Psycho-Babble Social | for general support | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: Animal Rights » alexandra_k

Posted by Larry Hoover on March 2, 2005, at 22:29:49

In reply to Re: Animal Rights » Larry Hoover, posted by alexandra_k on March 2, 2005, at 20:19:10

> > > > It would seem that one of the predicate assumptions for the conclusion that eating animal flesh is unethical is that adequate nutrition is available from a vegetarian or vegan diet.
>
> > > It is but one consideration.
>
> > It seems to be a core assumption.
>
> Suppose adequate nutrition was not available without us eating human flesh. Does that mean that breeding humans to eat is ethical?

I hope you've noticed I've tried to steer clear of the ethical issues. I deal with local farmers, and I am on a first name basis with my butcher (who does his own killing). I take responsibility for my meat intake, and I am happy to provide others with raw materials for leather goods, shampoos, and soap.

> If it is impossible for both vegetarians / vegans and meat eaters to eat a healthy diet and it is possible for both groups to eat a healthy diet with the addition of suppliments then it follows that there is no requirement or necessity for us to eat meat. That is all I need.

I'm still not convinced of the healthiness of vegetarian diets, even with supplements. I've seen too many "walking ghosts"... errrr....committed vegetarian skeletons, often skulking about in the shadows of health food emporiums.

> > > If we do not need to eat them to survive then I would say that that pretty much fairly conclusively settles that their interests far outweigh our desire to eat them (which would be a 'trivial' interest relative to theirs).
>
> > As you say, that is the pivotal "if".
>
> But it is a fact that we do not need to eat animal products to survive. Witness the vegans / vegetarians who are alive..

...in a manner of speaking.

> > > > Some people may do quite well on what is statistically an inadequate diet, as it is adequate for their own specific needs.
>
> > > Once again, that makes a mockery of the stats.
>
> > No, not at all. It requires that the reader understands the nature and limitations of stats.
>
> It shows that what the stats say we 'need' is not what we actually do need.

It illustrates the variability within a population. What suits one, or a group, does not suit all. Just as you cannot apply statistics to an individual, you cannot generate statistics from an individual. Some people may get along nicely on a vegetarian diet. I truly believe I would not. The low outliers are not representative of the group, just as the high outliers are not. That's where the standard deviations come into play. Someone two standard deviations below the statistical mean intake to avoid deficiencey symptoms would be very much below the upper outlier group. Perhaps one tenth the intake, but adequate for them. Someone with that genetic luck might well declare that their statistically inadequate diet was adequate for all others, as *it works for them*. I believe there is a lot of that sort of inappropriate generalization, a true logical fallacy, in nutritional science. Some *can* do it. *All* cannot.

> > In all America, I should think there are more than a handful of intelligent vegetarians, but only those using supps get enough iron and zinc.
>
> I don't think the FDA 'requirements' you site are an adequate measure of what 'enough' is.

I've studied their methodology at some depth, and it really is both rigorous and conservative. That would be the National Institutes of Health, a member of the Academy of Sciences, rather than the FDA.

What is astounding, IMHO, is not the setting of the RDAs. It is what we commonly accept as normal and healthy. One if five with active mental illness. One in five with a bowel disorder. One in five with circulatory disease. One in five with blood sugar dysregulation. And so on. I'm starting to wonder just who the "normal healthy" individuals upon whom the RDAs were based actually are.

> > I was hoping that you, personally, would conclude that a vegan/vegetarian diet ought to include supplements.
>
> I don't know. Maybe we all would be better off with suppliments. Maybe not. Until the comparisons are made between people on similar diets who get 1) no suppliments 2) placebo suppliments and 3) real suppliments I guess we won't know.

You shan't be taking my advice, then?

> I am not sure about how well we are able to absorb suppliments...

Yellow pee is proof enough.

> And I am still not at all convinced that those RDA stats are an accurate measure of what we 'need' in order to be healthy.

In truth, the correlations between intake and blood parameters are anything but robust, but they're the best estimates yet. Increasing incidence rates of supposedly vanquished nutritional disorders (e.g. frank scurvy and rickets, as examples) in first world countries, with fortified food supplies, speak for themselves.

When I was on the land, I grew great quantities and varieties of organic veggies. I do miss the dirt under my nails, and the fruit of the land. I had over thirty kinds of apples. Plums. Grapes. Kiwis. 12 kinds of raspberries. Lots of stuff. But I've always been drawn to sliced corpse as a central part of my diet. And I've yet to have the urge to change that.

Lar

P.S. I should go to bed before I say anything more.

 

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Social | Framed

poster:Larry Hoover thread:461535
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050224/msgs/465774.html