidence of tool use. i realize i'm resorting in some sense to appeal-to-authority here, but unfortunately my workplace does not provide me access to anthropology-oriented journals, only medical ones. if you have a significant body of evidence to the contrary, please share it.

nutrition is not exactly solid ground either, even moreso than anthropology. yes, it is possible to get all your necessary micro and macronutrients from plant sources. i personally prefer the easier and more concentrated forms found in meat, dairy, and fish (vegans, i seem to recall from my pubmed searches last night, have a tendency towards iodine deficiency) because they taste good and are readily available. this is a matter of personal preference, which i was happy to state in my first comment. i am also not disputing that vegetarian (not vegan) diets tend to indeed be healthier than all-meat-all-the-time like many in america. the "slimmer" thing is a red herring, though, as you will see if you read the abstracts or journal articles i have linked to upthread. it also can be seen as a backdoor way of appealing to people's body image insecurities, which i find distasteful. the longer-lived argument has other confounding factors, as stated above.

and now, behavioral science (with a side of developmental biology). i want to make this clear now - in the last half century at least, every time we come to a "consensus" that something is "innate" or "instinctual", we are proven wrong by subsequent experiments that have a more nuanced model of the behavior or developmental process. one of the most famous examples of this comes from not behavioral science per se but from anthropology, and regards the incest taboo. look it up. essentially, we use the "instinctual" category much as some use intelligent design, i.e. to avoid either admitting we dont know what the fuck is going on, or because we do not care to investigate further. you would not say that ducklings are "instinctually" attracted to galoshes, as in the famous imprinting experiment, you attempt to figure out what is actually going on. and the more we learn about behavioral science and developmental biology, the farther into the background "instinct" recedes, becoming a ghost in the machine.

as for the reasons others choose to eat them, i'm well aware of them. i dont need to be condescended to with a moral argument. i am sensitive to the resource use arguments, and have attempted to reduce my consumption of factory farmed and non-local meat and dairy products over the last several years. so, i really dont need to fucking hear it.

[litbrit]

J.W. Hamner, early man was a vegetarian and also an opportunistic carnivore--his actual body characteristics (teeth, jaw, hands, digestive tract, as above) being much closer to those of a vegetarian mammal than a carnivorous one, but his survival during times of climactic stress (little to no available fruit or vegetable matter) dependent on his ability to derive nutrition from available small animals and larger animals already dead courtesy of another beast (picking at a dead body.)

I submit this is a good way of describing modern man: vegetarian but opportunistically carnivorous when conditions require it for survival. And those conditions can be anything you want: cheapness, convenience, and widespread availability of burgers and hot dogs; social pressure to be like the other kids; magazine articles declaring that men find it sexier when a woman orders a big, bloody steak as opposed to stir-fried tofu and rice.

[rageahol]

"VEGETARIANS ARE SLIMMER! YOU WANT TO BE SLIM AND SEXY, RIGHT?!"

and

"MEAT EATERS ONLY DO IT FROM SOCIAL PRESSURE!"

would seem to be somewhat contradictory points.

dumbass.

[Sir Charles]

Hey rageahol,

I'd suggest that you shut the fuck up and take it elsewhere.

Because I have to say, as a large meat eating animal myself, I would have few qualms about snapping your pencil neck.

Dick.

[KathyF]

I'm sorry; I should have clarified: I meant Dr. Benjamin Spock, respected pediatrician and author, who died in his nineties despite being on a vegan diet. ;)

I did not mean to imply that we should get nutrition advice from a Star Trek character.

[Sir Charles]

Kathy F.

Live long and prosper.

Now hopefully most of us here know Dr. Spock from First Office Spock. Had you been getting serious medical advice from Star Trek it would naturally have been from Dr. ("Jim I'm only a doctor")McCoy.

[low-tech cyclist]

I'm all for freewheeling discussion, but telling someone else to 'shut the fuck up' is the antithesis of open discussion. And telling one's host to do so tends to be a bad idea pretty much everywhere, both in meatspace and on the Intertubes.

Good riddance, rageahol.

[rageahol]

sir charles:

ooooh, tough guy on the interwebs.

low-tech cyclist:

please explain how else i should phrase it, when one party is so clearly interested in moral scolding and banging the drum with the same tired arguments that have been treated elsewhere ad nauseum, and which are unconvincing to few but the already converted.

i say "shut the fuck up" when its clear that things are going to be the same dance of futility as i've had to address from similar dipshits hundreds or thousands of times before. i say it without regard to who the person is, because i'm fucking egalitarian like that. if you want civility, then i suggest you take your tired ass over to some of the right-wing fainting-couch blogs, of which there are many.

[low-tech cyclist]

Now, where were we? KathyF, you replied to me:

You obviously need to read up on amino acids. They (all 8 that our bodies can't produce, not 7) are actually quite readily available in plant foods. Quinoa in particular is a powerhouse of amino acids--bet you didn't know that!

I confess I didn't. But until I looked it up on Wikipedia just now, I couldn't have told you that quinoa was a food. Having done so, it's clear that only a small fraction of humans had access to this amino powerhouse, before the age of cheap international transport.

Humans actually need less, not more, protein than most animals yet we normally get much more than we need. The protein content of breast milk is around 6-7 percent, and infants are the most protein-needy humans. While Atkins called for, what was it, 30%?

The problem with plant foods isn't the amount of protein, it's the amino acid balance. How often would our prehistoric ancestors have had the good fortune to have access to a combination of plants with the entire set of amino acids we need, in something resembling abundance?

And according to my doctor, I'm a pretty successful herbivore myself!

I'm sure you are. I'm not arguing that it's impossible to be a healthy vegetarian now; I daresay there's been no more favorable time in human history for being a healthy vegetarian or vegan. We have a greater abundance of both knowledge of what we need nutritionally, and food options to meet those needs, than we ever have before.

What I have a hard time seeing is how our primitive ancestors would have been healthy vegetarians back when they were evolving from the australopithecines. I have to believe that meat's been a part of our diet from the beginning.

[Sir Charles]

rageahol,

I invite you to come to ykos in Austin and you can find out. Look me up if you're there.

[litbrit]

Rageahol, you can argue vigorously and passionately without using terms like dumbass and dipshit; you can also do it without telling someone to "shut the fuck up". Twice.

Of course, arguing effectively requires that you address the points raised and answer the questions asked, as opposed to reading things into a person's writing, filtering things through subcutaneous layers of insecurity and denial, and lashing out with ad hominem attacks.

I stand behind everything I wrote. Those who know me and my writing but who often disagree with me will nonetheless back me up on this: I am not a moral scold; I am the most egalitarian thinker one could meet; I am not a pearl-clutcher; and I am most certainly not a dumbass.

It is you, sir (and how do I know you're a "sir" as opposed to a "ma'am"? Call it a wild guess...) who needs to haul his nasty self elsewhere.

That now makes three grownups who wish to bid you good riddance. Bravo.

[rageahol]

sir charles:

quit being such a mental midget. "come to yearly kos, i'll show you!" is an inappropriate response to a few instances of "shut the fuck up" and "dumbass" for anyone older than 12.

why not just say you'll come to my house, whose address i will gladly give you the address of. or that your dad can beat up my dad. or how about we split the difference, and you stop being such a fucktool, and i'll stop telling you you're being an irritating fucktool.

[litbrit]

Carry on, everyone.

[KathyF]

The problem with plant foods isn't the amount of protein, it's the amino acid balance. How often would our prehistoric ancestors have had the good fortune to have access to a combination of plants with the entire set of amino acids we need, in something resembling abundance?

You're just simply wrong about that. Even the person who first wrote about the concept of food combining (Francis Moore Lappe) has admitted she was wrong, and it is quite easy to meet human protein requirements from plant foods, provided you are getting enough calories. (Try quinoa! It's delicious!)

There are, actually, a handful of foods that don't meet the requirements. As long as you are not solely eating sugar, white rice, sweet potatoes, or cassava, you'll be fine. Fortunately, most Americans and westerners get plenty of calories, so the disease that is caused by lack of protein--kwashiorkor-- is unheard of in the developed world.

I will give you this though: Vegans do need to be careful to find a source of B12. Just as omnivores thinking of getting pregnant need to supplement folate. (By the way, early vegans got their B12 from microscopic feces, which clung to the dirty vegetables they ate.)

Enough lecturing from me. I realize there will always be "something wrong on the Internet!" but my bedtime is long past, and I'm still trying to slog through a Neal Stephenson book. At ten pages a night, I might be finished by the time we inaugurate a new president!

[Sir Charles]

I am saying that you would never have the guts to say such things to my face. But again, if you are planning on attending kos you're welcome to give it a shot.

[J.W. Hamner]

Well, whatever with the drama... I'm a little shocked that people are up in arms about rageahol's comments but nary a word about what Sir Charles said.. but hey, it's your house.

litbrit:

We evolved from plant eaters, so yes, our physiology is not tiger like in its ability to process meat, however you are flat out wrong if you think we are poorly adapted to it. Our bodies are crazy efficient at dealing with protein and fat, unlike, say, a gorilla, which would live a short life on a diet with any/much meat. If we weren't "meant" to eat something, then we couldn't.

I'm sort of curious as to what era of homo sapiens sapiens you think had the Ultimate Natural Diet. 200,000 years ago? 50,000 years ago? 10,000 years ago?

When did we stray from your ideal path? What diet should we be emulating?

If you are just saying Pollan's:
"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."
Then everybody in the thread probably agrees with you... however, it seems you mainly mean to say that vegetarianism is somehow more "evolutionarily pure" or some such... which is abject nonsense. It would imply that somehow, human beings have escaped evolutionary pressures and are existing outside of nature.

[yoyo]

Instintal length is also a good indicator that humans are 'made' to eat meat.

Meat has advantages:

nutrients, like carnosine, creatine, b12, etc.

is more satiating for the calories

plant w-3 fats have terrible conversion rates to the active forms in the human body. fish or grass-fed animal fat is the best form.

protein: most americans get more protein than they need, but thats only becasue they are severly inactive. If people were excercing enough, they'd need more protein. if i ate only beans, i'd get more than enough protein. but since i like to eat things like rice or olive oil that have lots of calories but not protein, some mostly-protein foods are a good balance.

[low-tech cyclist]

I realize there will always be "something wrong on the Internet!" but my bedtime is long past

My wife must never, ever see that particular xkcd - it describes me all too well! Good night, and don't let those of us on the west side of the pond keep you up. We'll try to keep the noise down to a dull roar.

[litbrit]

J.W. Hamner, Sir C did not initiate but rather, was responding--dramatically, yes, but responding--to the repeated insults and directives to "shut the fuck up" first lobbed by rageahol. Happily you and I can disagree, and can do so without resorting to name-calling and thread-derailing.

It's my opinion--and everyone here seems to disagree, which is fine, but anyway--it's my decently well-read opinion that our physical bodies reflect the functions they're meant for (and I hate to use the passive voice, but it's the only way to avoid getting into a protracted discussion about whether they were designed by someone.) In other words, our hands are shaped a certain way, our intestines are structured a certain way, the way our jaw hinges (able to sort of swivel and grind, side-to-side as well as up and down, as opposed to, say, the jaw of a wolf or cat, which snaps up and down.) Carnivores swallow their food in chunks; they don't grind it. If you've ever given a treat to a dog, notice how he gulps it and you're tempted to say, Wow, slow down, taste it! Different jaw structures; ours is much closer to that of a horse or gorilla.

I believe in this thread somewhere, amid the invectives, I state that I believe humans are, and were, primarily vegetarians who became opportunistic carnivores during climactic stress, when it was literally eat an animal (a small one they could kill with bare hands or primitive tools, at first) or eat the remains of an already-killed one, OR die of starvation.

Early humans who could catch/kill/find and then digest meat survived and reproduced, in other words, evolved to become opportunistic carnivores, even if it meant their bones lost calcium in doing so (fossil records show osteoporosis occurring at the same time as it was believed the plant-based food was scarce and humans ate mostly meat, which in turn requires, and causes the production of, large quantities of digestive acids.)

If you want to call that being omnivorous, fine. I still believe we are far more similar to herbivorous mammals than carnivorous ones, opportunistic meat-eating for survival notwithstanding. If we are carnivores or omnivores, perhaps someone could explain our long, corrugated digestive tract, our fruit-plucking hands, our swiveling jaw, our lack of fangs (rightwing radio hosts notwithstanding), and the carbohydrate-specific enzymes in our saliva. And also point out what it is about us--physically, I mean, not our habits or culturally-ingrained behaviors--that screams "carnivore".

[B.D.]

I read somewhere (I think it was Richard Leakey) that the development of our frontal lobes came from the rich protein source of bone marrow of large mammals that ancient hominids would scavenge after various predators had picked apart the rest of the carcass. It seems to me that we owe much of our cerebral development to meat eating. Whether or not that is a learned or instinctive behavior is up for debate I guess.

I respect all of the arguments for vegetarianism and veganism. And I know and respect alot of vegetarians (though not so many vegans - I live in Texas after all) and cringe everytime I hear someone knocking herbivores as crunchy hippies or some-such. That said, I didn't get that sense from Neil's post at all. It struck me as more of a "you can catch more flies with (organically grown, locally harvested) honey," rather than an attempt to lump all vegans into one big sanctimonious crowd.

[yoyo]

We have a shorter intestinal track than a lot of our relatives. The implication being we are 'meant' to eat more meat, in particular cooked meat, and less leafy stuff. Growing big brains made it possible to access new food sources that don't require stuffing one's face all day like you do if you're eating leaves for calories.

The arguments for veganism i respect are that lots of good foods are not-meats, its pretty easy to get all the nutrients you need from doritos & pills, and its better for the environment. And most aren't sanctimonious, although i think i have higher standards for knowing about things for people that consciously go against the easiest path.

[J.W. Hamner]

...I believe humans are, and were, primarily vegetarians who became opportunistic carnivores during climactic stress, when it was literally eat an animal (a small one they could kill with bare hands or primitive tools, at first) or eat the remains of an already-killed one, OR die of starvation.

I would suggest that archaeological findings and observations of chimpanzee behavior belie that hypothesis. I think evidence says our ancestors were eating meat 2.5 million years ago, and maybe they did it as you propose, purely out of necessity... but it seems to have become a much more integral part of our ancestors' existence many hundreds of thousands of years before modern humans existed.

Look at chimps who, it's true, receive a very small percentage of calories from meat... but seem to go hunting for none of the reasons you mention. It appears to be some sort of male bonding experience that is likely to get them laid.

I think most experts believe that group hunts played a similar role in early humans' lives, and that quest for meat to impress your buddies and charm the ladies is one big reason why we are what we are... for better or worse.

I still believe we are far more similar to herbivorous mammals than carnivorous ones, opportunistic meat-eating for survival notwithstanding. If we are carnivores or omnivores, perhaps someone could explain our long, corrugated digestive tract, our fruit-plucking hands, our swiveling jaw, our lack of fangs (rightwing radio hosts notwithstanding), and the carbohydrate-specific enzymes in our saliva. And also point out what it is about us--physically, I mean, not our habits or culturally-ingrained behaviors--that screams "carnivore".

We have plant eater characteristics because our ancestors were plant eaters. We have meat eater characteristics (like the ability to digest it!) because those ancestors started eating meat for whatever reason and we evolved to do so.

I don't have a problem at all that we eat to much meat... there are any number of stats that can adequately demonstrate that. I think the problem I have with your argument is the seeming need to label your dietary choices as superior (we were meant to be vegetarians). I don't recall whether you've explicitly condemned meat eating(even in moderation) as inferior, but you've certainly implied it.

To bring this back around to the original post... that kind of attitude isn't going to get you anything but the "fuck yous" we've already seen.

[J.W. Hamner]

To clarify:

I don't have a problem at all that we eat to much meat... there are any number of stats that can adequately demonstrate that.

Should read: I don't have a problem at all saying we ear too much meat...

[litbrit]

J.W., I said nothing of the sort. Everyone in my family, with the exception of one (of my three) sons eats meat. I buy chicken and cook it for them. My husband eats prosciutto (he calls it a "red vegetable") and I don't harbor a superior attitude toward anyone in my own family, contrary to what you are inferring.

I simply believe that humans' characteristics are more similar to the physical traits of herbivores, and have tried, repeatedly, to say so. I also know, or at least feel fairly confident in saying--having read dozens of studies (you can google the matter yourself)--that a plant-based diet is healthier, and further, that eating that way makes it much easier to avoid being extremely or even somewhat overweight, and that slimmer (not the extreme, Hollywood-style stupid-thin, but slimmer) creatures live longer, perhaps not decades longer, but certainly longer in terms of being able to move around and enjoy life as opposed to having heart disease, crippling joint problems, diabetes, etc.

Disagree all you like; call me wrong. Perhaps I am, or perhaps another Johns Hopkins scientist will find more Homo erectus jawbones to further support the hypotheses that the species directly before ours was an exclusively fruit-eating hominid--who knows?

I do know this much: your statement that my attitude--as you perceive it as a meat-eating person, mind you--somehow renders me deserving of the unprecedented nastiness, vitriol, and "fuck you's" appearing all over this thread is truly reprehensible and indicative of how risky it can be to raise questions about anything as thickly plastered-over with rationalizations and defensiveness as issues related to food.