|
|
Post by Reef. on Nov 2, 2008 21:34:21 GMT
and as we adapt and evolve physically, we evolve in our behavioural practice and moral fibre too... so there is no reason why man's dispicable use of animals shouldnt change. unless you're creationist lol
|
|
|
|
Post by mate on Nov 2, 2008 23:12:28 GMT
We don't need meat right now. We aren't evolving, we are simply siting on our backsides, getting fatter and fatter. Also, I want to ask you, do you care for non-humans? Do you care for cows?
Yes we are, we are evolving everyday, you just don't know it.  |
|
|
|
Post by norsu on Nov 30, 2008 14:09:43 GMT
You can think of our present time evolving into a more technological way of life. Like solar power, iPods, hybrid cars, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reef. on Dec 5, 2008 16:44:33 GMT
i guess we dont really have a need to evolve biologically with any noticable effect now that we've kinda invalidated anything we would have had to adapt to
|
|
Stargo!
Full Member
Have fun sitting at home. {{I'm out to rule the world}}
Posts: 165
|
Post by Stargo! on Dec 22, 2008 21:09:59 GMT
With all of this life-saving stuff that we have now, we don't need to evolve, therefore we stop. If you think about it, the only time we have had to eat meat, is in the ice-ages, and a bit after that. Please don't give me the shit about kids in Kenya who can't get all the food they want.
|
|
Stargo!
Full Member
Have fun sitting at home. {{I'm out to rule the world}}
Posts: 165
|
Post by Stargo! on Dec 22, 2008 21:42:50 GMT
And yes, Stargo is in a bad mood.
|
|
|
|
Post by norsu on Dec 22, 2008 23:57:56 GMT
LOL and you are taking it out on the starving kids in Kenya? Interesting.... but a good idea. Those kids will neva know we are talking about them. BWA HA HA HA HA!
|
|
|
|
Post by mate on Dec 23, 2008 0:54:29 GMT
With all of this life-saving stuff that we have now, we don't need to evolve, therefore we stop. If you think about it, the only time we have had to eat meat, is in the ice-ages, and a bit after that. Please don't give me the shit about kids in Kenya who can't get all the food they want.
But that is why we are over populated and the elderly are living longer, its not suppose to be like that. People are suppose to die and bloody scientist are pro-longing life. Allowing the elderly to live longer pushes a burden onto the younger generation MAKING us evolve to be able to handle these situations. If we don't evolve EVERYDAY , we will be stuck in this hell hole forever. You are not suppose to bring people back to life when people die THEY ARE SUPPOSE TO STAY DEAD. (even though i would contradict myself if anyone I loved was in that situation) it still is true. If you are a vegetarian your body needs to CONSTANTLY evolve to handle not having natural irons. It needs to EVOLVE everyday to handle the pills or the extra vegetation they are putting into their bodies. Are bodies weren't built to just handle vegetation, why do you think a lot of people HAVE get their appendix removed? Because that was what we USE to use when we back in the day when we weren't able to digest our greens. But now evolution has changed us into not eating it to establish a balance-able diet of meat and greens. |
|
|
|
Post by Reef. on Dec 23, 2008 13:36:10 GMT
mate, i think youre misunderstanding what aspect of evolution relates to the concept of "natural". in biological evolution everything is underpinned by chance genetic mutations, so to say that if vegetarian parents just happen to produce a child with some mutation hat allows them to gain the maximum possible iron or protein for example from vegetables then that would be an evolutionary step. but since people without that mutations wont be killed off in any great number before they have the chance to reproduce, the step would go unnoticed anyway. biological evolution has nothing to do with adaptation during the life of the individual
and although i agree with you about the current state of "advancing" humanity being incredibly selfish and irresponsible from a purely globally objective point of view, i dont really think you should use the word "supposed" with regards to nature. there is no plan, there is no set course to drift off, there is no archer guiding the arrow
|
|
Stargo!
Full Member
Have fun sitting at home. {{I'm out to rule the world}}
Posts: 165
|
Post by Stargo! on Dec 23, 2008 23:23:59 GMT
I am a vegetarian, and I don't take pills. I could live off grass if I wanted to. You could too. *Is talking to mate* We all could. We just chose not to, and do you know who pays the price? Everyone who can't speak in a language that humans have made. Mate, do you call yourself a animal?
|
|
|
|
Post by mate on Dec 24, 2008 1:43:39 GMT
I think your wrong there with the "going off" track (unless I am reading you wrong) Nature has a set track. Rain when it is thirsty, lighting causing fire to re-grow "her" world. Ice age - normal - hot - ice age. She has a track and she is following it very well. Though some of us don't like how "she" regenerates "her" world, she is always on track and does what is best for the Earth. I have seen how sick a baby ( baby through to toddler) gets when the parents (who were/are vegetarians before they birthed her) Become so sick (her skin turned yellow) because she wasn't getting the right vitamins in her system. Angy's skin turned yellow but the parents continued along with it unit she was 5, when child services came along. How can you justify that? (not meaning to sound mean there either)
|
|
|
|
Post by mate on Dec 24, 2008 1:45:53 GMT
I am a vegetarian, and I don't take pills. I could live off grass if I wanted to. You could too. *Is talking to mate* We all could. We just chose not to, and do you know who pays the price? Everyone who can't speak in a language that humans have made. Mate, do you call yourself a animal?
Well the thing is, I couldn't, I am a carnivore ( i know sounds stupid) the only vegetable i eat is potato chips. I eat nothing but meat. For me to go on to just greens, I would die very quickly. Yes I think of myself as an animal, but a more evolved animal then any other species... |
|
|
|
Post by Reef. on Dec 24, 2008 16:16:04 GMT
I think your wrong there with the "going off" track (unless I am reading you wrong) Nature has a set track. i guess its debatable but as an atheist i can't agree and its a sad story about the toddler, i wont pretend not to see the downside but to be fair that is a one-off case. and there are many cases of malnutrition even in people who do eat meat so i see the parallel you're drawing but it still wouldnt persuade me to think vegetarianism is wrong theres a difference between being carnivourous and omnivourous, and it seems a very self-indulgant point to make that vegetarianism is wrong just because you dont like non-meat foods, although we hear it so often these days! i doubt any vegetarian is properly satisfied with meatless diet, especially at this time of year. of course my mouth waters when i smell roast turkey or whatever but morality isnt about the greed of the individual. can you imagine a cow saying "i dont really like being industrially raised and slaughtered but if i taste good then that's ok" |
|
|
|
Post by norsu on Dec 24, 2008 16:24:53 GMT
I am a vegetarian, and I don't take pills. I could live off grass if I wanted to. You could too. *Is talking to mate* We all could. We just chose not to, and do you know who pays the price? Everyone who can't speak in a language that humans have made. Mate, do you call yourself a animal? First of all, grass has no where near all the nutrients our bodies need. Maybe at the beginning of time we could have eaten grass, but now that we are used to needing more nutrients it is a neccesity. Even most horses can't just live off grass. Second of all, yes, mate calls herself an animal. I call myself an animal. Reef calls herself an animal. Stargo, you call yourself an animal by calling yourself a human! We are animals. |
|
|
|
Post by Reef. on Dec 24, 2008 16:30:33 GMT
lol norsu, at the beginning of time there wasnt any grass! and no, our stomachs can't digest the cellulose (what plant cell walls are made off) although maybe if we found a child with genetic code to make enzymes that could digest them, we could selectively breed ourselves to become capable of eating only grass? lol a bit far-fetched though!
how far down the evolutionary tree does the right to a happy life go? only humans? primates? mammals? vertibrates? animals? if humans are allowed to eat whatever they feel like regardless of the excuciating disadvantages it throws on other species, it implies we consider ourselves infinately better than any other animal
|
|
