Stabber
Group: BSer
Posts: 3,747
Member No.: 41
Joined: 26-November 05
|
Animal Rights/Vegetarianism, etc. stuff:
| QUOTE | A recent Rivera Live television talk program hosted several animal rights advocates who were given considerable air time defending their position in both analytical and emotion terms. Only a couple of skeptics offered some doubts about the idea that was the focus of the program.
I watched and listened closely and found that the program offered hardly any measure of balance during the discussion. There was a law professor, for example, who raised some questions but gave no clear cut argument against the idea that animals have rights akin to human beings, the position widely shared about those who got nearly all the air time on the program.
One legal specialist defending the notion of animal rights made the flat out claim that animals must be considered to have the right to freedom just as individual human beings. He gave his own example of offering shelter to six dogs as the model that ought to be emulated throughout the world. He even characterized his practice as giving asylum to the dogs, as one might give asylum to a political refuge from a totalitarian society.
I filed the spectacle away, having dealt with the issue both in Op Ed essays and scholarly pieces I have written and even had reprinted in ethics text books on the topic. But I wasn’t permitted to leave it at that since the next day, watching a National Geographic Explorer program on CMBC, my attention was returned to the topic. On this program a polar bear’s hunt for baby seals was depicted in extensive detail. First we saw how the bear managed to capture and kill a baby seal. Next we saw a mature polar bear fighting off a young one as they both had their eyes on the carcass of a dead seal. Suddenly my ears perked up: the narrator made a comment that brought to mind the animal rights program the night before. He said, "The older males are known to kill younger ones when fighting over carcasses." No, they do not share even a bit of the scavenged pickings but either chase the young bears away or out and out kill them as they attempt to preserve for themselves everything they found. Of course, human beings have been known to battle it out over scares resources throughout history, but in most regions of the world it is a crime to kill a young person even in defense of one’s property, let alone over wild prey. Killing youngsters, while it does occur, is deemed to be a crime in nearly all – especially civilized – societies. Where it isn’t, the bulk of world opinion considers the region barbaric and brutal.
Given this, how can we seriously entertain the idea that animals have rights like human beings do? If this were true, all the inter-species brutality in the animal world would have to be construed as out and out criminal. But, quite sensibly, it isn’t. Why so? The reason is that animals operate as their instincts dictate, and in many cases instincts dictate that animals kill their own kind. Fish often eat their young, as do lions when they are impelled to do so by their genetic disposition, presumably to rid their pride of bastard offspring.
Why, on the other hand, do human beings get prosecuted if they engage in similar conduct? Why is it brutal, barbaric – and should be criminal – to kill children for fun, profit or even survival? The reason is that human beings are fundamentally different from their animal kin in the wild. They have the capacity to make choices, they possess free will and have the responsibility to act ethically and respect the rights of other human beings. Why? So these others can carry out their morality responsibilities on their own initiative. Human beings, in short, are free and morally responsible. And it is this fact that gives rise to their having basic rights that others ought to respect and they may protect with force and law. These rights carve out a kind of fence – or sphere of personal authority – around persons, something they all require in order to carry on in a dignified manner when in one another’s company.
There are many ways human beings can be guilty of mistreating animals. Perhaps even the law should make some provisions to ensure that wanton torture and mistreatment of animals are minimized. But this is not because animals have rights, which they cannot have given their nature as instinctually driven beasts instead of moral agents. Talking, therefore, about animal rights is a confusion and misguides our thinking about our proper relationship with the rest of the animal world.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/machan6.html |
| QUOTE | Every Bug Is Sacred, Every Bug Is Great. If a Bug Is Wasted, Heaven Gets Irate.
Let’s say you want to reverse the American industrial revolution, restoring America’s technology and economy to something much closer to the way they functioned before the Civil War.
In fact, let’s say you’re such a radical Luddite that you oppose even the “green” technologies of wind turbines and solar energy farms, since they have to be put where the wind and the sunlight are – not where the energy users are – thus requiring massive transmission lines, which don’t fit into your plans for restoring the country to the way it looked in 1850.
What would you do?
With the public increasingly up in arms about the costs of gasoline and heating oil and electricity – not to mention the political ramifications of our growing dependence on foreign oil – you certainly couldn’t expect to state those goals in a straightforward manner and win majority support at the polls. Not even with the far-left press ridiculing your opponents, calling them the “tools of the greedy oil companies,” whatever.
No, you’d have to come up with a way to accomplish those goals through subterfuge and misdirection, pretending to be interested in … protecting cute and cuddly little animals. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
There used to be a lot more sage grouse in Nevada and our neighboring states to the north and east, 70 years ago. (But not necessarily 170 years ago, interestingly enough.)
Then, in the 1960s, those who seek to drive sheep and cattle ranchers off the land got busy, eliminating both ranchers and state predator-control hunters. Populations of coyote, wildcats, crows and ravens skyrocketed. Those animals are predators of the sage grouse – particularly their young and their eggs. Surprise: Sage grouse numbers declined.
In 2005, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service declined to recommend the sage grouse for listing as “threatened or endangered,” given that there are still close to 100,000 of them, widely scattered out there. But the Idaho-based radical group known as the Western Watersheds Project sued, arguing that decision was politically motivated.
They’re making good headway with U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill in Boise, Idaho, who has ordered the Fish and Wildlife Service to review its decision.
Should the green extremists succeed, public land administrators as well as private developers would have to seek permission from federal biologists, guaranteeing “enough grouse remain and habitat is protected” before they could do … well, anything.
There’s “no question” listing the sage grouse would restrict the construction of solar, biomass and geothermal power facilities, “or maybe eliminate them altogether” in the grouse’s habitat, which includes most of northern Nevada and a lot of southern Idaho and Oregon, says Charles Benjamin, director of the Nevada office of Western Resource Advocates and president of Nevadans for Clean, Affordable, Reliable Energy – a less extreme outfit.
That would also “affect wind turbines or transmission lines that are bringing energy from a more distant project,” Mr. Benjamin says, since some of the best locations for wind turbines and transmission lines overlap the sagebrush habitat on which the grouse depend.
That doesn’t bother Katie Fite, biodiversity director for the Western Watersheds Project, who (hang onto your seats) favors small renewable energy projects next door to power users over big centralized facilities and the transmission lines they require.
Ms. Fite doesn’t think much of oil and gas, either, complaining oil and gas exploration in Wyoming, Utah, Colorado and Montana has “ripped apart habitat that was intact a decade ago. … If we don’t have run-amok oil and gas development, we have wind farms built in sage grouse habitat,” she says. “What’s going on right now is a scramble to get approval for projects and right-of-ways before sage grouse do get listed because these power lines are not compatible with the sage grouse.”
DARN those greedy capitalists, trying to make sure our lights and air conditioners and refrigerators will still work when we flip the switch in 2010, despite the green assault from the OTHER direction, urging the replacement of clean, proven, affordable fossil and nuclear technologies with the very technologies whose power Ms. Fite and company now want to make sure we can’t use … wind, solar, and geothermal.
And it’s all so unnecessary, when we could clearly get all the energy we need to run our modern technological society, including a healthy flow of happy tourists into Nevada via highway and affordable air travel by simply … what?
What options WOULD the green extreme now leave us? Burning buffalo chips, perhaps. Surely the buffalo-chip-powered airliner is right around the corner.
Or would that endanger the soon-to-be-listed buffalo-chip-loving maggot?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/suprynowicz94.html |
| QUOTE | Myth #5: Meat-eating causes osteoporosis, kidney disease, heart disease, and cancer.
Oftentimes, vegans and vegetarians will try to scare people into avoiding animal foods and fats by claiming that vegetarian diets offer protection from certain chronic diseases like the ones listed above. Such claims, however, are hard to reconcile with historical and anthropological facts. All of the diseases mentioned are primarily 20th century occurrences, yet people have been eating meat and animal fat for many thousands of years. Further, as Dr. Price's research showed, there were/are several native peoples around the world (the Innuit, Maasai, Swiss, etc.) whose traditional diets were/are very rich in animal products, but who nevertheless did/do not suffer from the above-mentioned maladies (30). Dr. George Mann's independent studies of the Maasai done many years after Dr. Price, confirmed the fact that the Maasai, despite being almost exclusive meat eaters, nevertheless, had little to no incidence of heart disease, or other chronic ailments (31). This proves that other factors besides animal foods are at work in causing these diseases.
Several studies have supposedly shown that meat consumption is the cause of various illnesses, but such studies, honestly evaluated, show no such thing as the following discussion will show.
Osteoporosis
Dr. Herta Spencer's research on protein intake and bone loss clearly showed that protein consumption in the form of real meat has no impact on bone density. Studies that supposedly proved that excessive protein consumption equaled more bone loss were not done with real meat but with fractionated protein powders and isolated amino acids (32). Recent studies have also shown that increased animal protein intake contributes to stronger bone density in men and women (33). Some recent studies on vegan and vegetarian diets, however, have shown them to predispose women to osteoporosis (34).
Kidney Disease
Although protein-restricted diets are helpful for people with kidney disease, there is no proof that eating meat causes it (35). Vegetarians will also typically claim that animal protein causes overly acidic conditions in the blood, resulting in calcium leaching from the bones and, hence, a greater tendency to form kidney stones. This opinion is false, however. Theoretically, the sulphur and phosphorous in meat can form an acid when placed in water, but that does not mean that is what happens in the body. Actually, meat contains complete proteins and vitamin D (if the skin and fat are eaten), both of which help maintain pH balance in the bloodstream. Furthermore, if one eats a diet that includes enough magnesium and vitamin B6, and restricts refined sugars, one has little to fear from kidney stones, whether one eats meat or not (36). Animal foods like beef, pork, fish, and lamb are good sources of magnesium and B6 as any food/nutrient table will show.
Heart Disease
The belief that animal protein contributes to heart disease is a popular one that has no foundation in nutritional science. Outside of questionable studies, there is little data to support the idea that meat-eating leads to heart disease. For example, the French have one of the highest per capita consumption of meat, yet have low rates of heart disease. In Greece, meat consumption is higher than average but rates of heart disease are low there as well. Finally, in Spain, an increase in meat eating (in conjunction with a reduction in sugar and high carbohydrate intake) led to a decrease in heart disease (37).
Cancer
The belief that meat, in particular red meat, contributes to cancer is, like heart disease, a popular idea that is not supported by the facts. Although it is true that some studies have shown a connection between meat eating and some types of cancer (38), its important to look at the studies carefully to determine what kind of meat is being discussed, as well as the preparation methods used. Since we only have one word for "meat" in English, it is often difficult to know which "meat" is under discussion in a study unless the authors of the study specifically say so.
The study which began the meat=cancer theory was done by Dr. Ernst Wynder in the 1970s. Wynder claimed that there was a direct, causal connection between animal fat intake and incidence of colon cancer (39). Actually, his data on "animal fats" were really on vegetable fats (40). In other words, the meat=cancer theory is based on a phony study.
If one looks closely at the research, however, one quickly sees that it is processed meats like cold cuts and sausages that are usually implicated in cancer causation (41) and not meat per se. Furthermore, cooking methods seem to play a part in whether or not a meat becomes carcinogenic (42). In other words, it is the added chemicals to the meat and the chosen cooking method that are at fault and not the meat itself.
In the end, although sometimes a connection between meat and cancer is found, the actual mechanism of how it happens has eluded scientists (43). This means that it is likely that other factors besides meat are playing roles in some cases of cancer. Remember: studies of meat-eating traditional peoples show that they have very little incidence of cancer. This demonstrates that other factors are at work when cancer appears in a modern meat-eating person. It is not scientifically fair to single out one dietary factor in placing blame, while ignoring other more likely candidates.
It should be noted here that Seventh Day Adventists are often studied in population analyses to prove that a vegetarian diet is healthier and is associated with a lower risk for cancer (but see a later paragraph in this section). While it is true that most members of this Christian denomination do not eat meat, they also do not smoke or drink alcohol, coffee or tea, all of which are likely factors in promoting cancer (44).
The Mormons are a religious group often overlooked in vegetarian studies. Although their Church urges moderation, Mormons do not abstain from meat. As with the Adventists, Mormons also avoid tobacco, alcohol, and caffeine. Despite being meat eaters, a study of Utah Mormons showed they had a 22% lower rate for cancer in general and a 34% lower mortality for colon cancer than the US average (45). A study of Puerto Ricans, who eat large amounts of fatty pork, nevertheless revealed very low rates of colon and breast cancer (46). Similar results can be adduced to demonstrate that meat and animal fat consumption do not correlate with cancer (47). Obviously, other factors are at work.
It is usually claimed that vegetarians have lower cancer rates than meat-eaters, but a 1994 study of vegetarian California Seventh Day Adventists showed that, while they did have lower rates for some cancers (e.g., breast and lung), they had higher rates for several others (Hodgkin's disease, malignant melanoma, brain, skin, uterine, prostate, endometrial, cervical and ovarian), some quite significantly. In that study the authors actually admitted that:
Meat consumption, however, was not associated with a higher [cancer] risk.
And that,
No significant association between breast cancer and a high consumption of animal fats or animal products in general was noted. (48)
Further, it is usually claimed that a diet rich in plant foods like whole grains and legumes will reduce one's risks for cancer, but research going back to the last century demonstrates that carbohydrate-based diets are the prime dietary instigators of cancer, not diets based on minimally processed animal foods (49).
The mainstream health and vegetarian media have done such an effective job of "beef bashing," that most people think there is nothing healthful about meat, especially red meat. In reality, however, animal flesh foods like beef and lamb are excellent sources of a variety of nutrients as any food/nutrient table will show. Nutrients like vitamins A, D, several of the B-complex, essential fatty acids (in small amounts), magnesium, zinc, phosphorous, potassium, iron, taurine, and selenium are abundant in beef, lamb, pork, fish and shellfish, and poultry. Nutritional factors like coenzyme Q10, carnitine, and alpha-lipoic acid are also present. Some of these nutrients are only found in animal foods--plants do not supply them.
http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mt...arianism.html#5 |
| QUOTE | Myth #7: Vegetarians live longer and have more energy and endurance than meat-eaters.
A vegetarian guidebook published in Great Britain made the following claim:
You and your children don't need to eat meat to stay healthy. In fact, vegetarians claim they are among the healthiest people around, and they can expect to live nine years longer than meat eaters (this is often because heart and circulatory diseases are rarer). These days almost half the population in Britain is trying to avoid meat, according to a survey by the Food Research Association in January 1990. (77)
In commenting on this claim of extended lifespan, author Craig Fitzroy astutely points out that:
The ' nine-year advantage ' is an oft-repeated but invariably unsourced piece of anecdotal evidence for vegetarianism. But anyone who believes that by snubbing mum's Sunday roast they will be adding a decade to their years on the planet is almost certainly indulging in a bit of wishful thinking. (78)
And that is what most of the claims for increased longevity in vegetarians are: anecdotal. There is no proof that a healthy vegetarian diet when compared to a healthy omnivorous diet will result in a longer life. Additionally, people who choose a vegetarian lifestyle typically also choose not to smoke, to exercise, in short, to live a healthier lifestyle. These things also factor into one's longevity.
In the scientific literature, there are surprisingly few studies done on vegetarian longevity. Russell Smith, PhD, in his massive review study on heart disease, showed that as animal product consumption increased among some study groups, death rates actually decreased! (79) Such results were not obtained among vegetarian subjects. For example, in a study published by Burr and Sweetnam in 1982, analysis of mortality data revealed that, although vegetarians had a slightly (.11%) lower rate of heart disease than non-vegetarians, the all-cause death rate was much higher for vegetarians (80).
Despite claims that studies have shown that meat consumption increased the risk for heart disease and shortened lives, the authors of those studies actually found the opposite. For example, in a 1984 analysis of a 1978 study of vegetarian Seventh Day Adventists, HA Kahn concluded,
Although our results add some substantial facts to the diet-disease question, we recognize how remote they are from establishing, for example, that men who frequently eat meat or women who rarely eat salad are thereby shortening their lives. (81)
A similar conclusion was reached by D.A. Snowden (82). Despite these startling admissions, the studies nevertheless concluded the exact opposite and urged people to reduce animal foods from their diets.
Further, both of these studies threw out certain dietary data that clearly showed no connection between eggs, cheese, whole milk, and fat attached to meat (all high fat and cholesterol foods) and heart disease. Dr. Smith commented,
In effect the Kahn [and Snowden] study is yet another example of negative results which are massaged and misinterpreted to support the politically correct assertions that vegetarians live longer lives. (83)
It is usually claimed that meat-eating peoples have a short life span, but the Aborigines of Australia, who traditionally eat a diet rich in animal products, are known for their longevity (at least before colonization by Europeans). Within Aboriginal society, there is a special caste of the elderly (84). Obviously, if no old people existed, no such group would have existed. In his book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Dr. Price has numerous photographs of elderly native peoples from around the world. Explorers such as Vilhjalmur Stefansson reported great longevity among the Innuit (again, before colonization). [85]
Similarly, the Russians of the Caucasus mountains live to great ages on a diet of fatty pork and whole raw milk products. The Hunzas, also known for their robust health and longevity, eat substantial portions of goat's milk which has a higher saturated fat content than cow's milk (86). In contrast, the largely vegetarian Hindus of southern India have the shortest life-spans in the world, partly because of a lack of food, but also because of a distinct lack of animal protein in their diets (87). H. Leon Abrams' comments are instructive here:
Vegetarians often maintain that a diet of meat and animal fat leads to a pre-mature death. Anthropological data from primitive societies do not support such contentions. (88)
With regards to endurance and energy levels, Dr Price traveled around the world in the 1920s and 1930s, investigating native diets. Without exception, he found a strong correlation between diets rich in animal fats, robust health and athletic ability. Special foods for Swiss athletes, for example, included bowls of fresh, raw cream. In Africa, Dr Price discovered that groups whose diets were rich in fatty meats and fish, and organ meats like liver, consistently carried off the prizes in athletic contests, and that meat-eating tribes always dominated tribes whose diets were largely vegetarian. (89)
It is popular in sports nutrition to recommend "carb loading" for athletes to increase their endurance levels. But recent studies done in New York and South Africa show that the opposite is true: athletes who "carb loaded" had significantly less endurance than those who "fat loaded" before athletic events (90).
http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mt...arianism.html#7 |
| QUOTE | Myth #11: The human body is not designed for meat consumption.
Some vegetarian groups claim that since humans possess grinding teeth like herbivorous animals and longer intestines than carnivorous animals, this proves the human body is better suited for vegetarianism (122). This argument fails to note several human physiological features which clearly indicate a design for animal product consumption.
First and foremost is our stomach's production of hydrochloric acid, something not found in herbivores. HCL activates protein-splitting enzymes. Further, the human pancreas manufactures a full range of digestive enzymes to handle a wide variety of foods, both animal and vegetable. Further, Dr. Walter Voegtlin's in-depth comparison of the human digestive system with that of the dog, a carnivore, and a sheep, a herbivore, clearly shows that we are closer in anatomy to the carnivorous dog than the herbivorous sheep. (123)
While humans may have longer intestines than animal carnivores, they are not as long as herbivores; nor do we possess multiple stomachs like many herbivores, nor do we chew cud. Our physiology definitely indicates a mixed feeder, or an omnivore, much the same as our relatives, the mountain gorilla and chimpanzee who all have been observed eating small animals and, in some cases, other primates (124).
http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mt...rianism.html#11 |
--------------------
“It is awfully hard work doing nothing. However, I don't mind hard work where there is no definite object of any kind.”
|
quotes, sites, info ffr
Help
Search
Members
Calendar
