There is nothing more popular than an anecdote that appeals to people's pre-existing biases. Unfortunately there will be many for which this one story will provide the same weight of evidence as the entire China Study.
I sometimes wonder if Vegans worry about Lions on the savannah eating antelope. Do they want prevent that as well. Humans are Omnivores. We are built to get nutrients from both meat and plantlife. Our metabolisms work best when we eat both in moderation. A Vegan lifestyle makes it harder to eat healthy not easier and for some it makes it impossible.
Please let's not resort to "appeal to nature", because that can certainly be abused both ways (and frequently is). There are certainly all sorts of sketchy vegetarian and vegan bogus arguments about why not eating animals is natural (and certainly eating dairy and chicken eggs isn't natural).
We weren't built for anything, and just because something is natural, doesn't mean that it's good or right. If we ruled our lives by what was natural, we'd die in our thirties, have high infant mortality, and while we would eat meat, we would also chase after it with sharpened sticks, and more of us would die from starvation. Agriculture is unnatural; it's technology. Yes, our ancestors ate meat, but that alone doesn't mean that we need to. The OP's system couldn't handle her vegan diet, so she needs meat, but that doesn't mean everyone needs meat.
If you want to eat meat, eat meat. That's reason enough. If you find that you personally physically need to eat meat, then please eat meat. But neither the omnivore nor the vegan who claims that one diet is universally nutritionally or morally optimal in virtue of being natural is making a solid justification.
Swap out built with adapted and I think you'll have a hard time finding a dentist that agrees with that.
When you hear a story about how some substance 'cured cancer' do you instantly conclude that the claims are necessarily correct - even for the cured person in the story? Would you expect the story to become popular on HN? The problem with one-off anecdotes like this is that they don't even conclusively demonstrate anything.
> I sometimes wonder if Vegans worry about Lions on the savannah eating antelope.
Dude that is a really ignorant and insulting thing to say.
> Humans are Omnivores. We are built to get nutrients from both meat and plantlife.
And here you demonstrate your limited grasp of evolution which a resort to a naturalistic fallacy.
> Our metabolisms work best when we eat both in moderation.
Actually the research demonstrates otherwise.
> A Vegan lifestyle makes it harder to eat healthy not easier
That is trivially true in a society where adding animal products to many foods is routine. If even 20% of the population was vegan it would be trivial to follow a vegan diet.
Note meat little meat and almost shurly less than optimal for health. I don't like the people that go against research.
http://healthpsych.psy.vanderbilt.edu/2008/VeganDiets.htm
That page lists studies showing B12 deficiencies, bone density issues, and elevated Homocystein issues.
Also there is a very strong link to issues with pregnant and nursing women and their babies due to B12 deficiencies. The opinion of most researchers in this area appears to be that pregnant and nursing women should not follow a strict Vegan diet.
With respect to B12 it seems that there is clearly good evidence for vegans to take a supplement.
With regards to pregnant and nursing women the evidence seemed a bit less clear. There doesn't seem to be any mention of actual problems with vegan children, only correlations between them and children that did have problems. Despite the uncertainly It certain seems good enough evidence to take b12 supplement for vegans.
So the takeaway I get from this is that
(Vegan diet + b12/multivitamin) >> Omnivorous diet
Why? We have it within our power to prevent that particular form of animal suffering. Give me enough money and political power and I could round up all the antelope and lions and keep em seperated. How is ignoring that form of animal suffering any different than ignoring animal farming?
> And here you demonstrate your limited grasp of evolution which a resort to a naturalistic fallacy.
I'll bite. How is it a fallacy? Fact: Humans are capable of digesting and processing meat. Fact: Humans have been eating meat for as long as we've been around. Fact: Humans get a number of nutrients in meat that are not easily found elsewhere in a form we can process.
>> Our metabolisms work best when we eat both in moderation. > Actually the research demonstrates otherwise.
Citation needed
> That is trivially true in a society where adding animal products to many foods is routine. If even 20% of the population was vegan it would be trivial to follow a vegan diet.
Because the market would provide? Either way you still have to work harder and be far more careful with what you eat in order to pull it off so my point still stands.
No where did I say it was impossible. Notice I said in moderation as well. You wouldn't have to eat a lot of meat to get the required nutrition.
Since the production of meat uses up more resources (energy) than plant based food, I think your claim does not hold up.
It is easier to produce plant based food, so why should it be harder to buy plant based food?
I also doubt that you automatically eat healthy by simply adding meat to your diet.
>Why?
You obviously have absolutely no idea of the range of reasons people have for being vegan do you? Here are a few
- Visceral disgust at the though of consuming animal flesh / produce
- The view that a vegan diet is healthier than a diet with meat. Also a view that meat products are a significant cause of many of our chronic diseases. Both of these views are well backed by a large amount of science for example 'the China Study'.
- The view that plant food is significantly more efficient to produce (5-10 times) and far less harmful for the environment than meat. This is true not just in term of calories but also for protein.
See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_vegetarianism
- Religious beliefs
- The view that human control of animals represents a kind of slavery.
- The view that it is immoral for humans to knowingly and unnecessarily kill and/or cause pain to another being. The fact that humans are intelligent enough to have a choice and understand the consequences of their actions is the important thing. Many vegans feel especially strongly about factory farming which is often cruel in the extreme.
See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_eating_meat
So now do you see how ignorant your point about lions is? Veganism is primarily about humans relationship to animals not about animals relationships with each other.
> I'll bite. How is it a fallacy?
By definition, that's how. Look it up : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
> Citation needed
There are so many but I'll just stick with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Study cause I'm lazy.
> Because the market would provide?
Yes there would be numerous vegan options with the nutrient mix customized to suit vegan diets.
> Either way you still have to work harder and be far more careful with what you eat in order to pull it off so my point still stands.
You have to work pretty hard with a meat based diet to avoid the chronic diseases it can cause.
I think it's safe to assume that you are against rape. Do you worry about dolphins in the ocean raping other dolphins?
I think vegans are more concerned with how animals are treated, not simply that they are killed and eaten.
The symptoms she describes (bloated belly, increased heart rate after eating) sound to me more as if there were some other problems - maybe she couldn't deal with some parts of the food very well. I've just read a good book about those problems (it is not allergies, I don't know the proper translation), and for example up to 17% of humans in the western world have problems digesting fructose. So naturally stuffing themselves with vegetables might cause problems. In that book it is also explained that those problems can often be cured in a matter of weeks. Few doctors are knowledgeable about those, though.
In any case, there are (claimed) responses from the author of the China study which might be worth reading:
http://www.30bananasaday.com/group/debunkingthechinastudycri...
http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/campbell_china_response.h...
I haven't been able to find these on any "official" site though, so beware ;)
http://www.google.com/#q=debunking+evolution
The standard of debate is likely to be at a similar level. If you actually have an confidence in any of these 'debunkings' then why not point out one that you think will stand up to scrutiny?
edit: s/some/all/. english/logic fail.