Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site linus.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!jgb From: jgb@linus.UUCP (Jonathan G. Bressel) Newsgroups: net.veg Subject: Re: Question (and an Answer) Message-ID: <586@linus.UUCP> Date: Wed, 4-Jan-84 16:32:44 EST Article-I.D.: linus.586 Posted: Wed Jan 4 16:32:44 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 5-Jan-84 01:24:39 EST References: <1601@utcsstat.UUCP>, <3016@utcsrgv.UUCP> <300@lanl-a.UUCP> Organization: MITRE Corp., Bedford MA Lines: 101 I am responding to the comments made below. The original is left intact, indented so that my interspersed additions can be easily distinguished. What begins on the left-most margin is mine. All else is the original. I occasionally note that references are available on request -- lest it be claimed that my arguments are "unsupported". The reasons given in a previous note require some additional comment. 1. Religious: well, not much to say here. I would rather kill a trout for food than kill a tree for firewood. Perhaps, but since when are vegetarians proposing killing trees for firewood? The argument is about avoiding killing animals. Killing trees is an independent issue, albeit an important one. I agree with the author's concern over the occasional misuse of trees for firewood. 2. Health: I know several people who are vegetarians. Without exception they have health problems and are advised by their physicians to take SOME meat (or poultry, fish, etc.). Note: I just met some more people who are vegetarians and I don't know wether 'Without exception' is still true, the point is that many vegetarians have dietary problems. This should be I too know several vegetarians, and have read the testimonies (references available) of scores more who have remained healthy when switching to a vegetarian diet. While an extremely enthused, but nutritionally ignorant, neophyte vegetarian can easily endanger his health, it is quite possible to become vegetarian with no sacrifice to one's health -- in fact for many, health improves with the transition. Objective studies (references available) indicate that vegetarians suffer much less than non-vegetarians from diseases such as hardening of the arteries, cancer of the colon, heart disease, etc. This is often attributed to vegetarians' reduced intake of cholesterol and other fats. Since their food source is lower on the food chain, vegetarians ingest far less of the pesticides and toxens recently found in increasing amounts in many food sources in recent few years (references available). Furthermore, vegetarians AS A GROUP are less overweight, and are more aware of the nutritional needs of their bodies (mostly because they have to be). In response to the claim that many "vegetarians have dietary problems", these studies indicate that many more non-vegetarians (as a percentage of the population) have grave dietary problems. Furthermore, to be blunt, most physicians don't know anything about vegetarianism or vegetarian diets. It is not a subject taught at medical schools. Since they were themselves raised on meat, physicians tend to view it as nutritionally necessary. More can be learned about nutritional needs and the vegetarian diet by reading one of the fine books on vegetarianism (references available) than by asking most doctors. no surprise after several million years of evolution with a diet including meat. I am always suspicious of arguments which make appeals to the theory of evolution. Anatomical analysis of the human body and comparison to the teeth, jaws, and digestive systems of animal carnivores and herbivores (references available) show that man shows no similarities to carnivores, and that he possesses all of the characteristics of herbivores -- a jaw which can move sideways to grind vegetable matter, large molars for grinding, no true incisors, a long digestive track for digesting a fiber rich diet as opposed to a short one for digesting meat, etc. 3. Social/Moral:Of course, cattle, pigs, deer, fish, etc; can metabolize foods that humans can't; can live in environments that aren't suited for agriculture; and provide a much more concentrated form of nutrition than their vegetable counterparts. This is true, but modern factory-farming does not utilize animals which have been allowed to graze on foods we can't metabolize. Today, cows, pigs, chickens, are fed protein-rich corn and other grains which humans are good at digesting (references available). The protein being used by livestock could feed approximately twenty times as many humans as could the protein we get from these animals, because the latter are poor protein synthesizers. It takes twenty times as much protein to make a cow as is found in the meat a cow provides (references available). I am not against vegetarians. It's just that any unsupported I am not against non-vegetarians. claims, on any subject, tend to bother me. Most of the vegetarians Several of the author's claims are unsupported as well. I know, despite their moralizing, don't eat meat because they don't like it. Just that simple. Why they think they need a further excuse is beyond me. I don't eat meat because I believe animals should not be harmed. I was raised on meat, and to this day would love to sink my teeth into a tasty hamburger. Call it what you will, but I am vegetarian out of ethics, not out of dislike for meat. There are several organizations in this country which publish books, and magazines describing vegetarian ethics (references available). Jonathan G. Bressel -- ARPA: linus!jgb@mitre-bedford UUCP: ...{decvax,utzoo,philabs,security,allegra,genrad}!linus!jgb