Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Interesting, the old look at your teeth argument.


I suppose you have tried biting through the hide of a cow, or crushing bones with them?


Nope. Our teeth arent meant for hunting or killing animals. Yes we have eaten flesh in the past, and it has helped us to get where we are. However, for the human population to continue living on this earth (reachin 9 billion by 2050) it is a simple fact we will need to reduce our consumption of animal products.


Vegans use 1/4 of the land, water and oil compared to omnivores. Lets all get righteous and maybe our grandkids will have an earth to live on aswell?

I have always assumed that is was the preperation of the human diet rather than it's contents that gave homo sapiens an advantage.


Fire opened up a whole new protein group of grains and pulses into our daily feast, meat was readily available to our ancestors in its raw form prior to that and that didn't seem to give us an evolutionary leg up.


Just had a look at my teeth. Nothing like a tiger or shark (carnivore), a lot more like a gorilla's (primarily vegan).

:))

beef Wrote:

-----------------------------------------------------

> Just had a look at my teeth. Nothing like a tiger

> or shark (carnivore), a lot more like a gorilla's

> (primarily vegan).

> :))

I thought incisives were designed to cut and tear flesh...am I wrong? and if I am why don't cows have them?

by the way gorillas do eat meat, not often but they do.

Hi Heinz,


Sorry, cattle do have 6 incisors, as do other herbivorous animals such as horses. The incisors are used to shear/tear through plant and fibrous material, and therefore can also be used to tear through flesh. Your canines are used to hold the food in place (therefore they are pointy) and molars grind it down.


A meagre 3% of a gorilla's daily intake is made of insects and catterpillars, a daily hazzard when you are chomping your way through 18 kg of veg a day. As they have an organic diet they don't have the pesticides to keep the critters away. I'd say a 97% herbivorous diet was pretty much vegan to me (especially as they shun dairy).


Back to my original supposition; I don't think it is what we eat that has led to our species advancement, but how we eat. Cooking has given us the ability to extract greater energy from our food, preservation through salt and pickling has given our food a greater longevity (and helped prevent the seasonal plenty/famine), and of course farming has given us a plentiful harvest that we can share as a group.

Hi Rosie,


Chimps are mainly herbivores and will choose fruit above all other foods, gorilla and chimpanzee teeth are very similar, though in both cases their canine teeth are more pronounced than ours. I don't believe teeth really have helped out in our evolutionary progress


Cattle also have canine teeth Heinz.


Binary star, gorillas also have a similar age for puberty among females, and in parts of Africa a similar life expectancy (barely 32 in Swaziland according to the CIA World Factbook, which is shocking). So I don't really see how this helped.


And DJKQ, is this the CATASTROPHE you were alluding to?

:))


Saffron Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A few years ago when the number of clinically

> obese people offically surpassed the number of

> starving people, I suggested that we simple feed

> the fat people to the starving people...

DJ, it's true we are overdue a mass extinction event by some millions of years, but the timescales of we're due one soon are pretty huge, I wouldn't hit despair or start building that deep bunker just yet.

You might want to think about signing up your great grand kids for the first near light speed deep space exploration vessels though!

beef, I don't really think this has any bearing on the argument, but chimps do eat meat. "mainly herbivores" means omnivores, right?


They are predators of certain other mammals, in particular the red colobus monkey, and have been known to eat other chimps after a battle. Meat has been shown to be important in denoting status within the group, and apparently in getting them sex (I'm going to make no comparisons to the attractiveness of a man who eats a bloody steak and one who eats sodding lentils).


Like I say, has no bearing on this particular argument - but claiming they're "mainly herbivores" when some of them eat up to a ton of meat annually is a little disingenuous.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of Smoke Control law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, AFAICS, the "civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300" were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all per se, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...