The unending quest to build a better chicken
noemamag.com
noemamag.com
So if you want to eat meat, knock yourself out, but don't do it because you imagine a caveman did it.
In addition, I believe that a main theory to explain why we're so good at endurance running is that we evolved to be good at persistence hunting.
Edit to respond to edit: Yep! Persistence hunting (and tool use in combination) was our huge advantage over literally every animal. We're the apex predator through unconventional means.
"The reason humans have opposable thumbs is because...we can grip tools better that way."
"The reason we have hair on our heads is...because we like to style it and attract mates."
"The reason humans have bellybuttons is...because bellybutton lint is a source of entertainment."
They are just speculations. It certainly is possible to look at the fossil record and see how traits evolved in ways that fit other patterns. But when people look at their own bodies, they are highly susceptible to circular or fantastical reasoning.
So what do you suggest instead?
We're complicated, there are a lot of reasons we do what we do, and there may be some broad patterns in human society and history that we can correlate to our evolutionary history.
But that's not why Bob added bacon to his cheeseburger today.
It may well be that we have opposable thumbs to handle tools better. I can't prove it, you can't disprove it, perhaps we need more evidence.
But making suggestions that have a rational basis and that may have some explanatory power is perfectly reasonable and if you think there is a better approach, please tell us. That is what I meant by requesting your alternative ideas.
> But that's not why Bob added bacon to his cheeseburger today
Maybe it is.
"Cavemen did that too" is not enough justification for some behavior. Cavemen also did not use computers. In fact, we evolved to communicate using only our bodies!
We have long crossed the point where humanity can decide how it wants to live.
Vegans also outsource killing animals to the farmers who mow down billions of small (and large!) animals and insects every year to grow their vegetables.
We don't have the control you imagine we do.
Edit: here's a source on vegans killing lots of animals
Edit: source (45 seconds): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvFixaZdvCg
A diet of plants causes the fewest animals to be killed: https://animalvisuals.org/projects/1mc/
Of course, I don't think anyone who brings up crop deaths actually cares about animals dying since they never change their diet after being corrected. Their motive is to absolve themselves of moral responsibility, not genuine concern for animal lives.
I guarantee you that I kill fewer animals than you.
They're not making some utilitarian moral calculus argument that harvesting and eating plants causes more animal suffering than factory farming: that cannot be true, since farming large scale crop cultivation is a prerequisite of factory farming.
No, the argument is popular because if you ask why vegan advocates don't campaign for eliminating agriculture entirely, it puts them in a complete double bind:
1. They can argue that they don't care about the sort of animal suffering that crop death entails, thereby reducing opposition to factory farming into a mere aesthetic preference for them, analogous to the sort of argument that goes "Mongolians shouldn't eat horse meat because it offends American sensibilities", which is rightfully not taken seriously by most people.
2. Or they can bite the bullet, say that they care about all animal suffering, and admit that they will campaign against eating plant matter as well once the lower hanging fruit of factory farming is taken care of. Since all possible ways of human sustinence will involve some animal suffering at some point, this makes it seem like they're eager to ride down on a slippery slope to voluntary human extinction, which is, again, rightfully not taken seriously by most people.
Keep in mind that I'm not saying these anti-vegan arguments are right: in fact I think they're not, and I'm not here to argue them.
All I'm telling you is that this is how the usual crop death counterarguments come across to many onlookers, with either answer making vegan advocacy seem ridiculous to the general public. E.g. your counterargument here matches type 2: people will wonder, if they go along with the plan and abandon eating animals, will you start advocating against planting crops next?
Anti-vegan people will keep bringing the crop death issue up not because they're concerned about animal deaths (indeed, most of them will admit that they're not really concerned, and tell you that you shouldn't be either; at the time of writing, one of the responses to your very post already did this) but because responding to the crop death argument in any of the usual ways predictably makes vegan advocates look ridiculous and hypocritical.
I'm just going to take their word for their own argument over yours. They are saying they are responsible for fewer animal deaths, and they do it once again in a sibling comment with no empirics.
Since you have so much to say about this subject, you should really read vegan responses to crop deaths since you've left no indication that you've done so.
> They can argue that they don't care about the sort of animal suffering that crop death entails, thereby reducing opposition to factory farming into a mere aesthetic preference for them, analogous to the sort of argument that goes "Mongolians shouldn't eat horse meat because it offends American sensibilities", which is rightfully not taken seriously by most people.
Veganism is the extension of human rights to animals. Moral evaluation doesn't just come down to a bean counter of lives lost. How are you not making the case that it's just an aesthetic preference whether Jeffrey Dahmer kills three people for his own utility or three people die incidentally in the production of the energy I use to light my house?
> Or they can bite the bullet, say that they care about all animal suffering, and admit that they will campaign against eating plant matter as well once the lower hanging fruit of factory farming is taken care of. Since all possible ways of human sustinence will involve some animal suffering at some point, this makes it seem like they're eager to ride down on a slippery slope to voluntary human extinction, which is, again, rightfully not taken seriously by most people.
Once again, not all death is a rights violation and most vegans don't think humans should kill themselves lest they step on some ants on the way down the sidewalk. But this isn't a moral justification for breeding, farming, and slaughtering sentient beings because we like they taste. You're just claiming there's a reductio on the vegan position without rendering the argument.
You've set up some straw men and claimed that anyone who wants to argue against "crop deaths tho" is forced into one of them, and if they do, look how silly they look.
Here are two entry level videos I found from activists who tend to be reasonable.
- Lifting Vegan Gains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmpeyoshXJg
- Earthling Ed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmpeyoshXJg
CNN would politely want to disagree. /s
Let find the point in human history where the threat of physical and sexual violence wasn't massive relative to now? We have rules for fucking war because with out them we will rape, pillage and salt the earth in our wake. We raped and murdered our nearest cousins (neanderthals and denisovans) into extinction. We are war like, the dominant monkey gets to reproduce...
> So if you want to eat meat, knock yourself out, but don't do it because you imagine a caveman did it.
B12, let's take that out of your diet, take away the meat, eggs and dairy and see how long you live. Oh wait, you need that to live and meat, eggs or dairy are the only source of it.
Mebbe (and that's my suspicion) but that's conjecture
> Oh wait, you need [B12] live and meat, eggs or dairy are the only source of it.
I take vit supplements (shrug)
This is not true in the slightest sense.
Eating meat is societal conditioning, not really anything to do with evolutionary needs. Yeah we enjoy the taste of fats and proteins but that doesn’t mean we need flesh to evolve. Maybe at the rate in which we evolved but not a direct cause.
> Surely culture has something to do with it. Decades of advertising have told the world that to eat meat is to be powerful and virile, an ideal of maleness in a world where men dominate. (Studies show that meat eaters tend to hold more authoritarian political viewpoints.)
and also includes a link to another article about this. [1]
Obviously we have evolved to eat meat and that's part of the reason we enjoy it, the same reason as sugar etc, but culture clearly plays some part. Different countries eat different amounts of different types of meat. America eats more beef than most, India eats almost none. Most of the world doesn't eat very much horse meat, even though there's no reason we couldn't eat more.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/food/2023/aug/14/beef-american-m...
Having consumed a plant-based diet for the last nearly 30 years, I'm surprised to hear this. Despite not bending over backwards to prepare my meals, my blood lipids and glucose are normal, my measured cardiovascular performance is excellent for age and I have stable to slightly increasing muscle mass. I have no chronic disease and am cognitively unimpaired. While I don't watch omnivores seek out or prepare their food - at least not that closely - I don't think I spend much more effort in the process.
> it's not how we evolved
We also evolved under very different conditions than those that prevail today. While adhering to the dietary practices that existed in early human development should we also deliberately simulate the conditions that selected for survival? Conditions of extreme scarcity, unpredictable food supply and prevalent hunger would have been typical.
It's a mistake, I think, to regard the results of natural selection as absolute best and only possible outcome; they point solely to relative fitness for survival _under the conditions in which those adaptations arose._ Change the prevalent conditions; and it's anyone's guess as to the effect of those adaptations.
That's a funny sentence given that non-meat eaters will presumably suffer from the next avian flu as much as meat eaters.
Edit: though to be generous, maybe the author means it in a more broad sense - what hope is there for meat eating given its various drawbacks. Still, strange sentence imo
Shades of Next here (the last novel by Michael Crichton): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_(Crichton_novel)