>> ^rottenseed:

I just watched "Fat Head" a response to "Super-size Me". It contained a lot of appealing facts that I will never bother to fact check. If you, too, are mentally lazy like me, you should watch it. It's low-budget but it's amusing.>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^gwiz665:
Jebus christ. I mean, seriously, they should have layed off the big macs back in school. America, you need to run your ass around the block a few times.

As someone who is currently (perennially) trying to lose weight, I wish it was something as simple as running around the block a few times. I trained for a marathon two years ago and simply stopped losing weight during the process. I remained 30 lbs above my goal weight, and ran (and finished) the marathon like that. For people who are not naturally lean, it is the difficult (near impossible) combination of proper exercise with proper diet that causes them to often simply give up. It also an unhappy truth that the cheapest food is the least healthy, so poor people are much more likely to be malnourished into obesity.
As to the video, in this particular case, laughing is totally appropriate. But when it's a fat person by themselves, I am usually just saddened. And I always remember that phrase, "Are you riding a scooter because you're fat, or fat because you are riding a scooter?"



I've read about "Fat Head" and it makes a compelling argument. It is theoretically possible to have a healthy weight while eating crappy food. However, we shouldn't be looking at what a single person can accomplish while on a mission to debunk a fear-mongering documentary. We should be looking at the statistics of the category of people who are obese: what is caused their obesity and what is preventing them from losing the fat?

I have no specifics to back up my current opinion. It is a position I have decided upon after many years of personal experience and reading a wide variety of books on getting in shape. It is my belief that the core ingredients of fast food are simple carbohydrates and saturated fats. These ingredients have a 1-2 punch on the metabolism, spiking the insulin response which pushes calories into formation of fat, then crashing the insulin response making the body feel hungry again. Riding this cycle over the long term creates larger and larger appetites, encouraging the consumer to purchase more and more food. Bad for the body, but good for the restaurants. Protein can help reduce the insulin spike, but fast food usually comes with very fatty protein, so that's not much of a help. And vegetables aren't very tasty, so they are easily overlooked.

What I'm saying is that people who are overweight are trapped in a cycle they don't understand, and even if they do understand it, it is very hard to break out. It is literally an addiction like smoking, except you can't quit cold turkey (pun not intended). You can't stop eating. You have to keep eating, but choosing foods you don't enjoy because your habits have been warped by the cheap food industry.

I don't think we should legislate. I'll be the first to stand up and say don't blame McDonald's for your weight problem (even though it's kinda their fault). I'm saying we need to educate. And make that education based on clinical studies, not lobbyist funding like the USDA's myplate program. Teach people the proper balance of protein, carbs, and fat. Teach them the proper forms those nutrients should come in (lean and whole, not processed and sugary). Teach them the benefits of vegetables. This information has got to be in our faces so that we can't ignore it.

But even if we do that, this generation is a lost cause. I work my ass off to get in shape, but I keep falling off the wagon because the craving for fast food gets to be too much. That "high" from a sugary insulin spike calls to me. I'm not kidding that it's an addiction. We need to teach people that, so that kids and parents can keep away and not get hooked.

@Mazex

Well, where your claim about brainwashed people falls apart is that if Jesus was made up (which no reputed historian would claim), or His resurrection wasn't true, his disciples certainly wouldn't have martyred themselves for that lie. Being direct witnesses of the fact, you can't claim they were brainwashed. So yeah.

I posted the historical reliability of the bible because it shows its not just cooked up, as you tried to claim. It's highly intricate, and I dare say it would be actually be more miraculous for holding up so reliably if it wasnt true. 100 percent historical accuracy is pretty compelling, I think..it indicates that these are honest eye witness accounts we're dealing with.

Here are some interesting science facts that the bible fortold thousands of years before science knew anything about it..pretty good for made up isnt it?

The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true – “He hangs the earth on nothing.”

Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.

Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors!

There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea

Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11; 14). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were “bled” and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that “the life of the flesh is in the blood” long before science understood its function.

Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwin’s theory of the survival of the fittest.

The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: “In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)…Then God said, “Let there be light (energy).” No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.

The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12). Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, science has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct.

Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be “parted” and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago – God declared this four millennia ago!

Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the “paths of the seas.” In the 19th century Matthew Maury – the father of oceanography – after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maury’s data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas.

Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). At a time when less than 5,000 stars were visible to the human eye, God stated that the stars of heaven were innumerable. Not until the 17th century did Galileo glimpse the immensity of our universe with his new telescope. Today, astronomers estimate that there are ten thousand billion trillion stars – that’s a 1 followed by 25 zeros! Yet, as the Bible states, scientists admit this number may be woefully inadequate.

The number of stars, though vast, are finite (Isaiah 40:26). Although man is unable to calculate the exact number of stars, we now know their number is finite. Of course God knew this all along – “He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name” (Psalm 147:4). What an awesome God!

The fact that God once flooded the earth (the Noahic Flood) would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by most of the scientific world because it was God’s judgment on man’s wickedness.

The continents were created as one large land mass (Genesis 1:9-10). Many geologists agree there is strong evidence that the earth was originally one super continent – just as the Bible said way back in Genesis.

Life begins at fertilization (Jeremiah 1:5). God declares that He knew us before we were born. The biblical penalty for murdering an unborn child was death (Exodus 21:22-23). Today, it is an irrefutable biological fact that the fertilized egg is truly an entire human being. Nothing will be added to the first cell except nutrition and oxygen.

God has created all mankind from one blood (Acts 17:26; Genesis 5). Today researchers have discovered that we have all descended from one gene pool. For example, a 1995 study of a section of Y chromosomes from 38 men from different ethnic groups around the world was consistent with the biblical teaching that we all come from one man (Adam)

Origin of the major language groups explained (Genesis 11). After the rebellion at Babel, God scattered the people by confounding the one language into many languages. Evolution teaches that we all evolved from a common ancestor, yet offers no mechanism to explain the origin of the thousands of diverse languages in existence today.

Origin of the different “races” explained (Genesis 11). As Noah’s descendants migrated around the world after Babel, each language group developed distinct features based on environment and genetic variation. Those with a genetic makeup suitable to their new environment survived to reproduce. Over time, certain traits (such as dark skin color for those closer to the equator) dominated. Genesis alone offers a reasonable answer to the origin of the races and languages.

Air has weight (Job 28:25). It was once thought that air was weightless. Yet 4,000 years ago Job declared that God established “a weight for the wind.” In recent years, meteorologists have calculated that the average thunderstorm holds thousands of tons of rain. To carry this load, air must have mass.

Medical quarantine instituted (Leviticus 13:45-46; Numbers 5:1-4). Long before man understood the principles of quarantine, God commanded the Israelites to isolate those with a contagious disease until cured.

Circumcision on the eighth day is ideal (Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:3; Luke 1:59). Medical science has discovered that the blood clotting chemical prothrombin peaks in a newborn on the eighth day. This is therefore the safest day to circumcise a baby. How did Moses know?!

Our ancestors were not primitive (Genesis 4:20-22; Job 8:8-10; 12:12). Archeologists have discovered that our ancestors mined, had metallurgical factories, created air-conditioned buildings, designed musical instruments, studied the stars, and much more. This evidence directly contradicts the theory of evolution, but agrees completely with God’s Word.

A seed must die to produce new life (1 Corinthians 15:36-38). Jesus said, “unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain.” (John 12:24). In this verse is remarkable confirmation of two of the fundamental concepts in biology: 1) Cells arise only from existing cells. 2) A grain must die to produce more grain. The fallen seed is surrounded by supporting cells from the old body. These supporting cells “give their lives” to provide nourishment to the inner kernel. Once planted, this inner kernel germinates resulting in much grain

Olive oil and wine useful on wounds (Luke 10:34). Jesus told of a Samaritan man, who when he came upon a wounded traveler, he bandaged him – pouring upon his wounds olive oil and wine. Today we know that wine contains ethyl alcohol and traces of methyl alcohol. Both are good disinfectants. Olive oil is also a good disinfectant, as well as a skin moisturizer, protector, and soothing lotion. This is common knowledge to us today. However, did you know that during the Middle Ages and right up till the early 20th century, millions died because they did not know to treat and protect open wounds?

The Pleiades and Orion star clusters described (Job 38:31). The Pleiades star cluster is gravitationally bound, while the Orion star cluster is loose and disintegrating because the gravity of the cluster is not enough to bind the group together. 4,000 years ago God asked Job, "Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion?" Yet, it is only recently that we realized that the Pleiades is gravitationally bound, but Orion's stars are flying apart.

Soil conservation (Leviticus 23:22). Not only was the land to lay fallow every seventh year, but God also instructed farmers to leave the gleanings when reaping their fields, and not to reap the corners (sides) of their fields. This served several purposes: 1) Vital soil minerals would be maintained. 2) The hedge row would limit wind erosion. 3) The poor could eat the gleanings. Today, approximately four billion metric tons of soil are lost from U.S. crop lands each year. Much of this soil depletion could be avoided if God’s commands were followed.

Animals do not have a conscience (Psalm 32:9). A parrot can be taught to swear and blaspheme, yet never feel conviction. Many animals steal, but they do not experience guilt. If man evolved from animals, where did our conscience come from? The Bible explains that man alone was created as a moral being in God’s image.

the red hats will be reprocessed into food for the african children, actually. RED hats are nutrient dense.

>> ^ant:

FYI, ants don't last these nest setup.


Yeah, the gel contains enough water and nutrients for the ants' short term survival, but not the protein needed for queens and larvae.

Also, ants' tunnels are normally underground so shining a bright blue led on their nest isn't really going to encourage natural behaviour.

@Sniper007

Eating locally won't help you when you have a local disaster. You missed the point. If everyone is using the maximum available land, nobody has extra food to help when someone else has a shortage.

As to deforestation, and climate change, the whole planet's system is self balancing. More CO2, means faster and stronger the vegetation growth which in turn produces more O2 at a faster rate. More CO2 for humans means shorter life spans, which means less population growth. There is no ability for human intervention to change this global balancing act.


CO2 has more than one effect on the planet. Even if you assume that plants grow faster and stronger with more CO2 (which is bullshit since they need nutrient food in the soil as well...CO2 is just one part of photosynthesis), CO2 is still a greenhouse gas. Furthermore, when the atmosphere is heavy in CO2, it also causes the ocean to become more acidic, which affects all sorts of ocean life, and therefore the food chains which we rely on. You're right to say that the world is self-balancing, but wrong to assume that human survival is automatic no matter what we do.

Maybe the world's limit is 30 billion if people are, as you say, crammed into cities, and the rest of the world is farmed. MAYBE, just MAYBE, that's NOT the most efficient way of living! Maybe people have minds of their own, that they can put to good use to produce their own food on their own land with their own hands as they desire.


No, look. Of course people have minds of their own. I don't see anyone saying anything to the contrary. You talked about it taking 1/5 of an acre earlier to support a family with a vegetarian diet. It's more like 1/2 acre per PERSON. Some land is not suitable for farming, but is suitable for livestock pastures.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008130203.htm

So, say we supplement our vegetarian diet with some dairy and a little meat to efficiently use all the available land to feed more people. Check out the math:

http://one-simple-idea.com/Environment1.htm

It doesn't work out. There isn't enough land to support a trillion people...not even close. Not even 1/10th of a trillion. Even your revised number is laughable with current practices. So, say we throw in some urban farming...vertical farming in the form of skyscrapers that produce food. Cool...we've got a shitload of people now. Who even says that's a worthy goal? How can you morally argue that more people is always better? You've said a bunch of stuff indicating that's what you believe, but you haven't provided any reasons other than something to the effect of "human brains are amazing and can figure stuff out".

I don't think the speaker in the video is advocating global planning...at least not in the form of a world government. I don't think he's assuming that he's smart enough to know how to plan everyone's lives, nor do I think I am.

What he's pointing out is that populations naturally slow their growth as education and health increase. When you're pretty sure your children will survive, you don't feel the need to have 6-8 in order to have 2 that survive. When conditions are good enough to allow the survival of 80-90% of children born, parents also feel like they can provide a better life for their kids if they're dividing their resources between 1-2 instead of 6-8.

So, you don't need a global government to reduce population growth, you simply need to assist people in improving their health and education levels. Charities and individual countries can do this on their own. So what if they organize their efforts? It doesn't have to be central planning on a global level.

Personally, I think it's better to live within our means. Even if we could grow to the trillions on our little planet, why not do it slowly and carefully? Why do we need a giant population? Why do we all need to be "blessed" with giant families? Why can't we enjoy other peoples' families? As a country, we don't even need large populations for wars anymore. Nuclear weapons and conventional weapon technology ensure that future wars will be fought with very small numbers of people compared to the masses needed in the past.



If you didn't read all that, just answer this: What's the overall purpose of a huge world population? How does it benefit me or anyone else to be born into a crowded world?

Chyme (from Greek "χυμός" - khymos, "juice"[1][2]) is the semifluid mass of partly digested food expelled by the stomach into the duodenum. In other words, chyme is partially-digested food.[3]

Also known as chymus, it is the liquid substance found in the stomach before passing through the pyloric valve and entering the duodenum. It results from the mechanical and chemical breakdown of a bolus and consists of partially digested food, water, hydrochloric acid, and various digestive enzymes. Chyme slowly passes through the pyloric sphincter and into the duodenum, where the extraction of nutrients begins. Depending on the quantity and contents of the meal, the stomach will digest the food into chyme anywhere between 40 minutes and a few hours.

With a pH of around 2, chyme emerging from the stomach is very acidic. To raise its pH, the duodenum secretes a hormone, cholecystokinin (CCK), which causes the gall bladder to contract, releasing alkaline bile into the duodenum. The duodenum also produces the hormone secretin to stimulate the pancreatic secretion of large amounts of sodium bicarbonate, which raises the chyme's pH to 7 before it reaches the jejunum. As it is protected by a thick layer of mucus and utilizes the neutralizing actions of the sodium bicarbonate and bile, the duodenum is not as sensitive to highly acidic chyme as the rest of the small intestine.

At a pH of 7, the enzymes that were present from the stomach are no longer active. This then leads into the further breakdown of the nutrients still present by anaerobic bacteria which at the same time help to package the remains. These bacteria also help synthesize vitamin B and vitamin K.


****Ulcers are R-Tards

This seems like a good system to try. Furthermore it would bring colder more nutrient bearing water to the surface resulting in more plankton production and more CO2 capture. The rings would also provide good habitat for many sea creatures.
You should keep an eye on the Gulf Stream though, if you cool the surface too much it might reduce the flow too much.
The good thing about this system is that you can slowly assemble it and easily dismantle it if any problems show up.

I can really recommend SuperFreakonomics.

This is pretty much as simply as I could put everything, it's a long relatively disorganized post so be prepared:

>> ^blutruth:

Also, I'm not a doctor, just some guy with access to a search engine, so don't take my word for it.


Thanks blutruth for looking into these kinds of claims instead of just watching videos as fact like most people do. I, on the other hand, AM in the medical field, and slightly disagree with this video.

>> ^cybrbeast:

Thanks for sources blutruth. But I have a problem with your simple in/out calcualtion. If you drink less there is also less to come out. I.e. if you drink a lot you will pee a lot and your pee will be colorless. If you drink less water you pee much less, but it will become ever more yellow/brown. The big question is at what color is your pee showing you, you drink too little.
There is a lot of range in the insensible water loss, which as stated in the clip means you don't have to drink much if you don't do much physical activity.


cybrbeast you are simplifying your argument too much. The simple in/out calculation is exactly that, simple. The information backing it has to do with body self-regulation with Urine/Plasma Osmolality tied to with Glomerular Filtration Rate, reabsorption of relevant electrolytes, and hormones controlling these functions. After studying the method of how a body detects it's own fluid level(effective circulating volume, also blood pressure), and working out how each system in it's own produces an effect on either water loss/retention, we worked out the approximate numbers of a person's water requirements. We even have a formula to check a person's current water deficit:

Water Deficit = 0.4 x Lean Body Weight x (plasma [Na]/140 -1)
(Renal Pathophysiology: The Essentials by Rennke/Denker pg. 90)(http://www.amazon.com/Renal-Pathophysiology-Essentials-Helmut-Rennke/dp/0781796261/)

The best way to answer your second question is about pee color, is to look at urine osmolalities. Urine osmolality can range from 50-100 mOsm/kg to 1000-1400 mOsm/kg(same renal book, page 206). The lower the osmolality, the more concentrated your urine is(and the more yellow it is) and the more water your body is retaining. There is no "perfect pee," from what I have learned, only a pretty relaxed range which anyone with access to fluids can maintain. If you want a specific color or osmolality you won't find one.

You are right when it comes to the large range of the insensible water loss, but you would be surprised what would make you lose that water and how much of it. Unfortunately I don't have time to look up the exact numbers of insensible water loss, but off the top of my head I can list physical activity (through sweating), breathing, environment with low humidity or high temperature. These little things can all add up to water loss.

Also stimulants like amphetamines, methamphetamines, caffeine, and depressants such as alcohol can lead to increased water loss.

What I'll also add to this is that it isn't only water that you lose throughout the day, but also electrolytes that need replacing through food and other sources. Drinking something such as distilled water will not do you any good, some of the best things to drink are isotonic solutions and juices that have many other nutrients and not just water that keep you going. Thanks for your time.

>> ^dgandhi:

Since this is an insurance funded project, I tend to think of it in terms of what a similarly funded project with different objectives might accomplish.
Consider the Mprize, which seeks to find ways to extend life. If some non-trivial subset of people bought life insurance with the Mprize as beneficiary we could potentially encourage the funding of the research needed to extend current human life. All the Mprizes research goals will needed to be meet for cryo to work, so why not put that horse before the cart?
To be immortal you simply have to live past the break-even point, where life is being extended as quickly as time is passing. It is entirely feasible that humans will become functionally immortal, but never reach the point where cryo bodies can be reanimated. Even if cryo does become feasible, the probability that current cryo systems will be compatible with real functioning cryo tech approaches 0.
The cryo companies are, effectively, siphoning resources of those interested in life extension into a bet with exceptionally bad odds. Why not bet on reaching the break-even point in your lifetime, instead of sinking resources into something which is extremely likely to have no benefits for anyone?


Cryo seems like a risky bet if you die tomorrow and want to be brought back to life before the year 2100, but if your time frame is more flexible, it seems like a different picture. It seems hard to imagine in a time when every individual's cheap mobile phone will possess greater information processing power than all of humankind today, that we won't be able to figure out what the structure of cryonic brains was before the cryonic damage occurred.

That being said, the average person born in e.g. 1975 seems to have an excellent chance of living to 2075 if they live a health lifestyle*, and it seems difficult to imagine that stem cells, nanomedicine, etc. won't have changed the face of medicine by that point. Innovation has continued fine even through the current global fiscal bust. Like you, I'm also a big supporter of the Mprize.

*Researchers find in the last 18 years in the US, "the number of people adhering to all 5 healthy habits has decreased from 15% to 8%." http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/006231.html
*"Recent scientific and medical evidence shows that a diet consisting of foods that are plant-based, nutrient dense and low-fat will help prevent and often reverse most degenerative diseases that kill us and are expensive to treat. We should be able to live largely disease-free lives until we are well into our 90s and even past 100 years of age."http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

Tags for this video have been changed from 'beautiful, evolution, mathmatics, nutrient delivery' to 'beautiful, evolution, mathematics, nutrient delivery' - edited by rottenseed

Your video, Mapping leaf nutrient delivery with fluorescent dye, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Thank you, glad you liked it. =)

In reply to this comment by arvana:
Beautiful. I never realized that most leaves' veins are interconnected like that!

*quality

As I understand it, humans have been cooking food for so long now that it has guided our evolution. Thus we now have smaller teeth and jaw muscles and a shorter intestinal tract. Cooking has become a sort of external pre-digestive tract, tenderising meat, softening hard seeds, breaking down toxic and irritating substances in roots and leaves, and releasing nutrients bound up in plant cells.

You could say that humans are not omnivores, they are cookivores.
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
>> ^westy:
most omnivorous and meet eaters are..
2. Just because we can eat meat, like chimps and bonobos sometimes, doesn't mean we're designed to consume the huge quantities of flesh many humans (Uhmerikans) consume.
3. Shouldn't humans have important things like fangs and claws and stronger jaws or digestive fluid if we were designed for that purpose?

To be pedantic:
1) Turning the deserts into fertile lands wouldn't cure hunger in the long term. Famines are caused by changes in the amount of food production. Although this is addressed later, with the idea of perfect meteorological systems.
2) A geologically inactive planet would be a crappy place after million of years. Erosion would wear down all of the mountains. Ecological diversity would disappear. Nutrients would become increasingly scarce. For example, Australia, the oldest, flattest, and least geologically active continent, has some of the worst soils in the world (although it does still have some fertile regions). See http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/LivingWith/PlusSide/fertile_soils.html

And if the geological activity completely stops, meaning the Earth's core stagnates, then our magnetic field goes away, then our atmosphere is scoured by the solar wind and we are bombarded with cosmic rays and Earth become more like Mars.

So really we should be hugely grateful that we're on this geologically active planet.

Hang on, so you admit that we can't get all we need from just fruit/vegies and grain, and yet you then attack me for saying it's not what we're built for???

We ARE built to be omnivorous (not carnivorous as you say). I have NO ISSUE with people choosing to be vegetarian (vegan is a little off the deep end to my thinking, I mean really, do you think a chicken really cares if you use their eggs? Considering my chickens leave them lying around the garden to go off if we don't... I don't think they give a crap)

My issue is with people saying 'The solution is for us all to be vegetarians'. No, that doesn't solve things at all. So, yes we ARE designed to be omnivorous, our bodies need the nutrients gleaned from meat, our teeth are designed to tear meat, if we were purely herbivores we'd have grinding teeth only like cows... and maybe two stomachs.

And seeing as B12 is VERY important for a growing body, and isn't found in ANY part of a vegan diet... well, they can go to hell if they try to tell me it's the way we should all live, because they're taking artificial supplements probably derived from animal products in order to keep up the required vitamins their body needs that they aren't getting because they're not eating meat like they're designed to.

My issue with with those like Peta who put animals over humans, and are hypocritical in what they preach as they have harmed people in the name of stopping cruelty to animals, which seems insane, as we're animals too.

Anyway... I have vegetarian friends, I enjoy vegetarian food, I believe we need to eat more vegetables (you should see the helping we have every night with our meals, and we have our own vegie patch)... but I don't want to cut out meat entirely, I don't think others should be being high and mighty over others who don't want to and feeling all superior for being vegetarian.

>> ^Tupho:
>> ^direpickle:
Well, to be fair, there are nutrients that humans need that aren't naturally available without eating animals or animal products. Vegans need to (should, anyway--asking for trouble if they don't) take supplements to get their B12.


That is correct direpickle, as far as I know.
Still its really annoying when people who really are intellegent and have otherwise sound values (yes i´m talking about you spoco2:) conclude that we´re just supposed to eat meat. We are not designed to be carnivours, we can choose.
But I don´t think the killing is the real issue. No human knows how animals or vegetables for that sake experience things. We can only assume. It´s the sympthomes of humans fancying ourselves being some kind of superiour existence that make me feel unpleasant. Even if we assume animals experience pain the same way we do, it doesn´t stop us from treating them like shit. Unnecessarily too.