User talk:Manujchandra
Hunter/Gatherers[edit]
What about Hunter-gatherers? Chrisrus (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- What about so many references I cited? Hunter-gatherers also cook their meat. Otherwise, all the risks apply to them as well.
- That's just it! We cook, we don't eat much raw meat or raw tubers or raw grains. That's why we don't need specialized teeth or intestines and so on. Chrisrus (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- And how were we eating meat before the invention of controlled fire? Denaturing meat and eating it makes us no more an omnivore than flying a glider makes us a bird. Please read my entire argument on the main discussion page. You know know part of the picture. There are dozens of parameters that are used to determine this. - Manuj Chandra (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- The fossil record shows that we have had fire much longer than we have been fully human. See Control of fire by early humans. So we don't need huge molars and gringing jaws like herbivores or carnecials and short alimentary canals like carnivores. It's vegetariansism that's new: it's only been possible since the domestication of plants. If you tried it with uncooked, unprocessed, undomesticated, wild plants you would soon die. Chrisrus (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Truth be told, humans are frugivores. If eating poisonous fruits would kill frugi/herbi - vores, all frugivores would have been dead by now. Please refer to http://www.tierversuchsgegner.org/wiki/index.php?title=Taxonomy and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312295/ Give some credit to animal culture.
- But the fossil record and the observations of primitive people show that they all are hunters. Do you agree that primitive, non-civilized people ate not only fruit, but also food that had to be cooked?
- Hunting is not always done for eating. You can hunt for clothes, jewelry, sport, religion etc. Also I agree they were cooking ang eating. But that my whole argument. Meat has to be cooked to be eaten. If we were omnivores, we could eat it like any other omnivore. Manuj Chandra (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please understand that there was no time before fire and cooking for Homo sapiens. Control of fire and cooking go back at least as far as Homo erectus. I say this because some of your arguements here and there seem to imply that there existed a time before fire and cooking, and as far as the referent of that article, Homo sapiens sapiens, goes, there has never been a time when we did not control fire and cook. Chrisrus (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hunting is not always done for eating. You can hunt for clothes, jewelry, sport, religion etc. Also I agree they were cooking ang eating. But that my whole argument. Meat has to be cooked to be eaten. If we were omnivores, we could eat it like any other omnivore. Manuj Chandra (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- But the fossil record and the observations of primitive people show that they all are hunters. Do you agree that primitive, non-civilized people ate not only fruit, but also food that had to be cooked?
- Truth be told, humans are frugivores. If eating poisonous fruits would kill frugi/herbi - vores, all frugivores would have been dead by now. Please refer to http://www.tierversuchsgegner.org/wiki/index.php?title=Taxonomy and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312295/ Give some credit to animal culture.
- The fossil record shows that we have had fire much longer than we have been fully human. See Control of fire by early humans. So we don't need huge molars and gringing jaws like herbivores or carnecials and short alimentary canals like carnivores. It's vegetariansism that's new: it's only been possible since the domestication of plants. If you tried it with uncooked, unprocessed, undomesticated, wild plants you would soon die. Chrisrus (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- And how were we eating meat before the invention of controlled fire? Denaturing meat and eating it makes us no more an omnivore than flying a glider makes us a bird. Please read my entire argument on the main discussion page. You know know part of the picture. There are dozens of parameters that are used to determine this. - Manuj Chandra (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's just it! We cook, we don't eat much raw meat or raw tubers or raw grains. That's why we don't need specialized teeth or intestines and so on. Chrisrus (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- What about so many references I cited? Hunter-gatherers also cook their meat. Otherwise, all the risks apply to them as well.
Change of Topic[edit]
The Sanskrit word for vegetarianism is shakhshaar. Shakha means a branch. Also, please don't site wikipedia articles as [references]. You talk like a reasonable man. Unlike the ones on the main page discussion. I hope you will answer to science and reason and will do what is best your your own health and that of others.
Further readings:
http://www.adajournal.org/article/S0002-8223(03)00294-3/fulltext http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864 http://www.ajcn.org/content/92/5/1040.abstract http://www.nutritionj.com/content/9/1/26 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8629358.stm http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/101/14/1001.full http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSCOL16846020070321 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6194502.stm http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29840448/
- I've looked at every link you've supplied at the debate on that page. I want to talk about something else. One thing is to discuss what people should eat. Another is to state facts about what they, in fact, do eat. Above I want you to admit is the simple observable fact of what precivilized, primitive people eat, based on observation of facts. Civilized or modern people maybe can and should eat something else. But our primitive forbear's diets all included meat. Please understand that it does not therefore follow that you or I necessarily have to or should eat meat as well. Just because my ancestors ate or didn't eat something doesn't mean that I have to or should because they lived in very different circumstances. To evolve into me, they only had to live long enough to reproduce, and you and I hope to live longer than that. Chrisrus (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- @Chrisrus
- I agree with you in principal. One thing we often miss is that our ancestors were living very less. For example, the average lifespan of Eskimos is 50 years. Even if they were behaving like an omnivore, it showed. We all know science has added 50 years to our lives. In india people use to live to 90 since they were vegetarians. It has been scientifically proven that a WELL-BALANCED Whole food plant based diet (not a vegan diet mind you) increases life expectancy and health / mood states / beauty / attractiveness etc.
- If you dont anything, please tell me, I will give you peer-reviewed papers.
- Like you so rightly observed, just because our ancestors where behaving in a certain way, we don't have to. There times were different, climate was different, technology was not there. Today we have every thing. Lets make best use of it, like healthy and happy and help others do the same.
- All I ask for is "Many scientists believe humans are omnivores (this is a lie, they don't, 91% know better in US), but some believe humans are herbivores". They will not even let me put this even though I have good science with me.
- I am not the one who lost. We all lost.
- By saying that humans do eat meat, that article is not saying that we should. You seem to read the statement "humans eat everything, including meat" that the article is saying that an omnivorous diet is better than a vegetarian one. Your sources and the article can both be correct. The statement "Animal X eats Y" doesn't mean that "Animal X must or should eat Y". Animal X might be better off if the zookeeper fed it a special food some other food, perhaps a special formula created by experts based on a careful study of the nutritional needs of the animal. Animal X might be eating Y simply eat Y because it had no better choice, or because Y was available and was at least good enough for the animal to live long and well enough to reproduce. So the best diet might be a vegetarian one even for an animal whose diet had been featuring meat. The article is not telling people what they should eat, the article is just making a simple statement of fact about what that animal in general does it. If the article needs to clarify that statement so that the reader will be better served; so that the reader will not misunderstand that the article is not making recommendations, but simply stating facts about what this animal does, let's you and I work on a new wording that will help the reader understand what is being said, and you and I together can argue for the change. But to state "humans are herbivores" is not a statement of fact because early humans were not herbivores, hunter-gatherers were/are not herbivores, pastoralists were/are not herbivores, most agricultural peoples are not herbivores, and the majority of the world's population today are not herbivores. So how can the article say "humans are herbivores"? Perhaps some encyclopedic wording to the effect of "humans are an omnivorous animal which can survive and even thrive on many kinds of diets, including a vegitarian one" or some such. But it is not the article's job to tell people what to eat. It has to state the facts about what humans eat, and the truth of the matter is clearly "humans eat all kinds of stuff". Chrisrus (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)