Veg/ Non-veg?

Discussion in 'The ChitChat Lounge' started by horsesmouth, Aug 28, 2012.

  1. horsesmouth

    horsesmouth Active Member

    ^ NECC? It can be their propaganda..

    Anyway, if what ayu135 says is true, that human anatomy is truly suitable for omnivorous beings, why can't we eat raw flesh unlike others?
    We can consume select vegetables and fruits raw. But not all of them ofcourse, its been the human craving for more, that we cook almost everything out of curiosity.
    My point is, if we were indeed so designed by nature, then without the discovery of fire, we would inadvertently have been eating only fruits and few vegetables.

    Things not on the menu: Raw flesh, grass (cellulose), and poisonous herbs and insects/animals.
     
  2. rickkkyrich

    rickkkyrich Guest

    I think there are places where you eat raw fish, octopus etc.. China i guess..
     
  3. horsesmouth

    horsesmouth Active Member

    ^ I don't know then, I always believed they are not digestible raw.
    Plus our stomach can't stand blood. You vomit the moment there's blood in your stomach. Its part of your body's defense mechanism against ulcers.

    As regards China, there's a popular saying:
    "The only thing with 4 legs that Chinese don't eat is a table."

    But I'm still not convinced with them eating those things raw. Even Bear Grylls has to boil flesh before eating.
    :D ;P
     
  4. alpha1

    alpha1 I BLUES!

    1. Our ancestors were primates - who are primarily "nibblers". Which means they will try to eat anything they can find. But not really "hunt" or "chew the cud". If you observe the primates - what do they eat?
    Fruits, nuts, berries, insects, occasionally small animals, rarely similar sized animals, roots ...

    We are neither wolves nor cows ...

    2. Sorry for using a wrong term - GOOD things in life. I simply meant: things in life that give pleasure. So please let us NOT extend any further argument on this. Wine, women and wealth does bring pleasure. I am not talking about whether it is "good" for health or not. And I don't care about what is acceptable to society or not in this case (drugs are not acceptable but they still give pleasure).

    3. Rickyrich - regarding the eggs - what is your definition of non-veg food? And how would you classify the eggs as?

    4. The only reason why we can't eat raw meat is because of culture/upbringing. There is nothing in our digestive system that really prevents us from digesting raw meat. However, raw meat decays faster than raw plant matter - and perhaps because of this Bear recommends you to heat and kill the bacteria that may cause food poisoning.
     
  5. rickkkyrich

    rickkkyrich Guest

    it's non vegetarian because it is produced by an animal, an egg would have become the animal who had produced it had it been fertilized.
     
  6. horsesmouth

    horsesmouth Active Member

    ^ But what about the argument that these eggs are of a different type, table eggs, which are laid without the 'help' of a c0ck..?
     
  7. rickkkyrich

    rickkkyrich Guest

    I have heard mixed opinions about this... I'm not pretty sure if table eggs are infertile or not...
     
  8. horsesmouth

    horsesmouth Active Member

    Stalemate.
     
  9. rickkkyrich

    rickkkyrich Guest

    But infertility doesn't make them vegetarian is what i think and will continue to.. :p:
     
  10. bjr

    bjr Lady of the Evening

    I'm not sure what the significance of being vegetarian is? I agree it must be quite annoying to be looked down upon by an idiot for being a vegetarian but why would you want to try and counter his/her claims?
     
  11. horsesmouth

    horsesmouth Active Member

    I agree. But for no scientific reason...
     
  12. horsesmouth

    horsesmouth Active Member

    But sometimes ppl do get on your nerves. I know because I stayed in a hostel, and on a round table of 10, I used to be the only vegetarian, and sometimes inevitably, the center of debate.
     
  13. alpha1

    alpha1 I BLUES!

    Then turn the debate to something more enjoyable ... wine vs whiskey etc
     
  14. alpha1

    alpha1 I BLUES!

    BTW i didn't comment on this:
    3. This is true. There is a reason why some people become vegans ...
    5. It is not just a product or by product, but it (yoghurt not curd) is a living colony or microbes.
    (btw honey is, for all practical purposes = a honeybee's vomit - but that doesn't stop us from relishing it ;) )

    In any case, vegetarianism in India evolved during a time when there were no microscopes, and when plants were believed to be non-living. Anything that looked alive (= can move, breathes, hear beats, eats food, ...) was forbidden for consumption. Anything that didn't = non alive and hence can be consumed.

    Therefore, in today's more "aware" society, the vegetarianism may look absurd from first principles.

    So how do you "defend" vegetarianism? By not playing into fundamentals and principles:
    1. In spite of growth of technology, understanding and awareness about nature - human beings still are pretty primitive. Ask your non-veg friends - do they think twice before stepping on an insect? Or do they even reckon that when they walk there are small creatures wriggling on the earth beneath their steps? (no)
    HOWEVER, this same person - when he is supposed to step over a dog or a cat will have his stomach churning.
    Why? because whatever is perceptible to us as living registers on our minds.

    SO - for you as a vegetarian - as long as it doesn't look and feel alive, you are not hurting your conscience and you can eat it. Whether that thing is actually alive or scientifically proven so, doesn't make any difference!

    2. Even most hard-core of the non vegetarians will have meats that are off limits (say dog meat, human meat, ...) Why? You are ready to kill a "poor" lamb for food, but feel nauseous about doing the same to a dog?
    Similarly you have kept the entire "meat" genre as off limits for you.

    3. I am sure none of the people you come across and debate actually did anything after the teenage to warrant meat consumption. Meat = ideal food when YOU want to put on meat = growing child, growing teenager, powerlifter/weightlifter, bodybuilder. But if you are not any of these - what happens to the excess proteins and fat? Any wonder why meat eaters today have more health problems than plant eaters?

    4. If all humans suddenly decide to become pure non-vegetarians there will be a severe shortage of food!
    Per acre of land, you get more vegetable/cereal yield than meat yield.
    Per kilo-watt-hour (or BTU if your friends are brits) of energy spent/consumed (in providing light, electricity, oil, gas, heat, water, nutrients/food etc) - more kg of vegetable/cereals can be produced than meat.
    (Incidentally, these are the same argument that can be made against the organic food proponents)

    5. Food chain pyramid sustainability - As you go up the food chain, lesser population can be supported. The top most predator are very less compared to the bottom of the pyramid population. Human population today is equivalent to a herbivore herd. You decide where you would stay in order to live and prosper.



    I need some more time to cogitate further, but for now this will suffice.
    Please send the cheque to my office in Caymen Islands.
     
  15. wylder

    wylder Member

    I remember having this very same debate in high school and a colleague of mine came up with this very argument.

    Sure, it looks like we are being less efficient with our plant resources. But the fact is we feed cattle with grass that most vegetarians wouldn't eat. I guess more than being wastage of energy, it wouldn't be economically viable to use food crops as a major source of fodder.

    I'd look at it more like a re-engineering of our environment to convert inedible wild grass into edible meat so that we can feed a growing population. Just like how for generations we have cleared forests and cultivated grain that might not have naturally grown there. We wouldn't be able to support even a tenth of our population if we still lived in the hunter-gatherer mode.
     
  16. wylder

    wylder Member

    I believe the reason for this taboo is just based on cultural differences.

    We Indians are blessed with fertile plains and plenty of harvest all year round. So there was no need for ancient Indians to kill animals for food and hence the practice in religion to promote vegetarianism. If at all we needed to eat animals, for the sake of efficiency as discussed earlier, we would be encouraged to eat herbivorous animals.

    In civilizations with a more hostile environment, such a taboo would threaten their existence. This would have led to the practice in cold deserts in interior Central Asia to eat anything that moves. Civilizations with grasslands learned that cattle were a viable source of nutrition. Similarly, Alaskans, Inuits and Eskimos would hunt whales, seals, musk-ox, caribou, polar bears etc as this was plentiful in their environment.
     
  17. horsesmouth

    horsesmouth Active Member

    *Amazed*
    Will a million dollars do?
    But you seem to support the point of view that vegetarianism was justified earlier, but given the technology of this age, it is not possible, unless we revert to the original definition of the same (which would indirectly be disregarding the conclusions technology has given us.)

    But this in fact weakens the non-vegetarian's argument (in India) where the tropical climate is not suitable for the heat generated upon consuming meat. (The calories contained in an average mass of meat is very high compared to a same mass of vegetable.) On the other hand, vegetables grow in ample quantities.
     
  18. bjr

    bjr Lady of the Evening

    I don't think the reasoning that a vegetarian diet tends to be healthier than a non-vegetarian for an average person is in question. What alpha1 does seem to be saying (and something I agree with) is that there is no room for any sort of moral highground in the debate whatsoever on either side. Both sides are bound by their own hangups but they are precisely that....hangups.
     
  19. wylder

    wylder Member

    Yes... That was my point in the first place - that Indian religions rebuked the need for non-vegetarian food.

    The same does not hold good today where we have changed our environment considerably and our activity patterns are a lot different.

    About the calorie content - it greatly varies... Quick google gives me approx cal/100g as Wheat flour - 364; Brown rice - 112; White rice - 133; Chicken breast - 165.

    Keep in mind that you do not prepare meals based on mass of food. The same mass of grain will not fill you up as much as meat. Also, meat (especially red meat) takes a long time to digest and keeps you full longer while low fiber grain is digested in a matter of minutes (look up GI values for foods).
     
  20. alpha1

    alpha1 I BLUES!

    Correct. Its a cultural thing. Historically culturally developed thing.
    Hence, if you look at it from today's point of view - it may look absurd.

    No, not justified really. Just that the people of that era agreed to be a part of such thinking.
    My view on the whole subject is presented in my first post!

    Precisely.

    Whenever non-veg people talk about nutrition etc - they are just bullscatting.
    The plain fact is that people love the taste and texture of meat and the spices/herbs along with it!

    As I have mentioned in my point No.3 earlier - practically none of the people you will come across will have any NEED to eat meat. (Of course I am pinning my hopes on the assumption that you/your blokes are not athletes or even hobby weightlifters)
     

Share This Page