J.S.

Question: Do you think scientific advances in biology suggest that we should rethink our relationships with the non-human world? I ask you, Eleanor Clift!!!

Eleanor: Well, you know our relationship with nature needs to change, but it has nothing to do with...

Mclaughlin: Wrong! You didn't fit it into a sound bite. We turn to Fred Barnes!!!!

I agree with JMG. Science can be helpful, but not all things are wrapped up in it. (Sorry, Auguste Compte.)

It's important to keep "science," the social practice, distinct from scientific conclusions -- i.e., factual statements about reality. Our dynamic acronymed duo, JMG and JJWFMME, have made it clear that they're leery of the excess deference shown to science and scientists by some folks. A valid cautionary note.

However, what's at issue here is not science, really. It's reality. Human beings just are biological creatures, evolved from past creatures, in the process of evolving into other creatures, with capacities and abilities that lie on a continuum with other members of the animal kingdom. All evidence indicates that our sense of self, our perception and cognition, are rooted in the biochemical structure of our nervous systems (in the context of a physical environment), and that they can be altered via biochemical changes.

Of course it's still possible to cling to the notion of an immortal, immutable "soul," but everything we know about human beings makes that story sound increasingly strained and implausible.

Someone is likely to raise the famous is/ought distinction here, but I think that distinction is woefully misguided. All ethical theories arise from some factual premises about the nature of reality and humankind, even if they are only implicit.

Knowing what we know today about the place of homo sapiens in the context of life and evolution on earth, how would be begin constructing a set of moral precepts if we were starting over from scratch?

I would suggest that Jason is right -- we would rethink our relationship to other species. But we would also, if we were serious about it, rethink how we treat each other, how we structure our industry and communities, and how we view our obligations to future generations. Contra the comments above, I think an accurate biological picture of humanity cannot help but have enormous consequences for ethics.

No. It all depends on your image of God. Perhaps God is an evolving, changing, adapting being... or God is the universe itself. Like God, we would be evolving, changing, and adapting as time moves forward.

Furthermore, acceptance of biological evolution does not rule out God as the ultimate cause. The faith-based community will always be able to argue that God ignited the Big Bang.

"...if they are all made in God's image somehow, then presumably so are all the other species, and there's nothing special about us at all."

Depends. Is an image always perfect? If each object made in God's image is 100% identical to God, then we are all God. And... I guess none of us are special. That makes my head hurt.

Perhaps each living been is only a reflection of God. All are complex, creative, each a hierarchy  of order, but not all the same. Each species, however similar to others, still has unique character. All are the image of God.

"Do they have a connection to the Creator? ... Perhaps they have a fuzzier one -- perhaps higher animals, at any rate, see through a glass as we do, but more darkly. In any case, that only makes us special in the way that an elephant is special by virtue of having that long trunk..."

Perhaps animals have a closer connection to the Creator. We are the ones who see through the glass more darkly. Our confidence and intelligence have morphed into hubris and arrogance. We believe we know what is best for the world, even more so than God might have been aware of. And this leads us to question God's wisdom... it leads us to discard bits and pieces of creation.. until one day we will wonder why God has forsaken us. The problem will be that we have rejected all the support put in place for us.

I think that the study of biology can only bring us closer to the Creator, whoever or whatever we might be. It will show that we are special only in our ability to become creators ourselves. And  that we must use the power cautiously... because we are still only reflections, not 100% perfect images of God.

I think that the study of biology can only bring us closer to the Creator, whoever or whatever IT might be. Biology will show that we are special only in our ability to become creators ourselves. And  that we must use the power cautiously... because we are still only reflections, not 100% perfect images of God.

J.S.

It all depends on your image of God. Perhaps God is an evolving, changing, adapting being... or God is the universe itself.

If God is "the universe itself" ... so what? You've just renamed the universe. I can't see how that explains or illuminates anything, or gives us any moral guidance.

If God is an "evolving, shifting, adapting being," well, He's sure not what Christians -- or any monotheists I know of -- worship. That God is, by definition, omniscient and omnipotent. A God that is changing and evolving is just a really large, powerful being, and I'm not sure why we would worship or take moral guidance from such a being -- particularly one so adept at concealing his existence from all the instruments we possess.

Perhaps biology does not work against faith in the two concepts of God you mention, but that's not really what the post was about.

As far as your suggestion that the Christian God does not change or evolve, I suggest comparing the basic messages of the Old and New Testaments. The Christian God clearly changes His views on matters. I agree... this makes Him very difficult to worship. And it shows, oddly enough, just how much in HIs image we are and how unlike other elements of creation.

Regarding the poll itself...

"Do scientific advances in biology suggest that we should rethink our relationships with the non-human world?"

I would answer YES. Because advance show just how dependent we are on the non-human world. We are not apart from nature. We are nature. And our efforts to shape it, are as natural as a termite mound, a beaver creating an enormous wetland where once there was forest, or a virus bringing down an entire species. We are only different in that  we do it on a MUCH larger scale, can actually destroy ourselves, and that there appear to be no natural checks on our ability to destroy ourselves.

I fail to see the connection between the material presented in the gray box and the poll question.

Just my 2 cents. Please take in the spirit of discussion and not hostility.

But I agree with WiscIdea that he does not come close to appreciating the richness of thought, displayed by commentators in many Christian traditions over two millennia, in explaining Genesis 1:26-27: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: ... So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."  What Derbyshire addresses, critically and incredulously, is a straw man really, something that only exists in the most stilted reading of a mindlessly strict fundamentalist.  And I strongly dislike the suggestion -- which is perhaps not what he really intends, though -- that religious intellectuals are mischievously adroit in presenting fictions and fantasies in a deviously specious guise.

I agree with you, Jason, and with Derbyshire on the great value of ever-advancing biological knowledge for improving our appreciation of our kinship with all living things.  But I do not think that such knowledge necessarily and logically works to overthrow us human beings from our unique place in the universe, which many religious thinkers explain to be intended by God.  (I myself would not put it quite like that.)  That place need not be interpreted as one of supremacy, the pinnacle of Creation.  In fact I very much like WiscIdea's suggestion that non-human animals may see God more clearly than we do.

Moreover, both you and Derbyshire seem still to accept a kind of human exceptionalism, when you insist that human beings are naturally characterized as moral agents.  Derbyshire has a great deal to say about human nature and the sorts of things it contains, doesn't he.

On another note, I strongly disagree with these words by David Roberts:
<<
Of course it's still possible to cling to the notion of an immortal, immutable "soul," but everything we know about human beings makes that story sound increasingly strained and implausible.
>>

Whether immutability is understood to be a characteristic of the soul in classic Christian thought on the subject, or in other religious traditions too for that matter, I rather doubt, so let us not get hung up on that word.  As for the rest, though, why should advances in psychological and biological knowledge bring increasing strain and implausibility to the doctrine of the soul, as correctly understood?  That only makes sense, if -- another straw man! -- we are dealing with a primitive theology and religious anthropology that wrong-headedly have proto-scientific explanations of natural phenomena as part of their function.  The Wikipedia article on New Mysterians to which Derbyshire refers us offers a much more interesting approach to this subject.

If you think the march of modern biology has left some conception of human exceptionalism intact, perhaps you could tell us in plain language what the basis for that exceptionalism is.

Oh, and Wiscidea:

Please take in the spirit of discussion and not hostility.

I agree that knowledge of the human relationship to nature helps, scientific knowledge or otherwise. I also agree that people would be much, much better off losing their "magical" sense of being different from nature--which no doubt is a problem for fundamentalists, but is also a problem for lots of other groups (libertarians who are die-hard believers in eternal, perpetual Progress, for instance).

I think this was what I had a problem with:

Intellectuals can cook up an argument for anything, and religious intellectuals, who cut their teeth on justifying some wildly improbable stuff, are especially ingenious -- but the cumulative effect of dozens of factlets like this is devastating to the notion that human beings are a special creation.

True to form for the National Review, a sneer is passed off as adequately dealing with something the writer has simply glossed over. Which intellectuals is he talking about? In some cases he would be justified. In others, I suspect he'd be out of his depth (a place where the National Review goes regularly without trepidation).

Not all religious people are fundamentalists or creationists. Not all believe that they're "magically" separate from nature. Also, while there are many scientific details involved, the fact remains that the human brain is taxonomically different from other brains in the animal kingdom. And our language and symbol-making abilities also make us taxonomically different.

Consequently, we have higher expectations for ourselves than animals. We're not simply trying to survive. We have the ability to share meaning. Do other animals have this? Maybe to some small extent. But our ability to do this is taxonomically different from animals. So our expectations for each other are likewise different (contrary to the arguments in the Bloodhound Gang's 1999 dance track, whose lyrics I will not link to).

Of course, in the modern world this shouldn't justify our raping and pillaging nature. But there are some very good, non-arbitrary reasons for humans to draw bright lines between ourselves and what we see in nature (The Bloodhoung Gang's transgressive nostalgie pour la boue aside).

Right, so why would we stop being omnivores, Jason?

J.S.

I believe our general principles of morality are firmly rooted in nature. Let's suppose there is a community and that there are a few individuals going about raping women, stealing food, murdering people, disrespecting the elders, lying about all of this to cover it up, et cetera. Just how long do you think the rest of the community will tolerate this behavior? What would you and your friends do to that person? I suspect the miscreant's behavior will not be an evolutionary advantage. Sure, he might have a few more children in the short run. But the rest of the community's genes will probably be more successful.

Now... you might say, what if everyone behaves that way. Then there is an advantage for the strongest miscreant. Nope. That community will rapidly self-destruct and lose the evolutionary advantage of everyone working together for survival.

I cannot provide any scientific basis for this view. I'm just saying... it doesn't look like the aggressive person is going to win in the end. And that is probably why various communities have moral codes very similar to... say... The Ten Commandments. It is perfectly natural.

To David:
The orthodox Christian doctrine of the soul is indeed a specialized concept which no perusal of "reality" will lead you to directly.  It illustrates certain essential aspects of Christian anthropology and ethics, e.g. human beings as beings existent in time, human beings as mortal, human beings as recipients of some special solicitude of God the Creator and Redeemer and Sanctifier, human beings as moral agents, human beings as subject to divine judgment.  Whether any of that is at all even potentially explanatory to any observer from outside the Christian tradition regarding any human-related phenomena, I could not say.  Christian apologists, though, would insist that Christian anthropology, properly understood, is no less valid and credible than any other.

Generally, human beings seem always to have been impressed by their composite nature, at no time better observed than immediately after a death.  A moment ago, that person, whose body we can still see and touch, was alive, looking at us out of living eyes, hearing our words, speaking to us.  Now, just a moment later, here is the same body, but that person is utterly different.  Something is no longer present.  Something has withdrawn and departed.  This phenomenon is not analogous to the extinction of a fire, because the life force that was present before did not physically consume the body the way a fire consumes its fuel; quite the contrary, it kept the body healthy and whole, a body which now, in its absence, will decay.

This observation is a commonplace in many cultures, probably most, if not all.  The English word "soul" can mean a lot of different things, but one basic sense refers to that "something" which is present in a living being, and absent when it has died.  The Greek word that is most often translated "soul" is "psyche," which more helpfully means the life breath.

So, at what point do coherent, persistent, self-maintaining and self-replicating systems of molecules become living beings?  That is the sort of question that fascinates the Mysterians.  In the Wikipedia article on New Mysterians that John Derbyshire recommends, we read this lovely sentence by John Henry Huxley, "Darwin's Bulldog":
<<
Huxley wrote, "How it is that anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as a result of irritating nervous tissue, is just as unaccountable as the appearance of the Djinn, when Aladdin rubbed his lamp."
>>
Huxley's subject is consciousness, not life, but the idea easily passes from one to the other.

On human exceptionalism: It would be better for Jason or Derbyshire to answer your question.  After all, they are the ones who have a special regard for human beings as moral agents, and are interested in identifying the peculiar features of human nature.

Answering for myself, I think that "human exceptionalism" does not mean much more than human uniqueness.  So, one could speak of the exceptionalism of flamingos, or of lobsters, or of daffodils.

Must our sense of ethics have a metaphysical origin?  I would not want to argue that; very possibly it is an adaptation that came with our evolution as intensely social animals.  Elephants and wolves are apparently very close to us in this regard.

Does the fact that we can and do consider our own mortality have a metaphysical origin?  I would not want to argue that either.  The late Stephen Jay Gould, who for many years was looking his own death in the face, understood it to be a random, non-adaptive extra feature that came as part of the package of the evolving cerebral cortex.

But by the same token, just because phenomena may receive "natural" or materialistic explanations does not at all mean that God the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier is not present in them.

This is one of those things not to regret--you're not missing much. Although they can be fun to dance to. (If you don't know the person you're dancing with, just play dumb like you're not listening to the lyrics.)  

Anyway, one thing that's interesting about the lyrics of this song is that they reference the character La, from Edgar Rice Burroughs's Tarzan books. One of my favorite lit crits Marianna Torgovnick dedicates a whole chapter to Tarzan and La in her book Gone Primitive: Modern Intellects, Savage Lives. The chapter's called Taking Tarzan Seriously. (Jjw, as always, ready with the literary and philosophical minutia....)

   But I have to defend the religious folks for a moment here... sigh...

   The concept of "in his own image" could refer to having the ability to dream, to learn, to change or even to possessing a "soul".  So, our failure to be less than perfect doesn't disprove any particular diety.

   The main conflict between biology and right wing xtianity is the former's dependence on evolution and the latter's absolute state of denial about it.  Liberal religious folks have no problems.

   But FWIW, it is not up to unbelievers (like myself) to disprove a diety, it is up to those who advocate a proposition to prove it.

patrick

But your analysis is exactly right.

To Jason, I am not saying that raping and pillaging because dolphins do it is right for humans. But I do not understand the point of applying human morality to food species. Dolphins are not that for me, and as a matter of fact I am a big fan of their intelligence and playfulness. I am not pro-whaling or dolphining. But I am for recognition of the fact that there is no reason for why some people cannot view them as food, as it is not cannibalism (that confers a major evolutionary disadvantage since it becomes much easier to receive pathogens). I agree that en masse murders of dolphins and whales (alhough it would be hard to make the last one en masse) are not a positive thing. It is tantamount to CAFOs and an industrialized version of meat production, which I am against.

However, I do not see an inherent reason for wasting dolphin, or any other meat caught as by-catch (provided of course that it is by-catch and not sole purpose of netting). There is no specific place for animal rights activism within environmentalism, as the two are not one and the same, and the marriage of the two is at best contrived, and quite frequently harmful to alliances of groups that can get very important things done. Things like habitat and species protection, which are far more important than any one individual life.

First, he is right that we are omnivores, not vegetarians and that it is sufficient to strive to eat less meat, as opposed to no meat. My wife struggles everday to get Jane Merlot moms to stop feeding their babies fruit juice in place of milk. If these parents were to go vegan, we would see a spike of malnourshed kids with brain damage from a lack of protein because it takes prudence and knowleddge as a vegan parent to make sure one feeds enough pulses to their children to provide the protein their huge brains require to develop. The margin for error is just too great. I am aware of the tenuous balance between too much food and too little, one resulting in low IQ, another in diabetes, but we have evolved to eat an omnivorous diet.

Also, the definition of Darwinism that you alluded to earlier is simply this:

"a theory of organic evolution claiming that new species arise and are perpetuated by natural selection" and has nothing more to do with rape and violence than me sitting here writing about it, contrary to the view religionists keep trying to portray.

And finally, I also advocate that animal rights should remain a seperate issue from envrionmentalism, mostly because of the  negativite image the more extreme members have managed to place in so many people's minds, my own included. It is barely related to conservation and conservation is just one branch of envrionmentalism.

For the record, I am not vegan myself, I am mostly vegetarian, though a bit loosey-goosey at the margins.  And so, naturally (!), I sympathize with your appeal for a sense of balance.

Now, you mention the interesting subject of children and their special nutritional needs.  I suspect you are right, that children develop better with a certain minimum of animal fat and animal protein in their diet.  But it would be interesting to hear a response from an informed vegetarian or vegan.

Probably we all know parents who have tried to raise their children on low-fat diets, ill-advisedly.  (Of course, the problem of obesity in children, which no doubt many of those parents have in mind, is another matter entirely.)

Even more bizarre, a vegetarian co-worker of my husband tried to convert her cat to a vegetarian diet!  That probably counts as a form of animal abuse.

And then: Biodiv, in the course of defining Darwinism, you appended this:
<<
contrary to the view religionists keep trying to portray
>>

To be clear, you mean "SOME religionists."  Relatively few, actually.  But you are right, they have it in those pointy heads of theirs that general acceptance of the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution will result in the abandonment of all morality.

ATreyger, you wrote this:
<<
There is no specific place for animal rights activism within environmentalism, as the two are not one and the same, and the marriage of the two is at best contrived, and quite frequently harmful to alliances of groups that can get very important things done.
>>

I entirely agree.  Plus, I love the marriage imagery -- no doubt Jason is dressed up as the priest.  As much as I admire Jason for his high evaluation of animal welfare, I have never signed off on that marriage.  "If anyone knows of a reason why this man and this woman should not be joined in Holy Matrimony, let him speak now, or forever hold his peace": presumably lots from the Gristmill gang would be crying out, myself among them.

You go on, however, less happily:
<<
Things like habitat and species protection, which are far more important than any one individual life.
>>

First, let us not be hasty to judge what is more important and what is less important.

Secondly, as much as I do not wish to require environmentalists to jump through animal-rights-ist hoops, it is reasonable and necessary to recognize that for many of us, our commitment to the preservation of biodiversity is founded in our concern and affection for individual animals.

The essential meaning of being made in God's image is that God is spiritual and so are we.  It means that we are not these material bodies.  It's not about having the same physical features.

Spiritually, "finished" is a meaningless word in the context of eternity.

(Unfortunately I don't have time now to read more of this essay, but tomorrow maybe...)

If you choose to eat whatever you do that's fine but we are in the 21st century and I am surprised that people still cling to the myth that vegetarianism/veganism is unhealthy- this is like saying the Earth is flat. Don't believe the hype! Educate yourself!

J.S.

Another B12 study was conducted in rural Africa, partially backed by the U.S. based National Cattlemen's Beef Association, which demonstrated a dramatic improvement in the health of individuals who had, prior to the study, been on diets completely lacking in animal products. The study concluded that the added nutrients, especially vitamin B12 contained in the meat and milk improved the health of the children in the study (Michelle Roberts. "Children 'harmed' by vegan diets). The author of the study, Professor Lindsay Allen of the United States Agricultural Research Service, declared: "There's absolutely no question that it's unethical for parents to bring up their children as strict vegans, unless those who practiced them were well-informed about how to add back the missing nutrients through supplements or fortified foods." (Danielsen, Christian. "UCD professor's comments on vegan diet hotly debated", California Aggie, 2005-03-02., Former Beatle Paul McCartney Calls GL-CRSP Nutrition Study 'Rubbish' (PDF). Ruminations Newsletter (Spring 2005). Retrieved on 2006-10-31. ) However, the British Dietetic Association contended that the findings of the study were not applicable to vegan children in the developed world. They note that B12, reliably found only in animal products, is now included in many fortified foods generally available. Noting that the impoverished children in the study had diets deficient in zinc, B12 and iron, they concluded, "There is no evidence that our vegan and vegetarian children in this country suffer impaired development". They did note, however, that young children, pregnant and nursing women are vulnerable as vegans, urging parents to review their children's diets to be sure that they have a well-balanced diet (Left, Sarah (2005-02-21). Raising children as vegans 'unethical', says professor. Guardian Unlimited. Guardian Newspapers Limited. Retrieved on 2006-10-31).

For what it's worth, that was from wikipedia (with their resources included). There is also something called Hypospadias which sounds like it sucks, and a vegetarian diet has been implicated as the cause. I'll let ya'll look it up.

These are some abstracts from the Web of Science:

Iron is an essential nutrient, playing a central role in oxygen transport and cellular energy metabolism. The importance of ensuring adequate bioavailable dietary iron stems from the severe consequences associated with iron deficiency (ID) and anemia, including reduced immune function and resistance to infection, developmental delays and irreversible cognitive deficits in young children, impaired physical work performance, and adverse pregnancy outcomes.
Specific populations: Poor dietary iron intake and ID exist in Canada, particularly in women of reproductive age. Data from the provincial nutrition surveys suggest that the prevalence of inadequate iron intakes (and low intakes of absorbable iron) among women under 50 years of age is over 10%, which may reflect poor iron status. Teenage girls are at risk for low iron stores because of the adolescent growth spurt and the onset of menstruation; those who are vegetarian are at even greater risk.

Cooper MJ, Cockell KA, L'Abbe MR
The iron status of Canadian adolescents and adults: Current knowledge and practical implications
CANADIAN JOURNAL OF DIETETIC PRACTICE AND RESEARCH 67 (3): 130-138 FAL 2006

The study aimed to evaluate the dietary vitamin B-6 intake and determine the vitamin B-6 concentration in blood samples of German vegans.
Design and setting Cross-sectional study with 33 examination sites all over Germany.

Subjects Ninety-three vegans (50 females) with a mean (+- standard deviation (SD)) age of 43.7 +- 15.7 years who took no vitamin supplements.

Methods Dietary intake was assed using a semi-quantitative food-frequency questionnaire. Erythrocyte aspartate aminotransferase activity coefficient (EAST-AC) was calculated as the ratio of stimulated (pyridoxal 5 '-phosphate added) to unstimulated activity in blood samples that were provided after an overnight fast.

Results Mean +- SD vitamin B-6 intake was 2.83 +- 0.98 mg day(-1) and mean +- SD protein intake was 56.6 +- 21.7 g day(-1). Of the participants 4% showed vitamin B-6 intakes lower than daily recommended intakes for Germany, 16% showed EAST-AC > 1.85, and a further 58% showed EAST-AC of 1.5-1-85. Moderate vegans were affected to a lesser extent than strict vegans. None of the established confounders was a significant predictor of EAST-AC. In logistic regression analyses the contribution of nutriments and cereals to pyridoxine intake was the only predictor of EAST-AC classified as l1.85 and > 1.85, respectively.

Conclusions In spite of the high total intake of vitamin B-6, an adequate concentration in blood samples could not be realised for a majority of the participants. Due to the health implications of a marginal pyridoxine status, vegans should be encouraged to include foods with a high bioavailability of pyridoxine, such as beans, lentils and bananas, in the daily diet.

Waldmann A, Dorr B, Koschizke JW, et al.
Dietary intake of vitamin B-6 and concentration of vitamin B-6 in blood samples of German vegans
PUBLIC HEALTH NUTRITION 9 (6): 779-784 SEP 2006

OBJECTIVE - We sought to investigate whether a low-fat vegan diet improves glycemic control and cardiovascular risk factors in individuals with type 2 diabetes,
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - Individuals with type 2 diabetes (n = 99) were randomly assigned to a low-fat vegan diet (n = 49) or a diet following the American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines (n = 50). Participants were evaluated at baseline and 22 weeks.

RESULTS - Forty-three percent (21 of 49) of the vegan group and 26% (13 of 50) of the ADA group participants reduced diabetes medications. Including all participants, HbA(1c), (A1C) decreased 0.96 percentage points in the vegan group and 0.56 points in the ADA group (P = 0.089). Excluding those who changed medications, A1C fell 1.23 points in the vegan group compared with 0.38 points in the ADA group (P = 0.01). Body weight decreased 6.5 kg in the vegan group and 3.1 kg in the ADA group (P < 0.001). Body weight change correlated with A1C change (r = 0.51, n = 57, P < 0.0001). Among those who did not change lipid-lowering medications, LDL cholesterol fell 21.2% in the vegan group and 10.7% in the ADA group (P = 0.02). After adjustment for baseline values, urinary albumin reductions were greater in the vegan group (15.9 mg/24h) than in the ADA group (10.9 mg/24 h) (P = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS - Both a low-fat vegan diet and a diet based on ADA guidelines improved glycemic and lipid control in type 2 diabetic patients. These improvements were greater with a low-fat vegan diet.

Barnard ND, Cohen J, Jenkins DJA, et al.
A low-fat vegan diet improves glycemic control and cardiovascular risk factors in a randomized clinical trial in individuals with type 2 diabetes
DIABETES CARE 29 (8): 1777-1783 AUG 2006

Optimal athletic performance requires optimal nutrition. It has been a concern for some coaches and professionals that vegetarian athletes may not receive the proper nutrition required for optimal performance. However, if these athletes are educated on proper nutrition, their energy, carbohydrate, protein and fat needs can easily be met. Vegetarians must also make sure they ingest adequate amounts of nutrients that are found less abundantly in vegetarian foods or are less well absorbed from vegetarian compared to omnivorous diet. These nutrients include: calcium, iron, zinc, iodine, vitamin D, vitamin B-12, and riboflavin. Those working with vegetarian athletes should understand the athletes' reasons for being vegetarian and properly educate them on nutrient sources that fit their personal beliefs and values.

Aarsby HM, Larson-Meyer DE
Vegetarian athletic diet for exercise, athletic training and performing
AGRO FOOD INDUSTRY HI-TECH 17 (2): XX-XXIII MAR-APR 2006

I believe that should do it for the wealth of info out there. I tried to be very unbiased with the choice of recent scientific publications to show the cross-section of recent research. I did use the wikipedia article to show that there are potential dangers. Clearly it is not impossible to have a diet that is healthy when one is vegan, but it is harder, and supplements have to be used. This is a by-product of our technological society, and that is all I was saying in my earlier post.

There was an article in Discover magazine, perhaps last year or the year before, describing an elderly fellow who started showing signs of dementia at about 70 years. However, the tests ruled out most recognized causes of dementia.

Turned out he had adopted a vegan diet about 10 years earlier and had finally exhausted some specific nutrient found only in animals, including insects. Wish I could recall which one.

Anyway, the issue was raised... there are examples of cultures in the world that do not consume animal products. I don't think they are vegan by choice; just don't have access to meat, eggs, et cetera. And they do not have a problem. No dementia.

The elderly fellow, of course, consumed the extremely CLEAN food typically found in Western markets. Not many insect parts -- relatively speaking -- in the grain products. People forced to follow a vegan diet tend not to have access to clean food; the insect parts in their diet provide what they require from animals.

The elderly fellow started taking a supplement and was soon back to normal.

I don't know what the moral of the story is, but it is interesting.

J.S.

You couldn't be more wrong.. we are absolutely not omnivores- that is wrong.

I think you misconstrued my meaning when I said we are omnivores. I only meant that our teeth and digestive tract has evolved to eat just about anything and get away with it, similar to possums or rats. This is not so with cats (carnivores) and cows (ruminants). That is the definition of omnivore. That is all I meant. I was not trying to say that you can't or should not be vegan as you apparently have inferred. Forums are an imperfect media.

In addition, children can be raised vegan completely healthy- I have many friends whose children are vegan are examples of perfect health

Not only is that a strawman, Jason, but it is also pretty obvious. We also have good friends who are vegan. They raised their daughter (my daughter's best friend) vegan. But they would be the first to advise new vegan parents to make sure they provide enough protein in their growing child's diet, primarily though pulses. This is not a caution given by pediatricians to non-vegan parents because a typical American diet provides more than enough protein without taking special precautions.

drinking cow's milk is an anachronism that will so go the way of other bad customs.

You think? Or should I say.. "You are wrong!" Isn't milk just another food, like eggs, cheese, or clams? Your ability to digest lactose past your nursing years comes from your pastorialist ancestors. Our herd animals are the result of billions of people breeding dairy animals for many thousands of years. The billions of pasorialists around the world, from reindeer herders near the Arctic Circle, to African pastorialists near the equator, just might take offense at that rather myopic perspective on their traditional and thousands of years old major source of sustenance.

Diebetes is rampant in children and partly due to high animal product + sugar diets

I believe I said that. Do you need to become vegan to avoid that, or just moderate your diet? Isn't vegetarianism moderation in your diet, and how much different is that from someone who eats meat occasionally, and in small quantities? In any case, I think you missed my point. Veganism requires proper knowledge to avoid health problems for young children. If non-vegans paid that kind of attention to their diet, they would also avoid health problems. Moderation is a better message than the hype (I borrowed your word) that foods like milk are an anachronism. Without modern nutritional knowledge, veganism has caused some serious health problems of it's own in the past. The fossil record has plenty of examples of what can happen when people, for lack of choice, or out of ignorance, end up eating a diet comprised mostly of corn, or rice without enough meat, eggs, or insects. They didn't have modern nutritional knowledge and developed debilitating iron or other deficiencies.

We live in a modern world where this is irrelevant- in the Western world we suffer from problems of excess on almost every dimension so whether you want to reduce consumption of animal products or not or go vegan or not, the last thing on your mind should be the fear of nutritional deficiency since that is simply a non-issue for an educated person in a developed country.

J.S.

Also, I know that in this forum I'm talking to the readers of Grist- who are highly educated and wealthy by and large (I know because I checked the Grist demographics) who could be healthy vegans about as easily as 1,2,3. It's a free country so they can do what they want, but again, let's drop the myth that moving away from animal products is difficult- it's not.

J.S.

I am not saying that you should stop being vegan, if it suits you and destresses you, that's fine. However, I believe you have not lived outside of a city based on your statements; therefore, we are not talking from the same perspective. I think you should read the hippies and rednecks post, it might let you see the shades of gray out there.

Also, I tried including some factual information about a vegan diet, so far you have only provided at best hearsay about veganism. The healthiest people in the world are those that eat the least or no animal products. I thought that the healthiest people in the world were the Japanese who eat tons of fish. Or the French, who eat lots of cheese and drink wine. I mean, back your statements up, if you're going to make such a claim.

   Ya know folks, you should get out more.  There are plenty of poor vegetarians in various parts of the world who are quite healthy.  (Think India, some Buddhists, and others).

   If you want to attack Jason, you should at least get your facts straight.

   As to the criticisms of the diets of poor Americans, they are in more danger from the disgusting Mickey D's diet than they are from vegetarianism/veganism.

   BioD, your wife practices where?  Ask her which causes more health problems, the standard American high animal fat diet, or a veggie diet.

   America has serious health problems with obesity, diabetes, and clogged arteries, none of which are caused by animal free/reduced diets.

   And Jason is absolutely right about non-animal sources of everything you need.  When I first became a vegetarian (35+ years ago), my father (a bio-chemist) made me go to the science library and produce a paper showing it was possible to find non-animal sources of everything I need.  It wasn't that hard.  And that was done by a first year college student with no background in science.

   Atreyger, the idea that poor people in "other" countries need an animal diet is somewhat insulting.  Let THEM decide what diet they need.

   However, that says nothing about what WE educated AMERICANS "need" or are capable of doing.

   As an environmental vegetarian, I will agree  to people without access to proper vegetarian foods that they should seek nutrition where it is possible to find it.

   Which says NOTHING about any of us....  WE don't NEED to eat meat.

   If you want to do it, do so, but don't say you are eating meat because some poor peasant in Bolivia has not other choice..... Gimme a break!! (grin)

   I am 10 years+ veggie (leaning vegan, though not strict) at this point (and would happily go strictly vegan to challenge any of you who post here to a bike race (I am 55)).

   I might not win (and don't care in any case (grin)), but I can make you break a sweat!! (ROFLMAO).

   The world doesn't need everyone to be a vegetarian/vegan, but the more the easier the passage to sustainability.

patrick

1. Including in your diet no animal products
   
2. Including in your diet no animal products except dairy
   
3. Including in your diet no animal products except dairy and eggs
   
4. Including in your diet dairy, eggs, and the occasional shellfish
   
5. Including in your diet dairy, eggs, and the occasional shellfish, and fish
   
6. Including in your diet dairy, eggs, and the occasional shellfish, fish, and small amounts of chicken mixed with other dishes
   
7. Including in your diet dairy, eggs, shellfish, fish, and small amounts of chicken and other white meats mixed with vegetable dishes
   
8. Including in your diet dairy, eggs, shellfish, fish, and small amounts of chicken and other red and white meats mixed with vegetable dishes
   
9. Eating any kind of meat with most meals, with meat being the main course of most meals, and wolfing down buckets of fried chicken between meals followed by rich sugary, high carb desserts.

My family is not vegetarian. The amount of meat we four 100+ pound omnivorous primates eat is paltry. I doubt it is  more than a pound a week. Your average pet dog weighs more than that. It would be even more effective to be lobbying for people to lose their pet dogs and cats. How unreasonable is that?

Item nine comes pretty close to describing (somewhat tongue-in -cheek) the diet of a hell of a lot of Americans, and also a hell of a lot of South Americans and other countries, and it is the extreme that needs moderation. Americans eat a lot less red meat than they did thirty years ago. Item one is an extreme at the other end that is not only totally unnecessary to have good nutrition, but if done improperly, can lead to malnutrition in children, and promoting that extreme just foments resentment and resistance even here, on an environmental forum for Christ's sake. Take that argument to the general public and see how many friends you will make for the cause.

And mostly, keep diet in perspective. We all die. Statistically, diet is just one of millions of factors determining how you die and when you die, but die you will. Look at average life spans around the world and ask yourself what are the dominant factors.

On the environment side, I would push for creative environmentally benign solutions for producing animal protein, as well as moderation in its consumption. A stamp on a package of farm raised catfish that rates its environmental benignness would be one idea.

In February there are no vegetables. If you or Jason can figure out a good way to get a harvest around then, maybe you can convince me that vegetarianism is for everyone. If you suggest that I don't live locally, clearly the benefits of being an environmental vegetarian are voided. Health-wise, I do not notice a large difference from when I was vegetarian to now when I consume meat on an occasion. My consumption of meat around deep winter definitely grows, for I am, half-seriously, trying to adapt and continue natural selection for my species in this locality for the time when there will not be cheap fossil fuel to deliver asparagus from Chile in October, tomatoes from Mexico in February and whatever else.

Healthwise, being religious is a very good thing, which has been shown in some studies. Why ain't you promoting that?

http://www.pcrm.org/health/veginfo/index.html

and check out cornell's nutrition program where they are doing ground-breaking work on showing how adopting the "western" diet is decimating people's health in poor countries and have also created the vegetarian pyramid

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Jan98/vegetarian.pyr...

http://nutrition.cornell.edu/

and i agree with everything patrick says above- the facts are incontrovertible- one does a lot more good for human health and the environment promoting less animal consumption than just about any other single thing you could do

J.S.

J.S.

Here's actually the real reason that I switched to eating meat from a full vegetarian diet: I felt more and more skeeved out about eating as much cheese as I was. I can't imagine why cheese is allowed in vegetarian diets, after all it's so much less 'natural' than meat. And it's also pretty weird: cheese is basically a product of mold shit off of milk that is bad. I mean thinking about it can make me feel sick. I still eat it though, cause it tastes good. ;)

Indeed, this is one reason why we don't eat animals.

However, we do eat many varieties of sumptuous dairy products; and when this is combined with cow protection, it is superior to a vegan diet.  

Before the vegans attack, consider this:  The Veda portrays the cow as one of seven kinds of mothers, along with the birth mother, the cow, a nurse, a queen, etc., largely because she produces so much extra milk.  Ayurved  states that milk necessary for developing the finest brain tissues.  So we have this mother, and we want to consider what kind of relationship is best.  Do we reject the mother with her milk, or do we accept her gift and give love and protection to the mother?  

Accepting the loving relationship is the better answer.

   In Beijing, we eat mostly seasonable vegetables, most are local (based on price anyway), which means lots of root veggies in the winter, as well as some dark green vegetables.  Tomatoes are available year round (green houses).

   Some veggies here come from elsewhere, I don't read Chinese well enough to know, and most are sold by people with small carts, and tiny stores.

   But, you can watch the seasons come and go by watching the changing vegetables and fruits.

   I don't usually try to convince people to become vegetarians, people do it for their own reasons, there isn't very much new information I can provide to most folks.  (A few people around me have watched me, seen that I am healthy, and decided to try it, but not due to any urging on my part.)

   I DO believe that the more vegetarians there are, the easier the passage will be.  So, that is why I am one.  (I also feel healthier, and you sould hear the technicians talk about my blood plasma (free of animal fats)).

   Certainly, eating less meat is a good beginning, and to be applauded, as is staying away from ocean fish. (grin).

   In terms of the postive aspects of religion on health, I disagree.   The studies I have seen are all done by deeply religious people, and it's like asking the tobacco companies about smoking.  Not credible in my mind.

   Religion also has a lot of negative impacts on the world (sorry, but true).  So, I don't advocate it, but again, people should make their own choices, a bit of tolerance on these subjects helps (grin).

pace,

patrick

J.S.

The trouble with milk (independent of veal production)  is that most people don't know what to do with it.  Obviously we don't need it to live, however Ayurveda indicates that milk provides important nutrition to the brain, especially for understanding our plight as spiritual entities in a material world.  Maybe it's a coincidence, but in my experience, vegans tend to be disproportionately atheist, and proud of it.  In Bhagavad-gita (17.8), Krishna describes foods conducive to God-realization: "Foods dear to those in the mode of goodness increase the duration of life, purify one's existence and give strength, health, happiness and satisfaction. Such foods are juicy, fatty, wholesome, and pleasing to the heart."  Milk fits the description quite well.

Milk, ghee, and yogurt are three of the most important foods of the yogis.  In ancient times, yogis sat for very long periods to gain control over their minds and transcend material life, and in doing this they developed extensive knowledge of the body, from within.  They understood the subtle effects of various foods on the body and mind; and so they avoided some foods like garlic and onions, and emphasized others like milk.      

Vegans often vilify the cow, and describe her milk in disgusting ways.  This is a mother's milk, and I find such commentary in very poor taste.  

The cow converts grass, which is of no food value for us, to a substance that can be consumed directly or made into thousands of delicious and nutritious preparations.  She produces far more milk than her calf can drink.  

Kurma, the famous Hare Krishna chef, has a page about milk (http://www.kurma.net/essays/e13.html), where he explains, "India's esteemed traditional medical treatise Ayur Veda explains how warm milk straight from the cow promotes strength and actually stimulates the digestion, but that cold milk causes rheumatism and arthritis, and (as detected by the researchers at Johns Hopkins), toxic gas....  Lactose intolerance is practically unheard of in India. It is most certainly due to the fact that in India, milk is always boiled first, then consumed very hot, and always sweetened with sugar. Boiling the milk breaks down the protein so it is easier to digest. In the West, milk is pasteurized, but not boiled. It's also homogenized, and people drink it cold.

"In India, saffron, cardamom, and other aromatic spices are usually added to milk. As well as making it delicious, this naturally alleviate any mucus-forming tendencies. Hot milk also calms the nerves. This helps explain why hot milk is so widespread in many cultures as a bed-time relaxer.

"And also, according to the Ayur Veda, the thick skin of cream on milk (I used to peel it off in disgust), promotes strength and virility and alleviates bile and gas."

1)    Cows are social animals and enjoy affectionate relationships.
2)    Milk may have unhealthful effects when consumed improperly, but is healthy when prepared properly.
3)    Milk is a food that is made from grass, which we cannot eat.
4)    Thousands of delicious foods can be made from milk.  Some of these foods are very satisfying substitutes for meat.

Cow-killing is a sick condition of humanity, but the ideal isn't to have no relationship with the cow, but to have a healthy relationship.  In that way, protecting the cow and appreciating her milk, dung, etc., is superior.  

J.S.

J.S.

So are you saying that milk is inherently unhealthy and cannot be prepared in a healthy way?  That seems just plain stubborn.

Here is another article addressing the subject:
http://www.mothercow.org/oxen/cow-milk.html
It speaks of how milk affects different body types and how milk preparation is important to its influence on the body.

And in any case, drinking milk isn't just about personal health for me. It's also a conscious acceptance of the cow's gift and the relationship that we have.  It helps make life good.

Isn't life about relationships?  This is the wholistic approach.  It's why I don't condemn my father for eating veal when we go out to dinner.  It's why I don't hate people for their selfishness.  

To throw out the milk along with the meat is exactly throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  It's like stopping a sick man's disease by killing him.  If someone has a problem with dairy, one option is to shun it.  But why not just learn how to cook?

Here's a quote for fun:

Srimad Bhagavatam 10.1.20 - After reaching the shore of the ocean of milk, the demigods worshiped the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Vishnu, the master of the whole universe, the supreme God of all gods, who provides for everyone and diminishes everyone's suffering. With great attention, they worshiped Lord Vishnu, who lies on the ocean of milk, by reciting the Vedic mantras known as the Purusha-sukta.

"Essentially the same" will sound problematic to anyone belonging to a Western philosophical or religious tradition.  Yes, animals and humans are "the same" in many important respects, but I do not think one can say they are "essentially the same."  Anyway, your sentiment is clear enough, and I agree with you.

You are also right that collapsing the barrier between non-human animals and humans would not be received well by most people belonging to biblical religious traditions.  That is, to suggest that animals have a metaphysical status, a position in God's mind and in God's love, equivalent to that of humans, would seem to contradict important doctrines such as these: the doctrine of the Hebrew Bible that God gave human beings "dominion" over God's other creatures, including the plants and animals; and the doctrine of the New Testament, which is indeed a fundamental and essential doctrine of Christianity, that in the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity in the human being Jesus of Nazareth, God has "assumed humanity," thus apparently privileging human beings above all other creatures.

So, you are right, then -- but, IMHO, only accidentally so.  Through no fault of your own, of course, but through ours!  The problem with most religionists in biblical traditions is, they do not know how to read the Bible.  They think the Bible says more, decrees more, establishes more, than it reasonably should be understood to do.  Biblical texts are NOT the "word of God," in the sense that God actually would have said such stuff; they are the words of human writers, whom we may believe to have been more or less Godly.  The character called "God" (or "Yahweh," "the Lord," etc.) who pops up now and again in biblical texts is NOT the real God; that character is only a literary invention of those human writers.

So, the privileging of human beings, apparent in a large number of biblical places, indeed expresses the important religious truth that God loves human beings, and is willing to make the supreme sacrifice for our sake.  But it is incorrect to interpret that to mean that God loves other creatures less.  In fact, there is a multitude of biblical texts making plain that all God's creatures share equally in the love of God and in the praise of God.  Those texts should not be overlooked.

I have very much enjoyed reading what you sent, about your own Vedic tradition.  What you write about cows, including the metaphor of the cow as our mother, is beautiful.

You might be interested in this, on one interpretation of dairy products in an ancient Christian tradition, Eastern Orthodoxy.  A common penitential practice of both Catholics and Orthodox is to abstain from flesh-meat on all Fridays of the year, in commemoration of the Passion