cows would exist just like other animals do. go to india - you might see cows treated differently.

cows just would not be raised for food. so the population would be less (i chose 1%), but they would still exist, just like the many other animals that humans do not raise for food.

if we had never raised cows for meat, they would never be so docile. you are 100% correct. which means they would have been just like other animals born in the wild - they would have a fighting chance to survive. so we would never have created the frankenstein to begin with, which means if i had been destined to be a cow, i would have free will, and still have the genetics to live in the wild. i am glad you were able to see the error in your logic.

August 28, 2003, Thursday

THE ARTS/CULTURAL DESK

BOOKS OF THE TIMES; Evolution on the Meat-Sex Exchange

By MEREDITH F. SMALL

SEX, TIME AND POWER
How Women's Sexuality Shaped Human Evolution

By Leonard Shlain
Illustrated. 420 pages. Viking. $25.95.

link to article


Humans and apes separated about six million years ago, and ever since then humans have been careering down an evolutionary path all their own. Lucky for us, bits of bones dropped along the way became fossilized, and these remains tell much about the physical evolution of the creatures that eventually became modern humans.

Harder to follow is the path of our behavior. No one really knows what early humans acted like, who they interacted with or what kind of social groups they preferred, and so the lifestyle of our ancient ancestors is only a guess. This part of our history is so up for grabs that there is lots of room for speculation by polymaths curious enough to read the mountain of anthropological literature and piece together a credible story of human behavioral evolution.

And why not? Anthropology has a long tradition of letting others look at the data. Authors like Robert Ardrey, Elaine Morgan, Carl Sagan and Jared Diamond, among many others, have all attempted to figure out where we came from and how we did it. Because no one could possibly be right -- we have no film from the Pleistocene and no written records of our ancient past to confirm or refute anything anyone says -- each account has merit and is worthy of discussion.

Leonard Shlain, a surgeon, is the latest to jump in with ''Sex, Time and Power,'' in which he makes a case for concentrating on women and their need for the mineral iron as the key to understanding our past. Women need high stores of iron, Dr. Shlain says, because they menstruate every month, become pregnant and nurse. In our evolutionary past the best way to restore depleted iron was to eat meat. But women were probably not hunters, and so they must have manipulated men with sexual favors to bringing home a blood-soaked dinner. This manipulative move, Dr. Shlain suggests, then set into motion just about every aspect of human behavior.

The reproductive biology of women supposedly supports his account: Menstruation, with a blood loss excessive compared with that of other mammals, makes women crave meat. Women have also lost the usual advertisement of fertility -- heat -- and are always open to sex. Men, who have high levels of testosterone, which increases their sex drive, are then lured into hunting and sharing meat by the promise of continuous sex from these menstruating, sexy women. The trade is meat for sex and everyone wins as genes are passed down by the iron-rich women who produce healthy, intelligent babies.

The female lust for meat, Dr. Shlain suggests, is responsible for the evolution of much of human behavior, including intimate relations between men and women, foresight and puzzle solving, complex social interactions, different psychological moods between men and women, and any number of human traits that we now see in the best and worst of us.

Dr. Shlain's account is supported by endless references to every human biological and behavioral feature that has ever been written about; he certainly has an exhaustive reading list. But everything he suggests, except for the specific detail of a need for iron, has been said before, which gives his account an old-fashioned feel. Meat for sex? We've been hearing about this since the 1960's. Men like sex and woman just want to make babies? Hasn't this been a party line since the 1950's? Even Dr. Shlain's enthusiasm for women as the prime movers of humanity (but thanks for thinking of us) comes off as dated given that female anthropologists like Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, Helen Fisher, Alison Jolly and many others have been writing about this for years.

Dr. Shlain should know that the feminist revolution reached into anthropology more than 30 years ago and no one now doubts that women were big-time players in evolution. To suggest that women should have their own genus name, Gyno sapiens, seems not only dated, but a bit silly.

There are also some telling mistakes that undermine his thesis. For example, the human brain did not suddenly expand 150,000 years ago with the appearance of modern humans, but about 1.5 million years ago, when brain size doubled for the first time and then continued to do so. The idea that menstruating women figured out the monthly calendar is also off because women without birth control who are pregnant or lactating rarely have periods, and in any case, many cultures do not follow a monthly calendar. Dr. Shlain also seems to believe that there is a purposeful trajectory of human evolution that landed us here as masters of the universe. Evolution is a much more zigzagging, messy process, and our history, like that of all animals, is fraught with mistakes and dead ends. Thinking that human evolution was guided along by women toward some clean and neat end is just wrong.

Dr. Shlain also pushes too far when he waxes lyrical from iron to the development of language, homosexuality, death, laughter, art, incest, fatherhood and patriarchy. Yes, human behavior is complex, but is it really necessary to speculate on every single human behavior and assume they all make evolutionary sense? In the end, the message about iron, which is an interesting tidbit, is lost in Dr. Shlain's need to impress the reader with his wide-reaching intellect.


Meredith F. Small is a writer and professor of anthropology at Cornell University.

Interesting article - despite all their silly squabbling, it turns out that almost all "vegetarians" are really meat-eaters after all. Also, the Iron problem gets some comments as well.

The Lean Plate Club: Vegging Out

By Sally Squires
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 9, 2003; Page HE03

link to article

What exactly is it that vegetarians eat?

That's a question asked by researchers in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, which has devoted much of this month's issue to the study of those who eat no meat, poultry or fish.

Or, at least profess that they do.

It turns out that a number of people who report being vegetarians actually consume meat, poultry and fish regularly. They just eat these foods less often than the rest of the nation's omnivores.

In a study of daily food records from more than 13,000 Americans collected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Loma Linda University researchers discovered that fewer than 1 percent of those surveyed (including self-described vegetarians) reported eating no animal flesh when quizzed in detail about their eating habits.

"Different people define being a vegetarian in different ways," says lead author Ella Hasso-Haddad, an associate professor of nutrition at Loma Linda.

It's commonly understood that vegetarians don't eat meat, poultry or fish. Lacto-ovo vegetarians eat some dairy products and eggs. Vegans, on the other hand, eschew all animal products, whether from land or sea, including dairy products, plus clothing made from wool, silk and leather. "There aren't many of those in the United States," says Hasso-Haddad.

The study found that people who consider themselves vegetarian -- no matter how strictly they actually avoid animal products -- appear to eat more healthfully than their omnivorous counterparts. For example, self-described vegetarians followed diets lower in total fat, saturated fat and cholesterol They also consumed more fiber and fruit than the meat-eaters. Strict vegetarians -- that group of less than 1 percent -- consumed more grains, legumes, vegetables, fruit and wine than other self-described vegetarians.

Here's what researchers conclude in their round-up of vegetarian fare:

It's smart to spice it up. Embracing cuisine rich in spices may help enhance a meatless diet, notes J.W. Lampe of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. Spices appear to help boost the immune system, reduce inflammation and fight infection, Lampe says.

Seafood is not the only source of healthy fat. Without seafood, some vegetarian diets -- especially vegan regimens -- may fall short of healthful omega-3 fatty acids, reports Pennsylvania State University's Penny Kris-Etherton. Some good plant-based choices to optimize omega-3 intake: flaxseed, canola oil, wild rice and various beans, especially mungo beans -- a black lentil-like bean popular in Indian cooking.

Plant-based foods are good for the heart and the brain. Frank Hu of the Harvard School of Public Health reports that a diet rich in fruit and vegetables, nuts and whole grains is associated with a significantly lower risk of coronary artery disease and stroke. These foods probably protect by providing healthful fats, vitamins and minerals, various phytochemicals, fiber and plant protein, Hu says. Healthful vegetarian diets are "not necessarily low in fat," he notes, but should use unsaturated liquid vegetable oil and nuts as the primary source of fat. Whole grains and an "abundance of fruit and vegetables" are best as the main form of carbohydrates, he concludes.

It may be wise to check your hemoglobin levels. Meat is the main dietary source of iron and zinc, two essential minerals. No surprise, then, that studies show vegetarians may have lower levels of these minerals. Whether that translates to a health risk -- or a benefit -- in the well-nourished United States is being determined. Proof for the benefit of iron supplements is also not proven, notes J.R. Hunt of the USDA's Grand Forks Human Research Center in North Dakota, who suggests it may be prudent to test hemoglobin levels occasionally in vegetarian children and women of childbearing age.

-- Sally Squires

dont know why you are going on so much about free will, but even our cows today have free will, such as it is for their intellect... they choose where to chew grass in whatever field they are in, where to lie down, when to moo, when to not moo.... Ok, ok, ok, so they don't get to choose not to go to the slaughterhouse, but up to that point, they are free-willing all over the place...

as for my logic, my original point was that you are worried about the ethics of killing animals that would not even exist if it were not for our intent to kill and consume them. To my thinking, the gapping flaw in logic is yours, not mine...

In your version of a human utopia, humans would never have eaten meat, cows would have remained whatever they were, and would possibly be extinct or would exist in small numbers. Perhaps that would be a better world, who am I to say?

that's an interesting point, how do cows survive in Inda? Do the Indian people feed them? Do they manage on their own, without human assistance? Do Indians take care of sick and injured cows? I haven't got a clue...

do you mean 1% of their current population? that's probably about right, although I would guess even fewer.

actually, if this is true, it sounds like they get a better deal outside of India:

Holy Cow!
Maseeh Rahman from New Delhi reports that the international animal-rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has exposed horrendous cruelty to Indian cows as they are transported, illegally, to slaughterhouses. Many arrive dead or badly injured after long and torturous journeys in trains and trucks or on foot. "It is Dante's Inferno for cows and bullocks," says PETA president Ingrid Newkirk. India's livestock population, estimated at more than 500 million, is the world's largest, with 26 acknowledged breeds of cattle and six breeds of buffalos. The unproductive animals are sent to slaughterhouses. Although, there are 2,682 recognized slaughterhouses throughout Bharat (the Indian Union), cow slaughter is permitted in just two States, the communist-ruled states of West Bengal in the east and Kerala in the south. Corrupt officials look the other way and allow illegal packing of the cows into rail cars or trucks headed for West Bengal and Kerala. The animals frequently gore one another or break their pelvises when forced to jump from the trucks. Some suffocate inside boxcars. Thousands of others are surreptitiously herded overland without food or water. If they collapse from exhaustion, herders break their tails or throw chili pepper and tobacco in their eyes to make them walk again.

hi freddy,
thanks for the info. i guess you will always find people who will look the other way, when their pockets are filled. sorta reminds me of how i feel about studies.

freddy,

it does appear that the cow is no longer treated with the same respect by the current indian population, as in the past generations.

http://www.judypat.com/india/cow.htm


but some are still trying.

http://autofeed.msn.co.in/pandoraV1...09FC8337C1D.asp

MrFreddy - please don't buy into ANYTHING that PETA says. A spokesperson for Peta once stated, during a national broadcast, "in a perfect world there would be no cats or dogs." (Heard this with my own two ears.) Now, tell me, how ethical is that? I know this is not a thread about PETA, but please don't buy into their bs.

BTW, I find the rest of the thread somewhat amusing. (The originator of this thread is from Seattle, WA which is an ecologically sustainable city.) As a "greenie" I have also read all of the information about how much water, grain, electricity, etc. it takes to produce 1 pound of beef. I don't have to buy into THAT either. (A simple cup of coffee is much more wasteful of natural resources than a pound of beef.) People can skue "facts" any direction they wish to and them present them as truth.

Stand back and pass me the rare prime rib!

Shortstuff

Food for thought....

http://www.westonaprice.org/healthi...ethicsmeat.html

Hm, reading this thread, I've come to a realization. Even if eating meat (any kind of animal really) is philosophically and morally repugnant, ruins the environment, bad for my health, or whatever other doomsday scenario resulting from meat eating, I'd still eat it.

Why?

Because for me, animal flesh tastes better to my palate than anything else. I can never understand the rational of, "how can you justify the slaughtering of an animal for mere palate preference?" Ah, I'm equally perplexed and ask in return, "how can what I eat NOT be guided by my palate preferences?"

So, I'll go on eating meat, chocolates, sugary cakes, and other foods which one clique or another will swear it's bad for my health. Is it only me whose barbaric enough to feel that my liking for meat supercedes any empathy or sympathy I might have for animal life? I'm not into hunting or causing cruetly to any living thing (except for mosquitoes and cockroaches whom I'll kill gleefully on site) but when I'm hungry, send that cow to the slaughtering house for my juicy rare Porterhouse cut--some plant foods, protein powder, or whatever else stuff from the dirt aint gonna cut it.

To me, that is reason enough. I eat animal flesh because I like the taste. Do I care for their suffering and pain? Sure, a little; but, not enough to sacrifice my "palate preference."

No doubt, one day we'll live in a Utopian type society where humans have ascended to a higher level of being--that total enlightenment thing. Then, surely, my views will be as outdated as some archaic antideluvian rags; but, for now, thankfully it's still ok to eat meat just cuz we like the taste of it.

Personally, I'm relieved that I'll not be around for that Utopian world of higher consciousness.

Frederick

dear got beer:

you are too cool!!!!

sorry but the vegans logic is the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard. i think the vegan brains are having trouble due to low iron and low protein.

sorry guys but after looking up the word "sentient" (just to be sure, before i am attacked) i do not think the animals in question are sentient. if they are, who says they are sentient and how do they know? did the cows tell them? just how can a cow have perceptions and what does it perceive?

having instincts (flight or fight) does not necessarily constitute perception. just because an animal instintively runs in order to survive does not mean that it perceives he is about to eaten and should head for the hills. thus in my opinion these are not sentient beings. does a cow know that it is going die? i think not. there is a big difference between instincts/survival and having a conscious knowledge that your life will end. having that knowledge from early on - that we will eventually die - is something that only HUMANS have achieved or evolved to- and that is exactly what separates us from all other animals - PERCEPTION.

a cow is not born knowing nor does it learn at a later date that it is doing to die. Come on! it has no concept of living or dying - no sense of time - a cow does not worry about what it will eat tomorrow. the cow doesnt care about tomorrow or yesterday because it has no reason to nor does it have even have the intelligence to begin to understand any of these things. it is a cow.

if you think about it - are there really any sentient beings on this planet other than HUMANS? If so what are they? do they know they are going to die? It is living with that knowledge from early on that makes people - people. For instance it is believed that monkeys can communicate - ok - but does that make them sentient - not in my opinion - because they have no idea of their own mortality. Consciously knowing that you were born and that no matter what you do you will eventually die forces us to perceive life in a way that no other animal can - no other animal on this planet has the same ability. therefore all assumptions about what an animal feels etc. (whether or not it feels pain) is nothing more than pure guess work. how do we know that an animal feels pain - does it feel pain the same way we do - who says? did the monkey say his pain feels just like ours. simply because they have pain responses or responses we assume are interpreted as pain does not mean it hurts the same. after all pain is simply an electric signal sent to the brain as a warning - "Stop That" if you interrupt the signal is there any pain? - NO.

Vegans Please Note: This is only a forum and in no way should you take any of my "purely in fun" comments personally (lighten up already). I would however, like to invite you to my home state of "Texas" for the best beef barbecue in the world.

Lisa N- That was a great article. The writer pretty much articulated exactly how I feel about this discussion.

I also wanted to add a link to article posted months ago in another forum. This article presented some interesting ideas that made me think.

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=123138


-Jess

...Welcome to real life where things eat other things.

The biggest problems I have with vegetarian moralists is their denial of death. Hello out there! All of us have a death sentence, tomorrow I will eat a cow and the very next day the earth/God/whatever shall eat me. If we stop eating other things, where will all those animals go? Will we open up a game reserve for cattle and chickens? Maybe we can hire the Vegans to house and feed them!

Either open both your eyes and accept this fact or join a religious/ascetic order.

In the mean time evolution says: 1) you have opposable thumbs for grabbing and holding on to your prey. 2) You have the tooth structure of an omnivore...I recognize this and eat accordingly.

I do not deny that animals can feel fear and pain, just ask an elephant on it's way from an elephant graveyard. If I could hunt my own prey and had the time and wherewithal I would do so, but it wouldn't work in this society so I have to depend on getting my meat from mostly unknown sources, I have to take what I get at the local market at face value. I live in denial of how the animal was made dead for my plate. But I mostly have no choice in this decision other than to buy grass fed beef or wild game when I can get a hold of it!

The fact remains, we are made to eat omnivorously and abusing ourselves will not buy us a place in heaven nor buy immortality for any of earths creatures including us.

Steve