https://www.liquidpoker.net/


LP international    Contact            Users: 257 Active, 0 Logged in - Time: 04:45

Earthlings (documentary)

New to LiquidPoker? Register here for free!
Forum Index > General
Loco   Canada. Feb 23 2009 07:23. Posts 20990

"EARTHLINGS is a feature length documentary about humanity's absolute dependence on animals (for pets, food, clothing, entertainment, and scientific research) but also illustrates our complete disrespect for these so-called "non-human providers." The film is narrated by Academy Award nominee Joaquin Phoenix (GLADIATOR) and features music by the critically acclaimed platinum artist Moby. It shows some never-before-seen footage using hidden cameras."

Documentary trailer;


Whole video can be found here and on youtube as well;
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...qQODp7WHDg&q=earthlings&hl=en

You may be aware of animal cruelty to a certain extent, but a lot of people aren't truly informed and most don't even question the things they eat either. I've heard so many idiots say that there are "worst things in the world" than this so they simply don't care, but if you have some tiny bit of morals you'll realize how idiotic that is. I believe it is my duty to post this documentary here. I'd also like to point out that I respect the choices of people who eat meat, but I don't respect the cowards who are afraid to see the truth behind it. You owe it to yourself and the planet to watch/share this. Now some very related polls...


Poll: I am...
(Vote): Omnivorous
(Vote): Vegan
(Vote): Vegetarian
(Vote): Other


Poll: Have you watched the documentary?
(Vote): Yes, and it made me consider changing my diet.
(Vote): Yes, but it didn't change anything within me. // I was already aware of all this.
(Vote): No, I don't really care for animal rights and the environment.
(Vote): No, I'm afraid of what I might find out and I prefer staying unaware.




EDIT:
IMPORTANT!


  On February 23 2009 06:42 Spitfiree wrote:
If the whole world went vegetarian most people would starve to death since the overall food (non animal related except stuff like honey) production on our planet will not be enough.



This is just extremely idiotic and I know he isn't the only one who thinks that.If you're not going to watch the documentary, at least educate yourself on this with this quick video that shows just how it would be the opposite;

Facebook Twitter
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 23/02/2009 13:11

DooMeR   United States. Feb 23 2009 07:30. Posts 8562

wheres the option for: No, but i do care for animals that we dont eat

-Jorge

I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance, by running away from the scene of an accident. 

Neutral Milk   Belgium. Feb 23 2009 07:38. Posts 103

Predators can eat meat but it's immoral for humans to do so? Nature built us to be omnivores, although admittedly we probly eat a lot more meat than is necessary


Spitfiree   Bulgaria. Feb 23 2009 07:42. Posts 9634

So i only watched the trailer and will watch the documentary in some minutes/hours too but i get the things u mean and i dont really agree with u.Its simply how our planet works as the "law of the jungle" says "the stronger wins" in this case our race is stronger than the animals so we feed with them just the way the animals eat other animals.We need them in order to survive.If the whole world went vegetarian most people would starve to death since the overall food (non animal related except stuff like honey) production on our planet will not be enough.What i agree with tho is that animals shouldnt be tortured they way they are before they r killed & cut coz this is just sick ... everything should be done super fast so they dont feel any pain.I am aware of what crap i eat and how half the "meat" i eat is not really meat but still its delicious and i just cant be a vegetarian.Its just the way it is as i said the stronger wins the same way the lion eats buffalo we eat em


SakiSaki    Sweden. Feb 23 2009 07:47. Posts 9687


  On February 23 2009 06:42 Spitfiree wrote:
If the whole world went vegetarian most people would starve to death



Oh god this actually made me lol

what wackass site is this nigga?  

Breeze   Bulgaria. Feb 23 2009 08:06. Posts 802

^ Hahahah

Anyway I'll watch this, I am omnivorous but rarely eat meat, was vegetarian for 1-2 years and later even completely vegan for half a year. It is just too hard to maintain when everyone else in your community eats meat. Now I almost don't buy meat, but when someone else cooks for me (girlfriend or when we are at friends) I eat meat too

My work is of high quality, cheap and fast. Pick only two of those though. 

Steal City   United States. Feb 23 2009 08:06. Posts 2537

strictly carnivore, i throw the buns away

Intersango.com intersango.com  

Steal City   United States. Feb 23 2009 08:10. Posts 2537

other = strictly carnivore

Intersango.com intersango.com  

Steal City   United States. Feb 23 2009 08:11. Posts 2537


  On February 23 2009 06:47 SakiSaki wrote:
Show nested quote +



Oh god this actually made me lol

i'd rather starve to death ;p

Intersango.com intersango.com  

Spitfiree   Bulgaria. Feb 23 2009 08:24. Posts 9634


  On February 23 2009 06:47 SakiSaki wrote:
Show nested quote +



Oh god this actually made me lol

then ur pretty ignorant since u dont know that only about 5% of the "ground" is usable for food production but meh its pretty standart for people to laugh while they are not informed at all... the other 95% is unusable gruond like karst( i bet u dont even know what that is ) mountains,human polluted areas,cities,deserts & etc.

 Last edit: 23/02/2009 08:26

SpasticInk   Sweden. Feb 23 2009 08:39. Posts 6298

yes and the "ground" is instead used for creatures which requires ton a lot of more water, takes up gazzilion amounts of energy to become something eatable compared to, for example, growing beans which would be more cost-effective and give x203023 times the energy and food for the world.


lebowski   Greece. Feb 23 2009 08:43. Posts 9205


  On February 23 2009 07:24 Spitfiree wrote:
Show nested quote +


then ur pretty ignorant since u dont know that only about 5% of the "ground" is usable for food production but meh its pretty standart for people to laugh while they are not informed at all... the other 95% is unusable gruond like karst( i bet u dont even know what that is ) mountains,human polluted areas,cities,deserts & etc.


and then synthetic fertilizers were created

new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man... 

genjix   China. Feb 23 2009 08:46. Posts 2677

earth needs extinction events every so often to compliment the progression of evolution. often in prehistory a type of animal would evolve to complete dominate the ecosystem stunting takeover by later animals. extinctions completely wiped the major large vertebrates and allowed evolution to progress. what we see now is a minor extinction event similar in size to that in the late triassic which precluded the rapid ascent of dinosaurs. before then the land had been dominated by slow sprawl legged land reptiles which relied on the suns heat and dinosaurs were relatively uncommon, stunted in their evolutionary progress by the dominance of large fat slow reptiles.

this extinction based on current rates and extrapolations- you cant extrapolate indefinitely because some species groups are adapted/adaptable to human societies.

i got bored writing this but its my own idea

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. 

Nazgul    Netherlands. Feb 23 2009 08:56. Posts 7080

I'm a vegetarian without the balls to stick up for my beliefs.

I eat meat all the time and would never limit myself to not eating it. I do think we should take much better care of the animals we raise to eat and such though. The stuff that goes on there is sickening.

edit: that came across rather dumb I'm not a vegetarian at all lal but I think we could treat animals better

You almost twin-caracked his AK - JonnyCosmoLast edit: 23/02/2009 11:00

Loco   Canada. Feb 23 2009 08:56. Posts 20990


  On February 23 2009 07:39 SpasticInk wrote:
yes and the "ground" is instead used for creatures which requires ton a lot of more water, takes up gazzilion amounts of energy to become something eatable compared to, for example, growing beans which would be more cost-effective and give x203023 times the energy and food for the world.



I was going to post this. Thank you for saving me the time.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount 

Loco   Canada. Feb 23 2009 09:01. Posts 20990


  On February 23 2009 06:38 Neutral Milk wrote:
Predators can eat meat but it's immoral for humans to do so? Nature built us to be omnivores, although admittedly we probly eat a lot more meat than is necessary



Do you think you're the first person who brings up this argument? WE'RE OMNIVORES FUCK THIS, NATURE'S LAW!!


No, fuck that. That's fucking bullshit. The food is not even NATURAL. Most of the shit you eat is processed and the meat you eat is full of hormones, antibiotics and other shit which only ups your chances of getting cancer and multiple other diseases. Vegans and vegetarians are much more healthy and disease free and it has been proven in researches.

It is immoral if you know what's going on behind the industry, yes. It's also immoral if you consider that eating is meant to feed the body and isn't supposed to be immense pleasure or glutonny. The body can be perfectly healthy without eating animals or animal products, nobody has any excuses for the slaughter of all the animals that they eat, except laziness and pleasure from it.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 23/02/2009 09:25

Loco   Canada. Feb 23 2009 09:05. Posts 20990


  On February 23 2009 07:56 Nazgul wrote:
I'm a vegetarian without the balls to stick up for my beliefs.

I eat meat all the time and would never limit myself to not eating it. I do think we should take much better care of the animals we raise to eat and such though. The stuff that goes on there is sickening.



Does that make you sleep better at night though? I mean you know that it's not going to happen right? It has to be more cost effective and the more the animals are mistreated the less they have to spend money on their well being.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount 

brambolius   Netherlands. Feb 23 2009 09:06. Posts 1708


  On February 23 2009 06:38 Neutral Milk wrote:
Predators can eat meat but it's immoral for humans to do so? Nature built us to be omnivores, although admittedly we probly eat a lot more meat than is necessary



There is nothing wrong with eating meat.

The problem is how we get said meat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat

And here is the answer lol. But as always money and preconceptions take precedent .

Heat......EXTEND 

morph1   Sierra Leone. Feb 23 2009 10:09. Posts 2352



this happens all the time only depends on which side are you

Always Look On The Bright Side of Life 

John Galt   Canada. Feb 23 2009 10:26. Posts 618

MaidenFan: Stop worrying about what might be or what coulda been, the former is totally out of your control, and the latter is nothing but a twisted fantasy 

SeanBam   . Feb 23 2009 10:56. Posts 953

I love the argument that animals are predators because you are completely right. But ask yourself this, are most humans predators... haha hell no! Animals NEED to kill other animals in order to survive. Tell me when the last time you've killed an animal with your own hands. In this society we are not predators at all, if you can kill an animal yourself by all means eat meat. However, relying on these completely immoral slaughterhouses which pump meat full of cancer causing toxins in the name of the almighty dollar. Can you really sleep on that justification. I have no problem with people eating meat. I have a problem with people being pussies and lazy by basically killing themselves in the sake of "it's natural" when it's really not. I know that I can't kill an animal so I choose to be a vegetarian. And it's really not that hard. My girlfriend has been a vegan for over 6 years now, and we're top collegiate athletes.

So, think of it as a moral proposition on whether you should eat meat.


EvilSky    Czech Republic. Feb 23 2009 11:22. Posts 8918

When they make meat substitute that taste as good as meat Im def turning vegan, but till then Im just forced to keep eating animals :/


genjix   China. Feb 23 2009 12:05. Posts 2677

i dont really give a shit

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. 

genjix   China. Feb 23 2009 12:06. Posts 2677

u can suffer for a lost cause

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. 

Loco   Canada. Feb 23 2009 12:06. Posts 20990

nobody forces you to do anything. you do it out of pure will. the truth is that you are a lazy fuck and/or you care more about how tasty meat is than the environment and animals. just don't lie to yourself about it.

there are plenty of great substitutes as well.

the people who cling on to the belief that they need meat in their diet to be healthy are just fooling themselves. hell, there are pro football, baseball, bodybuilders and mma fighters who are actually vegans/vegetarians. you have to be extremely stupid in order to be an unhealthy vegan/vegetarian.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount 

Baalim   Mexico. Feb 23 2009 12:26. Posts 34286


  On February 23 2009 08:05 Loco wrote:
Show nested quote +



Does that make you sleep better at night though? I mean you know that it's not going to happen right? It has to be more cost effective and the more the animals are mistreated the less they have to spend money on their well being.


like Nazgul, i am in favor of improving the conditions of the livestock and the animals we eat, but i am totally for their consumption.

I have no trouble sleeping at night for it, i do care about it, however focusing so much energy on animals when the whole world is such a fucked up place where we treat often humans worse than animals its vain and retarded, and that is the reason why i hate PETA faggots.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Steal City   United States. Feb 23 2009 12:26. Posts 2537

infernalization to the extreme

Intersango.com intersango.com  

k2o4   United States. Feb 23 2009 12:27. Posts 4803


  On February 23 2009 11:06 Loco wrote:
the people who cling on to the belief that they need meat in their diet to be healthy are just fooling themselves. hell, there are pro football, baseball, bodybuilders and mma fighters who are actually vegans/vegetarians. you have to be extremely stupid in order to be an unhealthy vegan/vegetarian.



Very true. Maybe like 10, 15, 20 years ago it was different, or at least it was tougher to be a healthy vegetarian because society didn't provide for it and a lot of people weren't balancing their diet properly. But these days it's amazing what they have developed for vegetarians and vegans. I personally eat meat but I have gone on several month streaks where I eat mostly vegetarian and honestly I usually feel healthier the less meat I have in my diet. And these days they've got some seriously tasty shit for vegetarians to eat and a lot of it is almost as good as / the same as meat. When I was young vegetarian food always tasted like shit and attempts at meat alternatives were huge failures, but I've recently gone to some vegetarian restaurants and had meat substitutes which were fucking delicious. It wasn't exactly the same but it was really good in a different way. I think I could grow up as a vegetarian now if I could eat that type of vegetarian food.

And if you think that there can't be tasty vegetarian food, try eating indian food. God, those guys figured out how to make veggies and rice and bread taste like heaven.

Personally I never plan to stop eating meat. I used to eat meat every meal of every day and if there wasn't meat then I felt like it wasn't a proper meal. Now I'm totally happy eating vegetarian and leaving the meat out, but there are still dishes which I love that are made of meat and I will keep eating. Luckily since I'm eating meat much less often it allows me to more easily be more picky about the meat I eat, so I can get organic meat and be picky about the way it was raised/killed.

InnovativeYogis.com 

Steal City   United States. Feb 23 2009 12:27. Posts 2537

wasn't there a Southpark about this?

Intersango.com intersango.com  

Steal City   United States. Feb 23 2009 12:29. Posts 2537

lol the HUMANe treatment of ANIMALs

now what they do to corn, that shit is vile. Like nazi germany or something

Intersango.com intersango.com  

Highcard   Canada. Feb 23 2009 12:29. Posts 5428


  On February 23 2009 11:26 Baal wrote:
Show nested quote +



like Nazgul, i am in favor of improving the conditions of the livestock and the animals we eat, but i am totally for their consumption.

I have no trouble sleeping at night for it, i do care about it, however focusing so much energy on animals when the whole world is such a fucked up place where we treat often humans worse than animals its vain and retarded, and that is the reason why i hate PETA faggots.


QFT

This thread reminded of my craving for a steak, bbl

I have learned from poker that being at the table is not a grind, the grind is living and poker is how I pass the time 

Loco   Canada. Feb 23 2009 12:30. Posts 20990


  On February 23 2009 11:26 Baal wrote:
Show nested quote +



like Nazgul, i am in favor of improving the conditions of the livestock and the animals we eat, but i am totally for their consumption.

I have no trouble sleeping at night for it, i do care about it, however focusing so much energy on animals when the whole world is such a fucked up place where we treat often humans worse than animals its vain and retarded, and that is the reason why i hate PETA faggots.



I don't care. It has no relevance whether you want the situation to be improved, it simply is not happening and it won't happen, it's wishful thinking. And if it was to happen you'd pay more for your meat, you wouldn't want that would you? I've already mentioned how idiotic I thought the whole "there are worse things in the world happening, so the animals and environment is the least of our worries" was, you need to understand that it sparks from the exact same place but with food consumption you can actually make a difference! Whereas you are a silent observer to those other things happening in the world.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 23/02/2009 12:33

Loco   Canada. Feb 23 2009 12:39. Posts 20990


  On February 23 2009 11:27 k2o4 wrote:
Show nested quote +



Very true. Maybe like 10, 15, 20 years ago it was different, or at least it was tougher to be a healthy vegetarian because society didn't provide for it and a lot of people weren't balancing their diet properly. But these days it's amazing what they have developed for vegetarians and vegans. I personally eat meat but I have gone on several month streaks where I eat mostly vegetarian and honestly I usually feel healthier the less meat I have in my diet. And these days they've got some seriously tasty shit for vegetarians to eat and a lot of it is almost as good as / the same as meat. When I was young vegetarian food always tasted like shit and attempts at meat alternatives were huge failures, but I've recently gone to some vegetarian restaurants and had meat substitutes which were fucking delicious. It wasn't exactly the same but it was really good in a different way. I think I could grow up as a vegetarian now if I could eat that type of vegetarian food.

And if you think that there can't be tasty vegetarian food, try eating indian food. God, those guys figured out how to make veggies and rice and bread taste like heaven.

Personally I never plan to stop eating meat. I used to eat meat every meal of every day and if there wasn't meat then I felt like it wasn't a proper meal. Now I'm totally happy eating vegetarian and leaving the meat out, but there are still dishes which I love that are made of meat and I will keep eating. Luckily since I'm eating meat much less often it allows me to more easily be more picky about the meat I eat, so I can get organic meat and be picky about the way it was raised/killed.




Yeah, while it is great that you acknowledge that vegan/vegetarian food is good and you eat less meat than before, don't kid yourself... organic meat still has hormones in it. Some good info...

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 23/02/2009 12:46

Highcard   Canada. Feb 23 2009 12:39. Posts 5428

I have no problem buying food that is more expensive if it was naturally fed/lived/killed. Also, it tastes a lot better, a lot better, the chicken is so juicy. As of right now though it is hard to find that shit because the majority of people are life nits/poor/dumb when it comes to food which is why you are right it is not going to change any time soon.

I have learned from poker that being at the table is not a grind, the grind is living and poker is how I pass the time 

Loco   Canada. Feb 23 2009 12:40. Posts 20990

I meant that in a general way, I was not genuinely asking Baal or anyone if they would want that. It's just not happening.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount 

Baalim   Mexico. Feb 23 2009 14:36. Posts 34286


  On February 23 2009 11:30 Loco wrote:
Show nested quote +



I don't care. It has no relevance whether you want the situation to be improved, it simply is not happening and it won't happen, it's wishful thinking. And if it was to happen you'd pay more for your meat, you wouldn't want that would you? I've already mentioned how idiotic I thought the whole "there are worse things in the world happening, so the animals and environment is the least of our worries" was, you need to understand that it sparks from the exact same place but with food consumption you can actually make a difference! Whereas you are a silent observer to those other things happening in the world.



the difference in price in my meat would be unnoticable if animals are treated correctly, i dont know how i can make a difference... by not eating meat? oh yeah that will teach them... sorry but i enjoy my meat sir, animals should be treated better, if there is a petition, ill sign it, if there is a vote on it, ill vote, but i wont stop eating meat, its stupid.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Baalim   Mexico. Feb 23 2009 14:38. Posts 34286


  On February 23 2009 11:40 Loco wrote:
I meant that in a general way, I was not genuinely asking Baal or anyone if they would want that. It's just not happening.



yeah its not happening, and its not the fault of meat eating people its the fault of the government, who are the only ones who can enforce slaughter houses to do stuff. so to raise awareness of this is obviously a very good thing, wanting to people to become vegetarians is just retarded.


BTW what is the exact diffrence between a vegetarian, a vegan and a microbiotic, and what are the "philosophies" behind those.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

newbie.cjb   United States. Feb 23 2009 15:02. Posts 3096

cmon chicken is too good

my lose is a win. my wins are nothing. 

Stim_Abuser   United States. Feb 23 2009 15:14. Posts 7499


  On February 23 2009 07:56 Nazgul wrote:
I'm a vegetarian without the balls to stick up for my beliefs.

I eat meat all the time and would never limit myself to not eating it. I do think we should take much better care of the animals we raise to eat and such though. The stuff that goes on there is sickening.

edit: that came across rather dumb I'm not a vegetarian at all lal but I think we could treat animals better



lol nice edit catch.

feel the same way.i feel bad for the animals but meat is one of the very few foods im able to enjoy so meh ;

Hey Im slinging mad volume and fat stackin benjies I dont got time for spellin n shit - skinny pete 

Spitfiree   Bulgaria. Feb 23 2009 15:22. Posts 9634

So anyway u do realise that most of the vegetables these days are made with fertilizers so thats full of shit too if u ask me ... well not as much as the stuff they put in the meat but still its not natural
The meaning of "healthy food" is pretty messed up these days since there isnt much 100% natural healthy food.
As far as it goes for me im very capricious about the food i eat so if u take my meat away u ll be basically taking like 50% of my regular meals out


CrownRoyal   United States. Feb 23 2009 15:26. Posts 11386

Being a vegetarian doesn't sound even the slightest bit interesting to me.

In fact not eating meat seems completely ridiculous I never understood any reason for it.

WHAT IS THIS 

lebowski   Greece. Feb 23 2009 15:29. Posts 9205

without synthetic fertilizers we'd be pretty much fucked,they used stuff like pigeon shit before they discovered how to make them and it wasn't sufficient even back then

new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man... 

CrownRoyal   United States. Feb 23 2009 15:32. Posts 11386

Actually you can even call me selfish but I don't really care how animals are treated. So long as the world keeps turning and we aren't degrading society I could give a fuck about how some random animal gets treated.

It's in our nature and genes to abuse those weaker than us and i don't think you're ever going to change human nature.

If you're worried about earth's resources, fuck it, we'll be able to make new societies on new planets within 250 years I'm sure we can hold out for that long.

WHAT IS THIS 

SakiSaki    Sweden. Feb 23 2009 15:42. Posts 9687


  On February 23 2009 14:32 CrownRoyal wrote:
Actually you can even call me selfish but I don't really care how animals are treated. So long as the world keeps turning and we aren't degrading society I could give a fuck about how some random animal gets treated.

It's in our nature and genes to abuse those weaker than us and i don't think you're ever going to change human nature.

If you're worried about earth's resources, fuck it, we'll be able to make new societies on new planets within 250 years I'm sure we can hold out for that long.



So basicly you are saying we should legalize murder and rape cause its in our "nature"

what wackass site is this nigga?  

CrownRoyal   United States. Feb 23 2009 15:44. Posts 11386

tbh that isnt exactly what im saying but its a lot more close than you think.

WHAT IS THIS 

Baalim   Mexico. Feb 23 2009 15:44. Posts 34286


  On February 23 2009 14:32 CrownRoyal wrote:
Actually you can even call me selfish but I don't really care how animals are treated. So long as the world keeps turning and we aren't degrading society I could give a fuck about how some random animal gets treated.

It's in our nature and genes to abuse those weaker than us and i don't think you're ever going to change human nature.

If you're worried about earth's resources, fuck it, we'll be able to make new societies on new planets within 250 years I'm sure we can hold out for that long.



this is so ignorant its disgusting.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

CrownRoyal   United States. Feb 23 2009 15:45. Posts 11386

and murder isnt in your genes, no one is born a murderer.

No one is born a rapist either but sometimes you're just an ugly horny fuck

if society raises people right we don't have these situations

WHAT IS THIS 

CrownRoyal   United States. Feb 23 2009 15:47. Posts 11386

you guys have no idea what my values are, I think people should have to pass tests to have kids and there should be check ups to make sure the kid is being raised right, if he isnt give him to sterile parents that are qualified. Then we come so much closer to utopia it's ridiculous.

animal rights is retarded

WHAT IS THISLast edit: 23/02/2009 15:48

Baalim   Mexico. Feb 23 2009 15:51. Posts 34286


  On February 23 2009 14:47 CrownRoyal wrote:
you guys have no idea what my values are, I think people should have to pass tests to have kids and there should be check ups to make sure the kid is being raised right, if he isnt give him to sterile parents that are qualified. Then we come so much closer to utopia it's ridiculous.

animal rights is retarded



the only thing retarded here its you lol, you qutoe your beliefs on some kind of scary super controlling government like if it somehow redeemed the image we just created of you lol.

Why is it ok to infringe unnecesary suffering and pain to animals when we can avoid it? so we only car about our own species fuck the rest? i am not saying we dont eat them, i think its perfectly morally right to consume others animals, i do believe its immoral to infringe UNNCESARY pain to other animals tho.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

CrownRoyal   United States. Feb 23 2009 15:55. Posts 11386

actually baal the only form of govt necessary in my world is the one that lasts for a few generations until we are liberated from degenerating society and then govt is almost completely unnecessary I highly dislike govt.

I dislike a degenerating gene pool way more though

WHAT IS THIS 

CrownRoyal   United States. Feb 23 2009 15:57. Posts 11386

animals have no idea they are being mistreated.

if its an animal like a dolphin or something sure, but a cow or something??? no way

WHAT IS THIS 

SakiSaki    Sweden. Feb 23 2009 16:00. Posts 9687

cows can feel pain you know?

what wackass site is this nigga?  

CrownRoyal   United States. Feb 23 2009 16:01. Posts 11386

this animal propoganda in this movie must be strong i guess i'm gonna have to watch the movie to somehow gain a different perspective on animals.

where i live is a farm community so i have a pretty good idea the lives that animals live within my mind but maybe this will change it.

WHAT IS THIS 

farinataus   . Feb 23 2009 16:02. Posts 55



"..as far as im concerned im all for killing.If its for a good reason. And eating this steak is definitely a good reason!"

I couldnt say it any better.


DooMeR   United States. Feb 23 2009 16:20. Posts 8562


  On February 23 2009 08:01 Loco wrote:
Show nested quote +



Do you think you're the first person who brings up this argument? WE'RE OMNIVORES FUCK THIS, NATURE'S LAW!!


No, fuck that. That's fucking bullshit. The food is not even NATURAL. Most of the shit you eat is processed and the meat you eat is full of hormones, antibiotics and other shit which only ups your chances of getting cancer and multiple other diseases. Vegans and vegetarians are much more healthy and disease free and it has been proven in researches.

It is immoral if you know what's going on behind the industry, yes. It's also immoral if you consider that eating is meant to feed the body and isn't supposed to be immense pleasure or glutonny. The body can be perfectly healthy without eating animals or animal products, nobody has any excuses for the slaughter of all the animals that they eat, except laziness and pleasure from it.


You need to whatch more House ^^ how 2 vegan morons almost killed they baby by giving him a vegan diet. and wtf is all this shit about eating animals cuz of lazyness? do u know how long it takes to make a salad compared to BBQing a stake? liek i said before, Im all up for treating the animals better but im still gonna eat them with no remorse. I can give you more examples say ur stuck in an island no edible fruit or feeding trees what do you do? You fish right u bait the poor animal make him swallow a hook then you yank him off out of teh water where he suffocates. YEAH u animal abuser you. The companies do teh same shit they just do it mor eefficiently I admit its fucked up but just cuz of that does not mean you dont have to eat meat if you dont like the way tehy do it grow your own.


-Jorge

I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance, by running away from the scene of an accident.Last edit: 23/02/2009 16:20

Guillaume   Peru. Feb 23 2009 16:39. Posts 272


  On February 23 2009 13:38 Baal wrote:

BTW what is the exact diffrence between a vegetarian, a vegan and a microbiotic, and what are the "philosophies" behind those.



1+ what the fuck its a vegan? =/ some kind of protestant vegetarian ? =/

Idiocy: Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. 

SakiSaki    Sweden. Feb 23 2009 16:41. Posts 9687

vegans dont eat anything coming from animals, like eggs and milk

what wackass site is this nigga?  

Zealeo   Canada. Feb 23 2009 16:50. Posts 441

I get by pretty good with just milk, protein powder, eggs and fish. I've never really eaten a lot of beef and pork to begin with, it's packed with saturated fat anyway. I've dropped poultry as well even though it's fucking delicious.


milkman   United States. Feb 23 2009 17:33. Posts 5719

lol im kinda scared to watch it, but i cant ever turn down a documentary, watching docs is my #1 way to learn now days. ill post my response after i watch it. brb!

Its hard to make a easy buck legally, its impossible to make a easy buck morally. 

Baalim   Mexico. Feb 23 2009 17:49. Posts 34286


  On February 23 2009 15:50 Zealeo wrote:
I get by pretty good with just milk, protein powder, eggs and fish. I've never really eaten a lot of beef and pork to begin with, it's packed with saturated fat anyway. I've dropped poultry as well even though it's fucking delicious.



theres a lot and very reliable information about how unhealthy milk is for adults, and well it makes sense since no other animal consumes milk after they reach maturity.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Highcard   Canada. Feb 23 2009 17:59. Posts 5428

I tried cutting out milk from my diet for a few months and didn't really notice a change. Went back to milk with cereal/yogurts/ice cream and nothing came of it either. What were some of the negative effects?

I have learned from poker that being at the table is not a grind, the grind is living and poker is how I pass the time 

Bejamin1   Canada. Feb 23 2009 18:11. Posts 7042

The biggest ignorance of the various environmental movements is the concept that we are doing anything to "Save the Earth" or "Protect Bio-Diversity."

Flat out the planet is going to be here whether we human beings are around to see it or not. What we do is to save ourselves. The straight-up reality is that resources around the world are dwindling away fairly quickly and human beings are consuming more than the Earth can give on a yearly basis well at the same time producing incredible amounts of waste. The environment generally isn't an overly important political issue in most countries. The general consensus among most populations is a feeling of crossing fingers to hope that science and technology advancements will save all of humanities problems or that I will die before these problems are significant to the world I live in.

The goal for humanity isn't to save the planet or the biodiversity of the planet because it's pretty and we want our kids to be able to see how pretty it is, it's for our own survival as a species. Nature does a shitload of important natural processes that would cost an incredible amount of money and require inventing several new technologies to replace. It is in the best interest of mankind to find a way to bring consumption into line with only using renewable resources and trying to make human society as green as possible.

Sorry dude he Jason Bourned me. -Johnny Drama 

Baalim   Mexico. Feb 23 2009 18:25. Posts 34286


  On February 23 2009 17:11 Bejamin1 wrote:
The biggest ignorance of the various environmental movements is the concept that we are doing anything to "Save the Earth" or "Protect Bio-Diversity."

Flat out the planet is going to be here whether we human beings are around to see it or not. What we do is to save ourselves. The straight-up reality is that resources around the world are dwindling away fairly quickly and human beings are consuming more than the Earth can give on a yearly basis well at the same time producing incredible amounts of waste. The environment generally isn't an overly important political issue in most countries. The general consensus among most populations is a feeling of crossing fingers to hope that science and technology advancements will save all of humanities problems or that I will die before these problems are significant to the world I live in.

The goal for humanity isn't to save the planet or the biodiversity of the planet because it's pretty and we want our kids to be able to see how pretty it is, it's for our own survival as a species. Nature does a shitload of important natural processes that would cost an incredible amount of money and require inventing several new technologies to replace. It is in the best interest of mankind to find a way to bring consumption into line with only using renewable resources and trying to make human society as green as possible.



read a thread before posting in it please...

We are not discussing saving biodiversity or the planet, we are discussing animal treatment here.

For the record i also belive "saving the planet" is retarded and its just a movement for idiots who want to be part of something big: oh thanks for driving an hidrogen car, you are such a mankind saver, just right next to Kakaroto.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro OnlineLast edit: 23/02/2009 18:34

milkman   United States. Feb 23 2009 19:26. Posts 5719


  On February 23 2009 16:33 milkman wrote:
lol im kinda scared to watch it, but i cant ever turn down a documentary, watching docs is my #1 way to learn now days. ill post my response after i watch it. brb!



i watched the whole thing, and i want my time back.. this video wasnt a documentary, it was a fucking hour and a half long PETA recruitment ad. It was TOTALLY one sided, and didnt touch or go in depth on many things that were worth talking about. It was just like Americas Funniest Home Videos, but switch funny, with sick fucked up rednecks treating animals horribly.. and no Bob Saget, they just picked out the worst videos they could find from every type of animal killing, slopped um all together and put a "Documentary" tag on it.. what a horrible piece of crap.


if you want to watch a good documentary, check out PBS frontline docs, voodoos war, and the meltdown r two that i really liked.

Its hard to make a easy buck legally, its impossible to make a easy buck morally. 

Zealeo   Canada. Feb 23 2009 19:31. Posts 441


  On February 23 2009 16:49 Baal wrote:
Show nested quote +



theres a lot and very reliable information about how unhealthy milk is for adults, and well it makes sense since no other animal consumes milk after they reach maturity.


That's unfortunate. I figure people have been drinking milk for a very long time now and things seem to be going alright. There are too many other things I need to worry about killing me than fucking milk.


milkman   United States. Feb 23 2009 19:37. Posts 5719


  On February 23 2009 18:31 Zealeo wrote:
Show nested quote +



That's unfortunate. I figure people have been drinking milk for a very long time now and things seem to be going alright. There are too many other things I need to worry about killing me than fucking milk.



i dont drink milk either just because it doesnt fit into my diet anywhere, not for any reason, i guess i just dont like it t much.. but what r some other good sources of calcium? or w/e it is in milk that help keep ur bones strong.. cuz i kinda worry about that sometimes.

Its hard to make a easy buck legally, its impossible to make a easy buck morally. 

Zealeo   Canada. Feb 23 2009 19:40. Posts 441


  On February 23 2009 18:37 milkman wrote:
Show nested quote +



i dont drink milk either just because it doesnt fit into my diet anywhere, not for any reason, i guess i just dont like it t much.. but what r some other good sources of calcium? or w/e it is in milk that help keep ur bones strong.. cuz i kinda worry about that sometimes.



I like to take multi-vitamins since I probably don't get enough of everything from my diet alone. You'll get calcium from most dairy products. Cheese, yogurt, etc. I drink a fair bit of milk but only skim, there is an unbelievable amount of fat in even 2% milk.


SugoGosu   Korea (South). Feb 23 2009 19:51. Posts 1793


  milkman wrote:[/B]

i dont drink milk either just because it doesnt fit into my diet anywhere, not for any reason, i guess i just dont like it t much.. but what r some other good sources of calcium? or w/e it is in milk that help keep ur bones strong.. cuz i kinda worry about that sometimes.



am i missing something? lol

But on topic, the meats that we consume on a mass scale, especially in America, are filled with vitamins, and chemicals to support the mass demand. If you search for it, you can find steak and beef, chicken etc... Where its not produced for the mass demand, and instead produced for the sake of the good taste.

In fact, when you go to the grocery story, and order a Grade A beef or steak, it's just how the steak looks, not what's in it. There are many farmers where you can usually find at farmers markets etc... where the meat is going to cost you more, but the cows that made the meat were raised in their natural environment. what I mean by this, is that they eat what cows eat in the wild, instead of the bio-fueled corn chunks, or the pigs are not eating the remains of other pigs. After going to the slaughter house, instead of being chemically aged, it is hung in a freezer which you see in the old movies. They are "dry aged" and thus, it is way better than your mere "grade A beef".

I still like my Fuddruckers burgers, and my McDonalds chicken nuggets, but if I really wanted to eat healthy, I would still eat my steak, and my hamburgers, I'd still eat my chicken, I just would make sure where I'm getting it, the animals were raised in a more natural environment, and the meat non-chemically aged.

Say this outloud! Why was six afraid of seven?......Because Seven Eight NineLast edit: 23/02/2009 19:52

Baalim   Mexico. Feb 23 2009 20:56. Posts 34286


  On February 23 2009 18:37 milkman wrote:
Show nested quote +



i dont drink milk either just because it doesnt fit into my diet anywhere, not for any reason, i guess i just dont like it t much.. but what r some other good sources of calcium? or w/e it is in milk that help keep ur bones strong.. cuz i kinda worry about that sometimes.



Well according to those numbers ironically Milk doesnt allow calcium to be fixated on the bones leading to osteoporosis.

These are non dairy products that have calcium:

* Salmon
* Tofu
* Rhubarb
* Sardines
* Collard greens
* Spinach
* Turnip greens
* Okra
* White beans
* Baked beans
* Broccoli
* Peas
* Brussel sprouts
* Sesame seeds
* Bok choy
* Almonds

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Baalim   Mexico. Feb 23 2009 21:04. Posts 34286


  On February 23 2009 18:26 milkman wrote:
Show nested quote +



i watched the whole thing, and i want my time back.. this video wasnt a documentary, it was a fucking hour and a half long PETA recruitment ad. It was TOTALLY one sided, and didnt touch or go in depth on many things that were worth talking about. It was just like Americas Funniest Home Videos, but switch funny, with sick fucked up rednecks treating animals horribly.. and no Bob Saget, they just picked out the worst videos they could find from every type of animal killing, slopped um all together and put a "Documentary" tag on it.. what a horrible piece of crap.


if you want to watch a good documentary, check out PBS frontline docs, voodoos war, and the meltdown r two that i really liked.


how long is it, just to check if its worth watching just to bash loco if it sucks

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

TalentedTom    Canada. Feb 23 2009 21:08. Posts 20070

no way am i gonna stop eating delicious juicy stakes

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light not our darkness that most frightens us and as we let our own lights shine we unconsciously give other people permision to do the same 

MezmerizePLZ    United States. Feb 23 2009 21:29. Posts 2598

that video made me hungry, brb cook steak


WastedGate   United States. Feb 23 2009 21:46. Posts 667


  On February 23 2009 17:25 Baal wrote:


read a thread before posting in it please...

We are not discussing saving biodiversity or the planet, we are discussing animal treatment here.

For the record i also belive "saving the planet" is retarded and its just a movement for idiots who want to be part of something big: oh thanks for driving an hidrogen car, you are such a mankind saver, just right next to Kakaroto.


Actually i think we ARE talking about how our appetite for meat is not only immoral (for some people) but that it is damaging our environment.
Playing off environmentalism as a trendy fad is beyond ignorant. Its like being cool with pissing and shitting all over yourself and where you sleep. Which is exactly what polluting our environment amounts to.

wait wha?Last edit: 23/02/2009 21:48

MayZerG   United Kingdom. Feb 23 2009 21:49. Posts 2123

what the fuck at the dude dropping a massive rock/brick onto the dead pigs head

fucking disgusting video and a disgrace to human beings

I like to hold all the nuts - CrownRoyalLast edit: 23/02/2009 22:16

traxamillion   United States. Feb 23 2009 21:52. Posts 10468

i love animals but i am eating whatever the fuck i want no hesitation


Baalim   Mexico. Feb 23 2009 23:38. Posts 34286


  On February 23 2009 20:46 WastedGate wrote:
Show nested quote +


Actually i think we ARE talking about how our appetite for meat is not only immoral (for some people) but that it is damaging our environment.
Playing off environmentalism as a trendy fad is beyond ignorant. Its like being cool with pissing and shitting all over yourself and where you sleep. Which is exactly what polluting our environment amounts to.


Sorry to burst your bubble, but most enviromentalists are fucking trendy retards who dont even do their homework about the stuff they defend, for more information look at this:




Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Perisie   . Feb 24 2009 00:28. Posts 801

loool

well if a 0% human impact turned into a 3% impact on a stable and sensitive environment ... what im saying is who's to say a 3% impact isn't extremely significant? not that theres anything we can do about it

the one thing you should take away from these environment people is that they DO look to the "longterm". no politicians or businessmen or governments give a flying fuck about what the world is gonna be like in the next 20 or 50 or 100 years.... im glad that someone is interested in it (and they have to get their money and support in a variety of ways)


Baalim   Mexico. Feb 24 2009 00:43. Posts 34286


  On February 23 2009 23:28 Perisie wrote:
loool

well if a 0% human impact turned into a 3% impact on a stable and sensitive environment ... what im saying is who's to say a 3% impact isn't extremely significant? not that theres anything we can do about it

the one thing you should take away from these environment people is that they DO look to the "longterm". no politicians or businessmen or governments give a flying fuck about what the world is gonna be like in the next 20 or 50 or 100 years.... im glad that someone is interested in it (and they have to get their money and support in a variety of ways)



watch the c02 swing graph on thousand on years from the north pole ice records and u will see why 3% is meaningless.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

SfydjkLm   Belarus. Feb 24 2009 01:09. Posts 3810


  I'd also like to point out that I respect the choices of people who eat meat, but I don't respect the cowards who are afraid to see the truth behind it.


This is such a childish sentence. OOOh meat eaters are evil ooh.
The problem isnt in eating meat at all. The problem is far far more complex.
You have sex without planning for a child? Youre at fault. Youre overpopulating this planet.
You use condom? Well you can still get pregnant with condoms, they give it 10% fault rate, and as a poker player u know that on a 6 billion planet that matters.
You dont use condom but your girlfriend is on a pill? Well pill is 100 times more dangerous then what they put in our meat.

So as u can see, sex-havers are evil.

GTFO.

*wink wink* 

Loco   Canada. Feb 24 2009 01:14. Posts 20990


  On February 23 2009 13:36 Baal wrote:
Show nested quote +



the difference in price in my meat would be unnoticable if animals are treated correctly, i dont know how i can make a difference... by not eating meat? oh yeah that will teach them... sorry but i enjoy my meat sir, animals should be treated better, if there is a petition, ill sign it, if there is a vote on it, ill vote, but i wont stop eating meat, its stupid.



?? Of course that will do a difference. What if everybody was as insensible and indifferent as you on the matter? There would be no vegans and vegetarians, do you need to see more numbers to see how much of a difference they make? I like meat too, I'm just aware that I don't need it to be healthy and it doesn't make me sleep better at night to comfort myself that it is the WORLD that inflicts pain on the animals and that I don't personally want it but I have to deal with it! That's fucking bullshit and it's a child's mentality, everyone does its part and you encourage them to keep up with their practices by eating meat. Just don't kid yourself about it and try to convince yourself that you care.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount 

SfydjkLm   Belarus. Feb 24 2009 01:16. Posts 3810

This is tilting me pretty hard, people stop eating meat and post a link to a documentary on some forum and they feel like their consciousness has been cleared, their good deed is done.
I propose u volunteer, or better yet donate money to people who know what theyre doing. Cos right now youre doing nothing but fancying yourself.

*wink wink* 

Loco   Canada. Feb 24 2009 01:18. Posts 20990


  On February 23 2009 13:38 Baal wrote:
Show nested quote +



yeah its not happening, and its not the fault of meat eating people its the fault of the government, who are the only ones who can enforce slaughter houses to do stuff. so to raise awareness of this is obviously a very good thing, wanting to people to become vegetarians is just retarded.


BTW what is the exact diffrence between a vegetarian, a vegan and a microbiotic, and what are the "philosophies" behind those.


what's retarded about taking care of the environment and wanting to let animals live a natural life? we aren't God, we aren't superior to animals they inhabit our planet and we share it with them. it is no longer a necessity to kill them, let alone a necessity to produce so much meat and unnaturally. becoming vegan/vegetarian is the one best thing a person can do in their life by simply making a choice -- if you have morals. there is nothing that can have a bigger impact on the planet than this unless you're a public speaker or whatever.


vegans don't eat any animal products at all, vegetarian don't eat animal flesh including fish but eat dairy products.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount 

Loco   Canada. Feb 24 2009 01:21. Posts 20990


  On February 23 2009 14:47 CrownRoyal wrote:
you guys have no idea what my values are, I think people should have to pass tests to have kids and there should be check ups to make sure the kid is being raised right, if he isnt give him to sterile parents that are qualified. Then we come so much closer to utopia it's ridiculous.

animal rights is retarded



wow you have values?

you're right there should be check ups and for yourself they should've dumped you in a dumpster

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount 

Zealeo   Canada. Feb 24 2009 01:21. Posts 441


Loco   Canada. Feb 24 2009 01:24. Posts 20990


  On February 23 2009 15:20 DooMeR wrote:
Show nested quote +



You need to whatch more House ^^ how 2 vegan morons almost killed they baby by giving him a vegan diet. and wtf is all this shit about eating animals cuz of lazyness? do u know how long it takes to make a salad compared to BBQing a stake? liek i said before, Im all up for treating the animals better but im still gonna eat them with no remorse. I can give you more examples say ur stuck in an island no edible fruit or feeding trees what do you do? You fish right u bait the poor animal make him swallow a hook then you yank him off out of teh water where he suffocates. YEAH u animal abuser you. The companies do teh same shit they just do it mor eefficiently I admit its fucked up but just cuz of that does not mean you dont have to eat meat if you dont like the way tehy do it grow your own.


-Jorge



Wow yeah, I need to watch a fictional show to learn things, thanks Jorge.

Yes I would eat an animal if it was a question of survival, but it is not for each and every one of us, and we are MORE healthy by actually dropping the meat or reducing our consumption of it. Are you really this narrow-minded? Tap yourself on the back buddy, nothing is your fault and you can't do nothing about it, why care.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount 

Loco   Canada. Feb 24 2009 01:26. Posts 20990


  On February 23 2009 18:26 milkman wrote:
Show nested quote +



i watched the whole thing, and i want my time back.. this video wasnt a documentary, it was a fucking hour and a half long PETA recruitment ad. It was TOTALLY one sided, and didnt touch or go in depth on many things that were worth talking about. It was just like Americas Funniest Home Videos, but switch funny, with sick fucked up rednecks treating animals horribly.. and no Bob Saget, they just picked out the worst videos they could find from every type of animal killing, slopped um all together and put a "Documentary" tag on it.. what a horrible piece of crap.


if you want to watch a good documentary, check out PBS frontline docs, voodoos war, and the meltdown r two that i really liked.


What were you expecting? And yes it is very much a documentary, because you learn things. It's much more than just a meet your meat video showing slaughter after slaughter. Of course it will be graphic, they are using hidden cameras for a reason... and it's the only thing that can have a strong enough impact on people who were raised to be indifferent about the whole thing.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount 

Loco   Canada. Feb 24 2009 01:31. Posts 20990


  On February 24 2009 00:09 SfydjkLm wrote:
Show nested quote +


This is such a childish sentence. OOOh meat eaters are evil ooh.
The problem isnt in eating meat at all. The problem is far far more complex.
You have sex without planning for a child? Youre at fault. Youre overpopulating this planet.
You use condom? Well you can still get pregnant with condoms, they give it 10% fault rate, and as a poker player u know that on a 6 billion planet that matters.
You dont use condom but your girlfriend is on a pill? Well pill is 100 times more dangerous then what they put in our meat.

So as u can see, sex-havers are evil.

GTFO.


what? where did I say people were evil for eating meat? I said I respected their choices, but the practices behind it is evil, and if one just doesn't care about what he eats then he isn't aware of them and isn't in the position of making a choice, that's all that my post meant, I don't understand where your animosity comes from.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount 

Loco   Canada. Feb 24 2009 01:34. Posts 20990


  On February 24 2009 00:16 SfydjkLm wrote:
This is tilting me pretty hard, people stop eating meat and post a link to a documentary on some forum and they feel like their consciousness has been cleared, their good deed is done.
I propose u volunteer, or better yet donate money to people who know what theyre doing. Cos right now youre doing nothing but fancying yourself.



My "good deed" isn't done until I'm dead. I'm not getting any satisfaction from this but I know that if I even make one person change their diet with my post it was worth it. That is time well spent my friend, unlike your useless post raving about how I'm just trying to feel better about myself. Get a clue.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount 

Baalim   Mexico. Feb 24 2009 02:01. Posts 34286


  On February 24 2009 00:14 Loco wrote:
Show nested quote +



?? Of course that will do a difference. What if everybody was as insensible and indifferent as you on the matter? There would be no vegans and vegetarians, do you need to see more numbers to see how much of a difference they make? I like meat too, I'm just aware that I don't need it to be healthy and it doesn't make me sleep better at night to comfort myself that it is the WORLD that inflicts pain on the animals and that I don't personally want it but I have to deal with it! That's fucking bullshit and it's a child's mentality, everyone does its part and you encourage them to keep up with their practices by eating meat. Just don't kid yourself about it and try to convince yourself that you care.



omg there would be no vegans/vegetarians? zomg what would the world be without them! -_-

i cant believe you are arguing this on such a low level seriously...

Being against animal cruelty is what matters not if u fucking eat them or not, if the whole world cared about animal cruelty there would be non since enough people pressure the government to take action, so raise awareness for animal cruelty and dont spread retarded vegan unfounded BS.


You havent said one single time why we should "go vegan" instead of simply be aware and against animal cruelty.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro OnlineLast edit: 24/02/2009 02:03

TalentedTom    Canada. Feb 24 2009 02:05. Posts 20070

I like animals, but I like steaks more

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light not our darkness that most frightens us and as we let our own lights shine we unconsciously give other people permision to do the same 

Loco   Canada. Feb 24 2009 02:58. Posts 20990


  On February 24 2009 01:01 Baal wrote:
Show nested quote +



omg there would be no vegans/vegetarians? zomg what would the world be without them! -_-

i cant believe you are arguing this on such a low level seriously...

Being against animal cruelty is what matters not if u fucking eat them or not, if the whole world cared about animal cruelty there would be non since enough people pressure the government to take action, so raise awareness for animal cruelty and dont spread retarded vegan unfounded BS.


You havent said one single time why we should "go vegan" instead of simply be aware and against animal cruelty.



Okay sorry there were just so many posts that I was lost and quickly replied to everyone... I also assumed that people watched the last video I posted in my edit in the initial post that shows just how inefficient it is.

My problems are involved with the industrialized side of the world, or what's also called the "takers society". To make 1 pound of animal protein, it takes an average of 10 pounds of vegetable proteins. So what that means is that we are losing 9 pounds of vegetable proteins to what? Crap. We're using food that could be going to humans because the animals we nourish poop them. Now, if everyone in the entire world stopped eating meat then all of the land that's being used for the cows could be used to feed humans. But wait, that land is on American soil so how does that help the people in 3rd world countries? Well all the grains and vegetables they use for the cows they get from the 3rd world countries because it's cheaper. Also the land happens to be more fertile and there's less concrete. So, by not eating meat, you're making it so more people in the world can eat. That food would be going to those 3rd world countries instead of the "takers society", people in this highly developed civilization who don't need this additional food. Same for the production of honey, all the space used for that could be used to grow food to go to 3rd world countries. All the water going into feeding the animals is just ridiculous as well, watch the last video in my main post if you haven't seen it. So from an humanistic point of view it's much more than just the animal cruelty that doesn't make sense.

If your curious about statistics there are tons of sites, this one has a shitload: http://planetaryrenewal.org/ipr/vegetarian.html

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 24/02/2009 03:45

YoMeR   United States. Feb 24 2009 03:16. Posts 12438

yea one of my friends has that exact same viewpoint that it's inefficient as a whole to be eating meat cuz we lose out on precious "energy"

but damn man having some korean BBQ after a work out is like better than anything in the world.

i also hate peta faggots who think themselves as enlightened/better or whatever and have their moral trips cuz they eat meat. similar to that of a religious fanatic.

eZ Life. 

Loco   Canada. Feb 24 2009 03:44. Posts 20990

I also find them annoying if they use that to boost their egos, but it's irrelevant. It is a very good thing to do and they are doing it and it's all that matters. Every single vegan/vegetarian makes a difference on how much less we abuse the planet and its inhabitants and the health benefits are just a bonus.

And again it's a choice to be a glutton and it has negative effects on both the environment and your body.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount 

Baalim   Mexico. Feb 24 2009 04:38. Posts 34286


  On February 24 2009 02:44 Loco wrote:

And again it's a choice to be a glutton and it has negative effects on both the environment and your body.




And this is retarded... eating meat =/= gluttony, unless you consider finding pleasure in eating is gluttony, and if you do you should consider buying a yellow cloak and move to tibet

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

DooMeR   United States. Feb 24 2009 04:45. Posts 8562

teh house thing was an obv joke ffs...


-Jorge

I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance, by running away from the scene of an accident. 

CrownRoyal   United States. Feb 24 2009 05:34. Posts 11386


  On February 24 2009 00:21 Loco wrote:
Show nested quote +



wow you have values?

you're right there should be check ups and for yourself they should've dumped you in a dumpster

Sorry I don't share the hippy mindset. You're so ridiculously caught up in your ideas and you act like you aren't just an FYI enlightened one.

WHAT IS THIS 

fakeshaver   United States. Feb 24 2009 06:42. Posts 1313

i agree with baal. also i think your last argument is ridic loco. No one would ever stop eating meat to help feed other countries. thats not a reason to not eat meat. its a solution to a completely different problem.


Loco   Canada. Feb 24 2009 06:48. Posts 20990

Crownroyal, why are you talking about my views in an attempt to defend your ignorance? Even Baal who doesn't agree with my views said you were an ignorant and he was spot on. But I think everyone who's been on this site long enough already knows that you aren't a very intelligent person so there isn't much to discuss with you about this, sorry if I'm being rude.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount 

Loco   Canada. Feb 24 2009 06:49. Posts 20990


  On February 24 2009 05:42 fakeshaver wrote:
i agree with baal. also i think your last argument is ridic loco. No one would ever stop eating meat to help feed other countries. thats not a reason to not eat meat. its a solution to a completely different problem.



How is it ridiculous? It was hypothetical and it clearly shows that it would be a more efficient way to feed human-beings.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount 

CrownRoyal   United States. Feb 24 2009 07:07. Posts 11386


  On February 24 2009 05:48 Loco wrote:
Crownroyal, why are you talking about my views in an attempt to defend your ignorance? Even Baal who doesn't agree with my views said you were an ignorant and he was spot on. But I think everyone who's been on this site long enough already knows that you aren't a very intelligent person so there isn't much to discuss with you about this, sorry if I'm being rude.


Look at what you're writing you post in such a condescending manner it's ridiculous

what the fuck makes you any better than me?

Sorry if i'm being rude, faggot.

WHAT IS THIS 

Loco   Canada. Feb 24 2009 07:07. Posts 20990

I'm sorry Baal but you just aren't looking at the bigger picture here. You are too concerned with individuality. It is of course true that it does "very little" but that is relative anyway. How is very little?

By going vegan for a month, you save:

8000 gallons of water
a quarter acre of land
a quarter ton of soil erosion
a half ton of polluting animal manure
the CO2 equivalent of 270 pounds of greenhouse gases
the energy equivalent of burning 7 gallons of gasoline, and
160 pounds of crops wasted on farmed animals.

Of course it isn't gigantic on a very large scale but if that one person makes a few other people become vegan and so on during their lifespan it doesn't take very long before it makes a drastic difference on the planet. Thinking that you are just one individual on this planet and that what you do has no importance is just ignorance.

Donating is obviously a great thing also but how can you make sure it is going to them and how does it solve the source of the problem? We shouldn't just be aware of the problem and try to make it less of a problem, we should seek the source and remove the problem as a whole. You also have to be aware of those things and also have the money for it, whereas changing your nutrition is a very easy thing to do and you also don't need to have spare money for it. And fwiw, a lot of people donate to charity to get that feeling of accomplishment and feel generous and believe it will bring them good karma, so your argument is void and it is completely irrelevant. I don't care about how other vegetarian/vegans act and how proud they are to be as such, I can only speak for myself and I don't do it for my self-esteem, I do it because it makes sense to do it.

Glutonny is eating in excess and/or getting extreme pleasures from food. So when someone says hmmmmmm I love steaks so much they're so tasty I would never give up eating them they're pretty much being gluttons. They do what they do because they don't care about what's behind it, the industries, the environment, and only want to please their tastebuds. That is your choice, but that is also glutonny and only in this fucked up world can such a thing happen, because it is certainly not natural for some humans to be gluttons and others to starve to death.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 24/02/2009 07:20

Loco   Canada. Feb 24 2009 07:11. Posts 20990


  On February 24 2009 06:07 CrownRoyal wrote:
Show nested quote +


Look at what you're writing you post in such a condescending manner it's ridiculous

what the fuck makes you any better than me?

Sorry if i'm being rude, faggot.


Well I thought it was clear enough, you're an ignorant. I'm not. If this means to you that I believe that I am a much better person than you, then it must be true.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount 

CrownRoyal   United States. Feb 24 2009 07:19. Posts 11386

i'm ignorant because i can see the big picture and regardless how i treat an animal it isn't gonna make any difference.

you're not going to change the world with your current views no one gives a fuck. you're wasting your time even replying to anyone here it is crystal clear that no one is going to change their values because you posted a biased PETA video on lp.

I can tell you that I live in a real farm community and animals get treated MUCH better than if they were to graze the world on their own.

WHAT IS THIS 

Loco   Canada. Feb 24 2009 07:25. Posts 20990

No you're an ignorant, plain and simple. I wasn't just talking about this. People like you make blog posts about their lives ups and down, and you think you see the bigger picture? ...

Yeah well I know for a fact that word to mouth works very well, or else I wouldn't be vegan myself, pretty useless to try to discourage me on this really. It is true that I'm not going to change the mind of some people, but that doesn't really matter and it's not time wasted to discuss such things to me. I'm also learning at the same time because I didn't research much before making this thread.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 24/02/2009 07:26

CrownRoyal   United States. Feb 24 2009 07:25. Posts 11386

nm i just read some of the thread that i missed and your point is now to save the environment.

i can't really insult you for that and it's an honorable cause. I guess i'll just feel guilty that i'm not doing my part by being a vegan and intead a "glutton". I think i would starve to death if i had to be a vegan though literally over half of what I eat is associated with animals.

I really do think that you get wayyyyyyy out of hand with closeminded thoughts once you've decided something is right you can't even look at something else and consider it.

WHAT IS THIS 

Loco   Canada. Feb 24 2009 07:28. Posts 20990

Close-minded thoughts? Right or wrong? Who decides such things? It all boils down to if it is natural or not. I believe in nature's way of doing things, plain and simple.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount 

CrownRoyal   United States. Feb 24 2009 07:31. Posts 11386


  On February 24 2009 06:25 Loco wrote:
No you're an ignorant, plain and simple. I wasn't just talking about this. People like you make blog posts about their lives ups and down, and you think you see the bigger picture? ...

Yeah well I know for a fact that word to mouth works very well, or else I wouldn't be vegan myself, pretty useless to try to discourage me on this really. It is true that I'm not going to change the mind of some people, but that doesn't really matter and it's not time wasted to discuss such things to me. I'm also learning at the same time because I didn't research much before making this thread.


and people like you donate 5k+ to bands for their selfish desires when kids are starving in africa

while you're at it why dont you just withdraw your every penny and donate it and become a monk?
how can you play poker and not feel guilty about yourself??? taking money from the unenlightened so that they can't feed their families and let you build up a greedy horde of money.

WHAT IS THIS 

Loco   Canada. Feb 24 2009 07:32. Posts 20990

So when you say you believe you would starve, that implies that if you would cut meat you would be too stupid to learn to feed yourself with non-animal products? I believe you'd want to survive and make some efforts in learning how to live healthy as a vegan. Either way, it's not about turning everyone into vegans instantly, people should just go progressively as far as they comfortably can. People already eat way too much meat, they should just cut the consumption percentage and perhaps after become vegetarians or vegans.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 24/02/2009 07:40

Loco   Canada. Feb 24 2009 07:35. Posts 20990


  On February 24 2009 06:31 CrownRoyal wrote:
Show nested quote +


and people like you donate 5k+ to bands for their selfish desires when kids are starving in africa

while you're at it why dont you just withdraw your every penny and donate it and become a monk?
how can you play poker and not feel guilty about yourself??? taking money from the unenlightened so that they can't feed their families and let you build up a greedy horde of money.


I'll give you a point on the donation, it was a selfish thing. If there can be such a thing as a selfish donation, because I did please a lot of people around the world by doing this. But what can I say, music has been my way of life since I was very young and this one band pretty much changed my views on music. What's done is done anyway and I cannot regret such a thing. I am not the same person anymore though.

I think you're being very out of line here. For all you know, I could very well give away my possessions tomorrow and become a monk, you have no idea of who I am. It would be very silly to assume that you know me. Please stop centering this thread all on me now, I do not care about your views of me and you are wasting both yours and my time.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 24/02/2009 07:36

CrownRoyal   United States. Feb 24 2009 07:38. Posts 11386

i'm not directing anything at you until you insult my integrity as a human and talk to me in a condescending tone when you nor i am better than anyone in this world.

i'll quit posting here now and derailing, however.

WHAT IS THIS 

Loco   Canada. Feb 24 2009 07:45. Posts 20990

EDIT: That's incorrect. You believe in such a thing as your integrity and feel the need to defend it simply because you are an ego-driven ignorant.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 24/02/2009 07:55

brambolius   Netherlands. Feb 24 2009 08:13. Posts 1708

Heat......EXTEND 

CrownRoyal   United States. Feb 24 2009 08:21. Posts 11386


  On February 24 2009 06:45 Loco wrote:
EDIT: That's incorrect. You believe in such a thing as your integrity and feel the need to defend it simply because you are an ego-driven ignorant.


i said i wasn't gonna post anymore but i'm ok with this yes, i have an ego.

at least i'm real with who i am and don't try to act like i care about the world and then berate anyone who disagrees with me and then do things that make me a hypocrite to my own ideas.

WHAT IS THIS 

Loco   Canada. Feb 24 2009 08:22. Posts 20990

That person you make me out to be only exists in your head.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 24/02/2009 08:23

CrownRoyal   United States. Feb 24 2009 08:23. Posts 11386


  On February 24 2009 06:35 Loco wrote:
Show nested quote +



I'll give you a point on the donation, it was a selfish thing. If there can be such a thing as a selfish donation, because I did please a lot of people around the world by doing this. But what can I say, music has been my way of life since I was very young and this one band pretty much changed my views on music. What's done is done anyway and I cannot regret such a thing. I am not the same person anymore though.

I think you're being very out of line here. For all you know, I could very well give away my possessions tomorrow and become a monk, you have no idea of who I am. It would be very silly to assume that you know me. Please stop centering this thread all on me now, I do not care about your views of me and you are wasting both yours and my time.



how can you say this about me knowing you and then you sit here and insult me?

rofl

get real man

WHAT IS THIS 

CrownRoyal   United States. Feb 24 2009 08:24. Posts 11386

everything only exists in my head, without my head the world isn't here.

i am a slave to my own perception, so are you.

this is why we disagree.

the world is a zero sum, i am a variable.

WHAT IS THIS 

CrownRoyal   United States. Feb 24 2009 08:27. Posts 11386

quit editing your posts so that things i post dont make sense

WHAT IS THIS 

Loco   Canada. Feb 24 2009 08:29. Posts 20990

You make yourself very public CrownRoyal. Knowing that you are an ego-driven ignorant is enough. Whereas you have no idea of who I am and of my purpose behind what I do. Your purpose is to inflate your ego, clearly. What about mine? Do you think I have made this thread to inflate my ego? No, some people will see it as me trying to spread awareness and they would be right. What you think about it is irrelevant anyway, you are stuck in your own little world always being so defensive about your values and integrity.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 24/02/2009 08:30

CrownRoyal   United States. Feb 24 2009 08:35. Posts 11386

so when you posted your blog about donating 5k+ or whatever it was to that band what was your purpose, enlightened one?

"i'm not the same person i was then"

yes you are, you can't change who you are. you are molded by society and can't break down who you are at the core.

I don't post purely for ego either, i'd be doing a pretty fucking bad job if i was cause my image on this site isn't how i would want the world to perceive me at all.

WHAT IS THIS 

Loco   Canada. Feb 24 2009 08:38. Posts 20990

Everything you do is for your ego. Your perception is very limited. Do you think that I hate you for it?

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount 

Loco   Canada. Feb 24 2009 08:41. Posts 20990

I was the same person you are when I made that blog post back then. No difference.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount 

brambolius   Netherlands. Feb 24 2009 08:44. Posts 1708



ALL ABOOAAARD !

Heat......EXTEND 

Spitfiree   Bulgaria. Feb 24 2009 08:46. Posts 9634

Also discussion are so everybody can give their opinion and not 1 guy gives a opposite opinion of what everything else think ->>> everyone starts hating the guy in the thread wtf?!
Im actually happy when there are many different opinions and u should be too


Loco   Canada. Feb 24 2009 08:47. Posts 20990

Who is being hated?

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount 

CrownRoyal   United States. Feb 24 2009 08:54. Posts 11386

loco i think it's really cool that you donated to that band and i think it is clearly worthy of a brag post.

that's my whole point though, everyone loves attention from time to time and there is absolutely nothing wrong with ego posting. You can't change people it's ridiculous to expect to.

you have to change the world in a different way than with people we are hardwired to be the way we are.

WHAT IS THIS 

Loco   Canada. Feb 24 2009 09:05. Posts 20990

I do not share your sentiments on the donation or the brag, but then again I do not see myself as being the one who did it. And yes, it is possible to be changed. It isn't your choice though.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount 

SakiSaki    Sweden. Feb 24 2009 10:57. Posts 9687

As much as I in general always have felt some despise towards idealists(for no real reason I might add) the faked pragmatism and nihilism of our generation seriously fucking pisses me off. Everyone is hiding behind bogus pragmatic excuses for doing nothing when 90% of the time the motives are simply egotistical and the driving factor is lazyness. Its funny how nobody ever provides a better argument for eating meat than simply "i enjoy it" which in my opinion is an unacceptable excuse for making animals suffer.

You cant just disregard the message of PETA because they are on a high horse, have dreadlocks or smell funny, and you definitely cant look down on them. They are doing the world a greater service than most of you guys ever will.

As for eating meat, I dont necessarily think its anything wrong with killing an animal to eat it in terms of just the act of killing, the world wide implications excluded. However, making animals suffer in the process is unacceptable. I wouldnt be suprised if in 200 years people will look upon how we treat animals today in a similar way that all of us look at slavery. Im not saying animals and humans are equal, but that doesnt give us a free pass to do whatever the fuck we want with a cow.

Personally I have been thinking of going vegetarian on and off for years, I still havent managed to take that step and that doesnt make me feel good. However, I almost exclusively eat meat from swedish organic farms which are pretty well regulated and where I like to think the suffering of the animals is minimal. That is probably not a good enough justification in terms of moral responsibility though, but atleast I have the balls to admit it.

To Loco: Mad props sir, you have a stronger character than me and for that I applaude you.

To CrownRoyal: It seems you have similar delusions of grandeur regarding intellect as you have in poker. Guess what? If this thread was a poker game, you would be the micro stakes grinder.

what wackass site is this nigga? Last edit: 24/02/2009 11:12

CrownRoyal   United States. Feb 24 2009 11:05. Posts 11386

it's responsibility and delusions of grandeur

ty

WHAT IS THISLast edit: 24/02/2009 11:11

SakiSaki    Sweden. Feb 24 2009 11:12. Posts 9687

You sure it isnt illusions of grandure? lol

what wackass site is this nigga?  

CrownRoyal   United States. Feb 24 2009 11:13. Posts 11386

well nice edit anyway i fucked it up the first time too

WHAT IS THIS 

lebowski   Greece. Feb 24 2009 11:34. Posts 9205


  On February 24 2009 09:57 SakiSaki wrote:
As much as I in general always have felt some despise towards idealists(for no real reason I might add) the faked pragmatism and nihilism of our generation seriously fucking pisses me off. Everyone is hiding behind bogus pragmatic excuses for doing nothing when 90% of the time the motives are simply egotistical and the driving factor is lazyness. Its funny how nobody ever provides a better argument for eating meat than simply "i enjoy it" which in my opinion is an unacceptable excuse for making animals suffer.

You cant just disregard the message of PETA because they are on a high horse, have dreadlocks or smell funny, and you definitely cant look down on them. They are doing the world a greater service than most of you guys ever will.

As for eating meat, I dont necessarily think its anything wrong with killing an animal to eat it in terms of just the act of killing, the world wide implications excluded. However, making animals suffer in the process is unacceptable. I wouldnt be suprised if in 200 years people will look upon how we treat animals today in a similar way that all of us look at slavery. Im not saying animals and humans are equal, but that doesnt give us a free pass to do whatever the fuck we want with a cow.

Personally I have been thinking of going vegetarian on and off for years, I still havent managed to take that step and that doesnt make me feel good. However, I almost exclusively eat meat from swedish organic farms which are pretty well regulated and where I like to think the suffering of the animals is minimal. That is probably not a good enough justification in terms of moral responsibility though, but atleast I have the balls to admit it.

To Loco: Mad props sir, you have a stronger character than me and for that I applaude you.

To CrownRoyal: It seems you have similar delusions of grandeur regarding intellect as you have in poker. Guess what? If this thread was a poker game, you would be the micro stakes grinder.

of course there's a real reason to be naturally inclined to despise idealism and it's always the distrust in the motivation of the idealist (what really drives him)
This is why one should always look at zealots of one cause or another with great suspicion
Other than that I do feel empathetic towards a suffering fellow mammal, I am not sure where the moral obligation not to eat meat comes from though,especially when I'm not really opposed to killing an animal to eat it,but with the process that this is happening. Do you think going vegetarian is a clear message to anyone or that anyone would actually give a shit?

new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man... 

Svenman87   United States. Feb 24 2009 12:11. Posts 4636

lol guys don't you know plants feel pain too? (seriously, they do)
better start starving yourself until you're all dead.
you want to eat meat? eat meat. you want to eat grass? eat grass.
I saw the video and it doesn't change my opinion on anything, I still think they should try to insta-kill the animal but ffs look around the world at what other cultures do to our 'fellow mammals' in retrospect we are still much more humane.

shit happens.

 Last edit: 24/02/2009 12:14

Svenman87   United States. Feb 24 2009 12:12. Posts 4636

BTW, the smugness of this entire thread is making it very hard to breathe. END SMUG POLLUTION! WEWT!


edit: Sorry for being over-sarcastic but ffs... I just can't wait for the day when the earth turns "green" then a giant volcano erupts and sends us into an ice age regardless.

IT WILL BE FUCKING EPIC!

 Last edit: 24/02/2009 12:17

Loco   Canada. Feb 24 2009 12:45. Posts 20990


  On February 24 2009 09:57 SakiSaki wrote:
As much as I in general always have felt some despise towards idealists(for no real reason I might add) the faked pragmatism and nihilism of our generation seriously fucking pisses me off. Everyone is hiding behind bogus pragmatic excuses for doing nothing when 90% of the time the motives are simply egotistical and the driving factor is lazyness. Its funny how nobody ever provides a better argument for eating meat than simply "i enjoy it" which in my opinion is an unacceptable excuse for making animals suffer.

You cant just disregard the message of PETA because they are on a high horse, have dreadlocks or smell funny, and you definitely cant look down on them. They are doing the world a greater service than most of you guys ever will.

As for eating meat, I dont necessarily think its anything wrong with killing an animal to eat it in terms of just the act of killing, the world wide implications excluded. However, making animals suffer in the process is unacceptable. I wouldnt be suprised if in 200 years people will look upon how we treat animals today in a similar way that all of us look at slavery. Im not saying animals and humans are equal, but that doesnt give us a free pass to do whatever the fuck we want with a cow.

Personally I have been thinking of going vegetarian on and off for years, I still havent managed to take that step and that doesnt make me feel good. However, I almost exclusively eat meat from swedish organic farms which are pretty well regulated and where I like to think the suffering of the animals is minimal. That is probably not a good enough justification in terms of moral responsibility though, but atleast I have the balls to admit it.

To Loco: Mad props sir, you have a stronger character than me and for that I applaude you.

To CrownRoyal: It seems you have similar delusions of grandeur regarding intellect as you have in poker. Guess what? If this thread was a poker game, you would be the micro stakes grinder.



I'll be honest and you'll probably laugh about it but I don't think it will take 200 years for people to realize this, I believe it's already taking a foothold on the planet and that in a few years (3-4) things will have changed(improved) dramatically. And at the risk of sounding superstitious, perhaps even it is part of the whole 2012 thing, if it indeed brings a shift in consciousness like the most significant theory of it states it will (I just informed myself on the subject), animals will be treated much differently.

Well, actually, most of the people who turn vegetarians I believe simply do it for the health benefits. Vegans on the other hand are the ones who do it for moral reasons, since the cows and poultry aren't treated in a natural way either(for them to produce more milk and eggs) so they have to cut them and dairy products from their diet also. So it makes sense when people say they have wanted to become vegetarians but couldn't since deep within they don't feel that it is immoral to keep purchasing from those industries. Buying from organic farms/cutting meat consumption % is still better than not doing anything about it and just tapping yourself on the back saying "that's the way things are" before eating a steak so at least you are make some efforts unlike most. Perhaps the motivation to go deeper will come eventually if you stay sensible about it.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount 

Loco   Canada. Feb 24 2009 12:50. Posts 20990

"Do you think going vegetarian is a clear message to anyone or that anyone would actually give a shit?"

I'm not sure I understand your question towards Saki. Why is it important to you if anyone gives a shit or not? What do others have to do in your own choices and morals? The intent behind it should be because you care about the environment on a deep level and your health, not because of other people?

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount 

lebowski   Greece. Feb 24 2009 12:59. Posts 9205

As I said my interest is to change the way animals are treated overall,not to criticize meat eating in general. That's why I am referring to other people ,if I thought that meat eating was immoral I would obviously not care about what others think.

new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man... 

WastedGate   United States. Feb 24 2009 13:00. Posts 667


  On February 24 2009 06:07 Loco wrote:
I'm sorry Baal but you just aren't looking at the bigger picture here. You are too concerned with individuality. It is of course true that it does "very little" but that is relative anyway. How is very little?

By going vegan for a month, you save:

8000 gallons of water
a quarter acre of land
a quarter ton of soil erosion
a half ton of polluting animal manure
the CO2 equivalent of 270 pounds of greenhouse gases
the energy equivalent of burning 7 gallons of gasoline, and
160 pounds of crops wasted on farmed animals.

Of course it isn't gigantic on a very large scale but if that one person makes a few other people become vegan and so on during their lifespan it doesn't take very long before it makes a drastic difference on the planet. Thinking that you are just one individual on this planet and that what you do has no importance is just ignorance.


Glutonny is eating in excess and/or getting extreme pleasures from food. So when someone says hmmmmmm I love steaks so much they're so tasty I would never give up eating them they're pretty much being gluttons. They do what they do because they don't care about what's behind it, the industries, the environment, and only want to please their tastebuds. That is your choice, but that is also glutonny and only in this fucked up world can such a thing happen, because it is certainly not natural for some humans to be gluttons and others to starve to death.


quoting this to bump it.

You dont need to be a vegan or a vegetarian or some stupid trendy hipster kid to see that raising animals uses up TONS more resources than does growing crops.

wait wha?Last edit: 24/02/2009 13:02

genjix   China. Feb 24 2009 13:06. Posts 2677

Short answer.

Ethics aside, we cannot due to a differing chromosome count. Our chromosome 2 is actually a fusion between 2 chromosomes from our shared ancestor.

Unless we can artificially split and restructure our number 2 or alternatively artificially fuse the corresponding chromosomes in a chimp.

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. 

Steal City   United States. Feb 24 2009 13:07. Posts 2537

Very interesting, but disappointing as it would require a clearly artificial human intervention to fix the chromosome number (not that contacting ape/human sperm and egg isn't artificial, but I guess I don't have to argue the difference in significance) and would not provide as much evidence for evolution.

Googling I found that other apes (gorillas?) are not a solution either:
"The four species have a similar number of chromosomes, with the apes all having 24 pairs, and humans having 23 pairs" (http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html)

The next question is whether the experiment might, despite that, still work. Suppose the common ancestor also had 24 chromosomes, and a mutation results in 23. Then that mutant (let's call her Eve ), would have to be able to mate with a male with 24 chromosomes. And 23 would have to be the result. Of course, in those days the other differences in DNA would be much smaller, but the mere fact that the number of chromosome pairs differ is perhaps not an impediment in itself. Any thoughts on that? I guess it is known whether a person with Down syndrome can have off-spring.

Edit: It turns out this link already point to the possibility of breeding animals with different numbers of chromosomes, and gives an example.

Intersango.com intersango.com  

Steal City   United States. Feb 24 2009 13:08. Posts 2537

It appears to be hardly an original idea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee

Intersango.com intersango.com  

genjix   China. Feb 24 2009 13:08. Posts 2677

Why would we want to...?

And I think there are issues there that no current human society can deal with. Best to leave it alone.

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. 

Steal City   United States. Feb 24 2009 13:08. Posts 2537

Fatuous questions regarding the composition of the current President of the US aside (sorry, couldn't resist) even the mere suggestion of creating such a chimera would be enough to stir science-fearing religious fundamentalists into a frenzy, and perhaps for once their indignation would be justified.

Assuming the technical difficulties of incompatible chromosome counts etc could be overcome (and given time I have little doubt that they could) what would the purpose of such an exercise be? Simply to see if it was possible? Creating new cells lines in the lab by mixing genes from different species already has enough ethical question marks hanging over it. The creation of a young "Humanzee" carries with it the rather more obvious question...what would life be like for such a creature?

Not very pleasant would be my guess.

Intersango.com intersango.com  

genjix   China. Feb 24 2009 13:08. Posts 2677

As Steal City has said, it could probably be done but what would be the point? The humanzees would only end up taking over the world and using humans as slaves in a post-apocalyptic society.

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. 

Steal City   United States. Feb 24 2009 13:11. Posts 2537

It was done about 60 years ago the result was george bush

Intersango.com intersango.com  

genjix   China. Feb 24 2009 13:11. Posts 2677


  On February 24 2009 12:11 Steal City wrote:
It was done about 60 years ago the result was george bush



So we make one Humanzee and he ends up president of the United States?! crap, we best not create any more, dumb and powerful is not a good combination!

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. 

Steal City   United States. Feb 24 2009 13:12. Posts 2537


  On February 24 2009 12:06 genjix wrote:
Short answer.

Ethics aside, we cannot due to a differing chromosome count. Our chromosome 2 is actually a fusion between 2 chromosomes from our shared ancestor.

Unless we can artificially split and restructure our number 2 or alternatively artificially fuse the corresponding chromosomes in a chimp.




Your short answer is wrong. Horses and donkeys don't have the same number of chromosomes either. Differing chromosome numbers is not a barrier to hybridisation. There are even species where chromosome numbers differ within a population.

Intersango.com intersango.com  

Steal City   United States. Feb 24 2009 13:13. Posts 2537

I think the clinching argument is that it would not teach us anything. The creature (for once, this term seems appropriate) would not be like any one of our pre-human or early-human ancestors. So the attempt would not only be ethically atrocious (which, being a philosophical point of view, is always debatable) but also scientifically pointless, which is not debatable.

Intersango.com intersango.com  

genjix   China. Feb 24 2009 13:19. Posts 2677


  On February 24 2009 12:13 Steal City wrote:
I think the clinching argument is that it would not teach us anything. The creature (for once, this term seems appropriate) would not be like any one of our pre-human or early-human ancestors. So the attempt would not only be ethically atrocious (which, being a philosophical point of view, is always debatable) but also scientifically pointless, which is not debatable.



There is no way of possibly knowing what it could teach us, as a technical exercise it would at least teach us how to create human/chimp hybrids. Overcoming the pitfalls in the process would no doubt give us a greater understanding of the human genome. While the technical knowledge gained just by merely attempting it does not justify attempting it, it does prove that whether or not it is scientifically pointless is in fact debatable.

Also although just creating a human/chimp hybrid would not create anything resembling a common ancestor who is to say the entire genome of a common ancestor isn't contained the amalgamation of all the living descendants (well obviously a mathematician could give you the statistical probability of that hypothesis) but I am going to put it out there as a topic of discussion. If that is possible then only common ancestors with a large variety of living descendants would be possible to recreate. ie it would be impossible to create Theropod dinosaurs because all the living ancestors have a more recent common ancestors (presumably the earliest possible would be the first bird with a beak as that is the last thing birds evolved which is common to all birds). But perhaps it could be possible to recreate the earliest amphibians by the amalgamation of nearly every living land animal in existence. (although I severely doubt that)

Also I believe that inevitabley some one will do this somewhere, and while this is not worth pouring research money into which could be better spent. Curiosity is as good a reason as any for it to be attempted. Besides I am sure most of you wouldn't have the same hangups about creating a other animal hybrids.

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. 

Steal City   United States. Feb 24 2009 13:20. Posts 2537

My few cents on this matter.

I think a healthy human chimp is possible since the hybrid animals we have already bred would appear to be healthy, but I have no information to back that up offhand. Humans and chimps diverged 3MYa ago. Apart from bulk genome structure differences, viability would probably also be a function of divergence time.

Most people seem to think that we inevitably have to proceed with fertilisation to the result of an a humanzee individual. But that is not so - we could learn considerable amounts just by studying the early embryo and perhaps creating a stem cell line from it. No talk about creating hybrid individuals is needed.

As for the ethical concerns...these would be, in part, addressed by assessing that early and later embryos are viable and healthy. Our knowledge based on other hybrids would seem to support the idea that even if you were to permit a hybrid to grow to an adult, we would not encounter any nasty surprises for it, such as some bizarre illness. A humanzee would almost certainly be sterile too, which eliminates the concern over chimp genes entering the human gene pool.

An important ethical question might be what rights would be extended to an artificially-created humanzee, and given its relationship to humans, would this be ethical. Everyone immediately balks at the idea of human-greater ape hybrids but few can put their finger on it. I fall back on sci-fi here, since science fiction seems to be the best predictor of what we allow to be done with science creates for us in the future. If we were to create human-chimp hybrids on a large scale and use them as research animals, servants or manual labour and treat them as second class citizens as in Planet of The Apes, that would be very wrong indeed.

Intersango.com intersango.com  

lebowski   Greece. Feb 24 2009 13:21. Posts 9205

you are really posting all these because Loco derailed your thread aren't you Steal City?

new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man... 

genjix   China. Feb 24 2009 13:22. Posts 2677

Well, the purpose of my suggestion was to make some people more aware that, while humans are special, we are not THAT special. We're just a species of talking primates, a funny branch on the tree of evolution.

While we could take proper care of the humanzee (after all, we do take proper care of the hapless who were born with insufficient mental capacity to live their own life, at least in some countries), I believe the point would already be made if the foetus reached 3 months. Or perhaps even a fertilized egg that developed beyond a certain stage could get the point through.

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. 

Steal City   United States. Feb 24 2009 13:24. Posts 2537

This is actually a subject I've thought about and researched for several years now. I have an unfinished screenplay on the back burner, waiting for some inspiration to finish it up, but as many people have already said, they think such an experiment would be unethical or pointless...

My avatar picture was taken from the following video, which is about a white chimp whose eyes are different than other chimps. One eye is blue and the other is brown. Both eyes have white around them, which is rare enough to make one question how such a mutation happened, and it gives a more human-like appearance to the chimps face.



Make of it what you will... :shock:

Intersango.com intersango.com  

genjix   China. Feb 24 2009 13:27. Posts 2677

To get an idea of the feasibility of the humanzee, I've been trying to dig up some date on the common ancestors for donkey/horse and tiger/lion. If they are longer ago than the human/chimp common ancestor split (believed to be about 5 mio years ago), the idea might be feasible.

For horses/donkeys things look promising:
1) Since horses, asses, and zebras, whose evolutionary divergence is relatively recent, show remarkable morphological similarity and capacity to interbreed despite their chromosomes differing considerably ... we compared the centromere position and marker order arrangement among orthologous chromosomes of Burchelli's zebra (Equus burchelli), donkey (Equus asinus), and horse (Equus caballus). Surprisingly, at least eight CRs took place during the evolution of this genus. Even more surprisingly, five cases of CR (Centromere repositioning) have occurred in the donkey after its divergence from zebra

2) How donkey and horse karyotypes gathered these differences within a short period of 5-10 Myr since divergence from a common ancestor will be known only after an ancestral equid karyotype is deduced, and the direction of change leading to chromosome rearrangements is clearly understood.


For Tigers and Lions the divergence is apparently less than that of the human/chimp split, so no positive pointer that the humanzee might be possible. I came across a site where they made mention of 2 mio old fossils clearly recognizable as Tiger, so I guess that is about how old as it gets. Perhaps the fact that humans and chimps tend to live longer on average might be a comforting factor.
3) The tiger cymtDNA shared around 90% sequence identity with the homologous numt sequence, suggesting an origin for the Panthera numt at around 3.5 million years ago, prior to the radiation of the five extant Panthera species.

The links for the sources are below.

1) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... bc4832b123

2) http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/pr ... tNr=224037

3) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... f30b82a359

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. 

genjix   China. Feb 24 2009 13:30. Posts 2677

If I may be so bold, I suggest that the label "aquatic ape theory" for a thread title is not quite right for a discussion of the influences of moving through water may have had on ape-human divergence.

The fact is "the" theory is not one, but several.

Here are some...

Westernhofer's (1942) "Aquatile" hypothesis published in "Das Eigenweg des Menschen" is a different, and quite peculiar, one from the Hardy/Morgan one (below) most people understand to be the "aquatic ape theory". It is not even clear if his ideas are Darwinist, and he certainly doubts that humans evolved from apes. It lacks a cohesive timescale and really just proposes certain anatomical traits, such as our feet, have analogues with aquatic mammals.

Hardy/Morgan (1960... 2007) "Aquatic Ape Hypothesis" (AAH) is probably the one most people think about when they hear about the idea. Hardy was the first to publish his thoughts in an English-language journal and Morgan has been the most vociferous and long-running proponent of the idea, writing six books on the subject. Basically it proposes a distinct "more aquatic" phase at around the time of the ape-human split which was largely coastal (but Morgan has since accepted that it may have also comrpised fresh water elements too.) Hardy was quite happy that this 'phase' ended and man returned to a fully terrestrial life afterwards.

Verhaegen et al (2002) "Aquarboreal Apes-Amphibious Ancestors Model." Quite different again, and more complex, is the idea that the ancestors of all great apes were already somewhat waterside dwelling. Unlike Hardy/Morgan, who think of the LCA as more chimp/gorilla like, proponents of this view see the LCA as wading-climbing (hence aquarboreal) apes that were already somewhat bipedal, living in swamps and coastal mangrove forests. They make the distinction between this kind of 'default' bipedalism and our own and suggest that human ancestors, after the split with the apes, went through a "more aquatic" or amphibious stage which explains the genus Homo. They see Homo erectus as the most aquatic phase in human evolution and suggest that traits such as their heavy bones are best explained as diving adaptations. They regard diving as key in the evolution of human bipedalism as it would select for traits making the hominid more streamlined. This "linear build", they say, is a necessary prerequisite for modern human bipedalism.

Ellis' "Wetland Ape" hypothesis. Ellis (e g. 1993) simply proposed, in a series of papers in the late 80s/and 90s, that wetland habitats would have been ideally suited, ecologically, for early hominids. There is a lot of overlap here with the early phase of the previous model (the 'aquarboreal phase') but Ellis does not delve into any later speculation about modern human evolution. Had recent support from Richard Wrangham in 2005.

Crawford, Cunnane, Broadhurst et al "Marine Food Chain based Encephalisation" hypothesis. In a set of detailed papers and books, these brain chemists/nutritionists proposed that the process of human encephalisation could not have occurred without a significant shift in diet. Specifically, an increase in essential fatty acids and micronutrients which are best found in the marine food chain. We are all aware today of the known health benefits of omega 3 fatty acids and of Iodine in salt, both rich in fish and shelffish. These authors do not lay out a detailed timescale for this switch in diet and some (e.g. Crawford) claim that it must have been very early, even contradicting the molecular clock estimates for ape-human divergence.

Carsten Niemitz' (2002) "Amphibisce Generalistheorie" is another, quite different waterside hypothesis of human origins. He goes out of his way to distance himself from what he calls "the aquatic ape theory" and is quite damning in his criticism of it, but then goes on to promote the view that bipedal wading is the perfect pre-requisite for human bipedality. Controversially, a part of Niemitz's model is that "we didn't come doewn from the trees". Like many of these ideas, I think he has some very good point as well as some bad ones.

My own "River Apes... Coastal People" Model. Struck by the impression that all of the models above seem to have some aspects absolutely correct but others frustratingly wrong, I decided to form a kind of 'hybrid' model, choosing the most plausible, evidence-based parts of each and adding a few bits of my own. Basically the model agrees with the Verhaegen et al/Ellis 'aquarboreal ape' phase for the LCA and before but proposes that the actual ape-human divergence was caused by some of these wading-climbing apes finding themselves east of the rift where a shift to aridity caused their forest habitats to shrink ever closer to seasonally flooded gallery forests (the "river apes" part.) The idea is that simply adding a component to their lives where their habitat is flooded for several months a year was enough to to consolidate their bipedality, wheras the apes west of the rift, living in tropical rain forests were not compelled to do so and increasingly adopted knuckle-walking. The model suggests that as rivers lead to the sea, human ancestors (already fully bipedal) would have eventually arrived at the coasts where other changes (such as encephalasation/dental reduction, body hair loss and increased infant/female adipocity etc) would have been selected for (the "coastal people" part). It assumes that H erectus was more aquatic than their ancestors (hence its diaspora as far as Indonesia) but that early modern Homo sapiens was the most aquatic of them all. The key point, I suppose, about this model is that it stresses a simple fact from population genetics that even very slight selection can and does make a profound difference in populations in a very short amount of time. Seen in this light, when I said early modern Homo sapiens was the most aquatic of them all, I do not mean that they were 'aquatic' at all in the traditional sense, just that they lived at coasts more and were therefore exposed to the risk of drowning more than at any time in their past. Their success as a species soon forced them to move to, and eventually exploit, every other niche on the planet but, according to this model, our ancestral niche was the coast.

There are other ideas too, some more extreme such as Hagstrom's "Passionate Ape" which I believe actually proposes that human ancestors at one time lived in the sea pretty much full time, and others much more mild, such as Philip Tobias' "Water and Human Evolution" idea which simply urges his peers to think more about the role living by water played in our evolution. I won't go into them here. Suffice to say that calling "the" idea the "aquatic ape theory" is at best insufficient and at worst very misleading.

I hope members will be interested enough in these ideas to debate them openly and objectively.

All the best

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. 

Steal City   United States. Feb 24 2009 13:34. Posts 2537

I am posting this before I have read the OP. Hope that doesn't screw things up.

Algis, This is my reply to one of your former posts in the other thread:


  In my defence I have had years of debating this on other newsgroups (such as sci.anthro.paleo) where there is a great deal of hostility to the idea and its proponents.
I also have been trying to get a paper published on the wading hypothesis now for three years and the responses from the editors and reviewers (on the one ocassion it did get to peer review) were very disappointing to say the least.

I'm sorry you don't find the wading model for bipedal origins satisfying. To me it answers this question, which has confused the field for 150 years, perfectly.



I wasn't aware there was any hostility on the hypothesis, only some of its points and the extent of influence. Or perhaps I only perceive that because I am not hostile to it, I'm just questioning of it. :Dunno:


 

Show nested quote +



Well put it this way, to explain encephalisation we need a change to an energy-rich diet. What energy rich-diet is there on the savannh? Meat. So humans would have to be the first species that ever underwent increased carnivoroy at exactly the same time that they underwent dental reduction. It soundds like special pleading to me. Much simpler to postulate the marine food chain. One tap of a pebble and you have a soft, nutritious meal. High energy, no need for big teeth.



Not only does that sentence require a qualifier (I have not researched thoroughly, but I am very highly skeptical of that claim), change in dental structure is exactly what would be expected with a significant change in diet. Why would there be a delay in the development? Or do you not mean to imply this?

I am certainly not a dental expert (perhaps someone can correct me if I am wrong), but the human jaw does not clearly indicate much more than an omnivorous diet. Aside from increased tooth decay coinciding with the invention of highly processed grain, I do not know of any strong dental indicators of a specific food source being exploited in our history.


 
Show nested quote +




Langdon (1997) uses that precise argument, and it is fairly common. But this is my point. The "orthodox" arguments are all over the place. They're often contradictory. Waterside hypotheses, by contrast, are consistant and complimentary.

[Langdon, J. Umbrella hypotheses and parsimony in human evolution: a critique of the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. Journal of Human Evolution 33:479-494, (1997).]



To be fair, the additional pressure that Langdon postulates is long periods of extreme endurance, like hunting, requiring a better system for removing large amounts of excess heat.

The lifestyle Langdon postulates as the motivator for the development of of our current system makes sense to me if you switch around some of the causes and effects. I think it is more likely that the development of sweat glands came before the loss of most body hair for thermoregulation during periods of extreme activity. As this developed, body hair would become more and more a liability. Not only does it inhibit the evaporation of sweat when needed, wet hair becomes a problem when temperatures cool. But I don't regard this as a solve-all either.


 
Show nested quote +


[...]
The problem is it must have been less energy efficieent to move bipedally for an early (and hence not anatomically adapted) biped. This inefficiency must have been exacerbated by carrying, not aided by it. Wading solves that problem at a stroke because even apes without anatomical adaptations for bipedalism move bipedally in shallow water.
[...]



But I see this as part of the problem, just because they are required to move bipedally in water does not mean they are pressured to do so on land. Like others, I question how much of a pressure wading actually provided, because, as I see it, for it to be the main contributing factor for bipedalism, enough time would have to be spent in water (compared to land) and account for enough structural changes that it became structurally difficult to have a quadrupedal mode on land. I think that requires QUITE an aquatic lifestyle. And I am not sure there is enough evidence for an aquatic lifestyle to that degree.


 
Show nested quote +



Well getting food is quite important, I'd say. If you're in a group swimming back from an off shore island against the tide, having less drag is likely to make all the difference between life and death.



True. This would have to have been a regular occurrence to off-set the benefit of the insulation. Was the area of fossil finds this aquatic?

On a side note: Are there many anatomical parallels with proboscis monkeys? As I understand it, they live in a fairly watery environment requiring the regular crossing of shallow channels.


 
Show nested quote +



Yes, it does. But the point about moving through water, as opposed to moving on land, is that even if you only spend 1% of your time in water, you might still drown there. So it will have a disproportionately important effect on selection.



The number game still applies to all explanations equally. The point of a survival differential is taken. I don't dispute the plausibility of an effect, just saying that other explanations that can show a survival differential (or variable fitness) are on equal footing in that regard.


  There is no doubt that the response to the so-called "aquatic ape theory" by the field of paleoanthropology for 50 years has been, shall we say, disappointing. I'm not claiming there's a conspiracy, just ignorance. It was misunderstood, by Le Gros Clark, on day one and since then two generations of students have either been taught a distorted version of the idea or nothing about it at all.

My statement "The bias and dogma against this idea is apparently so strong it even trumps Darwinism - how bizarre is that?" is the result of years of debating this with people who hold the 'orthodox' view.

For example, I made that point (the fact we swim better than apes suggests natural selection has made us that way) at UCL to Dr Mark Collard and he would not have it. Instead he came out with arguments like "we ride bikes", "play musical instruments" ... anything but admit that it was actually quite likely and parsimonious to just assume that, like all the other permutations, it was due to natural selection.



If others argue it simply from bias and ignorance, I sympathize. That is unfortunate. I think perhaps it is merely stubbornness. This is not necessarily a bad thing as it forces proponents of a new idea to form more solid arguments and evidence. It also requires some amount of a successful falsification of the previous theory. We want to get our hypotheses more accurate and more supported, not more numerous and speculative. Again, good luck in your efforts.

I think I understand the point Dr. Collard was making, it requires more to argue natural selection for what can be learned behaviors. For us, our brain and capacity to learn trumps many pressures for an instinctive or anatomical solution to a problem. Our ability to ride a bike does not develop from a selective pressure to be able to ride bikes. It is learned. A better approach may be to focus on what is provably instinctive with regards to swimming. :Dunno:


 
Show nested quote +



I was implying bipedal transporting, like a large stone (often used by chimps as anvils for the obvious benefit of getting to food). In an instance where the food can not be transported, but such a tool must be in order to exploit the resource, an ability to transport the tool farther and more efficiently would be selected for. Because, otherwise, the resource remains untapped (or tapped by others). Hypothetical large kills would cause there to be benefit for this ability as well. So would multiple tools, should they be required to exploit a resource. I didn't miss the point. I was showing that the wading model is no more solid than others to provide a pressure for bipedalism.


  [quote]

Fat is just as associated with diet. Another ape's dietary needs may not require such storage for pregnancy and infancy. Diet change is just as likely to alter adipocity as aquatic development.


But infants put on weight in the last trimester irrespective of the diet of their mother, to the detriment of the mother's health.

Eric, you didn't answer my point: If human infants developed fat because of dietary requirements, why only us? Are other primates not also always on the verge of starvation? If a species evolves in a diet-harsh environment what possible sense is there in pumping high energy fat into a baby that might be lost any day to a predator? Why would only humans, out of all the savannah ecosystem, adopt this strategy?

It's just special pleading. The most parsimonious explanation, as usual, is the coastal niche one.



Diet is not just food quantity and energy needs, it is also nutritional needs, food sources and their availability, seasonal factors, etc. There is a LOT to consider when talking about diet. Just a nutritional source easily available to another ape and unexploited by an early hominids diet could form a difference in behavior and/or physiology. If our diet OR dietary needs were sufficiently different than other apes, it is certainly possible for that to effect our adipocity. I would say that a more carnivorous diet would fit that description, easily.

Nutrition is another area out of my expertise. I don't know just what and how many vitamins and other nutrients are stored in fat, or which ones might be important to infant health and development, but a scenario where the source of such a nutrient is unreliable there would definitely be a pressure for behavioral, or physiological, storage of it for use during pregnancy. I know this sounds like speculation. Only take from it that diet is a strong influence on many aspects of anatomy and physiology.

Later. And thanks for the reading recommendations.

Intersango.com intersango.com  

genjix   China. Feb 24 2009 13:38. Posts 2677

Hi Genjix and Steal,

The areas with a proximity to water - be it a lake or a river will have been favourite niches for pioneering savannah apes.

Knowing the geography of East Africa - I don't recall any areas of seasonally flooded galleries.

These animals will have no doubt feasted on the easy prey (the animals I listed) at these water edges. They will have also eaten termites - as termites mounds are extremely numerous in Africa (chimpanzees are quite partial to termites - according to Jane Goodall) and acacia seed pods, and honey etc. So they were probably omnivorous to the extreme. All of these things are easy to chew and so their teeth will have been, more than likely, similar to rainforest apes, fairly even.

I think it was a long time before their brain power increased and it was likely that this started to come about when they began throwing their digging sticks or stones at gazelle herds drinking at the waters edges. The ability to improve their 'spears' and clubs and their throwing techniques - would be selective forces for greater intelligence (as the more intelligent ones would have better techniques and hence better kill rates and hence better survivability). New techniques which were successful would be passed onto other members of the group and future generations. This would be the beginnings of a 'general knowledge'.Those apes with the greater ability to store greater bytes of knowledge would survive over others. Knowledge is power and can trump intelligence sometimes. The braincase would vault upwards incrementally over generations - to accomodate more megabytes of memory.

Once these hunting techniques were really refined and effective, these apes would be free to leave the water resources and follow the game - some of which were probably migrating long distances. They would switch to a diet almost exclusively of meat - and blood would replace drinking water. The meat would be raw and tough and so initially the offal would be most easily dealt with.

What I am trying to say - is that these apes will have had a pioneering stage near water - but that would not have meant that they were aquatic apes - merchimps - losing their hair for the streamlining effect etc.
Also adipose tissue is more associated with thermoregulation than streamlining- mountain gorillas have it, apparently. We have it because we live in cold climates. Savannah apes may not have needed so much of it. The level of adipose tissue varies considerably amongst humans.

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.Last edit: 24/02/2009 13:39

Steal City   United States. Feb 24 2009 13:41. Posts 2537

Good point. One of the biggest criticism many in the field have with proponents of these ideas is that they don't do "proper science". They just speculate. The problem is Hardy retired before announcing his idea, thus surrendering any chance of co-opting a band of loyal PhD students who might work under his guidance. Morgan isn't even a scientist, she'd a popular writer, so she didn't have the chance to do any of the experiments anyway. So, basically, at least one generation has been lost where a lot of good science might have been done. It's not quite true anyway, of course, because some of the ideas, such as the encehalisation from marine food chain, is properly installed withing the literature as a resectable theory.

I think it is also fair, however, to ask another question. Instead of "why are some aquatic ape proponents such bad scientists?" why not ask "why have no good scientists even looked at this thing?"

I think it is changing now in any case. There are a few of us engaged in "proper" research in a few universities around the world. But, you know, it's dificult to change a paradigm. To do that you have to get published in a good peer reviewed journal. That's very difficult at the best of times but much harder when you're challanging the very paradigm the editors and reviewers have probably built their reputations on.

Intersango.com intersango.com  

genjix   China. Feb 24 2009 13:42. Posts 2677

I know I am guilty of speculating - but it is only through speculating that robust theory emerges. Then you can test different parts of the theory or research information that backs up your theory. This is where the internet comes in; it can provide answers to your questions in seconds. No more going down to the library! Every theory starts with speculation. Darwin speculated.

That is the beauty of web-sites like these - you are free to have your say. You don't have to be an eminent scientist or guilded writer - you can make your own comments in an informal way (and without peer-review status) - ideas which may be the culmination of many years of enquiry. You can lay out a skeleton of a theory and then add flesh to it bit by bit - using information gained by other scientist's research. You ask yourself the question. "It is likely this happened - and if this happened something else linked to this might have happened". Its a bit like doing a large jigsaw puzzle without the picture on the lid. Each piece has to mesh properly with three or four other pieces. Speculation also features a lot in solving jig saw puzzles.

Many teachers of evolution, including some of those in universities don't get much further than passing on their own knowledge. I call them 'parrots' because they are just repeating stuff. But because they are at the top of their profession, and widely respected they do not want their interpretations displaced by newcomers and new ideas. It makes them look a bit dumb because they should have thought of it.

Take for example, it has only been recently accepted that all human races are derived from humans which came out of Africa.

It used to be the Out of Africa Theory versus the Multi Origin Theory. Mitochondrial RNA has confirmed the Out of Africa Theory - but surely it was obvious that we would not be able to easily interbreed as we do - if some races had different origins to others?

I did an applied Zoology Hons degree at Newcastle upon Tyne University and intended to do a PhD but got involved in a family business. I have always maintained a deep interest in evolution and drew inspiration from Richard Leakey's TV programmes in the 1980's about the Evolution of Mankind. I have been researching evolution on the internet for the past twelve years or so. This does not make me an eminent biologist, but I intend to get this evolution message across to as many people as I can. Any scientist is perfectly free to scrutinize my work and correct me if I am going wrong.
I draw inspiration from Richard Dawkins - and wish him well in this battle against superstition. There are not enough people like him - willing to 'rock the boat'. Carl Sagan was another genius.

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. 

brambolius   Netherlands. Feb 24 2009 13:43. Posts 1708

holy fucking shit

Heat......EXTEND 

Steal City   United States. Feb 24 2009 13:45. Posts 2537

I dont think you necessarily find lots of sharp tools just lying around the savannah. The point is that humans somehow learned to make these sharp tools for themselves by cracking stones and then chipping away at them. Where better to begin to learn how to do that, than on pebbly beaches where there are millions of them? They may be rounded by erosion to start with, but once they've been cracked against a shellfish, or another pebble they may break open and create sharp edges.

I'm not pretending that humans didn't use stone tools later to butcher meat and to skin mammals, and that they did so miles from the sea. I'm just agreeing with Alister Hardy, Elaine Morgan and Carl Sauer who have argued that this was the perfect place for the culture to have begun.

Intersango.com intersango.com  

genjix   China. Feb 24 2009 13:46. Posts 2677

Being self-skeptical is what scientific rigour is all about. I just think some scientists take it too far. Then it just becomes the pretence of rigour.

Don't be too harsh on Desmond Morris. I agree with you that some of his speculations in "The Naked Ape" were rather comical (e.g. "breasts for buttocks" "noses for penises" and Elaine Morgan gave those ideas what they deserved. But let's be fair. Speculation is a big part of scientific progress and Morris was only speculating.

If he hadn't written that book, Elaine Morgan might never have been driven to get interested and this idea might have been all but forgotten by now.

Also, Desmond Morris was the first person to spark my curiosity in human evolution. I loved his book "Soccer Tribes" and it was his documentary (The Human Animal?) that mentioned the "aquatic ape" idea and really got me interested in the whole controversy about it.

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. 

Steal City   United States. Feb 24 2009 13:49. Posts 2537


  ..dont think you necessarily find lots of sharp tools just lying around the savannah. The point is that humans somehow learned to make these sharp tools for themselves by cracking stones and then chipping away at them. Where better to begin to learn how to do that, than on pebbly beaches where there are millions of them? They may be rounded by erosion to start with, but once they've been cracked against a shellfish, or another pebble they may break open and create sharp edges.




In East Africa, there is an abundance of flint. These stones fracture easily (naturally - they explode, I think because they contain methane gas ) leaving a very sharp and strong edge. Also in areas around volcanoes, there is obsidian, which is a natural glass and it also breaks into sharp edged shards.

Also there are mollusc shells which when broken can have very sharp edges; in fact Australian aborigines still use them as cutting instruments. Flint Hand axes are so numerous all over East Africa (I remember coming across them frequently in the playing fields surrounding my boarding school in southern Tanzania). These are distinct artifacts and more recent but the earliest tools like broken flint rock, obsidian shards or even molluscs shells would now be indistinguishable from naturally broken ones. Crude digging sticks and early throwing sticks will no doubt have degraded over the last six million years and so we may never find proof of these either.


  ...I agree that it is incredible how anyone can support the multiregional hypothesis but the interbreeding argument is not a strong one as far as I know. Lions and tigers can interbreed and they are separated by much more time than even the multi-regionalists need.




I think it is likely that tigers are basically lions which have adapted to a forest environment. Their cryptic coloration is for the Indian type jungle ecosystem.

Lions have evolved from other cats into a savannah environment. These savannahs are also in parts of India (where there are lions - the same as the African ones) and probably existed in Iran and the Middle East as far west as the Afar triangle in the Horn of Africa - during major glacial periods.

This leads me on to answering David's comment

Andrew MacKay wrote:Knowing the geography of East Africa - I don't recall any areas of seasonally flooded galleries.


  ...
It isn't what it's like now that matters, Andrew, it's what it was like millions of years ago. It is known for sure, that NE Africa has a very different geological history from the rest of Africa/Europe. As a result, it also acted as the last redoubt of C3 vegetation in East Africa, although you wouldn't thionk so to look at it now! The rotating Arabian plate ensured that. For example, the Afar depression was not and could not always have been an arid, hostile salt basin. The effect of the volcanism was to create periods of flooding and of drying, and of new terrain not just in the last 80KY, but the last 7MY. I have linked some references in previous threads on human evolution.




I read somewhere that major glaciations have occurred on this planet every 100,000 years. It is assumed that Jupiter is in such a position, every so often, to pull the Earth away from the Sun, thus making it cooler for a while. I have also read that our Solar System completes a tour round the Milky Way every 110 thousand years or so. So the difference of the Earth from the Sun may also have something to do with this.

It follows that a cooler climate in Northern Kenya, Sudan, Ethiopia, Yemen, Iran would have had a great impact on the vegetation. The Afar Triangle - like all parts of the northern Rift Valley will not have been in the arid state they are today. I believe man came out of Africa during one of these major glaciations - probably about 200,000 years ago.

Intersango.com intersango.com  

genjix   China. Feb 24 2009 13:49. Posts 2677

This is a big topic. I figure that an entirely hairless condition (vestigial pelage) came first for both males and females. The condition was advantageous for the heat of the open savannah, and provided an effective surface for evaporative cooling (perspiration). However, with total hairlessness, the braincase was exposed to harmful rays from the Sun. Selection for a thick hair covering came about subsequently.

Male body hair, particularly beards and moustache areas - and even chest areas may have been selected for at a much later stage. This type of hair distribution would be advantageous in concealment requirements for predation or being preyed upon. Beards, like those twigs and nets adorned by soldiers, break up the characteristic outline - predators or prey are watching out for. This works most effectively in dense forests. So early man on the savannahs may have been quite hairless. Beards and chest hair may have emerged when early man moved into the dark rainforests of Central Africa and also when they reached the forests of India.

Looking at it this way, hairlessness (as in our females) is the default condition and this is confirmed really by the fact that our children are hairless. The masculine characteristics of musculature, extra body hair and aggressiveness are sex linked and must come into play when extra genes governing these characteristics ( on the Y chromosome) are switched on at puberty.

I still believe sexual selection by males has fashioned the looks of human females. The group leaders or alpha males will have had the choice of the most aesthetic or 'fit' females and resultantly their survival had more chance over less aesthetic ones - because they would be more priveledged and would produce more offspring.

Some of these apes must have had a good eye for proportions - look what they produced!

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. 

Steal City   United States. Feb 24 2009 13:50. Posts 2537

My term savannah ape is an umbrella term to cover all the intermediates between rainforest apes and the type of modern man which moved out of Africa, some 200,000 years ago - as I hypothesised. The term savannah too is a vague generality of which many pedantics will criticise me for. Nevertheless I mean (in the context of Africa) anything which is not tropical rainforest or harsh desert. This can be sparse scrubland savannah, acacia thornbush with the occasional baobab, or open grassland. All these ecosystems would require the apes to move considerable distances on the ground between trees - where I assume they nested safely at night. I think that the open grasslands, though, are more recent and probably a result of tree destruction carried out by hungry elephants. This clearing effect has been observed in Kenya Tsavo National park when elephant populations are excessive.

I estimate the rainforest apes started to evolve into savannah apes sometime within time frame of 6 to 5 million years ago. All we can go on so far are the bones of robust and gracile Australopithecines which date to 3 million years ago but this does not mean that they were not in existence long before then.

As long as conditions are favourable for an animal in its niche environment - there is no need to try other niches.
This is what I call stasis in evolution. The chimpanzee has had its niche in the rainforest for more than 8 million years and as long as that environment continues like that, the chimpanzee will stay like that. It is only when overpopulation occurs that some are pushed out into less favourable - or even harsh environments. It is interesting to consider what we would have looked like if the African rainforest had been surrounded entirely by ocean. We may have ended up as merguys and mermaids! It was just happenstance that the attached area to the rainforest was a more open eco-system. The pioneer apes had to run the gauntlet of a very different lifestyle. That difficult lifestyle favoured intelligence and ingenuity. It fashioned all our distinct attributes.

When I talk about hairlessness in humans - I really mean vestigiality. Yes some women are quite hirsute - even very feminine ones. Hair, like skin darkness, must be controlled by multiple gene sets and there are many different levels of hair growth. Some of these gene sets are on the X chromosomes (of which males have too) but there will be extra helpings of gene sets on the male Y chromosome - making them sex-linked traits. In a similar way there are genes for testosterone production on X chromosomes (in females) but an extra portion on the Y chromosomes. XYY men have a double extra share of testosterone manufacturing genes. Some women have high testosterone levels which can be apparent in their aggressive behaviour or masculine features and so testosterone controlling genes on the X chromosomes can vary considerably between different females.

I think female savannah apes will have found athletic looking males attractive because this would suggest that they are good strong hunters. Strong torsos and leg muscles would be likely attributes selected by these females.
Early savannah ape females, though, were probably quite masculine in build, and quite aggressive in nature - because they may have needed to be strong to defend the nest and young.

That is simply not the case. Even if that is the purpose, why then do we still have rather naked bodies that are easily noticeable? Why don't we have other traits for breaking up the outline of our main body?



Early man will have applied his own camouflage for hunting. Aborigines in Australia still disrupt their outlines with spot marks made with ochre and lime. Many African tribes used to cover themselves in red dust mixed with urine as well as apply ochre in camouflage patterns.

So you are saying we had body hair, then lost body hair, then regained specific body hair?


Yes I am saying we had fairly thick black hair like chimpanzees (dense forest animals are often black) initially. This was reduced to a vestigial pelage (like we have now) and this stuck because it provided a better surface for evaporative cooling. Then those with thicker head hair survived over those with thin head hair. There will have been a change of hair (and skin colouring) to one which blended more effectively with the savannah back-drop - perhaps a reddish colour or a grey colour like elephants and warthogs.

It could be that pubic hair came about on more intelligent stages of savannah apes. Males may have selected females with a 'natural' covering over their genitals. As pubic hair is not sex linked it appeared also in mature males.This probably coincided with the stage where our minds were getting a little too sensitive and too intelligent for our own good. We probably also started worrying about superstitious 'controlling forces' at this time.

Intersango.com intersango.com  

genjix   China. Feb 24 2009 13:51. Posts 2677

I don't think there has been very much done, in the way of hypotheses testing for either (waterside or savannah) idea. I suppose that most anthropologists assume the later hypothesis, without the need for any testing, in the same way that most religious people assume the God Theory. Perhaps I am biased, but I do think that mot waterside proponents are, at least, a little more evidence based. We tend to say - but hold on a minute. If we evolved on the savannah like so many other mammals did, how come we're so different to them? If we came down from the trees and began scavenging/hunting - how come our olfaction is even worse than chimps, let alone any typical terrestrial scavenger? How come we're fat and naked? How come we're bipedal? Big have brains/small teeth etc etc.

In the video, I very briefly describe a set of experiments I did to test just one part of one hypothesis. The wading hypothesis of bipedal origins. I conducted a series of experiments measuring the energy consumption of bipedal locomotion in various depths of water, at various speeds and with various knee flexions. We confirmed earlier studies that showed that on land, a bent-hip bent-knee (i.e. inefficient ape-like) gait was 55-60% more costly than a fully upright (extneded hip, human-like) gait, but most importantly, we showed that this differential was reduced in water. At some sppeds, depths and knee flexions it is easier to move in water than on land. This provides a very clear and elegant solution to the problem of the energy efficiecny model of human bipedalism - how did it begin? How could bipedalism have been practiced even before the anatomical changes evolved to make it efficiient? Shallow water is the perfect answer.

I had five attempts to get the research findings published rejected by the authorities of anthropology. Only twice did it even go to peer review and even then the comments indicated a severe ignorance and bias about this idea.

This research address just one of about a thousand really interesting research projects that are still to be done to test various waterside hypotheses of human evolution but, I suspect, not a single post-graduate student anywhere in the world has ever been encouraged to do any proper science in this area for fear of ridicule by the peers of the potential supervisor.

It's a scandal of Piltdown proportions because the idea has been so badly misunderstood, rejected more on the basis of gossip than of any science and a whole culture of authority-led self-righteousness has prevented any objective study being done in the area for 50 years.

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. 

Steal City   United States. Feb 24 2009 13:52. Posts 2537

Well, a model of human evolution that took into account females, other than passive sex objects or exclusive child rearers, was one of Elaine's main points in her early books "The Descent of Woman" and "The Descent of the Child".

Her version of the so-called "aquatic ape hypothesis" is purely Darwinian though, you can be sure of that. I think waterside hypotheses are generally more Darwinian than orthodox ones. If they can be criticised, it is for being rather too adaptationist. Opponents to these ideas tend to invoke random drift more than we do.

In my opinion, a key aspect of human evolution is our increased altriciality. We need a model where the mother-infant pair have more time together, more time for play, more time for bonding and more time for the early stages of language to evolve through some vehicle which might enhance breath control. There is no doubt that the relatively food-rich (and especially when it comes to nutirents needed for encephalisation) and predator-poor habitat of the coast is a far more plausible habitat for this to have happenned than the wild, brutal savannah.

Intersango.com intersango.com  

genjix   China. Feb 24 2009 13:52. Posts 2677


  There is no doubt that the relatively food-rich (and especially when it comes to nutirents needed for encephalisation) and predator-poor habitat of the coast is a far more plausible habitat for this to have happenned than the wild, brutal savannah.




This is an issue I have a question about. There is clearly a distinction between brain development and brain evolution. The first refers to individuals and their growth and development throughout life, while the second applies to the entire species over many, many generations.

I understand that certain dietary fatty acids found in relatively high concentrations in fish and mollusks(?) are helpful in the development of brain tissue, particularly during fetal development and early childhood. I don't believe anyone disputes this.

However, I have never seen an adequate explanation of how a diet high in fatty acids would lead to the evolution of larger brains. It would seem that if the evolutionary pressures to have greater intellect, hand-eye coordination, and advanced communication were absent, no amount of dietary fatty acids would induce the evolution of larger brains. Conversely, if there were a selective pressure in favor of larger brains in a population that didn't have a diet high in fatty acids, there would be a concurrent pressure in favor of endogenous synthesis of fatty acids (or some other comparable physiological change, such as the evolution of a slightly different type of brain tissue not as dependent on fatty acids).

I'm not attempting to start an argument with you on the subject. I'd just like to understand what mechanism you believe is responsible for translating the availability of fatty acids into the evolution of larger brains.

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. 

genjix   China. Feb 24 2009 13:53. Posts 2677

I did not know of the newspaper rags you mentioned, and I would regard daily newspapers especially the ones mentioned in explaining anything of value as a joke!

In order to clarify my original post, and not sure where my dissertation was I went to Wikipedia in desperation and behold:
The similarity of the subcutaneous fat in aquatic birds and larger aquatic mammals to the fat in humans had already been noticed by marine biologist, Sir Alister Hardy in 1930, while reading Frederic Wood Jones' Man's Place among the Mammals, which included the question of why humans, unlike all other land mammals, had fat attached to their skin. Hardy realized that this trait sounded like the blubber of marine mammals, and apparently began to suspect that humans had ancestors more aquatic than previously imagined. Fearing the backlash of such a radically different idea, he kept this hypothesis secret until 1960, when he spoke, and later wrote, on the subject, which became known as the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis, in academic circles.

Hardy delayed reporting his theory. After he had become a respected academic, Hardy finally voiced his thoughts in a speech to the British Sub-Aqua Club in Brighton on 5 March 1960.

News of Hardy's speech generated immediate controversy in the field of paleoanthropology, and Hardy followed up by publishing two articles in the scientific magazine New Scientist[4]. In the article of 17 March 1960[17] Hardy defined his idea: "My thesis is that a branch of this primitive ape-stock was forced by competition from life in the trees to feed on the sea-shores and to hunt for food, shell fish, sea-urchins etc., in the shallow waters off the coast. I suppose that they were forced into the water just as we have seen happen in so many other groups of terrestrial animals. I am imagining this happening in the warmer parts of the world, in the tropical seas where Man could stand being in the water for relatively long periods, that is, several hours at a stretch." (Hardy 1960:642) Despite receiving some positive feedback in the Letters pages of New Scientist in the weeks that followed, and strong backing from a professor of geography,[18] the idea was largely ignored by the scientific community.

In 1991 a symposium was held in Valkenburg, Holland, titled "Aquatic Ape: Fact or fiction?", which published its proceedings.[31] The chief editor, Vernon Reynolds, rejected the strong version of the hypothesis, but accepted a weaker form, summarizing that "overall, it will be clear that I do not think it would be correct to designate our early hominid ancestors as ‘aquatic’. But at the same time there does seem to be evidence that not only did they take to the water from time to time but that the water (and by this I mean inland lakes and rivers) was a habitat that provided enough extra food to count as an agency for selection. As a result, we humans today have the ability to learn to swim without too much difficulty, to dive, and to enjoy occasional recourse to the water."32]
Despite the conciliatory wording of the summary, and the fact that half of the submitted papers were in favour of the hypothesis, it was reported in the anthropological press that the hypothesis had been rejected.[27]
However there has since been some acceptance. In 2004 Colin Groves, Professor of Biological Anthropology at the Australian National University in Canberra, Australia with co-author David W. Cameron stated that
"..nor can we exclude the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (AAH). Elaine Morgan has long argued that many aspects of human anatomy are best explained as a legacy of a semiaquatic phase in the proto-human trajectory, and this includes upright posture to cope with increased water depth as our ancestors foraged farther and further from the lake or seashore. At first, this idea was simply ignored as grotesque, and perhaps as unworthy of discussion because proposed by an amateur. But Morgan's latest arguments have reached a sophistication that simply demands to be taken seriously (Morgan 1990, 1997). And although the authors shy away from more speculative reconstructions in favour of phylogenetic scenarios, we insist that the AAH take its place in the battery of possible functional scenarios for hominin divergence.

So now instead of pretending that divine inspiration was involved maybe this conversation should start from where the giants left their footprints, and a more adventurous approach to the existing framework provided may possibly start.

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. 

lebowski   Greece. Feb 24 2009 13:55. Posts 9205

you guys are good

new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man... 

Steal City   United States. Feb 24 2009 13:55. Posts 2537

Since I haven’t heard back from AlgisKuliukas, I’m going to assume that he hasn’t had time to return to this topic since I last posted, and I’m going to go ahead and post my response.

AlgisKuliukas, please understand that I respect you and your hypothesis. I have a fair idea of how much study you have put into it, and I’d like for us to be able to discuss this like gentlemen. Please read my most recent post where I politely request that we engage in a critical examination of some of the key elements.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/v...f=4&t=68111&start=50#p1666499

So, here goes.

AlgisKuliukas wrote:Firstly, I think it is likely that increased intelligence would always provide a selective advantage, no matter what the evolutionary scenario. We certainly don't need to postulate any harsh 'Dartian' savannah environment where humans are on the edge of survival for it to have evolved.



It is not true that increased intelligence always provides a selective advantage. There are metabolic and other costs to maintaining a large brain that are not always compensated by a particular animal's lifestyle. If what you say is true, we have to explain why all species on earth aren't going through a process of continual increase in intelligence. We have no reason to believe that crocodiles, sharks, or insects of today are any more intelligent than crocodiles, sharks, and insects of 300 mya. With regard to mammals living during the time of humans, we have no reason to believe that felines, canids, or equids of today are any more intelligent than their ancestors of 5 mya. Of a fishy diet is the limiting factor, and increased intelligence is always a selective advantage, we'd at least expect to see significantly greater intelligence among walruses, seals, nutrias and the like.

No, intelligence has highly variable selective advantage that applies in very specific and individualized circumstances. Mother Nature tends to be stingy. Every feature of every animal is precisely as developed as that animal needs for it to be, no more, and intelligence is no different. (Dawkins relates the story of the Detroit automaker who went through a junk yard looking for parts that never wore out so he could make them out of cheaper materials.)

I wholeheartedly agree with you that we don't have to posit a harsh savannah environment for the evolution of human intelligence. However, a neo-Darwinian adaptationist is going to expect that something in the environment consistently selected for greater intelligence over a fairly long time period. Since the mechanism of selection is differential survival1, for the environment to impose a selection pressure it must impose a situation in which some individuals die while others live. So, whether it was the savannah or the waterside, something about it was harsh.

(AlgisKuliukas, I realize that you haven't made the following argument, so please don't take offense.) Mr. Dosed has suggested that it was sexual selection, but I find that explanation profoundly unsatisfying for advancements that made humans the dominant species on the planet. It's like when you're in a pathology conference and someone points out a strange cell type on the slide. After several people fail to identify it, you all just agree that it must be "connective tissue" and you move on. It's a cop out! Similarly, sexual selection seems to be the default assumption whenever we get stumped. I have no problem agreeing that sexual selection plays a role in sexually dimorphic traits and various other interesting features, but not the bread-and-butter traits that permit a species to out-compete all others and become the dominant species on the planet. It's like saying that sexual selection is what makes cheetahs fast and enabled bats to develop sonar. It just doesn't make sense.

AlgisKuliukas wrote:Secondly, it seems likely to me that Crawford's idea that evolution is often driven by changes in nutrition is very plausible.



I completely agree with you that evolution is often driven by changes in nutrition. This proposition is more than plausible, it is certainly beyond any reasonable doubt. However, "evolution is driven by changes in nutrition" is still a generalization that requires certain assumptions before it translates into the specific hypothesis of encephalization/diet proposed here.

One way in which evolution is driven by diet is the general trend that scarcity leads to increased efficiency while abundance leads to inefficiency and even dependency. Consider the following examples:

Scarcity of water and water consumption needs:

Common rats must drink water. Eating ordinary food with moderate amounts of moisture is insufficient. This is the result of complex physiological factors such as urinary output, moisture lost through skin, etc., and it is due to the fact that common rats are able to obtain drinking water in their environment.

Desert-dwelling kangaroo rats, however, never have to drink. The water they produce metabolically within their cells during oxidation of organic molecules obtained from food is sufficient for them. Kangaroo rats' kidneys and skin (among other things) are modified so that they simply don't lose moisture the way most mammals do. Obviously, this is an adaptation to living in a desert, where drinking water is difficult or impossible to find.

This general trend is seen in every animal in every environment throughout all of nature. When some essential nutrient is scarce in a particular environment, animals within that environment adapt to utilize that nutrient very efficiently.

Abundance of vitamin C and dependency:

The common ancestor of all mammals produced its own vitamin C. We know this because all modern mammals inherited this gene. However, somewhere along the line mutations occurred in several lineages rendering the gene dysfunctional. Keep in mind vitamin C is absolutely essential for collagen synthesis in mammals. If a coyote or tiger is born with a dysfunctional vitamin C gene, it will certainly die in short order. So, how is it that some mammalian lineages survive just fine without the ability to synthesize vitamin C? It's because vitamin C is abundant in their diets.

Somewhere in the distant past there was a dietary change for certain lineages to a food source with plenty of vitamin C. At some point an individual was born with a dysfunctional vitamin C gene, but for this individual there was no survival penalty because of the abundance of vitamin C in the local diet, and he ended up producing just as many offspring as everyone else. Over time, this mutation spread to the whole population (or similar new mutations arose de novo), and the entire population became dependent on dietary vitamin C.

Humans and chimpanzees are two such species. Our common ancestor had a dysfunctional vitamin C gene, and both species inherited it. Today we are completely dependent on dietary vitamin C.

Because of the molecular basis of the neo-Darwinian explanation of evolution (namely that accumulated random mutations lead to diminishing function tremendously more frequently than improved function), this trend is essentially universal throughout nature. When an essential nutrient is abundant in the environment, species utilize it less and less efficiently over time and may even become completely dependent on it.

Challenge to the encephalization/diet component of WHHE: The way I understand it, the scarcity/abundance pattern provides a challenge to the encephalization/diet component of the WHHE. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I understand the encephalization/diet argument:

1) There were selection pressures for increasing encephalization in early hominids.
2) At some point these pressures failed to generate continued encephalization because the diet of early hominids lacked sufficient amounts of certain critical nutrients.
3) Once these hominids began consuming fish/shellfish they obtained the necessary nutrients and the barrier to increased encephalization was lifted.
4) The result was that the trend in increased encephalization was able to continue.

Am I close?

Ok, so here are the problems I see with that explanation:

1) There is no reason to believe that early hominids lacked sufficient omega-3 fatty acids in their diets. Omega-3 fatty acids are found in high concentrations in the flesh of grass-feeding ungulates of all kinds, as well as in many plants, plant seeds, and nuts. Just as one example, flax seed is 6 times richer in omega-3 than fish oils. Modern populations that eat no fish at all have no trouble developing and maintaining ordinary human brain size with other sources of omega-3.

2) There is no reason to believe that early hominids were any less efficient in utilizing dietary omega-3 fatty acids, metabolizing them, or secreting them in breast milk than modern humans are. Why is this significant? Because modern humans do not require a diet of fish or shellfish to maintain our current brain size ("modern" = any time in the past 50,000 years). There have been myriad cultures around the world in the past tens of thousands of years with diets containing zero shellfish and minimal if any fish of any other kind. If a diet of fish/shellfish was a barrier to encephalization, how would any of these people have maintained ordinary human brain size and intelligence? We would expect to see a return to early hominid brain size for humans who didn't maintain a fishy diet. Otherwise, we have to propose that there was a physiological mechanism by which recent human populations liberated themselves from a high fish diet and somehow maintained large brain size, and we have to explain why that physiology wasn't adequate for early hominids to develop large brains with a non-fish diet in the first place.

3) According to the general principle that scarcity leads to increased efficiency of utilization, it does not follow that there would have ever been a dietary barrier to encephalization. Humans obtain varying amounts of omega-3 fatty acids from all manner of animal flesh, plants, and plant seeds. This essential nutrient is concentrated and secreted in breast milk2. Whatever selection pressures led to increasing brain size in early hominids would have led to a simultaneous increase in the efficiency of utilization of these nutrients.

Here's the basic mechanism: Within the population of early hominids, there would have been varying brain size (and corresponding varying intelligence) as well as varying concentration of omega-3 fatty acids in breast milk from individual to individual. The following combinations of results would have been produced (among others). Let "small" mean tendency toward small brain size, "large" represent tendency toward increasing encephalization, "adequate" represent efficient utilization of dietary fatty acids such that adequate amounts for large brain development are found in breast milk, and "inadequate" just the opposite of adequate:

a. small + adequate >> no increasing encephalization
b. small + inadequate >> no increasing encephalization
c. large + inadequate >> no increasing encephalization
d. large + adequate >> INCREASING ENCEPHALIZATION

As long as there was a selective pressure toward increasing brain size, there would have been an accompanying pressure for efficient utilization and secretion of nutrients in breast milk. The combination of step d. would have prevailed in the population, and whatever dietary barrier there may have been to encephalization would have been addressed at the same time as brain size increased. Now, it is not debatable that step d. (or some physiological equivalent) took take place at some point, because it is an observable fact that humans all around the world, eating extremely varied diets many of which contain little or no fish, have been able to obtain adequate amounts of omega-3 fatty acids for current levels of brain development. The question is when did this happen.

The WHHE explicitly or implicitly proposes that this liberation from a fishy diet is a recent development ("recent" = within the past couple hundred thousand years, after the evolution of our large brain). If this is true, we have to explain how modern humans came to utilize fatty acids efficiently while early hominids were unable to.

4) According to the general principle that abundance leads to decreased efficiency of utilization and dependency, it follows from the WHHE argument that humans would have become dependent on fish/shellfish for current levels of brain development. As concentrations of essential nutrients increased in the diet, the population would have ceased utilizing them efficiently. The mechanism for this would be similar to that of vitamin C dependency:

Let's imagine a population where females concentrate a particular amount of fatty acids in their milk. It is sufficient for slightly larger than chimpanzee-sized brains size (for example), but insufficient for increasing encephalization. Then they start eating fish/shellfish. The result is that the increased dietary nutrients appear in breast milk or directly in the diet of the young. Now, what would happen to an individual who didn't concentrate fatty acids efficiently in her milk? Well, elevated levels in her diet would result in her milk having the nutrient anyway, and her offspring could obtain it directly from the fish they ate.

Her mutation (which would be harmful in some other environment) would be able to spread throughout the population. Similar mutations in other females would also be free to spread. Over the same time period as brain size was increasing due to abundance of essential nutrients in the diet, the ability of the species to efficiently utilize those nutrients would diminish. The result would be similar to our current vitamin C dependency. Modern humans (meaning any time in the past 50,000 years) would have been restricted to environments where fish/shellfish are abundant.

AlgisKuliukas wrote:It is certain that certain limiting factors involved in brain growth are plentiful in the oceans.



This statement is a bit imprecise. The imprecision is in the words "limiting", "growth" and "oceans". It gives the impression that it is an established fact that brain growth is definitely limited by terrestrial diets. While this is necessary for your hypothesis, it is obviously not true, since most of the human race over the past 50,000 years has had a terrestrial diet and had no problem maintaining a large brain. It also fails to distinguish between brain development in individuals and brain evolution over time. It also fails to specify where in the ocean these factors are found.

It would be more accurate to say that nutrients that contribute to human brain growth are plentiful in the flesh of fish and shellfish.

AlgisKuliukas wrote:These factors were clearly not a limiting factor in the early evolution of nervous systems and brains, since that early evolution occurred in the sea.



Again this statement is extremely imprecise to the point of being misleading. It gives the impression that a marine environment in general promotes nervous system development. The simple fact that there were no limiting factors to early nervous system evolution in the sea does not lead to the conclusion that there are limiting factors on land. If this were the case, we should expect for sea life to be the most intelligent -- fish, sharks, and sea turtles, as opposed to lions, wolves, apes, etc.

I believe that generalizations like this hurt your argument because they are extremely vague and lack any reference to a mechanism.

AlgisKuliukas wrote:Therefore it makes sense that a return to a partial reliance on the marine food chain would 'liberate' any limiting factors that terrestrial life might have imposed.



If this were true then turning away from the marine food chain would be expected to replace the barriers to enchephalization, and we'd see progressively diminishing brain size in all animals as their distance from the coasts increases. In humans we'd expect decreasing intelligence in grain farmers, reindeer herders, and many, many of the world's other populations. In fact, we'd expect to see the largest brains, greatest intelligence, most sophisticated language, and most advanced tools among coastal populations. Is there any evidence to support that?

AlgisKuliukas wrote:If there were certain nutrients that under normal (savannah-based) circumstances limited certain aspects of brain development - for example Iodine and omega 3 fatty acid deficiency - which suddenly became plentiful, it is only to be expected that any mutations that occurred in that area of metabolis could have made that population still more vulnerable to those deficiencies and more able to take advantage of plenty.



As I have already pointed out, if there were deficiencies in dietary nutrients, any selective pressure for greater encephalization would have resulted in a simultaneous pressure for more efficient utilization. Similarly, an abundance of those nutrients in the diet would have led to inefficient utilization and dependency. Since all human populations everywhere, including those that have returned to the savannah, have typical modern human encephalization, there doesn't appear to be a good reason to suppose that there was ever a barrier or that we overcame it by changing our diets.

AlgisKuliukas wrote:I suppose the other thing is to put the argument the other way around: Let's imagine that a group of early hominids, that lived on the coasts, were able to become more intelligent simply by eating certain foods and there was sufficient energy in that food to fuel this brain growth then it is hard to conceive of a scenario why they wouldn't have done so?



If there were a savannah-diet barrier, and if that barrier were removed by returning to a marine food source, and if the waterside environment presented selection pressure for increasing intelligence, then I agree that we would expect to see increasing brain size over time. But that conclusion is based on a series of ifs all of which have to be true and some of which seem pretty speculative.

Let's apply this to animals other than humans. Is there any reason why any coastal mammal wouldn't benefit from increased intelligence? If simply eating certain foods fueled their brain growth, why haven't they experienced something similar to the explosion humans underwent?

The answer is that according to the basic mechanisms of neo-Darwinian evolution, abundance of something in the diet does not lead to increased efficiency of utilization of that nutrient over time. Instead it leads to less-efficient utilization and ultimately dependence (like with vitamin C).

The mechanism that leads to evolutionary development of something is selective pressure in the form of differential survival1. In an environment in which there was selective pressure for increased brain size we would expect to see increased brain size. If there were a limiting factor in the diet, we'd expect to see a simultaneous evolution of increased utilization or endogenous synthesis of that nutrient. In an environment where there was selective pressure for increased brain size AND there were abundant critical food sources, we'd expect to see an increase in brain size and a dependency on those specific food sources.

Intersango.com intersango.com  

genjix   China. Feb 24 2009 13:56. Posts 2677

My thanks to OHSU for giving me a notice about this very interesting discussion on the waterside hypothesis.

However, the bulk of the past pages of discussion in this string of Evolution and Natural Selection have dealt with the subject of brain development
The waterside hypothesis should fail entirely to deal with this subject. The only thing involved here is that a waterside lifestyle would not preclude nor promote larger brains.

The waterside hypothesis proposes that mans split with chimps involved adapting to a shore environment rather than an arboreal environment, and that this promoted bipedalism and an assortment of other adaptations. A large brain was not amongst the adaptations we see at this time.

Now let us look at the time frame and the evolutionary changes that resulted.

at 10 mya we split from the gorillas.
at 6 mya we split from the chimps
at 5.8 mya we split from the bonobo (some suggest this was a chimp-bonobo split)
at 3 mya we had well developed bipedalism
at 2 mya we began to develop larger brains
at 1 mya we have a modern man
at 72,000 we have an eruption on Toba, and the bottleneck in population.
at 60,000 we have a shore fisher gather movement out of Africa along the coast of the Indian Ocean.

(feel free to update or correct my timeline if you have more up to date information)
The Chad fossil at 7 mya seems to be just at or before the chimp human split, but may be in the gorilla lineage rather than the human one. The evidence to support this as a bipedal animal is quite thin.

What should be immediately obvious is that whatever caused bipedalism (5 to 3 mya) was quite different than what caused larger brains (2 to 1 mya).

Our discussion of larger brains should be a very different subject than our discussion of bipedalism. Pretending the two are related is much like setting up a strawman. (I find the throwing hypothesis of brain development to be more convincing than other proposed ideas)

By 60,000 ya we had the clear ability to live as shore fisher gatherers. We must at some point have developed adaptations that made this lifestyle possible, so some period of a waterside lifestyle would seem to be well indicated. The skills did not develop overnight. When did we develop waterside skills, and just what changes would we expect to see from a waterside environment?

1 ) bipedalism ... wading clearly promotes this.
2 ) a subcutaneous fat layer. We have this although it is the wrong kind of fat, so we should presume a non-exclusive semi-aquatic life, not a fully aquatic life.
3 ) hair modification. Most aquatic animals develop oily hair, loosing the hair altogether is also a reasonable modification.
4 ) beginning tool use. Wading sticks, rocks to crack shellfish shells, and perhaps even fishing spears would be the first obvious tools. floating logs and perhaps rafts are an outside possibility. Seals use rocks to crack open clams, so it is entirely reasonable to think a shore living ape would also. We know chimpanzees (at least one tribe) are using rocks to open nuts. The skill transfer, shells to nuts is an easy one to expect.

I feel the Waterside Hypotheses of Human Evolution has merit, but proponents should not let it get derailed with strawman arguments such as large brains not being an aquatic feature. In the time period from chimps to Lucy, we see a full change in bipedalism, but a minimal change in brain size.

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. 

Baalim   Mexico. Feb 24 2009 13:59. Posts 34286


  On February 24 2009 09:57 SakiSaki wrote:
As much as I in general always have felt some despise towards idealists(for no real reason I might add) the faked pragmatism and nihilism of our generation seriously fucking pisses me off. Everyone is hiding behind bogus pragmatic excuses for doing nothing when 90% of the time the motives are simply egotistical and the driving factor is lazyness. Its funny how nobody ever provides a better argument for eating meat than simply "i enjoy it" which in my opinion is an unacceptable excuse for making animals suffer.

You cant just disregard the message of PETA because they are on a high horse, have dreadlocks or smell funny, and you definitely cant look down on them. They are doing the world a greater service than most of you guys ever will.

As for eating meat, I dont necessarily think its anything wrong with killing an animal to eat it in terms of just the act of killing, the world wide implications excluded. However, making animals suffer in the process is unacceptable. I wouldnt be suprised if in 200 years people will look upon how we treat animals today in a similar way that all of us look at slavery. Im not saying animals and humans are equal, but that doesnt give us a free pass to do whatever the fuck we want with a cow.

Personally I have been thinking of going vegetarian on and off for years, I still havent managed to take that step and that doesnt make me feel good. However, I almost exclusively eat meat from swedish organic farms which are pretty well regulated and where I like to think the suffering of the animals is minimal. That is probably not a good enough justification in terms of moral responsibility though, but atleast I have the balls to admit it.

To Loco: Mad props sir, you have a stronger character than me and for that I applaude you.

To CrownRoyal: It seems you have similar delusions of grandeur regarding intellect as you have in poker. Guess what? If this thread was a poker game, you would be the micro stakes grinder.



I eat meat because its extremely enjoyable and tasty is not a good reason? dude you have your priorities fucked up here, last time i checked i have extreme priorities in enjoying my life every second as possible in everything i do.

If you think its not relevant to give up what you consider a total pleasure every single day for the rest of your life then your retarded, because it is for people who like meat, most vegans werent big fans of meat anyway (despise what some say lol) i know many people who rarely eats meat not because of dumb moral views, just because they dont like it much and/or its hard to digest.


For Loco, ok you listed a lot of pretty things, and you failed again, donating $1,000 a year will give what like a thousand times more to the enviroment and food problem? and i think in getting short, oh but wait "you dont know where the money is going", then make sure you choose the proper association before you donate to them and problem fixed.

So if you are aware donating money is more effective than not swallowing cows why dont you eat meat and donate instead?, oh but i already know this, because giving this money wouldnt give you this inflated maskeraded sense of awareness superiority.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Steal City   United States. Feb 24 2009 14:00. Posts 2537



Intersango.com intersango.com  

genjix   China. Feb 24 2009 14:03. Posts 2677

i see your point... but i beg too differ because:



and if we take



this obviously implies that



If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. 

Steal City   United States. Feb 24 2009 14:06. Posts 2537












Intersango.com intersango.com  

genjix   China. Feb 24 2009 14:09. Posts 2677

.

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. 

Steal City   United States. Feb 24 2009 14:09. Posts 2537

.

Intersango.com intersango.com  

genjix   China. Feb 24 2009 14:11. Posts 2677

.

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.Last edit: 24/02/2009 14:11

genjix   China. Feb 24 2009 14:13. Posts 2677

.

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.Last edit: 24/02/2009 14:13

genjix   China. Feb 24 2009 14:21. Posts 2677

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. 

Baalim   Mexico. Feb 24 2009 14:27. Posts 34286

omg

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Loco   Canada. Feb 24 2009 14:33. Posts 20990

Very disappointing, Baal.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount 

SakiSaki    Sweden. Feb 24 2009 14:57. Posts 9687


  On February 24 2009 12:59 Baal wrote:
Show nested quote +



I eat meat because its extremely enjoyable and tasty is not a good reason? dude you have your priorities fucked up here, last time i checked i have extreme priorities in enjoying my life every second as possible in everything i do.

If you think its not relevant to give up what you consider a total pleasure every single day for the rest of your life then your retarded, because it is for people who like meat, most vegans werent big fans of meat anyway (despise what some say lol) i know many people who rarely eats meat not because of dumb moral views, just because they dont like it much and/or its hard to digest.




Well, I guess you and I are just diffrent. I dont build my moral beliefs around what is always best for me. I am prepared to make sacrefices to do what I think I am morally obligated to. Your moral reasoning makes you close to a psychopath

what wackass site is this nigga?  

Loco   Canada. Feb 24 2009 15:00. Posts 20990

What is 'best' for a person is not what gives him the most pleasure out of life. It is exactly this mentality that taken to an extreme and as a collective manifestation has made the world as dysfunctional as it is today, and this won't be sustained by the planet for long.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount 

Loco   Canada. Feb 24 2009 15:08. Posts 20990

Also don't mistake what I just said as meaning that everyone should force themselves to make choices that would make them unhappy, that is not the case. The whole perception that pleasures = happiness and 'making the most out of life' is what the erroneous perception is. If you compulsively seek pleasures externally to make you happy you are doing it in order to avoid pain, so this happiness you seek therefore brings pain. And not only does it bring pain onto you but it also does onto others a lot of the time. Why would happiness bring pain? You should question that.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 24/02/2009 15:23

Baalim   Mexico. Feb 24 2009 15:26. Posts 34286


  On February 24 2009 13:57 SakiSaki wrote:
Show nested quote +




Well, I guess you and I are just diffrent. I dont build my moral beliefs around what is always best for me. I am prepared to make sacrefices to do what I think I am morally obligated to. Your moral reasoning makes you close to a psychopath



oh... but you do, because you build your morale around "not eating meat" saving the planet that way, when just donating cash is much much much more efficient and will help more, so you actually do build your morale on what is best for you, not on what is best for everbody else, because quiting meat gives you a sense of acomplishment, makes you feel good, atleast more than donating, regardless of the results of both.

This is for both, you and loco, how come you quit eating meat and you are sitting on dozens of thousands of dollars withouth donating considerable amounts.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Loco   Canada. Feb 24 2009 15:31. Posts 20990

If you were to suddenly become allergic to all meat Baal would you become unhappy for the rest of your life?

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 24/02/2009 15:32

Baalim   Mexico. Feb 24 2009 15:31. Posts 34286


  On February 24 2009 14:08 Loco wrote:
Also don't mistake what I just said as meaning that everyone should force themselves to make choices that would make them unhappy, that is not the case. The whole perception that pleasures = happiness and 'making the most out of life' is what the erroneous perception is. If you compulsively seek pleasures externally to make you happy you are doing it in order to avoid pain, so this happiness you seek therefore brings pain. And not only does it bring pain onto you but it also does onto others a lot of the time. Why would happiness bring pain? You should question that.



i didnt say external pleasures is hapiness, hapiness derives from pleasures but it depends on how extense we define pleasures, it is pleasurable for you to "help the world" by being a vegan, not to your taste buds, but for your mind.

And i am not preaching about a selfish quest for pleasure as an optimal way of life, i were only saying "because it give me pleasure" it is indeed an strong argument.

both of you are still dodging the question, why not donate instead, dont give me the "i dont know wher its going" fucking crap, because that is bullshit and that is not the reason u dont eat meat.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Baalim   Mexico. Feb 24 2009 15:33. Posts 34286

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

TalentedTom    Canada. Feb 24 2009 15:36. Posts 20070

This dosn't seem like too important of an issue when compared to stuff like pollution, war - people destroying the planet. Animals are disposable and we can just "make" more if we need to, when compared to other things it's not that big of a deal IMO. Eat meat or don't, w/e just try and make it so that the next generation of people has a equal or better quality of life than ours

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light not our darkness that most frightens us and as we let our own lights shine we unconsciously give other people permision to do the same 

Loco   Canada. Feb 24 2009 15:38. Posts 20990

Dodging what question? You're the one disregarding a whole bunch of valid points and twisting everything into one single thing. If you affirm ultimately knowing the purpose behind what it is that I do and others do then it must be true. There is nothing to argue about. And fyi, I remember Saki donating a lot to Poker Donors and that money was supposedly going to children in 3rd world countries.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 24/02/2009 15:39

n0rthf4ce    United States. Feb 24 2009 19:23. Posts 8119

FUUUUUUUUUUU

www.cardrunners.com 

seatown12   United States. Feb 24 2009 20:22. Posts 1193

holy shit Steal City you are a fucking legend

PS: Loco although you make a concerted effort to rationalize your various opinions, it's obvious that in reality they are based almost exclusively on your own personal values. Effectively this makes you much more self-centered even than others, such as CrownRoyal, who you deride for being "egotists", and your disingenuity in this regard only makes your position less respectable. I could go through your posts and quote any number of statements that are misguided or just plain incorrect, but that would be missing the forest for the trees. Instead I will just point out that you are unfortunately no more perfect than the rest of us despite your most earnest attempts to appear so.

Im like a motherfucking bulletproof tigerLast edit: 24/02/2009 20:43

TalentedTom    Canada. Feb 24 2009 21:59. Posts 20070


  On February 24 2009 18:23 n0rthf4ce wrote:
FUN

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light not our darkness that most frightens us and as we let our own lights shine we unconsciously give other people permision to do the same 

SemPeR   Canada. Feb 25 2009 06:21. Posts 2288

I wrote a haiku for everyone. o.O

Vegans are real cool.
Steaks actually taste great.
Can't we get along?


SakiSaki    Sweden. Feb 25 2009 06:42. Posts 9687


  On February 24 2009 14:26 Baal wrote:
Show nested quote +



oh... but you do, because you build your morale around "not eating meat" saving the planet that way, when just donating cash is much much much more efficient and will help more, so you actually do build your morale on what is best for you, not on what is best for everbody else, because quiting meat gives you a sense of acomplishment, makes you feel good, atleast more than donating, regardless of the results of both.

This is for both, you and loco, how come you quit eating meat and you are sitting on dozens of thousands of dollars withouth donating considerable amounts.



I wouldnt stop eating meat to "save the planet". I would stop eating meat primarily because I am against animal cruelty. Like I have stated before, I wouldnt really have a moral problem with eating meat if it was guaranteed to have come from a cow that was treated ok.

It is pretty arrogant of you to assume that everyone takes the same egotistical aproach to morality as you do.

Now the whole reasources aspect of this is a complex issue which I havent really decided on yet but I think its pretty naive to say that you can just donate a bunch of money instead. The population of the world is growing rapidly and money cant really magicly create new fields to grow crop on.

Oh and I do donate a fair bit, probably not nearly enough as people like Peter Singer would want me to but we are all more or less flawed in that department. I dont really see how that is an argument for me to keep eating meat though? Just because I am not jesus I might aswell be satan huh?

what wackass site is this nigga?  

Loco   Canada. Feb 25 2009 06:50. Posts 20990


  On February 24 2009 19:22 seatown12 wrote:
holy shit Steal City you are a fucking legend

PS: Loco although you make a concerted effort to rationalize your various opinions, it's obvious that in reality they are based almost exclusively on your own personal values. Effectively this makes you much more self-centered even than others, such as CrownRoyal, who you deride for being "egotists", and your disingenuity in this regard only makes your position less respectable. I could go through your posts and quote any number of statements that are misguided or just plain incorrect, but that would be missing the forest for the trees. Instead I will just point out that you are unfortunately no more perfect than the rest of us despite your most earnest attempts to appear so.



I am aware that those are my personal values indeed. If I indeed was the self-centered person that you believe I am I believe I would currently feel the need to defend myself, like CrownRoyal, who was so quick to talk about his values and defend his integrity and try to change my mind about 'who he really is'.

I am not going to do that, because not only do I not feel it as being necessary, I do not feel it at all. I know very well my intents and your opinion about it is not something that concerns me. If I come off as a self-centered person to you, trying to look better than you to satisfy my ego, so be it and I respect it. Don't mistake me as disregarding your opinions, I'm simply saying that I know better than you what my intents are and if someone implies otherwise it won't concern me.

Gandhi said "Be the change you want to see in the world." I believe that it is exactly what I am seeking to do and if that is being self-centered then being self-centered is the best thing you can offer to the world.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 25/02/2009 09:32

brambolius   Netherlands. Feb 25 2009 12:11. Posts 1708

Loloco is lol
That last post was defensive
Like thorns on a rose

(you gotta have a nature-reference in there, else it doesnt count as a haiku )

Heat......EXTEND 

Loco   Canada. Feb 25 2009 12:31. Posts 20990

I edited the last paragraph in later cause I had just came across that reference. It wasn't defensive at all initially.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount 

brambolius   Netherlands. Feb 25 2009 13:44. Posts 1708

There you go again
You are defending yourself
The Hawk eats the Owl


(let's make this a haiku thread from nao on all, it will be fun and we won't have to wade through page after page to get a clue about wtf is going on )

Heat......EXTEND 

chris   United States. Feb 25 2009 14:07. Posts 5505

Animals are cute
The cutest will taste the best
Let's find a butcher



This thread was shitty
It was saved by two heroes
Genjix; Steal City

5 minute showers are my 8 minute abs. - Neilly 

Highcard   Canada. Feb 25 2009 14:24. Posts 5428

Your Haiku's are more gay than this picture


  On February 24 2009 13:21 genjix wrote:

I have learned from poker that being at the table is not a grind, the grind is living and poker is how I pass the time 

Loco   Canada. Feb 25 2009 14:26. Posts 20990


  On February 25 2009 12:44 brambolius wrote:
There you go again
You are defending yourself
The Hawk eats the Owl


(let's make this a haiku thread from nao on all, it will be fun and we won't have to wade through page after page to get a clue about wtf is going on )



So intrinsically if I am not ignoring what is said to me it means I'm defending myself? When I speak about defending myself to me it implies that I have a standpoint or something particular that I take to heart to defend which I clearly (at least for me) don't. In other words, being emotionally involved.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 25/02/2009 14:34

CrownRoyal   United States. Feb 25 2009 14:30. Posts 11386

now you're defending your post saying you werent defending

haha

WHAT IS THIS 

Loco   Canada. Feb 25 2009 14:33. Posts 20990

This game is no fun.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount 

Loco   Canada. Feb 25 2009 14:41. Posts 20990

lol I couldn't help thinking about you CrownRoyal when watching this funny shaped-head guy talk


fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount 

CrownRoyal   United States. Feb 25 2009 14:51. Posts 11386

ugh i watched 4 minutes and i couldnt handle it anymore.

i'm not biased towards either side, this dude is clearly anti vegan and you are clearly straight vegan.

im somewhere in the middle as far as the issue as a whole i was just playing devils advocate a bit because i like to be able to completely empathize with you.

WHAT IS THIS 

Loco   Canada. Feb 25 2009 15:14. Posts 20990

This guy clearly is very misinformed and arrogant which you were in the thread earlier, even if the standpoint differs. And my beliefs are my beliefs, even though I do have solid facts to back them up as being legitimate I don't impose them on anyone, whereas this guy is not only imposing his beliefs over on vegetarians he's also spouting a lot of ignorance.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 25/02/2009 15:17

Baalim   Mexico. Feb 25 2009 15:49. Posts 34286


  On February 25 2009 05:42 SakiSaki wrote:
Show nested quote +



I wouldnt stop eating meat to "save the planet". I would stop eating meat primarily because I am against animal cruelty. Like I have stated before, I wouldnt really have a moral problem with eating meat if it was guaranteed to have come from a cow that was treated ok.

It is pretty arrogant of you to assume that everyone takes the same egotistical aproach to morality as you do.

Now the whole reasources aspect of this is a complex issue which I havent really decided on yet but I think its pretty naive to say that you can just donate a bunch of money instead. The population of the world is growing rapidly and money cant really magicly create new fields to grow crop on.

Oh and I do donate a fair bit, probably not nearly enough as people like Peter Singer would want me to but we are all more or less flawed in that department. I dont really see how that is an argument for me to keep eating meat though? Just because I am not jesus I might aswell be satan huh?



Well atleast in here you can find quality meat from cow from farms and not massive slaughter house, the quality is much muuuuuuuhc better, obv pricier tho, so there, find a place like this and u can enjoy tasty meat.

I dont assume everyone takes an egoistical aproach of morality "like i do", (i dont at all), i assumed that only if Loco "refused" to donate when its a more effective way of helping his cases, imo Vegans who dont donate etc are absolute fakes who do it for themselves, but that shouldnt be news, most people plain suck.

Saki money can actually improve sooo many things, planting threes is extremely cheap, however donating things for petty things while people literally starve to death in Africa seems ridiculous to me.

Well you do donate, nice to see you are true to your beliefs, i never claimed that u have to give everything away or be satan, all i said is that you shouldnt give something away for ego trips, as most people in these organizations do.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Loco   Canada. Feb 25 2009 15:53. Posts 20990

lol yeah Baal you sure do know the true purpose of most vegans. They obviously do it for how well they are perceived in the world for their choices, rofl. 'Fake vegan' is possibly the funniest thing I have heard in a few weeks.

I'll let you know though, from my personal experiences, the vegans I've talked to are some of the most sensible, caring and authentic people I have ever known. If you knew some of them personally and weren't so busy being so judgmental because of PETA activists and all the bullshit behind that you would probably see this too.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 25/02/2009 15:55

Loco   Canada. Feb 25 2009 15:58. Posts 20990

Baal you do know that I've put myself under a lot of stress for a month to make a $6000 donation for my favorite band to release a new record because they were broken up? That is quite meaningless (the band) compared to everything that I stand for when it comes to animals and the environment yet you doubt my authenticity as being a generous and caring person.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount 

RainyDay   Korea (South). Feb 25 2009 16:09. Posts 484

I went on a vegan diet last year for about 3 months, and during that period I felt more healthy and had more energy then ever before in my life.

My primary reason I decided to become a vegan was for my health and strengthening my discipline; secondary reason was because of animal cruelty, effects on the environment, etc.

After 3 months I started craving seafood (the chicken/beef/pork imitations were good and kept me satisfied) and eventually gave into my temptations one night. Nowadays I try to avoid eating beef/pork/chicken but I don't think I'll be going back to being a vegan again anytime soon.

stay sharp. 

Nazgul    Netherlands. Feb 25 2009 16:10. Posts 7080

When someone does good/donates to charity stop bringing up other things that would to more good. Be happy someone does something. It's as dumb as selfish people justifying their selfishness by saying people who donate are selfish too because they do it to feel better about themselves. Be happy someone does something, etc.

You almost twin-caracked his AK - JonnyCosmo 

seatown12   United States. Feb 25 2009 16:48. Posts 1193


  On February 25 2009 13:26 Loco wrote:
So intrinsically if I am not ignoring what is said to me it means I'm defending myself? When I speak about defending myself to me it implies that I have a standpoint or something particular that I take to heart to defend which I clearly (at least for me) don't. In other words, being emotionally involved.


Your standpoint is being emotionally uninvolved, which is what you believe grants you moral superiority over those who argue with your opinions. What you fail to realize is that in creating this thread and many of your other posts you have in fact made an argument and become emotionally involved, much as you might like to convince yourself otherwise. The inherent hypocrisy of your attitudes is obvious to everyone but you.

Im like a motherfucking bulletproof tigerLast edit: 25/02/2009 16:48

Loco   Canada. Feb 25 2009 17:58. Posts 20990

I didn't say I wasn't emotionally involved at any point in the thread did I? It is very clear that I am emotionally involved for the animals and the environment in this thread, is it not? I was responding to the initial post that said I had replied by being defensive... which was not the case. I was saying that I was not taking any offense in the fact that you called me self-centered and didn't feel the need to defend myself from that statement, because I know for fact that it is not the case. It is pretty low of you to use that paragraph and use it as you please to cast me as an hypocrite.

You're the only who appears to still be threatened by my moral stance in this thread and I can't blame you, it's something that a lot of people feel about vegans and I simply can't help it. I know that I don't see myself as being 'perfect' and superior to anyone because of it, so yes, it does not concern me if you say that I do. You saying that I am oblivious to that also would be quite ridiculous.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 25/02/2009 18:06

 



Poker Streams

















Copyright © 2025. LiquidPoker.net All Rights Reserved
Contact Advertise Sitemap