neutron@hpfcla.UUCP (12/24/85)
[Since net.flame seems dead, I'm putting this in net.misc]
Let's talk about vegetarians:
Q: What do vegetarians eat? Seaweed, carrots, and celery, right?
A: No. Vegetarians eat all sorts of stuff.
French toast, omelettes, sauteed mushrooms, baked alaska, pizza, etc.
Q: Vegetarians are health nuts, right?
A: There are several reasons one can become a vegetarian. One might:
a) believe that avoiding meat is healthier.
b) be opposed to killing animals.
c) be a vegetarian for religious reasons.
d) not like the taste of meat.
e) or who knows what else?
Note that (b) may be opposed to eating fish & fowl, and may be quite
strict about the slightest bit of meat in food, as would (c).
Type (a) *might* not be opposed to a bit of meat, say a beef broth.
You'd have to ask the person. It's not like we have standard rules.
Jack Applin
hplabs!hpfcdc!jack
(note: the return address in the headers is probably screwed up due to
braindamaged HP notes software/administration. Use the above address)honavar@uwai.UUCP (Vasant Honavar) (12/28/85)
Some more sound reasons for being vegetarian:
1. Solving the world hunger problem
According to the well known food expert and best-selling author
Francis Moore Lappe, a piece of steak is like a cadillac. She
explains, "In America we are hooked on gas guzzling automobiles
because of the illusion of cheap petroleum. Likewise, we got hooked
on a grain-fed, meat-centered diet because of the illusion of cheap
grain." According to statistics compiled by the U.S Dept. of
Agriculture, over 90 percent of all the grain produced in America
is used for feeding livestock that wind up on dinner tables. Yet,
the process of using grain for meat production is terribly wasteful.
Information from USDA's economic research service shows that we get
1 pound of beef for 16 pounds of grain. Dr. Aaron Ashtul has pointed
out in his book "Proteins : Their chemistry and politics" that in
terms of calories per unit acre, a diet of grains, vegetables, fruits
and beans (a good source of proteins) will support 20 times more
people than a diet of meat. In a report submitted to the United Nations
World food conference (1974), Rene Dumont, an agricultural economist
from France's National agricultural institute concluded that "The
over consumption of meat by few means hunger for many. This wasteful
agriculture must be changed to solve the hunger problem". These plain
economic facts were known to the Greeks. Socrates recommended a
vegetarian diet because it would allow a country to make the most
intelligent use of its agricultural resources. He had warned that if
people continued eating animals, there would be need for more pasture
lands to gain which the country may have to go to war. Back in August
1974, the C.I.A published a report warning that there may not be
enough food for the world population in the near future unless the
affluent nations made a quick and drastic cut in their consumption of
grain-fed animals. You can draw your own conclusions.
2. Ethical considerations
Leonardo Da Vinci, the great genius of the renaissance era, epitomised
the ethical reasons for being vegetarian. He wrote "He who does not
value life does not preserve it". He called the bodies of meat eaters,
burial grounds for the animals they ate. In "The wealth of nations",
Adam Smith wrote "It may indeed be doubted whether meat is anywhere
a necessity of life". Benjamin Franklin, who became a vegetarian at
the age of sixteen, in his autobiography, called meat eating unprovoked
murder. Shelly, the famous English poet, in his poem "Queen Mab",
described a Utopian world where men do not kill animals for food --
........ no longer now
he slays the lamb that looks him in the face,
and horribly devours his mangled flesh,
which, still avenging nature's broken law,
kindled all putrid humors in his frame,
all evil passions, all vain belief,
hatred, despair and loathing in his mind,
the germs of misery, death and crime.
Leo Tolstoy felt that there was a natural progression of violence
that led inevitably to war in human society. In his essay "The first
step", Tolstoy wrote that meat eating is simply immoral, as it involves
the performance of an act which is contrary to moral feeling, namely
killing without reasonable cause.
Gandhi, the twentieth century apostle of non-violence, felt that
ethical principles are a stronger support for a lifelong commitment
to a vegetarian diet than reasons of health.
On the connection between meet eating and violence in human society,
Bernard Shaw wrote, in his characteristic way,
we pray on sundays that we may have the light,
to guide our footsteps in the path we tread,
we are sick of war, we don't want to fight,
and yet we gorge ourselves upon the dead.
3. Health
Because the alimentary canal of humans is about 3 times as long as
that of typical carnivores, meat, which decays very fast, is retained
in the stomach for a much longer time, producing undesirable toxic
effects. The organ that is worst hit by this is the kidney which has
to extract these toxins from the blood.
Since the human body is very limited in its ability to deal with
excess animal fat, fatty deposits accumulate on the inner walls of
the arteries producing arteriosclerosis, the hardening of the
arteries. Since this constricts the flow of blood to the heart, the
potential of heart attacks and strokes is significantly increased.
Nitrosamines, labeled by the Food and drug Administration as the
most formidable and versatile group of carcinogens yet discovered,
are formed when secondary amines found in beer, wine etc. react with
preservatives used in meat. In an experiment conducted at the
Oakridge national laboratory by Dr. William Lijinsky, 100 percent of
the animals fed with nitrosamines got malignant tumors within six
months.
Now to the most often asked question - Where do you get your proteins
if you are vegetarian ? Of the 22 amino acids required by the body,
all but 8 can be synthesized within the human body. The rest can be
gotten in adequate quantities from beans, nuts and dairy products.
A study by Dr. Fred Stare of Harward university and Dr. Mervin
Hardinge of Loma Linda University made comparison between the
protein intake of vegetarians and meat eaters and found that both
groups exceeded the amino acid intake over that required by a factor
of atleast two.
NOW DO YOU STILL WANT TO EAT MEAT ?
lip@gcc-milo.ARPA (Seth Lipkin) (12/30/85)
In article <328@uwai.UUCP> honavar@uwai.UUCP (Vasant Honavar) writes: > > Some more sound reasons for being vegetarian: > > 1. Solving the world hunger problem > Information from USDA's economic research service shows that we get > 1 pound of beef for 16 pounds of grain. Only half true. The major portion of the cow (or bull) comes NOT from the animal's being fed grain, but from its grazing of grasses. This grazing usually occurs on unfarmable land (too hilly or rocky, not enough topsoil). A much smaller portion (the "fattening") DOES come from grain. So the statistic might better read "1 *incremental* pound of beef for 16 *incremental* pounds of grain." The animal already weighs many hundreds of pounds before it eats grain. (Yes, I'm sure there are some counterexamples of beef cattle that are fed grain from birth [veal?], but these aren't the norm). > Now to the most often asked question - Where do you get your proteins > if you are vegetarian ? Of the 22 amino acids required by the body, > all but 8 can be synthesized within the human body. The rest can be > gotten in adequate quantities from beans, nuts and dairy products. Important to remember here is that the 8 necessary amino acids (those which can not be synthesized by the body) must be taken in at roughly the same time (i.e. the same meal) for them to be effective. A protein which requires all 8 of these amino acids will not be synthesized by the body unless ALL of these 8 amino acids are present together. Meat and milk products provide "complete" protein (all 8 necessary amino acids), as do (I believe) most or all nuts. But some vegetarians are not careful about making sure that their protein intake is balanced. Intaking amino acids 1 through 5 at lunch and amino acids 2 through 8 at dinner is not a balanced meal schedule. > NOW DO YOU STILL WANT TO EAT MEAT ? Yep. Not always every day and not always fatty red meat, but still Yep. Seth Lipkin General Computer Company harvard!gcc-milo!lip
showard@udenva.UUCP (showard) (01/02/86)
In article <328@uwai.UUCP> honavar@uwai.UUCP (Vasant Honavar) writes: > > Some more sound reasons for being vegetarian: > > 2. Ethical considerations > Speaking as a carnivore, I'd like to say that I am against the slaugh- tering of helpless vegetables for food. After all, a fish or a cow at least has a remote chance of escaping. A potato is stuck in the ground. Seriously, if you argue that it's morally or ethically wrong to kill animals, why isn't it wrong to kill plants? They're not any less alive than animals, are they? > NOW DO YOU STILL WANT TO EAT MEAT ? > YOU'RE DAMNED RIGHT I DO! I'M GOING TO GET A BURGER RIGHT NOW! --Blore
spp@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Stephen P Pope) (01/03/86)
> Vasant Honavar > > Some more sound reasons for being vegetarian: > > 1. Solving the world hunger problem > Information from USDA's economic research service shows that we get > 1 pound of beef for 16 pounds of grain. Faulty reasoning. Cattle can graze on land that is unsuitable for cultivation, and are very efficient in converting various low-protein, human-inedible grasses into high-protein, human-edible meat. Therefore, consumption of the meat of grazing animals increases, not decreases, the potential world food production. Fattening them up in a feed lot is probably wasteful, however. > 3. Health > Because the alimentary canal of humans is about 3 times as long as > that of typical carnivores, meat, which decays very fast, is retained > in the stomach for a much longer time, producing undesirable toxic > effects. The organ that is worst hit by this is the kidney which has > to extract these toxins from the blood. Man is an omnivore, not a carnivore. Big difference. Our digestive track is also a lot shorter than that of a lot of vegitarian animals such as the above-mentioned cattle. > Since the human body is very limited in its ability to deal with > excess animal fat, fatty deposits accumulate on the inner walls of > the arteries producing arteriosclerosis, the hardening of the > arteries. Since this constricts the flow of blood to the heart, the > potential of heart attacks and strokes is significantly increased. Good argument for not consuming a lot of animal fat. Unfortunately most vegitarians in this country are ovo-lactoids and consume as much if not more animal fat than the rest of the populace. steve pope
avr@purdue.UUCP (Andrew V. Royappa) (01/04/86)
> > 2. Ethical considerations Rubbish. Just because some great people are *queasy* about eating meat doesn't mean that it's wrong. What about the vast number of carnivorous animals out there ? Are they all amoral, too, or do these ethical considerations apply to humans only ? Face it, it's a fact that animals kill for food. Why should humans have to feel guilty about it ? I also have no doubt that cattle are slaughtered far more humanely than the way I see carnivores killing their prey on those TV nature shows. A better thing to get mad about is humans killing animals for pleasure or "sport" or furs or skins or perfumes or tusks ... Mmmm ... think I'll go have a hamburger .. :-) Andrew V. Royappa {ihnp4, pur-ee, ucbvax, decvax}!purdue!avr
sra@oddjob.UUCP (Scott R. Anderson) (01/05/86)
In article <416@gcc-milo.ARPA> lip@gcc-milo.UUCP (Seth Lipkin) writes: >In article <328@uwai.UUCP> honavar@uwai.UUCP (Vasant Honavar) writes: >> Information from USDA's economic research service shows that we get >> 1 pound of beef for 16 pounds of grain. > >Only half true. The major portion of the cow (or bull) comes NOT from the >animal's being fed grain, but from its grazing of grasses. >A much smaller portion (the "fattening") DOES come from grain. >(Yes, I'm sure there are some counterexamples of beef cattle >that are fed grain from birth [veal?], but these aren't the norm). I have read that this is the way it used to be, but is no longer true because range cattle produce much tougher beef than feed-lot cattle, and this is not acceptable to the American palate. >> Of the 22 amino acids required by the body, >> all but 8 can be synthesized within the human body. The rest can be >> gotten in adequate quantities from beans, nuts and dairy products. > >A protein which requires all >8 of these amino acids will not be synthesized by the body unless ALL of these >8 amino acids are present together. Meat and milk products provide "complete" >protein (all 8 necessary amino acids), as do (I believe) most or all nuts. Nuts are not complete; they have an amino acid makeup which is similar to that of grains. The general rule is that one needs to combine grains with beans to get a "complete" protein. This combination is traditional in many cultures around the world: tortillas and frijoles in Mexico, rice and dal in India, rice and soy in China, etc. Grains and beans should be the basis of any vegetarian diet. BTW, eggs are considered to be the best single source of "complete" protein. -- Scott Anderson ihnp4!oddjob!kaos!sra
royt@gatech.CSNET (Roy M Turner) (01/05/86)
In article <328@uwai.UUCP> honavar@uwai.UUCP (Vasant Honavar) writes: > > Some more sound reasons for being vegetarian: > . > . > . > NOW DO YOU STILL WANT TO EAT MEAT ? > Yes, I do...for the same reason a vegetarian might want to eat okra, say--a vegetable that I particularly detest--to him/her, it tastes good. I happen to like the taste of the flesh of dead animals (o ghoul that I am). One point that seems to have been missed in this discussion is the role of some animals in converting plant material that humans can't digest into protein that we can. Cattle can digest grass (okay, okay, so the bacteria in their various and sudry stomachs and their intestine actually do the trick), and we can digest cows. As was pointed out, not a lot of beef we buy in the supermarket came from cattle that were strictly grazing critters; but in a world where hunger is a problem, there is a niche for grazing cattle in meeting humans' food needs. Likewise for chickens (and after watching the chickens feed at my grandparents' farm, I know *I* don't want to try and digest the things they eat...<yucko> (-: ), fish, sheep, etc. I'll continue to eat meat, maybe offering silent thanks to the animal before tossing it on the grill to load up with nitrosamines. (why avoid those particular carcinogens? I live in a metropolitan area and persist in breathing the air and drinking the water, silly me (-: ) Seriously, though, I may have to become a vegetarian soon due to economics--meat is expensive. So you vegetarians have a powerful ally in the economy--and no, don't post followup articles stating the obvious; I realize *why* meat is expensive.
jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) (01/06/86)
In article <411@mordred.purdue.UUCP> avr@purdue.UUCP (Andrew V. Royappa) writes: > ... What about the vast number >of carnivorous animals out there ? Are they all amoral, too, or do >these ethical considerations apply to humans only ? What??? So far, on this planet, most ethical systems have been considered strictly for human beings: animals are intrinsically amoral insofar as they are incapable of abstractions. (Except maybe cats and dolphins and various pongoids and ... [;-)]) -- Joe Yao hadron!jsdy@seismo.{CSS.GOV,ARPA,UUCP}
slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) (01/07/86)
The articles under this header have been ok, but...
Doesn't this discussion belong in net.veg?
--
Sue Brezden
ihnp4!drutx!slb
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To search for perfection is all very well,
But to look for heaven is to live here in hell.
--Sting
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~olsen@ll-xn.ARPA (Jim Olsen) (01/08/86)
In article <173@hadron.UUCP>, jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) writes: > In article <411@mordred.purdue.UUCP> avr@purdue.UUCP writes: > > ... What about the vast number > >of carnivorous animals out there ? Are they all amoral, too, or do > >these ethical considerations apply to humans only ? > > What??? So far, on this planet, most ethical systems have been > considered strictly for human beings: animals are intrinsically > amoral insofar as they are incapable of abstractions. (Except > maybe cats and dolphins and various pongoids and ... [;-)]) So you admit that there is an ethically important dichotomy between animals and people. When dealing with other people, I am limited by ethical strictures against murder. Given the dichotomy mentioned above, the same strictures needn't be applied when dealing with animals. Without such restrictions, it is my right as a carnivore to kill and eat any other animal that I can catch (or have someone catch for me). It's up to the vegetarians to show that what we carnivores are doing is wrong: we're just doin' what comes naturally.
smithson@calma.UUCP (Brian Smithson) (01/08/86)
In article <260@ll-xn.ARPA> olsen@ll-xn.ARPA (Jim Olsen) writes: >In article <173@hadron.UUCP>, jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) writes: >> In article <411@mordred.purdue.UUCP> avr@purdue.UUCP writes: >> > ... What about the vast number >> >of carnivorous animals out there ? Are they all amoral, too, or do >> >these ethical considerations apply to humans only ? >> >> What??? So far, on this planet, most ethical systems have been >> considered strictly for human beings: animals are intrinsically >> amoral insofar as they are incapable of abstractions. (Except >> maybe cats and dolphins and various pongoids and ... [;-)]) > >So you admit that there is an ethically important dichotomy between >animals and people. When dealing with other people, I am limited by >ethical strictures against murder. Given the dichotomy mentioned above, >the same strictures needn't be applied when dealing with animals. >Without such restrictions, it is my right as a carnivore to kill and eat >any other animal that I can catch (or have someone catch for me). > >It's up to the vegetarians to show that what we carnivores are doing is >wrong: we're just doin' what comes naturally. Interesting. I suppose that if I were to consider YOU to be amoral insofar as I thought that you were incapable of abstractions, then I could feel quite free to kill and eat you. BTW, I hope that you're not a member of the Moral Majority or something... :-) Seriosly, I think that the point was that since we as people claim to be capable of such abstractions, we have the ability of considering the needless killing of people and/or animals to be amoral. I don't think that the morality of killing has anything to do with whether the victim is considered to be "moral" or not. It's up to you to determine your own moral distinctions, however -- I have no plans to convince you of mine -- but I would take issue with your claims that it is your "right" and that it "comes naturally". "Rights" in this context seem to me to be simply a justification for actions, in contrast to rights in the context of life, liberty, and all that stuff. And having been a vegetarian for about five years, what "comes naturally" to me is to not kill animals for food. Oh well, what I really wanted to know is, what the hell is this doing in net.misc!? -- -Brian Smithson Calma Company ucbvax!calma!smithson calma!smithson@ucbvax.ARPA