I remember watching a documentary about the Pitcairn Islands and the presenter was talking to one of the inhabitants about the history of the Bounty, at the end of his monologue he asked for her thoughts and she said "I don't know I wasn't there" it was brilliant, amazed they left it in, the producer must have had it in for him
Hmm, yes, a lot of history around here, much of it written by the "victors". B^/
In order to get objective results, the comparison must be done in consistent way. Say, a region of the world where everyone shares same diet, lifestyle and subjected to same environmental and social conditions and they all share same genes except for the height. Is such sampling even a possibility? No.
I read this claim about height here for the first time. I have always known that people that are too tall or too heavy don't live longer at all. I have always seen the contrary in real life!
If I remember correctly the number of cells in a human body is a fairly constant number which means that if one is too tall they are stretched and stressed. A taller person suffers gravity more, for example. That bends you spine with all associated issues. There many things that are not ideal if one is too tall.....that's not the case if one is average or small.
As usual the truth is the middle. Height between 5 and 6 feet is the ideal range for men. Of course if one is 2-3 inches outside this range it is not a problem. It's just an estimate. Many other factors are crucial like genes, diet and lifestyle etc. The ideal weight is defined accordingly.
A vegan human from birth will have issues to reach 6 feet, I think, but that's not the problem. The problem is that he will have unrelated (to height) health issues or weaknesses that omnivorous don't have. I have several Indian friends that are vegan by culture and I can see it everyday....
The fact that a baby can only have milk for the first 4-5 months of his life is already a statement that we are NOT naturally vegan.
I guess you meant we are not naturally vegan. My point is that the vegan choice should be an adult only choice.
This is based on my experience and other real facts where experienced professionals (doctors) with no politics and business involvement have discouraged in public the vegan diet for children. It's not the best for the them. Wouldn't you give the best for your children beyond personal belief?
Yes, we're not naturally vegan, requirement for B12 for example proves that, the vegan argument is some of us now have access to alternative supplements. Regards whether it's an adult only choice, it's interesting, the NHS provide guidance, it requires the parents to educate themselves properly which could be an issue, but that is always going to be the case for any diet that they are in control of.
It's impossible to argue this point with someone who will claim that every countervailing authority is politically suspect.ScottJoplin said:
'Nature' is such a red herring (it is never a guide to ethics, and it seems like there's little commonality between the 'natural' conditions under which we evolved and modern lifestyles / food chain), but as an illustration of that point... ...how common in nature is the practice of consuming the breastmilk of another species, or for that matter consuming any milk beyond infancy?
Last edited:
I don't trust the NHS guidance for the simple reason that the vegan diet is recent. The only ancient vegans don't seem to be healthier.
The other thing I really don't like about NHS is that they ALWAYS do things with money in mind. Saving money is one of their main targets, if not the first and most important. This is not the case in other places.
Example, my 2 years old child needed glasses. OK for the visit, the assessments etc but then I was provided with poor glasses. Such glasses in other countries like Italy and France are considered obsolete and inappropriate. They are basically glasses that have far too small lenses that allow the child to look through and are painful on the nose. I bought the glasses in Italy and threw the NHS glasses in the bin. At the next visit when I told the doctor she had no arguments. That tells me that I am not wrong, at least.
P.S.
I forgot to say that the reason why NHS might accept and possibly promote the vegan diet is because the UK has serious problems with cardiovascular diseases. But these are due to bad diets. Maybe someone thought that the vegan diet would automatically remove those bad habits and reduce the cases...making them save money! This is a pretty typical way of thinking. No question about it.
I forgot to say that the reason why NHS might accept and possibly promote the vegan diet is because the UK has serious problems with cardiovascular diseases. But these are due to bad diets. Maybe someone thought that the vegan diet would automatically remove those bad habits and reduce the cases...making them save money! This is a pretty typical way of thinking. No question about it.
Yes, nature v ethics just don't work (give it up meat eaters, sounds silly
)If you want to argue against a certain ethical stance that's fine but for it to be valid it has to be from an ethical viewpoint too surely?
Ethics of eating meat - Wikipedia
Wow! Folks who are malnourished, thus did not reach their full height died younger, than ones who had full nutrition. Thus confusing the issue of tall vs longevity. What a not shocking conclusion.
And vegetarian children do not reach the same height as the same culture folks and even family members who are omnivores.
And vegetarian children do not reach the same height as the same culture folks and even family members who are omnivores.
Ethics is personal and all human affair and for this reason there is no absolute truth. I stand by my idea that everyone is free to choose for himself and deserves respect. For the same reason I do not accept ethical lessons by anyone because mine is the best for me.
That's not important. And it is not the same thing even for humans. Babies that don't feed from their mothers are weaker until they start to eat other food. Artificial milk or milk with different origin is not a true substitute.
The comparison with animals is irrelevant because animals only do things by instinct of survival. A deer (or other similar animals) can happily transgress its vegetarian diet for survival, for example:
Deer Are Not Vegetarians | Outside My Window
Even if this is accepted as both true and a causal relationship, there is no need (in modern society) to use height as a proxy for longevity because we study the effects of diet on longevity directly.
In everything I've read on the topic, vegetarianism does, at worst, no harm to longevity.
We appear to be in violent agreement on this.
Total ethical relativism is a position some people defend, but I don't find it's one many people truly hold when pushed to the extreme. I discussed this further up the thread, but most people have a sense that ethics are different from 'mere' preferences. If I said that my ethical belief is that it is obligatory to kill and eat other humans, would you accord my free choice the "respect" it "deserves"?
Respect is not simply a personal or generic statement. What I mean is that one is free within established rules of civilisation.
In my view, despite more and more people have pets instead of children or have both and threat animals like humans, that's not enough to consider animals as a part of human society or at the same level of humans for the simple reason that if they are left free to do what they want they will never follow the same rules, beliefs and whatever. They will always follow the rules of Nature.
Saying all ethical views deserve respect provided they fall within 'established rules of civilization' is also problematic. Who 'established' the rules? Aren't they somewhat contingent? How can they change if ethical views outside those bounds don't qualify for respect? Don't we agree that some 'established rules of civilization' from the past were morally revolting?
The latter half of your post sounds a lot like a different (but also well-trodden) ethical position - that animals don't have moral rights because they aren't "persons" capable of moral thought or having moral responsibilities. But that view also has some challenges. For example, the treatment of humans who through illness or disability have the same limitations, or the fact that setting animals outside the 'moral community' makes calling any treatment of animals wrong difficult.
This is all serving as a very painful reminder of Metaethics 100.
The latter half of your post sounds a lot like a different (but also well-trodden) ethical position - that animals don't have moral rights because they aren't "persons" capable of moral thought or having moral responsibilities. But that view also has some challenges. For example, the treatment of humans who through illness or disability have the same limitations, or the fact that setting animals outside the 'moral community' makes calling any treatment of animals wrong difficult.
This is all serving as a very painful reminder of Metaethics 100.
Oh Yes I absolutely agree and there some revolting even today. Civilisation evolves for sure but I still don't see a true ethical reason why I cannot kill an animal for eating. They are not part of civilisation. They are part of the natural life cycle which is different.
The other half is that some people accept what they like, regardless of accuracy.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.