The Vegetarian Myth

[odyssic]

Didn't Steve Jobs go on a raw vegan diet for his cancer and diet not too long after?

I can't find much details on what his diet actually was, other than that it was erratic over the years.

Have you read about the Warburg Effect, odyssic? It was discovered in the 1930's by a German physician that cancer is part of a metabolic problem, and that cancer cells revert back to only being able to use fermentation of sugar metabolism. So after quite a bit of evidence collected, he, and others later, used the approach that if a cancer patient goes into ketosis, the cancer cells will starve while the normal cells will thrive (if you check out the books linked above - Primal Body, Primal Mind; and Art & Science of Low Carb, you'll see that ketone bodies are a much more efficient and clean fuel for health and longevity). Do keep in mind though, that Art & Science of Low Carb is not that good with choosing fat sources (many ketogenic diets / recipes use really bad quality fats mixed with healthier ones). So according to the Warburg Effect, being on a vegan or vegetarian diet is the opposite of what would be needed, as it would be a high carbohydrate diet (all carbs other than fiber which humans can't digest, digests to sugar, basically, pretty quickly or a little less quickly) which besides allowing the cancer to have its only source of fuel, is also very problematic with AGE's (advanced glycation end-products), etc., etc.

I think when you get down to the nitty-gritty of metabolism and biochemistry and pathways critical for health and functioning, though there's definitely no one size fits all solutions, low carb, high fat, moderate protein is what comes closest to being the best diet for humans. There are very long threads with studies and personal experiments and testimonials on the forum, and many articles on SOTT, if you're interested in looking closer into why high carb diets accelerate aging, etc., even when the worst things like grains are eliminated. So if you want more details use the search function.

Thank you for the information. :) I did look at that, and I think that makes sense and it's what Mercola and others base their information on.

Also, the Okinawan diet traditionally seemed to be the opposite. High carb, low fat, low protein. And people seemed to live a high quality of life into what we might consider 'extreme' old age.

It is compelling, but cancer treatment success stories seem to differ for the most part. There are quite a few documented case studies for low fat vegan and raw vegan supporting reversing cancer. (Gerson, Hippocrates, Dr. Morse). Some high carb and some medium carb; Hippocrates used to restrict fruit and more recently started including it. Dr. Morse uses mostly fruit. All seem to produce quite consistent results, even considering that different genetics and varying constitutions may have different requirements.

So how to reconcile the research with some of these examples is where I'm struggling.

http://www.chrisbeatcancer.com/dr-gonzalez-dismantles-ketogenic-diet-for-cancer/

http://www.naturalhealth365.com/cancer_part_8.html/

(From above link)

"Unknown to most, even within the alternative world, my friend Bob Atkins tried the ketogenic diet for some 12 years on many of his cancer patients, with no significant success as he reported to me. As a telling point, under the name “Dr. Robert Atkins” on Amazon, one will find dozens of books he authored including his original diet book, its many incarnations and editions, along with books on vitamins, minerals – but glaringly absent, no book on cancer. Yes, the ketogenic diet has been tried before, with cancer patients, and without success."

I've seen vegetarians thrive on their diet, I've seen others decline. So, in the end, there's no one size fits all solution. I guess each of us has to research, experiment and find the diet that is the most suitable.

I agree. It's all sifting through information and disinformation and we each have our journey to take. And if all is 'lessons', what is the lesson about compassion? I personally think life lessons are catered to individuals and contingent on where they are in the journey. Conceivably, for one person, killing may be a necessary lesson. For another, refraining from killing.

If you think that when you eat a plant or vegetable that you're eating something that didn't feel pain or wasn't "alive", I hate to tell you that you are mistaken. Have you not read of the studies done that show that plants feel pain and respond to their environment?. So your moral righteousness, your "alignment with vitality", really has no basis in reality.

Thanks for the links!

I don't think that. My point was simply that I would prefer not to eat something that I could not personally bring myself to kill. Though I acknowledge the consciousness of plants, I CAN harvest food from them without emotion or pangs of guilt. Actually it feels good, like a mutual arrangement. I've lived on a few farms and had gardens.

Animals have to eat plants to survive, other animals have to eat those animals to survive, and humans eat animals and plants for our survival. It is the way nature has made it.

If nature 'made it that way' it would imply there is no choice in the matter. However millions of people historically have been vegetarian for long term. (Whole religious traditions for many generations, for instance). And again, a few top performers, particularly in endurance sports, eat vegan and claim it enhances performance (Scott Jurek as one example... multi-record holding ultra-runner), who adopted a vegan diet after a parent passed away from cancer.

Personally, I agree that it is important to honor whatever food is taken, however that is done; plant or animal. I can imagine that this probably makes the food healthier too.

***

IF one could argue that humans are more similar to frugivores than omnivores... as in this somewhat simplified infographic:

could this be why eating high fruit (or all fruit) for certain durations COULD enable a healing response? (This is not necessarily saying that it is an ideal long term dietary solution). I'm seeing evidence, with you tubers trying it, and via case studies, which is hard to ignore. Dr. Morse wrote that he ate only navel oranges for 6 months, and was in a state of constant euphoria, often leaving his body and and merging with the 'divine', so he eventually chose to eat some other foods to 'come down' from the high... (Vegetables and other fruits). He also has seen his clients heal many 'terminal' disorders using herbs and fruit, like MS, cancer, etc.

Humans differ from primates in some ways, the complexity of which is addressed in this article. (Brain to gut size ratio, BMR, etc).

http://references.260mb.com/Paleontologia/Aiello1995.pdf

And some of that had to do with the evolution of social structures and consequently dietary choices / food availability. But I wonder if eating the way humans ate before those shifts ignites some sort of healing response? (As in, the way most primates ate / eat).

Perhaps another benefit of a vegetarian or vegan diet is also that it cam become a practice in will, that directs more conscious awareness toward the diet the the origins of food and philosophical riddles. For instance, without it, Lierre probably would not have written the book. I've learned a lot through experiential trial and error. Like Gurdjieff saying to indulgent students to cut back, and to vegetarian students to indulge more. Breaking 'identity' illusions.

In that sense, it seems to be that many omnivores (most) are not omnivores out of choice, but out of habit, so if it is a mechanical action, is it still empowering? Adhering automatically to a mechanical action through time has consequences, in this case, factory farming and peripheral industries.

The Vegetarian myth book is I think full of interesting research, AND and think there are still times in a person's life when a vegan or vegetarian diet might serve their journey in various ways. I also don't think vegetarians use more grain than meat eaters world wide or in the US. Most meat is served with a grain in many traditional dishes. Vegetarians and vegans may eat more grain, but since they are such a limited percentage of the population, omnivores would of course also have to cut out grain to have a dent in the system. Like Grain Brain argues.

Also, as a side note, I'm still eating mostly fruit, after a few months of Gerson, as a temporary system cleanse / healing experiment, and am experiencing some intense cleansing. A cough I've had since I was an infant seems to be healing. Coughing and it tastes like antibiotics, which I haven't taken for 10 years. Cleansing of yeast. I'm realizing how much yeast has controlled my system, as during the die off, my cravings were so intense, they were almost visionary.

Thanks for the food for thought. I appreciate the well thought out responses.

***

Oh, and I'm curious about why paleo / primal / keto / etc is gaining ground so quickly? I confess, my mind always goes to conspiracy theories. But in a country with a lot of disinformation and illusive mechanisms of control (to put it mildly), if Hillary Clinton becomes president, and she is Paleo, that is either a huge breakthrough for the TRUTH, or... ? Why did Bill suddenly switch to paleo after years of vegan eating? Do you think it is just to make the couple more relatable, or something else? Curious.

Yes. And sprouting seeds is another form of lying or deception. "Yes, my little seeds, sprout so that you can be new plants to make more seeds and make more of your plants." Then, the result is "HA! I am eating your sprouts, and your young will die as I eat them! Thanks for giving me your young to eat!"

That reminds me of the scientist in Autobiography of a Yogi who would continually tell the prickly pear cacti how safe they were, so they would not grow spines, then he would eat them. ;)

 

[curious_richard]

Also, the Okinawan diet traditionally seemed to be the opposite. High carb, low fat, low protein. And people seemed to live a high quality of life into what we might consider 'extreme' old age.

Interesting. That does agree with the Mamalian Target of Rapamycin theory of protein intake. Going from memory here, MTOR suggests that there is a proper amount of protein for a person. More protein puts the body into anabolic mode and the body wants to grow and create new cells. This might be a mode friendly to cancer. Less protein puts the body into catabolic mode, and the body wants to go into "garbage collection" mode, where it breaks down bad cells and recycles their various nutrients for other uses.

This may help explain why people on reduced calorie diets can do well even when carbs are a major part. And I am making an assumption here, that their protein intake is modest.

This could also help reconcile how different cancer treatment methods could have good outcomes, even when the diets are different. Again, I am making the assumption that many or most of them reduce the protein intake.

 

[Renaissance]

"Unknown to most, even within the alternative world, my friend Bob Atkins tried the ketogenic diet for some 12 years on many of his cancer patients, with no significant success as he reported to me. As a telling point, under the name “Dr. Robert Atkins” on Amazon, one will find dozens of books he authored including his original diet book, its many incarnations and editions, along with books on vitamins, minerals – but glaringly absent, no book on cancer. Yes, the ketogenic diet has been tried before, with cancer patients, and without success."

Atkin's isn't a great example of the healing benefits of a ketogenic diet. It may help people lose weight because of the shift into a fat burning metabolism, however the quality of food wasn't given consideration. Processed foods, for example, were okay as long as it wasn't high carb.

I agree. It's all sifting through information and disinformation and we each have our journey to take. And if all is 'lessons', what is the lesson about compassion? I personally think life lessons are catered to individuals and contingent on where they are in the journey. Conceivably, for one person, killing may be a necessary lesson. For another, refraining from killing.

I think the point is that there is no getting out of the circle of life. Living on this earth requires taking life in order to sustain life. Vegetarians and vegans contribute to this killing, just in less obvious ways. Factory farms and vegetarianism both entirely rely on agriculture. They are different sides of the same coin. Agriculture takes from the land without giving back. Annual plants serve a purpose in nature, however, it is largely a temporary and protective purpose to pave the way for perennial plants - which we cannot eat but animals can. Agriculture destroys whole ecosystems, the animals dependent on it, and depletes the vitality of the very earth itself. Conversely, holisticly grazed animals heal the land and give back to it. These systems have enormous potential as it utilizes life systems working within nature rather than against it. It seems to me that vegetarian ideologies claim a false moral highground while lacking much of any understanding of how life systems really work with one another. These ideas present the illusion that one can live outside of nature. In our hubris, we can try, but we only end up contributing to more harm and disaster. If some people do thrive off that then that might say something about their nature.

Animals have to eat plants to survive, other animals have to eat those animals to survive, and humans eat animals and plants for our survival. It is the way nature has made it.

If nature 'made it that way' it would imply there is no choice in the matter. However millions of people historically have been vegetarian for long term. (Whole religious traditions for many generations, for instance).

I don't think there is that implication. Humanity can choose to disrupt nature if we wish. This disruption brings consequences, but then it comes back to free will in terms of choosing whether or not we wish to recognize and see the results of our actions. There are plenty of warning signs all around that we can learn to read if we wish.

IF one could argue that humans are more similar to frugivores than omnivores... as in this somewhat simplified infographic:

I'd say that's over-simplified. Fruit hasn't been in our diet all that long for most populations. Most fruits that people can eat have been heavily altered and cultivated so they are edible.

Think about it this way - if you get stranded in your local forest for a couple months or so, you're best chances of survival are with finding meat rather than foraging for greens and berries. We have the luxury of modernity, but those luxuries are far removed from nature and the basics of survival. These things 'work' as long as the system is in place but it is ultimately unsustainable and dysfunctional so I think it's not a leap to consider that it will at some point or another come crashing down and humanity will be faced again with reality.

I'm reminded of a show I watched about a group of 8 or so people who had to work together in order to survive in the wilderness. I forget the name of the show. It was a nice departure from the 'reality shows' where people are pitted against one another in order to 'win'. In any case, the instinct to survive kicked in. While they may have had a few snacks with berries and such, the sustenance needed to survive required finding meat.

Oh, and I'm curious about why paleo / primal / keto / etc is gaining ground so quickly?

It produces dramatic results. I have a laundry list of ailments and issues that have cleared up on this diet and I know many others who have experienced the same.

 

[SeekinTruth]

Also, the Okinawan diet traditionally seemed to be the opposite. High carb, low fat, low protein. And people seemed to live a high quality of life into what we might consider 'extreme' old age.

No, that was debunked several years ago. It turns out that the reports that spread that were completely wrong, and the highest amount of type of food in Okinawan traditional diet was actually pork (i.e. high fat and plenty of complete proteins - another well-known problem of vegetarian and vegan diets among many others is the lack of complete proteins).

 

[Pierre]

Though I acknowledge the consciousness of plants, I CAN harvest food from them without emotion or pangs of guilt. Actually it feels good, like a mutual arrangement.

Maybe there is a mutual arrangement between humans and the animals they consume.

 

[Keyhole]

oddysic, there is no doubt that a vegetarian/vegan diet has been shown to be very effective as a short-term method of detoxifying certain chemicals and toxins from the body. Interestingly, vegetables and fruits provide the body with an abundant source of nitrogen. This nitrogen promotes the formation of nitric oxide, which eventually is deposited in the more superficial layers of the skin. The main reason why this is important, is because nitric oxide dilates the blood vessels on the skins surface which allow porphyrin pigments in the bloods to absorb more UV light. An increase in UV light increases mitochondrial function, which in turn increases the body's detoxification pathways. However, this is only temporary.

Try to uncouple your emotional biases from your intellect here: Carbohydrates (vegetables and fruits) are only naturally available in environments where they receive extremely high amounts of photons and electrons from the sun. When is this? Spring and Summer time. Go back in time a few hundred years... how would you possibly acquire fruits and vegetables in on December 25th without modern means of international transportation? Here's the answer : you wouldn't. Mother nature designed the all of life to thrive in all seasons. In winter, carbohydrates do not grow naturally in many places on earth, and food is naturally scacre. What was mother nature's answer for this? To consume small amounts of high energy-dense food. The most electron dense food on earth is fat. We are designed to operate on ketogenic, fat-based diet for most of the year in a cold environment. Summer time allows for starch consumption. Any other time of the year - you are wreaking long term havoc on your body's stem cell supply and telomere length (in other words, you drastically increase the process of aging). If someone wants to be healthy, it is worth aligning with nature instead of working against nature.

 

[Chad]

Also, the Okinawan diet traditionally seemed to be the opposite. High carb, low fat, low protein. And people seemed to live a high quality of life into what we might consider 'extreme' old age.

No, that was debunked several years ago. It turns out that the reports that spread that were completely wrong, and the highest amount of type of food in Okinawan traditional diet was actually pork (i.e. high fat and plenty of complete proteins - another well-known problem of vegetarian and vegan diets among many others is the lack of complete proteins).

A friend of mine is from Okinawa and on their last visit to her parents, her husband who's Italian, raved about the fatty pork in a bun. So i had a quick read a while ago and considered the following:

People from the Ryukyu Islands (of which Okinawa is the largest) have a life expectancy among the highest in the world,[2] although the male life expectancy rank among Japanese prefectures has plummeted in recent years.[3]

The traditional diet of the islanders contains 30% green and yellow vegetables. Although the traditional Japanese diet usually includes large quantities of rice, the traditional Okinawa diet consists of smaller quantities of rice; instead the staple is the purple-fleshed Okinawan sweet potato. The Okinawan diet has only 30% of the sugar and 15% of the grains of the average Japanese dietary intake.[4]

The traditional diet also includes a tiny amount of fish (less than half a serving per day) and more in the way of soy and other legumes (6% of total caloric intake). Pork is highly valued, and every part of the pig is eaten, including internal organs.

Between a sample from Okinawa where life expectancies at birth and 65 were the longest in Japan, and a sample from Akita Prefecture where the life expectancies were much shorter, intakes of calcium, Iron and vitamins A, B1, B2, C, and the proportion of energy from proteins and fats were significantly higher in Okinawa than in Akita. And intakes of carbohydrates and salt were lower in Okinawa than in Akita.[5]

Records from the early part of the 20th century show that Okinawans ate less than 1% of their diet from animals products with no dairy. More animal foods have been introduced into the Okinawa diet in the mid to latter part of the 20th Century.

The quantity of pork consumption per person a year in Okinawa is larger than that of the Japanese national average. For example, the quantity of pork consumption per person a year in Okinawa in 1979 was 7.9 kg (17 lb) which exceeded by about 50% that of the Japanese national average.[6]

[...]

Records from the early part of the 20th century show that Okinawans ate less than 1% of their diet from animals products with no dairy. More animal foods have been introduced into the Okinawa diet in the mid to latter part of the 20th Century.

The quantity of pork consumption per person a year in Okinawa is larger than that of the Japanese national average. For example, the quantity of pork consumption per person a year in Okinawa in 1979 was 7.9 kg (17 lb) which exceeded by about 50% that of the Japanese national average.[6]

[...]

The traditional Okinawan diet as described above was widely practiced on the islands until about the 1960s. Since then, dietary practices have been shifting towards Western and Japanese patterns, with fat intake rising from about 6% to 27% of total caloric intake and the sweet potato being supplanted with rice and bread.[7]

If i understand this correctly, the data on longevity is for people who were eating this increased animal product? It also states that the younger population eats a much more westernised diet; i.e high in grains, carbs and (probably) low quality meats

It is wiki, and i'm no expert, and the story is anecdotal on my part, so fwiw.

 

[on_strike_usaexpat]

Also, the Okinawan diet traditionally seemed to be the opposite. High carb, low fat, low protein. And people seemed to live a high quality of life into what we might consider 'extreme' old age.

No, that was debunked several years ago. It turns out that the reports that spread that were completely wrong, and the highest amount of type of food in Okinawan traditional diet was actually pork (i.e. high fat and plenty of complete proteins - another well-known problem of vegetarian and vegan diets among many others is the lack of complete proteins).

A friend of mine is from Okinawa and on their last visit to her parents, her husband who's Italian, raved about the fatty pork in a bun. So i had a quick read a while ago and considered the following:

People from the Ryukyu Islands (of which Okinawa is the largest) have a life expectancy among the highest in the world,[2] although the male life expectancy rank among Japanese prefectures has plummeted in recent years.[3]

The traditional diet of the islanders contains 30% green and yellow vegetables. Although the traditional Japanese diet usually includes large quantities of rice, the traditional Okinawa diet consists of smaller quantities of rice; instead the staple is the purple-fleshed Okinawan sweet potato. The Okinawan diet has only 30% of the sugar and 15% of the grains of the average Japanese dietary intake.[4]

The traditional diet also includes a tiny amount of fish (less than half a serving per day) and more in the way of soy and other legumes (6% of total caloric intake). Pork is highly valued, and every part of the pig is eaten, including internal organs.

Between a sample from Okinawa where life expectancies at birth and 65 were the longest in Japan, and a sample from Akita Prefecture where the life expectancies were much shorter, intakes of calcium, Iron and vitamins A, B1, B2, C, and the proportion of energy from proteins and fats were significantly higher in Okinawa than in Akita. And intakes of carbohydrates and salt were lower in Okinawa than in Akita.[5]

Records from the early part of the 20th century show that Okinawans ate less than 1% of their diet from animals products with no dairy. More animal foods have been introduced into the Okinawa diet in the mid to latter part of the 20th Century.

The quantity of pork consumption per person a year in Okinawa is larger than that of the Japanese national average. For example, the quantity of pork consumption per person a year in Okinawa in 1979 was 7.9 kg (17 lb) which exceeded by about 50% that of the Japanese national average.[6]

[...]

Records from the early part of the 20th century show that Okinawans ate less than 1% of their diet from animals products with no dairy. More animal foods have been introduced into the Okinawa diet in the mid to latter part of the 20th Century.

The quantity of pork consumption per person a year in Okinawa is larger than that of the Japanese national average. For example, the quantity of pork consumption per person a year in Okinawa in 1979 was 7.9 kg (17 lb) which exceeded by about 50% that of the Japanese national average.[6]

[...]

The traditional Okinawan diet as described above was widely practiced on the islands until about the 1960s. Since then, dietary practices have been shifting towards Western and Japanese patterns, with fat intake rising from about 6% to 27% of total caloric intake and the sweet potato being supplanted with rice and bread.[7]

If i understand this correctly, the data on longevity is for people who were eating this increased animal product? It also states that the younger population eats a much more westernised diet; i.e high in grains, carbs and (probably) low quality meats

It is wiki, and i'm no expert, and the story is anecdotal on my part, so fwiw.

Okinawa Diet

I bet all the recent claims of the Okinawa diet do not factor in the history of Okinawa. Okinawa was once a peaceful independent kingdom that thrived on trade due to its location at the sea crossroad between Malaysia, China, Korea and Japan. It would be a good guess that in wealth, Okinawans (famous to this day for developing prize pigs) consumed pig meat and especially pig fat to their heart’s content. After the Shoguns took over, Okinawa was closed off to the outside world and eventualy became the poorest area of Japan; its people viewed as second-class citizens by the rest of Japan (Okinawa had its own language and customs before being forced to integrate). I speculate that being poor forced the diet to become less pig fat and pig meat heavy and it was not until the more prosperous decades post WWII that the diet had the chance to return to more traditional levels of pig meat and pig fat consumption. So maybe some epigenetics going on here and selective research done on a diet modified by poverty and not what was the real tradition...

 

[Keit]

Though I acknowledge the consciousness of plants, I CAN harvest food from them without emotion or pangs of guilt. Actually it feels good, like a mutual arrangement.

Maybe there is a mutual arrangement between humans and the animals they consume.

Yes, we need to consider the possibility that the concept of suffering as a tool for personal evolution (as was explored in this topic) can apply to animals too. And I am not talking about a senseless suffering (i.e. abuse) many animals go through on this planet by human hands (but that could be an element too), but about an unwritten "agreement" that is part of all things Natural, that there is an endless cycle of life and death, and that actively participating in this cycle isn't a "bad" thing by itself. What determines if it is "unbalanced" or in accordance with natural laws, is the intent and purpose, and if there was some sort of service involved.

 

[Laura]

Now there's this, too:

First they came for the bacon: New study says vegetarianism can cause cancer
https://www.rt.com/usa/337952-vegetarianism-cancer-study-cornell/

New research may shed light on why vegetarians are almost 40 percent more likely to suffer colorectal cancer than those of the carnivorous persuasion. The study goes beyond an individual’s diet though, pointing to a multi-generational factor at work.

A new study from Cornell University found a generation variation – or adaptive allele - that appears in populations who have subsisted on a vegetarian diet for generations. This adaptive allele is believed to have occurred to make it easier for vegetarians to absorb essential fatty acids from plants, but it also leaves them more susceptible to inflammation.

According to the study authored by J. Thomas Brenna, “The mutation, called rs66698963 and found in the FADS2 gene, is an insertion or deletion of a sequence of DNA that regulates the expression of two genes, FADS1 and FADS2. These genes are key to making long chain polyunsaturated fats.”

Among the polyunsaturated fats are omega-3s and omega-6s, two important fatty acids that the human body cannot make itself. But research indicates that vegetarians with the adaptive allele who stray from a balanced omega-6 to omega-3 diet are at a higher risk of cancer and heart disease.

"Changes in the dietary omega-6 to omega-3 balance may contribute to the increase in chronic disease seen in some developing countries," Brenna and his co-author, Kumar Kothaplli, told Science Daily,

This research could explain why vegetarians are nearly 40 percent more likely to suffer from colorectal cancers than meat eaters, The Daily Telegraph reported.

The problem of heart disease comes from the fact that the mutation hinders the production of omega-3 fatty acids, which protect against heart disease and are found in fish and nuts. However, post industrial revolution diets are lower in omega-3 fatty acids and higher in omega-6 acids that are found in vegetable oils.

“In [those with the adaptive allele], vegetable oils will be converted to the more pro-inflammatory arachidonic acid, increasing the risk for chronic inflammation that is implicated in the development of heart disease, and exacerbates cancer,” said Brenna.

 

[whitecoast]

Though I acknowledge the consciousness of plants, I CAN harvest food from them without emotion or pangs of guilt. Actually it feels good, like a mutual arrangement.

Maybe there is a mutual arrangement between humans and the animals they consume.

Yes, we need to consider the possibility that the concept of suffering as a tool for personal evolution (as was explored in this topic) can apply to animals too. And I am not talking about a senseless suffering (i.e. abuse) many animals go through on this planet by human hands (but that could be an element too), but about an unwritten "agreement" that is part of all things Natural, that there is an endless cycle of life and death, and that actively participating in this cycle isn't a "bad" thing by itself. What determines if it is "unbalanced" or in accordance with natural laws, is the intent and purpose, and if there was some sort of service involved.

What's also quite telling IMO is that vegetarianism in the west didn't really become mainstream as an idea until agriculture moved away from local ranch production to mass production in feedlots. Most people no longer interact with food animals, and often only experience human-animal interactions with pets and companion animals. So in modern times there's an artificial separation of animals we love from animals we eat. To a vegan it's inconceivable that you can love animals you intend to eat, but such an interaction would have been commonplace in ancient animal domesticators and hunters.

 

[herondancer]

What's also quite telling IMO is that vegetarianism in the west didn't really become mainstream as an idea until agriculture moved away from local ranch production to mass production in feedlots. Most people no longer interact with food animals, and often only experience human-animal interactions with pets and companion animals. So in modern times there's an artificial separation of animals we love from animals we eat. To a vegan it's inconceivable that you can love animals you intend to eat, but such an interaction would have been commonplace in ancient animal domesticators and hunters.

Indeed. Many Native American ceremonies revolved around expressing gratitude to the animals that sustained them. The ceremonies expressed the idea that the tribe was able to eat only because the prey animal (bison, deer, salmon etc.) was moved by a sense of compassion for the humans that were so ill-equipped to survive in the world. The animal agreeing to be sustenance for humans was their way of serving the Creator. The human's obligation was to take no more than needed, to waste nothing, and thank the Creator and the animal for providing them with food.

 

[NormaRegula]

What's also quite telling IMO is that vegetarianism in the west didn't really become mainstream as an idea until agriculture moved away from local ranch production to mass production in feedlots. Most people no longer interact with food animals, and often only experience human-animal interactions with pets and companion animals. So in modern times there's an artificial separation of animals we love from animals we eat. To a vegan it's inconceivable that you can love animals you intend to eat, but such an interaction would have been commonplace in ancient animal domesticators and hunters.

Indeed. Many Native American ceremonies revolved around expressing gratitude to the animals that sustained them. The ceremonies expressed the idea that the tribe was able to eat only because the prey animal (bison, deer, salmon etc.) was moved by a sense of compassion for the humans that were so ill-equipped to survive in the world. The animal agreeing to be sustenance for humans was their way of serving the Creator. The human's obligation was to take no more than needed, to waste nothing, and thank the Creator and the animal for providing them with food.

This is an Anishnabe (Ojibwa/Chippewa) belief. My late father was part Ojibwa and an accomplished hunter. He taught the concept of giving thanks to the animals who sustained us with their sacrifice to me and my siblings. When he hosted a tv show in the 1960s entitled Michigan Outdoors, he was able to expound this theory to mostly white guy hunters on the air, at Ducks Unlimited banquets, and hunter-related events. The hunters seemed to like this idea. :) My father also believed one should only hunt for food and clothing skins and not for pure sport. He encouraged sport hunters to donate their meat, bones and skins to those who would make use of them.

 

[herondancer]

What's also quite telling IMO is that vegetarianism in the west didn't really become mainstream as an idea until agriculture moved away from local ranch production to mass production in feedlots. Most people no longer interact with food animals, and often only experience human-animal interactions with pets and companion animals. So in modern times there's an artificial separation of animals we love from animals we eat. To a vegan it's inconceivable that you can love animals you intend to eat, but such an interaction would have been commonplace in ancient animal domesticators and hunters.

Indeed. Many Native American ceremonies revolved around expressing gratitude to the animals that sustained them. The ceremonies expressed the idea that the tribe was able to eat only because the prey animal (bison, deer, salmon etc.) was moved by a sense of compassion for the humans that were so ill-equipped to survive in the world. The animal agreeing to be sustenance for humans was their way of serving the Creator. The human's obligation was to take no more than needed, to waste nothing, and thank the Creator and the animal for providing them with food.

This is an Anishnabe (Ojibwa/Chippewa) belief. My late father was part Ojibwa and an accomplished hunter. He taught the concept of giving thanks to the animals who sustained us with their sacrifice to me and my siblings. When he hosted a tv show in the 1960s entitled Michigan Outdoors, he was able to expound this theory to mostly white guy hunters on the air, at Ducks Unlimited banquets, and hunter-related events. The hunters seemed to like this idea. :) My father also believed one should only hunt for food and clothing skins and not for pure sport. He encouraged sport hunters to donate their meat, bones and skins to those who would make use of them.

How great that your dad could have a opportunity to change the views of sport hunters. I think indigenous beliefs about the proper relations between humans and animals were pretty consistent across the nations. I heard it as a story of Antelope, and read about the ceremonies the Haida of west coast Canada do welcome the spring salmon run and the Cree dances for the Bison. The theme is always gratitude.

 

[nature]

Indeed. Many Native American ceremonies revolved around expressing gratitude to the animals that sustained them. The ceremonies expressed the idea that the tribe was able to eat only because the prey animal (bison, deer, salmon etc.) was moved by a sense of compassion for the humans that were so ill-equipped to survive in the world. The animal agreeing to be sustenance for humans was their way of serving the Creator. The human's obligation was to take no more than needed, to waste nothing, and thank the Creator and the animal for providing them with food.

It's a great education that humans should aquire, an beautifull education that each parent should transmit to their children.
I'm sad every time I go to the butcher's, and I see how much parts he throws away (fat, bone, etc). Why not putting aside and selling these parts for a very low price?