A Taste for Meat
Humans possess a natural taste for meat, the means and desire to obtain it, and the ability to digest it. In the past, eating meat was a requirement in order for humans to survive, and even though today there are a few people who say they are quite happy and healthy living on an all-veg diet, there is still an overwhelming number of meat-eating humans who honestly feel that they do need to have at least some meat in their diets in order to stay happy and healthy. An all-veg diet is not for everyone!
Humans are not herbivorous by nature. It is not natural for us to force ourselves to eat
only fruits and/or vegetables all of the time and completely deprive ourselves of meat and eggs. We are omnivorous creatures, meaning that we are designed, by nature, to consume both plant AND animal material. This makes our diet versatile, enabling us to survive in the event that certain food sources become scarce. Omnivorism is one of the main reasons why we humans have become the most adaptive and successful living creatures on Earth.
For thousands of years, since the very beginning of our existence, humans have relied on animals as a major food source. Some would argue that humans are not actually natural predators because of the fact that we do not have long curved fangs and/or claws like some other predators do. The reason that we do not have those particular attributes is simple, though: we do not NEED them, and nature does not give the living organisms which inhabit this planet any physical attributes which they do not need to have in order to survive. We humans are obviously predators who are designed to kill our prey using tools that we can create out of the surrounding materials using our hands and brains; and, it just so happens that our killing tools are much more efficient, effective, more humane (and therefore better overall) than the obsolete methods of killing used by more primitive predators, such as, for example: running an animal down and ripping its body apart with one's claws and/or teeth until the creature has finally been bled, ripped, and/or gutted into submission, which, by the way, is not only more dangerous, but also uses up a lot more energy. We humans create tools like clubs, knives, spears, bows/arrows, and guns; these weapons allow us to perform the hunting, killing, and butchering acts much more quickly, cleanly, and easily than the obsolete methods used by other more primitive predators; our tools and weapons really do save on the amount of time and energy used during the processes of hunting, killing, and butchering animals for food, and they also dramatically reduce the amount of suffering that our prey animals are subjected to, without a doubt.
Furthermore, most biologists and paleontologists agree that we humans developed such a high level of intelligence due mainly to the fact that we had become such strategic hunters and because we had gained such a rich source of protein in our diets: animal flesh. Abundant quantities of animal flesh were needed in order to promote growth in and to sustain our larger brains as we evolved. It is true that the earliest ancestor of the human species is believed to have been an herbivore (for the most part). According to scientific evidence, the creature had a large protruding gut, which housed extremely long intestines which were needed for digesting large quantities of rough plant materials. As this beast evolved into a new and better animal, it started to eat meat (due to lack of sufficient edible vegetation available in the wild), which caused it to develop the shorter intestines needed for better digesting meat, which in turn caused its gut to shrink a great deal, eventually becoming the thin waistline typical of the (healthy and fit) modern-day human. Keep in mind that modern humans who do not actually have the thin waistline common to most healthy and fit people are suffering from excessive fat stores in their bodies; they are NOT 'endowed' with excessive intestinal tract designed for digesting large quantities of rough plant materials like real herbivores are, and no human (that I know of) is actually physically inhibited from digesting animal flesh effectively.
Here is the most up-to-date scientific proof that we humans are genetically designed for eating meat:
1) Sharp teeth and binocular vision - Humans do have canine (cuspid) and bicuspid teeth which are sharp and pointy and designed specifically for tearing meat. Typical herbivores do not possess these type of teeth. There are a total of 12 cuspid-type teeth in the human jaw: four 'canines', which taper to a point, and eight bicuspids, which have two sharp points. We also have binocular vision, common only among predators, which allows for superior depth/distance perception and gives humans the stereoscopic vision that aids in hunting.
2) *Intestinal receptors for heme iron - The existence of intestinal receptors for the specific absorption of heme iron is strong evidence of adaptation to animal foods in the diet, as heme iron is found in nutritionally significant amounts only in animal foods.
3) *B-12 an essential nutrient - The requirement for vitamin B-12 in human nutrition, and the lack of reliable (year-round) plant sources suggests evolutionary adaptation to animal foods in the human diet.
4) *Plant foods are poor sources of EFAs - In general, the EFAs in plant foods are in the "wrong" ratio (with the exception of a very few exotic, expensive oils), and the low synthesis rates of EPA, DHA, and other long-chain fatty acids from plant precursors point to plant foods as an "inferior" source of EFAs. This strongly suggests adaptation to foods that include preformed long-chain fatty acids, i.e., animal foods.
5) *Taurine synthesis rate - The low rate of taurine (animal food) synthesis in humans, compared to that in herbivorous animals, suggests human adaptation to food sources of taurine (animal food) in the human diet.
6) *Slow conversion of beta-carotene - The sluggish conversion rate of beta-carotene to vitamin A, especially when compared to the conversion rate in herbivorous animals, suggests adaptation to dietary sources of preformed vitamin A (i.e., a diet that includes animal foods).
7) *Plant foods available in evolution were poor zinc and iron sources - The plant foods available during evolution (fruits, vegetative plant parts, nuts, but no grains or legumes) generally provide low amounts of zinc and iron, two essential minerals. These minerals are provided by grains, but grains are products of agriculture (i.e., were not available during evolution), and contain many antinutrients that inhibit mineral absorption. This suggests that the nutritional requirements for iron and zinc were primarily met via animal foods during human evolution.
8) *Bitter taste threshold as a trophic marker - An analysis of the human bitter taste threshold, when compared to the threshold of other mammals, suggests that our sensitivity to the bitter taste is comparable to that of carnivores/omnivores.
9) *There is no such thing as a veg*n gatherer tribe - And there are no records to indicate that any such tribes ever existed; also no evidence of any vegan societies either.
10) *The actual diets of all the great apes includes some fauna--animal foods - Even the great apes that are closest to being completely vegetarian, gorillas, deliberately consume insects when available. Chimps and bonobos, our closest relatives, hunt and kill vertebrates and eat occasional meat.
*This information was obtained from: Are Humans Natural Frugivores/Vegetarians or Omnivores/Faunivores?, By Tom Billings, (Part 9: Conclusions: The End, or The Beginning of a New Approach to Your Diet?)
Some veg*ns (especially certain vegans) actually believe that their diet/lifestyle is somehow more 'evolved' than an omnivorous one is (for humans); or that since humans are so highly evolved, we should 'naturally' choose a veg*n lifestyle over one that involves killing animals and eating their flesh. They seem to forget that our earliest ancestors were herbivorous animals, for the most part, but they *evolved* into the meat-eating animals that we are today! They also seem to forget that veg*nism has only become possible in recent years thanks to advanced agriculture/technology, NOT by natural evolution! Becoming a veg*n is NOT taking a step forward in evolution, as some like to think; if anything, being a veg*n is reverting back to an earlier form of life that was rejected by nature long ago.
Scientific evidence aside, if we humans were not meant to eat meat, then why do we have such a desire to eat it, and why did we start eating it in the first place? Why does it taste so good to us? If eating meat weren't natural for humans, if we really are supposed to be herbivores animals by nature, then not one of us would ever have the notion to eat meat at all, any more than any other truly herbivorous creature would. But that is NOT the case. The truth is, most humans LOVE meat!
Eating meat has been the norm since the very beginning of our existence. Our species *evolved* by killing animals, eating their flesh, and making use of their carcasses in many other ways for our own benefit. The human race has *always* been a predatorial one. We would not be here today had our ancestors not killed animals in the past. But now, all of a sudden, according to animal rights activists, eating meat is wrong? Yeah, right! One extreme AR website that I visited a while back (meat.org) actually claims it is the "evil government and fast-food companies which are drugging and brainwashing us into this corrupt and violent meat-eating society". Okie dokie...
Debunking AR Myths
Most ARAs rely on myths, half-truths, and outright lies to promote their 'cause', because, of course, no valid scientific evidence exists to support any of their wild claims. They actually have to trick people into supporting them these days, and they are continuing to get more and more desperate. I keep asking myself, where will the madness end???
One of the most popular myths that veg*n/AR fanatics like to spread around is the notion that eating meat is 'less efficient' than eating only plant-derived substances and causes wanton depletion of natural resources. They claim that land currently being used for raising livestock animals could be used for growing more edible crops and that grain being fed to livestock animals could go to feed hungry people instead. The truth is, though, very little (if any) land that is used for raising livestock animals is actually suitable for cultivating any kind of edible crops for mass consumption by humans, and also very little (if any) grain and other substances fed to livestock animals is actually suitable for mass consumption by humans, anyway. Also, the numbers that many veg*n/AR extremists throw out there supposedly calculating excessive water usage for livestock animals have been proven extremely inaccurate. Words of advice: please do your own research on the issues instead of just automatically believing everything that you hear from ARAs! They throw all these numbers and 'statistics' out there to shock people (such as 'x' amount of water must be used to produce 'x' amount of beef, etc.) because they know that most people will just take their word for it instead of doing their own research on the issues to find out the truth out for themselves! So, the myth that so many veg*n/ARAs hold, that raising livestock animals for food is 'wasting' resources that could otherwise be used for growing more edible crops as well as 'wasting' grain that could otherwise go to feed hungry people is just that...a myth...if not an outright lie! Besides, most of us die-hard meat-eaters believe that meat is a very important part of our diets, and I honestly believe that most of us would be quite willing (and eager) to sacrifice a significant portion of fruit, grain, and vegetable production for the production of meat instead (and/or pursue hunting and fishing in the wild for meat more often), if it were to come down to that, rather than give up eating meat altogether and 'go veg'. I know that I surely would, without a doubt! But, anyway, as it is now, we (in the U.S.) have a significant surplus of grains, and we don't seem to be suffering from any shortage of fruits and veggies either, for that matter, despite our huge meat industry. Go figure.
Many veg*n/ARAs use half-truths (an alternative to the wanton lies they tend to circulate) to promote their 'cause', without bothering to fill anyone in on the other side of the story. In fact, many of them actually try to cover it up! For example, I have had the fact that some large-scale factory-type animal farms have been found guilty of causing pollution to the environment (particularly to certain water bodies), as well as the fact that certain antibiotics and hormones given to some farm animals raised for meat in the 'factory' environment are probably not good for the people who eat them, thrown in my face on several occasions by desperate veg*n/ARAs 'grasping for straws', so to speak, during heated debates. However, not one of those veg*n/ARAs (to my recollection) bothered to acknowledge the fact that the large-scale farming of veggies and grains has caused severe land erosion in many cases, pollution of water supplies with pesticide and/or fertilizer runoff, and pesticide- and/or fertilizer-contaminated food products being sold on the market. Another example that I hear quite often is the fact that some meat (usually mishandled) has been found to contain harmful microbes such as E. Coli, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE/'Mad Cow Disease'), or Salmonella, and if undercooked can cause a person to become seriously ill and can be potentially fatal if consumed. However, not very many people seem to know that even the strictest of veg*ns are susceptible to E. Coli and other such microbes, if, for example, unpasteurized products such as apple juice are consumed by them. I watched a documentary about just such an incident on the Discovery Channel a while back: a group of children in Seattle had contracted a deadly form of E. Coli and at first the local hamburger shop was suspected, but one of the sick children was a vegetarian and came from a strict vegetarian family, so they could not figure out where the infection had come from, at first. The source of the infection was later found out to be a bad batch of Odwalla brand apple juice, of all things. It just so happened that the Odwalla company, at the time, had a policy of not pasteurizing their apple juice, because they believed that pasteurization 'degraded' the quality, freshness, and taste of their apple juice. After the bacteria strain was detected in Odwalla's vegan product, their orchards were inspected, and deer droppings were found all around their apple trees. The deer droppings tested positive for the exact same strain of E. Coli that was found in their juice product, the exact same strain which had infected the children who drank it. Although the Odwalla company did have a policy of not using apples which had fallen to the ground for juicing, that policy was virtually impossible to enforce, as their workers were paid by each bushel of apples that the workers were able collect and deliver to the factories, and none of the workers were supervised by health officials during the process of harvesting the apples at all. To my knowledge, at least one of the sick children died, and several of the others who lived were scarred with sever internal complications that would most likely continue to cause them crippling health problems for the rest of their lives. Needless to say, the Odwalla company learned its lesson, the hard way, and it was proven once and for all that meat-eaters are not the only people susceptible to deadly bacteriums normally thought to be found only in bad batches of undercooked meat. However, I don't think this is something that most people are even aware of. I wonder why. When I try to present these truths to sine if the obstinate veg*n/ARAs who I talk to, I either get ignored completely by them, or I just get scoffed at and then they try to deny it or try to change the subject... Well, obviously unpasteurized apple juice is NOT safe to drink. Eating raw sprouts is another concern, though. I recently found out that in California, from 1996 through 1998, more than 50% of all multicounty outbreaks of Escherichia Coli O157 and Salmonella with confirmed food vehicles were related to alfalfa or clover sprouts. To read learn more, please click here.
Another thing that really pisses me off is when veg*n/AR activists try to compare and/or 'equate' human beings with non-human animals used for food, in an attempt to attract more people to their 'cause'. Many ARAs try to get sympathy out of people who support equal rights for Blacks, Jews, and women by implying that since it is wrong to treat certain people as 'lesser beings' based on nothing more than their gender, race, or religious preference, that it is also wrong to treat animals as lesser beings, based on their species, by killing them and eating their flesh. They even have a new 'word' for it: some ARAs actually like to call the practice of 'discriminating' against animals 'speciesism'. What they forget to mention, however, is that in order to compare and/or equate the plights of human beings with the 'plights' of animals like that, one has to see both humans (people) and animals (non-people) as equals, deserving of equal rights and consideration. That basically means, as Ingrid Newkirk of PeTA states, "a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy". Many AR activists believe that animals actually are people, or that animal lives are just as important as people’s lives are, just because animals have a central nervous system and the ability to feel pain, hunger, and thirst. Personally, I have a very big problem excepting that notion. A book written by another AR extremist, Carol J. Adams, called The Sexual Politics of Meat, implies that women who support a feminist stance should also support AR, because there is supposedly a 'connection' between women's rights and animal rights and therefore a 'connection' between women and animals, particularly farm animals. Personally, as an independent women who supports women's rights (of course) and who also eats meat (and is not ashamed of it in the least), I am rather offended by her analogy. One ARA who supports Adams theory that I talked to on an Internet message board to tried to explain this idea to me, and this is what she said: "There is a historically similar treatment of women and animals. It begins with Aristotle and Ovid setting men above women and equating women with the lower animals. What we should remember is that most people in most times of history considered people animals, but men the highest animals. Women and animals have been equally abused, equated with evil and primalism, owned as property, seen as objects, basically consumed." As eloquent as that sounds, I don’t think she realizes what she is saying. I do not believe that human women should be treated like animals or vice versa. I believe that all humans (including women) are *people*, and therefore all humans are above all other animals which do not 'qualify' to be considered people themselves. I think it is very wrong to lower human women to the status of animals, as it seems both Carol Adams and the AR girl I talked to on the message board (both supposed feminists), as well as all of the people who support their notion continue to do even today, just like Aristotle and Ovid did so long ago. You see, that is exactly what they are doing! I have also heard many ARAs trying to compare/equate the 'slavery' of farm animals to the slavery endured by black people, as well as Jews killed in Nazi concentration camps during the Holocaust being compared to broiler chickens being raised and killed for food. Furthermore, I have also heard ARAs trying to compare/equate retarded/mentally disabled human beings and human infants/children to animals, too. I think I have heard it all, and it all makes me sick! I do not believe that any human being should be treated like an animal, and in turn I do not believe that any animal deserves to be treated exactly the same as (or better than) a person. If an animal someday evolves to the point where it can legitimately be considered a person, then and only then will it be deserving of rights, in my opinion. So far, no other animals on this planet, besides humans, have been discovered that meet the qualifications required to attain personhood, at least not in my book! I think that most other (sane) people feel the same way as I do about this, but perhaps they just don't think about it as much as I do.
Common Sense (DUH)
'Animal rights' is an oxymoron that defies common sense!
Some ARAs have said they believe that all animals have the "natural right to be left alone by humans", and that by killing and eating animals, we humans are infringing upon their 'natural right' to live a "peaceful life". But, they fail to realize that there is no such thing as 'natural rights'. What are 'rights', anyway? Rights are an entitlements, freedoms, or privileges that are given under law, by the people for the people. Therefore, rights do not exist in nature at all. Human beings invented the whole concept of rights, for our own security and protection, and they only apply to *people* within the boundaries of human society. The concept of 'rights' only exists within our own human minds. Basically, Nature does not give a crap about peace and harmony. Animals in the wild do not give a crap about the supposed 'rights' of other animals, including humans! For the most part, animals are not even capable of comprehending the concept of ‘rights’, let alone understanding and respecting the rights of others, and that is one of the reasons why they do not deserve to have any rights in our society. Perhaps it is possible that some of the more intelligent and sophisticated animals on our planet have created their own 'societies' among themselves and have some sort of primitive system of 'rights' going on within their own respective groups, but even if that is true, they obviously don't see fit to extend any of their 'rights' to humans or any other animals that are different from them, and they don't seem to care about having rights in human society or any other animal societies. So, why the hell should we be trying so hard to give them rights in our society? In order to give all animals rights, many of our own rights would have to be compromised! Can you imagine a world where people are jailed for eating meat, wearing leather/fur, and/or for keeping a pet? Perhaps someday, certain animals such as the Great Apes and/or whales and dolphins will evolve to the point where they will meet the requirements for personhood, and then they will be granted some rights in our society. But, even if that does happen someday, only those particular species that exhibit the qualities of personhood will be granted rights, not every single member of animal kingdom, which is what ARAs want. ARAs don't care how dumb (stupid) an animal is, they believe that all animals have the same basic so-called 'natural rights', though which do not even exist outside of their own warped minds
'Common sense' is not something that most ARAs seem to be very keen on, I have noticed. It seems to me that too many of them are way too quick to say literally anything that pops into their warped little minds that they think might make the act of killing animals, for any reason, seem somehow 'bad' or 'wrong' in other people's minds, and too quick to spread their misinformation around as much as possible, to as many people as possible, without offering even the slightest shred of valid scientific evidence to support their claims (because none exists), and even when it finally becomes obvious to most people (after having done a little research and thinking about the subject) that those crazy ARAs really do not know what the hell they are talking about after all, those silly ARAs still somehow manage to maintain their self-esteems and egos and like to think of themselves as 'noble', simply because they believe that they were trying to help animals by being stupid, and that somehow their 'cause' justifies their stupidity, OR they continue to deny the truth and lie to themselves, as well as everyone they come into contact with who tries to refute their inaccurate claims...kind of like the Flat Earth Society. It's really quite pathetic and very sad how warped some of these people really are, and it can get really scary when these individuals finally fly off the deep end and decide to resort to violence against omnivorous people who refuse to conform to their sick way of thinking and living. For some true stories about real cases of hatred and violence committed against innocent people by whacked-out ARAs, please visit this page.
Many ARAs will say and/or do anything it takes to interfere with omnivorous people's lives, wherever and whenever they get the chance. A good example of this is the recent blatherings spouted by Anne Muller of the pro-AR group which calls itself "Wildlife Watch". Not only does she degrade and try to discourage women hunters by accusing hunting-related businesses of trying to 'trick' women into hunting while implying that women have no business hunting in the first place, but she also tries to use the September 11th terror attacks to further her own agenda by claiming that hunters in the woods this season might encourage potential terrorists to disguise themselves as hunters in order to perform more terrorist attacks and that all upcoming hunting seasons should be postponed because of this supposed ‘threat’. Not only is that one of the most asinine things I have ever heard in my life, but I guess Ms. Muller just expects everyone to believe that it’s just a ‘coincidence’ that it just so happens to be an ARA, of all people, who is making that claim. Yeah, right. Fortunately, I don't think that too many people are gullible enough to fall for her dubious propaganda. Women hunters are continuing to increase in number and no hunting seasons will be postponed because of the terrorist attacks perpetrated on 9/11; much to her dismay, I am sure.
To be a veg*n/AR fanatic is, in many ways, to be a hypocrite, in my opinion. It is so easy for them to sit in a nice comfortable house with all the modern luxuries that make our lives so easy and say things like, "end the holocaust", but if they found themselves in a situation where they didn't have access to modern food facilities, and the only way to survive was to kill an animal and eat it, what would they do? Just let themselves starve to death for the sake of animals? I doubt it! When a human gets hungry enough, he or she will eat anything that he or she can get a hold of, even if it means flushing some of his or her preconceived notions about 'animal rights' down the commode! Upon being presented with this argument, I have actually had veg*ns state that they would choose to die, rather than resort to killing an animal on purpose to survive. Well, I feel sorry for people like that, but you know what they say..."survival of the fittest"!
Of course, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with peaceful vegetarians, vegans, or fruitarians who do not wish to try to force their beliefs and lifestyle choices on others who disagree with them. In fact, I have reason to believe that perhaps some people are just meant to be veg*n, of one type or another. Many veg*ns and aspiring veg*ns, I have noticed, have a deep emotional attachment to animals, an aversion to killing, and a distaste for meat that seems almost natural for them, and although many of them are quite different from me, I really don't think that they can (or should) try to change the way they are. I certainly don't agree with all of their lifestyle choices, but I respect their right to choose the path that they feel is right for them and to make personal decisions for themselves and their children. Frankly, I don't feel that it is any of my business what other people choose to eat, how they choose to live, or how they choose to raise their children, as long as they are not hurting or trying to hurt me or other people. I really don't care if someone is a veg*n or not, I will respect her or him as a person as long as she/he respects me the same way in return. I do not believe that it is right for any person to make fun of or 'pick on' anyone else because of her or his dietary choices, any more than it is right to put down or pick on a person because of his or her religion. However, just as it is wrong to try to force your religion onto other people, it is also wrong to try to force AR and/or veg*nism (or hunting and/or meat-eating) onto other people who don't agree with it. All that does is show others that you are close-minded and intolerant towards people who are different from you, and are unwilling (or unable) to compromise or even discuss your differences in a civil manner with people you disagree with. That is not a good way for any person to way to be, at all, in my humble opinion.
'Collateral Damage'
Why true 'veganity' is an impossibility.
Another issue, the 'collateral damage' theory, is either refuted or totally ignored by most ARA/veg*n fanatics. The 'collateral damage' theory is the theory that it is totally impossible (in this day and age) to be a true vegan regardless of how hard an individual tries to be one, because no matter what, animals have to be killed in order for human beings to live. For example: animals are killed in the production of veggies, fruits, and grains, either by accident (by being run over by farm machinery) or deliberately (by being poisoned and destroyed, on purpose, so that they will not contaminate the produce). During the process of clearing land for human habitation, many animals are killed, I am sure. Animals are also killed whenever drinking water is cleaned and sterilized for mass human consumption. The list goes on and on and on. So, naturally, the question arises of whether or not vegans are actually causing less animal suffering and death, more, or roughly the same amount as meat-eaters are, on average. Also, food items are not the only items that are known to contain animal-derived substances. Many household products (such as video tape) have animal by-products in them (such as gelatin), so in order to be a 'true' vegan, you have to boycott all such products. So, if you are striving to become a 'true' vegan, good luck...you'll need it! Oh, and have fun!
Conclusion
'Animal rights' is a futile 'cause'.
Most animal rights activists agree that humans are animals too, I have noticed. I also believe that to be true, without a doubt. We are all creatures who share this planet and its resources, which evolved from lesser life forms and adapted over the years in the ways which best suite our own survival. But, when a pack of wolves brings down a deer, or a lion slaughters an antelope, is it called murder? No...but animal rightists profess that animals should have equal rights with humans...but, in that case, shouldn't humans have at least the same rights, not LESS rights, than other species??
'Animal rights' is a futile 'cause', not worth any of the time, effort, or money that so many people pour into it, and certainly not worth all the havoc it creates among people over animals. Never will there be a day when all human beings are strict vegans, don't eat meat, don't wear hide/fur, don't consume diary products, don't eat eggs, don't use any sort of animal derived products whatsoever in food preparation or in any other items that are created for our use, don't keep pets, don't do research and/or testing on animals that saves human lives, or put any other animal species on this planet before our own, and nor should there be, ever! Besides, it’s not like the animals themselves actually give a crap about 'animal rights', anyway (they do not possess the cognitive abilities needed in order to be able to grasp the concept of 'rights', follow the laws of our society, and respect the rights of other beings), so why the heck should we waste so much of our time and energy making life so much harder on ourselves for their sake, when they wouldn't even appreciate it?
