fredag 2 augusti 2013

Vegan reply to counter argument: But…Isn’t eating animal products, meat, milk, eggs, etc., natural?

 If our body was designed for meat consumption, humans wouldn't get these problems: ,
Meat in large quantities is not dangerous for an omnivore.

I don't understand this "human nature"/natural-argument.

It is also discussed here:
Question 5: Isn’t human use of animals a “tradition,” or “natural,” and therefore morally justified?Answer: Every form of discrimination in the history of humankind has been defended as “traditional.” Sexism is routinely justified on the ground that it is traditional for women to be subservient to men: “A woman’s place is in the home.” Human slavery has been a tradition in most cultures at some times. The fact that some behavior can be described as traditional has nothing to do with whether the behavior is or is not morally acceptable.

In addition to relying on tradition, some characterize our use of animals as “natural” and then declare it to be morally acceptable. Again, to describe something as natural does not in itself say anything about the morality of the practice. In the first place, just about every form of discrimination ever practiced has been described as natural as well as traditional. The two notions are often used interchangeably. We have justified human slavery as representing a natural hierarchy of slave owners and slaves. We have justified sexism as representing the natural superiority of men over women. Moreover, it is a bit strange to describe our modern commodification of animals as natural in any sense of the word. We have created completely unnatural environments and agricultural procedures in order to maximize profits. We do bizarre experiments in which we transplant genes and organs from animals into humans and vice versa. We are now cloning animals. None of this can be described as natural. Labels such as “natural” and “traditional” are just that: labels. They are not reasons. If people defend the imposition of pain and suffering on an animal based on what is natural or traditional, it usually means that they cannot otherwise justify their conduct.

There is no doubt that we can live a very healhty life on a vegan diet:

Thus, eating animal foods is inflicting unnecessary harm and death upon animals, and this we all agree is morally wrong.


Quote from :
This “But” is like saying that God wants us to eat animals but we don’t need to bother with God.  Something else that is big and important—nature— wants us to eat animals. If we don’t eat animals,we are acting against nature. We are behaving in
an unnatural way. That’s powerful stuff—even if you’re an atheist. In fact, “But Natural” is like “But God” without God. It seeks to establish necessity, but without God. But why do we think that nature intends, whatever that means, that we eat animals? The usual response is to say that we are physically adapted to eat meat and other animal products.
Putting aside that many people are lactose intolerant, and that many physicians are pointing out that animal products are detrimental to human health, the most we can say is that we can eat animal products; there is nothing about our bodies that suggests that our bodies are designed to do so. Humans compare physically much more to herbivores than to carnivores. Carnivores have well-developed claws. We don’t have claws. We also lack the sharp front teeth carnivorous animals need. Although we still have canine teeth, they are not sharp and cannot be used in the way carnivorous animals use their sharp canine teeth. We have flat molar teeth, as seen in herbivores, such as sheep, that we use for grinding. Carnivores have a short intestinal tract so that they can quickly expel decaying meat. Herbivores have a much longer intestinal tract as do humans. Herbivores and humans have weak stomach acid relative to carnivores who have strong hydrochloric acid in their stomachs to digest meat. Herbivorous animals have well-developed salivary glands for pre-digesting fruits and grains and have alkaline saliva that is needed to predigest grains, as do humans. Carnivorous animals do not have similar salivary glands and have acid saliva.

(..) And, as we stated earlier, the evidence is quite clear that we don’t need animal products to be optimally healthy. You would think that if we were intended to eat animal products, those of us who don’t (and haven’t for decades) would suffer deleterious health effects. But we don’t. We do just fine. We have to make sure we get vitamin B-12, which humans do not manufacture, or at least not in reliable quantities. But all humans have to get B-12 from somewhere. Carnivores get it from meat; vegans get it from nutritional yeast, other fortified food, or supplements. But all B-12 comes from microorganisms. (..)
So while there is considerable evidence that animal foods are detrimental to human health, we don’t want to get into a battle of studies here to convince you that it’s healthier not to eat animal products. We do, however, want to make clear that the very best a consumer of animal products can say is that her diet is no better than that of someone who eats a balanced diet of non-animal foods.
In sum, there is no evidence that nature requires that we eat animal products. Indeed, the extant evidence is to the contrary." End of quote.
More Resources:
Humans have no known anatomical, physiological, or genetic adaptations to meat consumption.
We have many adaptations to plant consumption.
Vitamin C is found in plants. We can’t make it ourselves such as carnivores.

True human diet. Humans evolved on a starch-based diet:
"Dartmouth Associate Professor of Anthropology, Nathaniel Dominy PhD, talks about his research and why he believes the true human diet is one based in Starch. "

Some more links here:

Inga kommentarer:

Skicka en kommentar