Printable View
,
, Nothing will benefit Human health...
.. and increase the chances for survival of Life on Earth...
... as much as the Evolution to a Vegetarian diet.
The vegetarian manner of living by its purely physical effect on the Human temperament...
... would most beneficially influence the lot of Mankind.
. Albert Einstein - Advanced SCIENTIST.
.
Dear Mr. Sudhama,
Wish introduce myself . I am IqbalVora from Godhra . Basically a Gujarathi born and brought up in Ahmedabad .
Since childhood, I have been used to eating Non-vegetarian food. Besides, our religion also indirectly permits this.
However, I realized the virtues of being a Vegetarian by the age of 25 year. Believe me, I have totally stopped eating Non-veg. And even egg, I am trying to avoid ( though its a bit unavoidable as its being used extentively on cakes , icecreams etc which have become a common man's eatery now )
Even during Ramzan / ID , generally Muslims celebrate , breaking the fast by eating non-veg. But I am totally determined now to shun NOn-veg. So, even during these occasions , I am totally a vegetarian now. However, my family continues to remain non-veg eaters ( I mean my elders and peers ). As regards my children, I am educating them with the virtues of being a vegetarian on humanitarian grounds and also on ethical values. I hope I will make my children / next generation also totally vegetarian.
Wish to share with you all, my personal experience after converting myself to Vegetarianism :
1. I was over arrogant / rude / violent during the early 20s. I have become more matured, diplomatic, restrained, and controlled in expressing myself.
2. During my non-veg years, I will even think of eleminating someone who was totally against my views. Rather I was a radical guy but thanks to vegetarianism, I am totally a Gandhain to say now ! How I got transformed to such a level, only Allah can answer this mystery.
3. WHenver I meet my school/ college friends, I share this changed concept of my life with them . Some took it in right spirits but others said that I got influenced by some philosophy or school of thought. I told them that I am persoanally experiencing a laterial change in my life
4. My own body mechanism has changed drastically ! This has also been proved by Science I believe. I am more relaxed, able to solve office / business problems with much ease , able to withstand more pressures and above all, able to sleep peacefully without getting the knightmares of having eaten some living being ( harmless )
Yes, I will also vouch for your writings on Vegetarianism. Insha Alla, I will be able to convince more human beings on the virtues of Vegetarianism. Your articles here will be the guiding force to me .
Thank you sir.
Regards
IqbalVora
Actually I wondered if at all my sharing of thoughts is NECESSARY here, then just decided to write A SINGLE POST.
Just to answer few questions I write here.
____
1. Whether or not ONE CAN be vegetarian or non-vegetarian IS ONE'S OWN CHOICE. No outsiders can interfere here.
Each one has the RIGHT to live his life.
Instead of discussing this amicably, Sudhama has been left and right BASHED. But yes, he INVITED it upon himself mainly beucase OF THE WAY HE COMMUNICATED here.
Sudhama has been MISUNDERSTOOD mainly because of the WAY HE PUTS forth his points. I have EQUALLY found hurting words directed towards him too, which he handled politely.
What Sudhama is trying to do, is to PUT FORTH the ADVANTAGES of being vegetarian.
Those who are comfortable can take his arguments, else IT CAN BE IGNORED.
IF the SAME ADVANTAGES was said by a doctor, on harmful effects of harmonal injections done to animals is far worse than pesticides or fertilizers on vegetables.... or if you read similar such things in a magazine, MOST OF U, WOULD SIT BACK AND THINK. Wouldn't you?
____
I wanna put forth and highlight some advantages of being vegetarian
Ofcourse its each one's choice. So relax JUST READ and if u dont find my points convincing, THROW my points OUT OF UR MIND considering it as dumb ones.
ITS just MY VIEW... thats all.
thankyou .
___
I AM a VEGETARIAN. I dont FIND myself different or inferior or superir to A NON-VEGETARIAN. Its each one's choice.
I wanna just elaborate WHAT MADE ME STICK TO BEING VEGETARIAN ( Most of u may find it silly... if yes, PLEASE IGNORE :P :) )
cheers.!
__
1. I was BORN vegetarian, so, NO BIG SACRIFICE from my part OR no big deal in sticking to as vegetarian for me.
2. There are some foods which are prone to increase some qualities in us. Basically ANIMALS have gunas (qualities ) which may be tamasic, rajasic or satvic.
tamasic = leads to dull sluggish qualities
rajasic = leads to egoistic qualities
satvic = leads to serene calm qualities
THOUGH DEFINITELY, not all vegetarians are serene and not all nonvegetarians are egoistic.
Type of Food we eat PLAYS A PART too.
That is the main reason, why saadhakas or ppl who are in spiritual paths are prescribed VEGETARIAN foods.
That is the reason, WHY Non vegetarains AVOID meat during vratham or vendudhal or when they go to sabhari malai or WHEN they PRAY specially for any specific reason.
__
3. point 3 is for all those who asked "IS NOT THE TREE living?" "dont plants live" "are we not killing them" etc
I shall tell u my view, BASED ON what little I know...
First of all VERY STRICT vegetarians in olden days, because they
should not KILL plants, USED TO AVOID ROOT VEGETABLES too, unless the tree dies and root has to be pulled out . These days not many follow all these so strictly.
Now to answer what is the diff between eating plants and eating animals...
Evolution has taken place slowly....
from unicellular organisms to 6 sensed human being.
With every evolution, there is an addition of another sense.
plants have 4 senses
ANIMALS have 5 senses
Generally with addition of another sense, THE PAIN which they experience INCREASES .
When u cut a leaf, the pain which plant experience is MUCH LESS than the pain which an animal experiences when u kill an animal / birds.
CANNIBALS are ppl who eat human beings. Its considered NOT SO WISE because PAIN which humanbeing experiences COMBINES WITH INCREASED AWARENESS.
Therefore, as per cause and effect theory, the effect a vegetarian have WOULD BE different from the EFFECT which a non-vegetarian has when he consumes non.veg food.
These are the basic reasons, why SOME RELIGOUS followers avoided non.vegetarian food.
Ofcourse these days most vegetarians have eggs in form of cakes... they use jelly use lipsticks (darn me :sad: ) .... so... I dont think many DO JUSTICE to the word of BEING PURE vegetarian....
This post is JUST TO POINT OUT some ADVANTAGES.
All said n done there are exceptions everywhere.
So... no hard feelings...
Be Happy eating what u like. enjoy life. smile... and CHEERS.
:thumbsup:
Reminds me when I was doing my thesis and this probably where I got my discipline. In trying to prove a theory or find answers, it is important to consider and examine all possibilities, conditions and effects, in achieving "objectivity". At the end the examiner or the world wants to see how objective you can be in accepting your findings or theory.
It is clear in Mr. Sudaama's approach that this was lacking and he was attacked as one would in defending a position where there is a big jump from what he set out to prove and what he wanted to prove only too soon without any evidence to subtantiate his claim. He did not follow the stages that would allow for objective result that would add validity to his claim and minimize criticism.
You are looking for trouble when you claim that you are setting out to find answers (evident by that pole), when you already think you have the answer and moreover, trying to impose it, especially when it's coming from someone who ought to know better. As much as I follow a vegetarian or almost a full vegetarian path and intend to be completely a vegetarian one-day by excluding eggs, I could not accept this approach. After all, the topic was not about the positive or negative effects of vegetarianism or why vegetarianism is best for health or humans in concluding that man was born vegetarian.
Some of us are strangled for our objectivity even when it's not in our interest to be so objective.
Personal opinion of an author or researcher is best left to the end. Even this is likely to change from that started out with, but first you must give yourself the "opportunity", otherwise, it's all wasted
efforts.
Friends,
Much against my wish not to participate further in this lopsided thread, I am posting a very interesting and though provoking beautiful paper written by unknown person which is taken from the net with profound thanks.
Nichiro
T h e s i l e n c e o f v e g e t a b l e s
Is eating vegetarians wrong?
Although giving the omnivorous point of view, the purpose of this page is not to lambaste or vilify vegetarians or carnivores. Neither is it propaganda to convert the reader to either cause, nor to dissuade anyone from taking their chosen path. The reason for writing this tract is to attempt an impartial assessment of the topic of human food consumption and to reflect on the evolutionary consequences.
When you take one step back and take a long cold look at a subject, perspectives shift, there is a parallax view where different levels slide across each other and a different picture emerges.
Parallax level 1
The only thing all members of the animal, insect and plant kingdoms can eat are, or have been at one time, by definition, living. Nothing can suck nutrients out of bare rock: soil is decomposed plant matter mixed with powdered rock, but even the lowly earth-worm munching away beneath your lawn is not actually consuming the earth, it is merely filtering the microscopic plant, insect and animal material from it. The sad truth is that at some point or other, the stuff at the end of your fork was once alive - in William Burrows parlance - welcome to The Naked Lunch.
Parallax level 2
Herbivores eat grass and other herbage. Arbivores eat trees. Frugivores eat fruit. Folivore eat leaves. Insectivores eat insects. Fungivores dine exclusively on mushrooms. Carnivores eat meat. Omnivores, on the other hand, will eat anything. Except most omnivores will not eat carnivorous animals and many will never eat omnivorous ones.
Invariably, most omnivores will refuse to eat their pets; some extrapolate the 'domestic-pet' scenario to include all domesticated animals; others push this back further to embrace all furry creatures. Some omnis refuse to eat red meat of any kind; some abstain from eating fowl as well and dine entirely on seafood; some will not devour meat in any form - all these call themselves 'vegetarians', but this is not a biological classification, they are still omnivores but following a vegetarian life-style. Some of them however, will eat neither meat nor any of its derivatives, such as dairy products, eggs and jelly (jello) - termed 'vegan', this omnivore is unique in the animal kingdom as the only being who abstains from meat eating deliberately and voluntarily. (Most vegetarian animals eat insects and molluscs as a consequence of eating raw fruit, herbs and vegetables). For some it is a matter of conscience; for some it is pure economics; for some it is religion. I even imagine some just don't like the taste6.
Parallax level 3
There is a concept called the food chain. This is 'a series of organisms connected by the fact that each forms food for the next higher organism in the series'. In nature, organisms in this chain have little choice as to their position in it, though (without exception) all strive to be the top. However, organisms cannot move up the chain, (grass cannot turn around and eat a cow), an organism can only be top by ensuring that the chain stops with them and they do not become food for the next higher organism. Evolution of defence systems are the organisms attempt to be at the top of this chain - plants developed thorns and toxins to prevent themselves from being eaten1 - animals and insects developed camouflage, agility and in some cases, the ability to fight back.
Humans have become fairly successful in achieving this goal against large predators, but as yet, we are still a viable food source for a large number of smaller organisms, such as parasites and microscopic organisms. Humans have the rare ability to move up a food chain - we can turn around and eat our prey, yet strangely we do not - even though we kill our possible predators, we do not seem to eat them.
As an omnivore, humans have the survival advantage of being part of several food chains. As thinking beings we can voluntarily decide that some of these food chains are morally unacceptable. The only way this can be viable is if the remaining food chains can effectively support the entire human population. We can only do that if we are living way above the starvation threshold. We cannot choose not to be a part of some of these food chains if doing so is a threat to our survival.
Parallax level 4
At some point in human evolution our ancestors augmented their vegetarian diet with animal protein. The motivation for this must have been survival - the vegetable matter that humanoids can digest consists of roots, seeds and fruit and for some reason, this must have become less plentiful. In a non-seasonal climate these are available all year round, however, if the earth's climate in the region that humanoids were living in changed to the seasonal one of a defined spring, summer, autumn and winter cycle, this would no longer the be case. Unable to digest grasses and leaf-matter, then during winter and early spring the only other viable food sources were the animals that could and humans became omnivorous. For millions of years this seasonal nature of edible vegetation has governed human diet.
As a hunter-gatherer you could put peas on your plate for a few days a year if you could find them. As a farmer, you could ensure this happened for a few weeks each and every year. The science of preserving fruit and vegetables allowed modern human to break this seasonal cycle and initially put dried peas on our plates 365 days a year. Canning technology of the 19th century did this for processed peas. Deep-freeze technology put frozen peas on the diner plate 365 days a year. With modern farming, global transport and massive glasshouses you can now have fresh peas 365 days a year. In today's modern super-market environment it is difficult to imagine the idea of fruit and vegetables being seasonal at all. As little as twenty years ago fresh salads in the Northern Hemisphere during winter were unheard of. Now even the yearly cycle of new and old potatoes is starting to disappear (though the sight of strawberries on the shelves 12 months a year still freaks me out).
Most of the 'staples' of the vegetarian diet are seasonal by nature - it is only modern farming, storage and man's ingenuity that have made them available all year round - remove those elements and a vegetarian would struggle to survive for most of the year. After 120,000 years of omnivorous living by Homo sapiens sapiens, 5 million years of the Australopithecus genus before them (or 6.1 million years to 'Millennium Man', Orrorin tugenensis) and in excess of 20 million years of the hominid branch of ape family before that, modern technology has made vegetarianism a viable existence again. And by that, vegetarianism is only viable with modern technology.
Parallax level 5
One of the most generally accepted theories proposed for mankind evolution from apes is the Savannah Theory, (but there are others, see silence of aquatic apes), that states that early humanoids moved from the forests to the savannah in search for food. At best there are only two main food-sources on the savannah: the first are grasses - plants that humans and apes cannot digest; the second are grass-eating animals (cattle and rodents), which they can. To make this habitat change, the proto-human ape that made this transition must have been omnivorous while still living in the forest - gorillas and orang-utans could not and did not leave the forest because they were not omnivorous. This assumption is reinforced by the fact that Chimpanzees (our closest living relative in the Ape family) is also omnivorous. This implies that human beings have been omnivorous for a considerably long time - something in excess of 20 million years.
Parallax level 6
If it were not for domesticated animals, the vegetarian would probably not exist. If we were still hunters-gatherers responsible for obtaining our own food from the wild there would not be an issue. It does seem odd that a being who evolved as a hunter-gather has a tendency to shy away from and even be repulsed by the gruesome realities of death and butchery. We do not learn this ability and it is not a product of the late 20th century - it is both natural and instinctive - humans are easily nauseated animals. We attribute this feeling to our 'humanity' or our empathy with all living things, however no one knows whether this is a feeling attached to all omnivores and carnivores, or whether it is unique to human beings. Certainly some animals do not appear to be as indifferent to death as you would expect. It could be argued that this revulsion of killing is an indication that mankind was meant to be vegetarian, however, as humans and their evolutionary ancestors have been omnivorous in excess of 20 million years, this is unlikely. One possibility is that our squeamishness is an unconscious form of self-control that ensured we only killed what we needed to survive. This could have been a primitive 'farming' instinct that prevented early humans from killing and eating everything in sight and one that caused us to become farmers in the first place. This would mean that the very feeling that turns people to vegetarianism or full-blown veganism and the feeling that allows us to regard all life as being sacred is a natural emotion that kept us omnivorous and stopped us becoming out-right carnivores.
Divorcing the raising and slaughtering process from the act of consumption has neutralised and desensitised this emotion. We go to the supermarket to buy meat with no need for the knowledge of how that hermetically sealed package got there. The link between animal and beef-burger is broken. This could explain the modern condition of obesity. Without the stark and brutal realisation of the killing and butchering process the self-control is lost and the human animal descends into gluttony and it over-eats. Discovering the realities of modern factory-farming2 methods restores this connection, but the graphic imagery is too powerful and causes an over-reaction of this natural brake and the idea of eating any animal becomes abhorrent. The thought that the fork-full of meat protein once led a miserable existence and suffered a horrific death is too barbaric to contemplate and another vegetarian is born.
Parallax level 7
Town and city dwelling has heightened the desensitisation of killing/eating. The Industrial Revolution of the 18th century moved the majority of the human population out of the countryside, away from the grim realities of farm life. Because most of the population of the Western World is no longer a part of the birth/nurture/harvest cycle we have lost all sense of sympathetic harmony with it. Fired by a secret desire to return, our image of farm-life is frozen in a bucolic idyll from a time that never existed, of lusty milkmaids and rustic cowherds, of pigs in the orchard and chickens running around the farmyard. This is the imagery of John Constable, Walt Disney and even George Orwell, (imagine Animal Farm transposed to a modern factory farm and a different tale would ensue), but is far from real life. Farming was never like that, and never will be. While our fictional picture farming remained stuck on the chocolate box lid, the reality kept pace with the progress that was occurring in every other quarter of commerce. The laws of supply and demand took over and farms became more efficient, some even became food-factories - we wanted food on demand, and we wanted it cheap - regardless of the cost.
This romanticised view of country living was extended to the farm animals themselves to the extent that many perceive the domesticated pig as the small, cute creature of the 'Babe' films or as a dirty, swill-eating creature. Both perceptions have stopped some humans from eating this animal. The reality is that the average pig is naturally omnivorous, grows to 3 metres (10 feet) in length, is as vicious and bad-tempered as it's forest living wild boar cousin and is a clean animal that wallows like a hippopotamus or an elephant to keep cool. It is no co-incidence that most vegetarians are also city dwellers.
Parallax level 8
Animal husbandry methods have improved, in fact they are far better now than they were even ten years ago, and that was a vast improvement on the situation in the ten years before. There is little doubt that these improvements were necessary and long overdue. Even the most confirmed non-vegetarian will admit that the factory farming techniques of the late 20th century were inhuman. Now phrases such as 'organic', 'free-range' and 'farm-assured' are the norm rather than the exception. Of course, if farmed animals' existence were happy to the point of being idyllic it would not make the meat any more palatable, it could even make it less so. However, the planet cannot support 6 billion human omnivores without intensive livestock farming, any more than it can support an equal number of vegetarians without intensive high technology arable farming.
Parallax level 9
Genetic engineering as been around for something like 20,000 years. Every farmed commodity has been modified by mankind and bears little resemblance to the wild stock it originated from. The wheat in our bread has been engineered to give higher yield than its prehistoric ancestor, it is also shorter to make the work of combine harvesters easier. Cattle are bred to give more meat per hoof and modern meat has been bred so that it contains less fat than it use to. All of the fresh food produce on the Supermarket shelves has been 'engineered' to look appealing. Some of these achievements are the result of selection, some by crossbreeding and some probably by direct (but undisclosed) Genetic Modification. Because of this they are by definition unnatural and have no place in the wild.
This raises another morality question. If the whole world becomes vegetarian, what happens to all the domesticated animals? Farm animals cannot be released back into the wild, because after 20,000 years of domestication, those creatures are not from the wild. For example, battery-hens cannot be released into the forests because they are not the same birds that mankind took from there - all of the attributes that allowed chickens to survive in the wild have been bred out of them. Also, most of the forests we took the original stock from no longer exist, (they are now fields growing the arable crops needed to feed the population), and those that do still exist have other fauna filling the ecological niche that chickens once occupied.
The same is true for cows, sheep, pigs, turkeys and all other domesticated livestock. Releasing farm animals into the wild will radically disturb the existing ecological balance. When compared to the effects on the indigenous wildlife that a few 'liberated' mink have caused in the UK countryside, letting the entire population of 846 million modern farm pigs loose would be an environmental catastrophe of epic proportions. If these animals no longer serve a useful purpose then they will either be kept in small numbers in living museums (zoos) or they will be allowed to become extinct.
Parallax level 10
The human body has evolved to cope with an omnivorous diet. The creature we know as Homo sapiens sapiens has never been a vegetarian, the evolutionary branch of apes that became Homo sapiens sapiens has been omnivorous for somewhere between 10 to 20 million years. Since both Humans and Chimpanzees are omnivores, it is most certain that the common ancestor of the two species was also omnivorous, implying that humans have had several tens of millions of years of evolution to adapt to a meat diet. It cannot survive unaided on a meat only diet, similarly, it cannot survive on a simple vegetarian diet.
For a healthy existence, the diet must be balanced so that all of the minerals, proteins, vitamins, essential fatty acids and amino acids normally obtained from meat are replaced by suitable substitutes. Many vegetarians achieve this by augmenting their diet with additional vitamin and mineral supplements. It is possible to obtain those supplements naturally, but these generally do not come from local sources. For example, peanuts are often used as a source of protein, however, the amount of protein per gram is considerably less in peanuts than in red meat, (and some humans are allergic to peanuts), and this is not a crop that can be grown in every country in the world. It is not possible to replace a pig-farm in Denmark (for example) with a field of peanuts without artificially creating a suitable environment (vis. a heated greenhouse with artificial gro-lights). Obviously the peoples of Denmark could grow other crops that are eminently more suited to their environment. Even if it supplied all of their protein needs, it would need to be one that could produce a surplus that would compensate for the export deficit created by not producing bacon. If it were not a high-yielding protein crop, then it would need to be one that would pay for the cost of importing one that was.
The ideal of vegetarianism being a low-tech ecologically friendly system is perfectly viable and sound when a small percentage of the world's population is vegetarian and it is practised on a small-scale. But to maintain larger percentages would require high-tech and possibly ecologically unfriendly solutions. A large-scale switch to a vegetarian diet would dramatically redraw the socio-economic map of a World whose economy is based primarily on food. Fortunately, this change would not happen overnight, chaos would not ensue as markets crashed and trade was thrown into turmoil, the change would be as slow as peoples conversion to vegetarianism, but it would still be a revolution of historic proportions on par with the Agricultural Revolution and the Industrial Revolution.
A world vegetarian population would still have to rely on intensive food production and an extensive global food transport infrastructure to support it. It would also require a high-tech pharmaceutical industry to keep it and its food healthy. If the concept of Genetic Modification was not an anathema to most, then these supplements could be genetically incorporated into staple crops.
Animals that are naturally plant-eaters do not require any additional supplements. They are this way because that is how they evolved. So for mankind to abandon eating meat and meat products, it is highly likely that we would eventually evolve into an animal that does not require them (Homo sapiens vegeticus?).
Parallax level 11
The growth of brain tissue is linked to two fatty acids Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) (omega-3) and Arachidonic acid (AA) (omega-6). These are found in sufficient concentrations to make a difference in meat and the best source is seafood. Their benefits to mammalian development can be graphically seen in whales and dolphins, whose brain size is dramatically larger than their land based cousins. This evolutionary brain-size increase is also paralleled in the development of the human brain to the extent that some scientists now believe that it was the transition from fruit eating to fish eating that resulted in the rapid growth of brainpower in early humanoids. This is not coincidence, carnivores require larger brains than herbivores to be able to hunt.
If it were not for the inclusion of fish into the diet of our prehistoric ancestors then the human race would not have evolved and we would remained just another monkey. Since the common ancestor of Chimpanzees and Humans was probably an omnivore, the crucial deciding event that separated us was the increase in DHA and AA to our diet, which subsequently lead to an dramatic increase in the size of our brain.
The implication is that if these two fatty acids are removed from the human diet, then brain development would decrease and, over the course of evolutionary time, Homo sapiens sapiens would evolve into a less intelligent creature (Homo stupidiens vegeticus?), back to a similar level as the other primates. This is borne out by the palentological evidence: an 8% decrease in human brain-size in the last 10,000 years is closely paralleled by our decrease in fish consumption - we eat considerably less fish and meat now than our prehistoric ancestors did. At the present rate of decrease, the human brain would be 75% smaller in 170,000 years - which is close to the smallest brain a primate of our body size and metabolism can have and still survive. With lower concentrations of DHA and AA this would happen notably sooner. But even this is a simplistic view - the reality would be more complex, with several major physiological changes, such as height and gut-size and many minor ones involving glands and other internal organs adjusting to the change in diet. Our subdermal fat layer would decrease to a level it would no longer keep us warm, our reduced brain-size would mean the ability to make clothing would have disappeared long ago, so body hair would need to become thicker and more dense. In a sense, we would de-evolve3.
Of course, vegetarians who do not believe in the Theory of Evolution have nothing to fear from a diet lacking in DHA and AA.
The three-dimensional picture.
Modern man, with all his intelligence, inventiveness, curiosity and resourcefulness is a product of an omnivorous diet. A vegetarian is a product of conscience and the rationalisation of being human. Vegetarianism is not a biological diet in the same way as a herbivorous or carnivorous diet is, it is as much an invention of mankind as Teflon and the space program. The only natural element in vegetarianism is that it may be the next natural step in the evolution of mankind.
A vegetarian can only exist in an environment that will support it. In the western world this is because of the unparalleled success of farming - if our farming techniques had not been developed to the degree that produces a food surplus every year then we would not be able to be quite so choosy in which food we can eat. If these agricultural developments had not overcome the seasonal nature of most vegetable crops and lessened the risk of crop-failures, then a vegetarian diet would not be as attractive as it is today. Remove the transport infrastructure and rice, tinned tomatoes and other 'exotic' foods would disappear from the menu in many countries. Faced with the prospect of only being able to eat pulses and other preserved foods for most of the year, with a hiatus of fresh fruit and vegetables only during late summer and autumn the majority of the world's population would remain omnivorous.
I have little doubt that the majority of human race could eventually become vegetarian. The reality is that humankind is slowly evolving into a vegetarian animal by the very process that enables us to continue to be omnivorous. But this is an on-going process that is far from complete and the earth is not in a condition that can support six billion vegetarians yet. A second Agricultural Revolution will be required to enable this Utopia to come into existence and the human beings that live there will be physically and mentally so different to us that they will be classified as a totally new species of hominid. Since it is rational choice rather than survival that will determine whether this new species will evolve or not, the existing omnivorous humans will remain and once again the earth will have two hominid species co-existing. However, since the vegetarian hominid will have a smaller brain, it is unlikely that they will be the dominant species - they might even be good eating…
WITH THANKS FROM THE WWW NET.
Excellent point, KK 'ka! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Shakthiprabha
Yes I rem. being asked this qsn./comment a no. of times while in S'pore.......they'd say plants have life too, right blah blah lah.....:roll: :x
Pity I didnt get to read a point like this while I was there! :(
Not to mention most toothpastes in the market have bone-powder mixed in them, which destroys the enamel eventually! :xQuote:
Ofcourse these days most vegetarians have eggs in form of cakes... they use jelly use lipsticks (darn me :sad: ) .... so... I dont think many DO JUSTICE to the word of BEING PURE vegetarian....
And respect the choices of others too of course! :DQuote:
Be Happy eating what u like. enjoy life. smile... and
To Urmila, Sudhaama, Lamby and all.
For 5 years after I became a Hindu (Some say I was always a Hindu and ask what do I mean by "became"?), I still ate meat. The days I went to the temple and the days before and after going, I avoided these things. But otherwise, I ate meat. Many Hindus had guided me and encouraged me to become a vegitarian (Though some have told me that there is no need to.) I read many lituratures from many Hindu traditions and Gurus such as Sri Karunamayi (my Guru), Sri Sathya Sai Baba, Sivaya Subramuniaswami and Sri Prabhupada all of which extolled the glories of vegitarianism. Sivaya Subramuniyaswami one had stated in one of his books "Loving Ganesha" that Lord Ganesha even will accept prayers offered by those who eat meat, eggs and fish, then he goes on to say that through the infinite Grace of Lord Ganesha, these people who eat the afore mentioned items, (meat, fish, and eggs) will eventually become vegitarians. ;)
In late 1999, I did try it out for a few days, but it did not work out for me. I then decided that I will eat only veg. whenever I go to the temple. And this worked. But in 1998 and 1999(the year I first attempted becoming a vegitarian), I would get occasional bouts of depression/sadness/discust due to eating meat. :( I started to really not like the idea of eating meat. I enjoyed the taste of meat, but, I thought it would be better if I became a vegitarian.
In 2000 and 2001, I, like many others around the world started getting reports in newpapers and on the news programs about thing suich as "mad cow" and "foot and mouth" diseases. Then in early 2002, when I strted planning for my shift to Edmonton (I shifted to Edmonton in April 2003), I decided that I wanted to and will become a vegitarian and vowed to do so by the summer that year. And one day in June 2002, I stopped eating meat and fish and I stopped eating eggs in November 2003 just months after I shifted to Edmonton. For a long time, I was tempted to eat meat and tried taking my vegitarianism as far as avoiding thing which had egg in them, but found very difficult to do.
But now by the compassionate Grace of my Guru and Spiritual Mother, Sri Karunamayi, I have been able to completely abstain from meat, fish and eggs have no desire to eat these things again.
I have found like many others here, that a vegitarian diet is far healthier than a non vegitarian diet. While I do not hold it against those who continue to take a non vegitarian diet, I am fully aware of the benifits of a vegitarian diet.
Skanthan,
1. What are the benefits of you being vegitarian ? Can you list out ?
2. What is the problem in taking fish ? Isn't Japanese who eat more fish are more healthier than so-called vegitarian indians?
3.what food normally you take ? whatever you take also taken by non-vegitarians also ? Non-vegitarians doesn't mean not taking vegitable,right ?
4. In the name of vegitarianism ,indians eat more of rice ,wheet only ,not much vegitable ..Non -vegitarian chinese take more vegitables than vegitarian indians ..don't you agree?
Hi, joe. How are you?Quote:
Originally Posted by joe
Perhaps someone can help in answering joes post?
Of course both vegitarians an non vegitarians eat vegitables. A vegitarian is someone who does not eat any meat or seafood and sometimes not even eggs.
Any conclusion on this discussion ? Veg is superior or non veg ?
As a nonvegie converted into a vege. I feel Veg is ultimate .