Jump to content

Recommended Posts

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-fresto...h_b_214390.html

Shattering The Meat Myth: Humans Are Natural Vegetarians

Going through the comments of some of my recent posts, I noticed the frequently stated notion that eating meat was an essential step in human evolution. While this notion may comfort the meat industry, it's simply not true, scientifically.

Dr. T. Colin Campbell, professor emeritus at Cornell University and author of The China Study, explains that in fact, we only recently (historically speaking) began eating meat, and that the inclusion of meat in our diet came well after we became who we are today. He explains that "the birth of agriculture only started about 10,000 years ago at a time when it became considerably more convenient to herd animals. This is not nearly as long as the time [that] fashioned our basic biochemical functionality (at least tens of millions of years) and which functionality depends on the nutrient composition of plant-based foods."

That jibes with what Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine President Dr. Neal Barnard says in his book, The Power of Your Plate, in which he explains that "early humans had diets very much like other great apes, which is to say a largely plant-based diet, drawing on foods we can pick with our hands. Research suggests that meat-eating probably began by scavenging--eating the leftovers that carnivores had left behind. However, our bodies have never adapted to it. To this day, meat-eaters have a higher incidence of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and other problems."

There is no more authoritative source on anthropological issues than paleontologist Dr. Richard Leakey, who explains what anyone who has taken an introductory physiology course might have discerned intuitively--that humans are herbivores. Leakey notes that "[y]ou can't tear flesh by hand, you can't tear hide by hand.... We wouldn't have been able to deal with food source that required those large canines" (although we have teeth that are called "canines," they bear little resemblance to the canines of carnivores).

In fact, our hands are perfect for grabbing and picking fruits and vegetables. Similarly, like the intestines of other herbivores, ours are very long (carnivores have short intestines so they can quickly get rid of all that rotting flesh they eat). We don't have sharp claws to seize and hold down prey. And most of us (hopefully) lack the instinct that would drive us to chase and then kill animals and devour their raw carcasses. Dr. Milton Mills builds on these points and offers dozens more in his essay, "A Comparative Anatomy of Eating."

The point is this: Thousands of years ago when we were hunter-gatherers, we may have needed a bit of meat in our diets in times of scarcity, but we don't need it now. Says Dr. William C. Roberts, editor of the American Journal of Cardiology, "Although we think we are, and we act as if we are, human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us, because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores."

Sure, most of us are "behavioral omnivores"--that is, we eat meat, so that defines us as omnivorous. But our evolution and physiology are herbivorous, and ample science proves that when we choose to eat meat, that causes problems, from decreased energy and a need for more sleep up to increased risk for obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.

Old habits die hard, and it's convenient for people who like to eat meat to think that there is evidence to support their belief that eating meat is "natural" or the cause of our evolution. For many years, I too, clung to the idea that meat and dairy were good for me; I realize now that I was probably comforted to have justification for my continued attachment to the traditions I grew up with.

But in fact top nutritional and anthropological scientists from the most reputable institutions imaginable say categorically that humans are natural herbivores, and that we will be healthier today if we stick with our herbivorous roots. It may be inconvenient, but it alas, it is the truth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

dear god, these fundamentalists have dug in well. which will make it even more fun smoking the buggers out!

firstly, i guess with the logic of this article, we are not meant to swim either, as god didnt make us to do that? is that why 10,000 sikhs lost their lives in the battle of Sobraon as they were trapped in a river? one british officer remarked that it was like shooting fish in a barrel. is this were your 'logic' leads the panth.... to a stupid death?

secondly, i guess we're not meant to fly in planes either?

thirdly, why did god make carnivores?

read below:

Campbell's new book The China Study: Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, and Long-Term Health hit shelves in January 2005 and details the turning points in his post-graduate research that led him to become a famed opponent of animal foods and an advocate of the vegan diet............................he goal of making that case in mind.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

guys... plzz don't argue over this issue... u know, i m a veggie.. and i think its good to be veggie... but the thing is that "i think".. similarly, non-vegs "think" that its fine..

so the point is that everybody thinks differently and as long as u think u r correct, go for it...

this discussion has no end.. i used to argue over this topic but now, i have realised that we can't win any agrument in this topic.. so just do wat u feel...

here is just my personal opinion... don't take it too seriously and don't argue over it if u don't like..

as we may have observed, this veg non-veg thing is not yet clear for evrybody, i mean wat is correct.. veg. or non-veg.. so wat i think is if i m a veggie.. and even if non-veg is not wrong,, then there is no case that i m wrong... but from non-veg's point of view.. let us suppose if non-veg turns out to be wron, then they may have done a big mistake... so, its better to not do something for which we r not sure of...

rest, its ur decision..

Link to post
Share on other sites

i wasnt trying to start a veg -v- meat argument, as i couldnt care less whether other sikhs eat meat or not.

but what annoys me is that some sikhs will have an opinion, and due to insecurity and other personal reasons, they try and justify their beliefs as the right ones for everyone. so in order to do that they have 'conversations with the gurus' (see the other thread about nihang practices), or they will jump on the first piece of halfassed junk science they find. and that is exactly what christian and muslim fundamentalists do. and look how screwed up they are.

we need to stop emulating the worst practices of people from other religions and think with logic. guru nanak ji was one of the most enlightened people in his era, and he would not stand for the stupid mentality that some people try and portray as 'god's proof'. and if you dont believe me, look at the fact no one has responded to my points.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That article was the biggest load of bakwaas i have ever read.

Singhstah, do yourself a favor, next time post an article from a scientific journal, not some cheap online tabloid.

I'm assuming our human ancestors and other human species cut stone spears just to scratch their behind.

:D

Just because other ape species eat a largely plant based diet doesn't make them vegetarian.

Chimpanzees 'hunt using spears'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6387611.stm

BBC documentary on the planet's ultimate predators.

This episode was on Chimpanzees

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDFh5JdYh7I

From 'Ape-Man, The Story of Human Evolution', Robin McKie, BBC Worldwide Ltd.

The book accompanies' the television series ape-man, first broadcast on BBC2 in 2000.

ISBN: 0 563 55105 4

Big brains come with a price-tag; they are highly expensive in terms of the energy they use up. Our hominid ancestors' evolving cranial increase would therefore have been impossible had they not turned to the consumption of foods rich in calories, such as nuts and tubers, as well as meat, which also contains a plentiful supply of fatty acids - essential building blocks for brain growth. It was this dietary expansion of eating meat that provided the nutritional kick-start for humanity's intellectual growth.

Such culinary changes also stimulated a major shift in behaviour. The predecessors of Homo erectus were the australopithecines, who were, by and large vegetarians. Now mankind had to think about gathering a far wider range of foods, especially meat, which would have been obtained either by scavenging or by hunting. At first, the former practice almost certainly predominated. Attracted by circling vultures, out ancestors would have moved in to try to steal the leftovers of a big kill: an antelope left in a tree by a leopard, or a large animal, such as a wildebeest, that had been brought down by lions. Scavenging from under the noses of such dangerous creatures would have been a rather risky business but it would also have brought rich rewards. Breaking open the marrow-rich leg bone of an animal such as a wildebeest would have provided a massive dose of calories in a single, swift meal.

This calorific input would have provided the resources needed to fuel the evolving swelling brains of humans, an input that would - in turn - have improved their intellects and therefore our ancestors' ability to find their own meat, for instance by enhancing their ability to retain complex mental plans of resources and to cooperate in dangerous hunts. Even then, humans would concentrated on small prey. Indeed, it would be a long time - many hundreds of thousands of years - before they would develop into the highly efficient hunters that typify the later stages of our evolution.

Homo Sapiens and other human species.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/human/species/

Link to post
Share on other sites
dear god, these fundamentalists have dug in well. which will make it even more fun smoking the buggers out!

Define 'fundamentalist', and tell me how I fit into this category.

firstly, i guess with the logic of this article, we are not meant to swim either, as god didnt make us to do that? is that why 10,000 sikhs lost their lives in the battle of Sobraon as they were trapped in a river? one british officer remarked that it was like shooting fish in a barrel. is this were your 'logic' leads the panth.... to a stupid death?

You are talking rubbish now, natural dietary habits are quite different to swimming. Quite simply show me who can hunt, kill and make fit for consumption an animal WITHOUT the use of any equipment, materials other than your own body. On the other hand, humans can quite easily swim with just their bodies. And in regards to your 'example' of the battle of Sobran, its nothing more than an emotive means to cover up your lack of argument, not even worth a response.

secondly, i guess we're not meant to fly in planes either?
Same as above.
thirdly, why did god make carnivores?

Why did God make any animals? It seems here like you thought making two points (which were basically the same one repeated in a different manner), would make your post too short so you needed a third and came up with something completely irrelevent to the matter at hand.

read below:

Campbell's new book The China Study: Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, and Long-Term Health hit shelves in January 2005 and details the turning points in his post-graduate research that led him to become a famed opponent of animal foods and an advocate of the vegan diet............................he goal of making that case in mind.

????

but what annoys me is that some sikhs will have an opinion, and due to insecurity and other personal reasons, they try and justify their beliefs as the right ones for everyone.

Thanks for looking into my mind and letting me know why I started this thread, I had no idea why i was doing it. Will you be my psychiatrist? :rolleyes:

guru nanak ji was one of the most enlightened people in his era

Wow, how seriously you underestimate Guru Nanak Dev Ji Nirankar is unbelievable.

look at the fact no one has responded to my points.

choos leh

and 'Gursikh Singh', I'll deal with you later :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Define 'fundamentalist', and tell me how I fit into this category.

someone who has a set of beliefs and uses any piece of rubbish evidence to support it. at the same time they ignore any evidence (no matter how good) that contradicts their beliefs.

You are talking rubbish now, natural dietary habits are quite different to swimming. Quite simply show me who can hunt, kill and make fit for consumption an animal WITHOUT the use of any equipment, materials other than your own body. On the other hand, humans can quite easily swim with just their bodies. And in regards to your 'example' of the battle of Sobran, its nothing more than an emotive means to cover up your lack of argument, not even worth a response.

lack of argument? the fact you quoted a piece of junk science shows your level of scientific understanding. tell me, can you make clothes with just your hands? no? so we are meant to walk around naked now? get a brain.

Same as above.

as far as i know its impossible for humans to fly without using materials or equipment that are not part of the human body. so well done for just contradicting yourself so quickly.

Why did God make any animals? It seems here like you thought making two points (which were basically the same one repeated in a different manner), would make your post too short so you needed a third and came up with something completely irrelevent to the matter at hand.

lol, well done for not answering the question. your logic is so retarded my stomach hurts from laughing. i thought my post was "too short"! lol. this isnt infant school mate, where writing 'more' than anyone else indicates some kind of intelligence. its called quality over quantity.

????

lol you are clueless. you should give hardeep singh kohli a run for his money. you actually make me laugh.

Thanks for looking into my mind and letting me know why I started this thread, I had no idea why i was doing it. Will you be my psychiatrist?rolleyes.gif

dont worry, your not the only one i've seen act like an id1ot. but admitting is the first step to recovery, so its good you've started on the path to recovery.

Wow, how seriously you underestimate Guru Nanak Dev Ji Nirankar is unbelievable.

oh no i did beadbi!!!! oh no an internet kid is going to moan at me!!!

seriously, how is that an underestimate? do you want me to call guru nanak ji the half son of god or the prophet instead? or is that even not good enough? your just another ukguptkaur using the slander card as my posts crushed your argument.

choos leh

and what a rubbish response it was. you didnt manage to give any points against my science quote (too clever for you, eh?) and you did not respond to every part of my posts. now run along, your way out of your league boy.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

WE can argue scientificially all day whether meat is wrong or right. But the fact of the matter is humans are a love machine. There is no love in killing creating pain and taking advantage of a creatures consciousness in order to fulfill our personal desires.

Humans are suppose to be the creature that eradicates all negative karma. We are suppose to be the ultimate compassion showing machine. Humans have the highest potential to share and to be be compassionate. And the most loving creature out of all animalia kingdom. One of the first basic steps of showing more compassion. Is to respect the animals and its offspring. What a great relationship we could form with the animals, if they were not in fear of humans, Who have now been labelled. "top predator, top of the food chain etc" But if you look at a human, do we look like killing machines? pathetic flesh and bone creature, not designed for hate, and brutal force. But we can still do it? We should not cut our hair, but we can still do it. Humans are designed to be the ultimate selfless creatures, who shares their wealth, energy and spreads love and fights for justice, we are not destroyers. To destroy we need tools. To share and love we need nothing but ourselves. We do things that we shouldn't. In the name of this injustice love and selflessness is lost and we become like animals. Its no wonder why then we would think, its ok to eat meat.

Even taking plant life is making negative karma. Although there is less karma involved, as the affects aren't as adverse. Even breathing the air, we are killing the micro organisms, the fact we are on this Earth is a burden in it self. We have to sin. Because thats the beauty of it, only God is free from good and bad karma. Thats why he wants us to join him.

the animals are our cousins, how can we eat our own cousins? Tell me where is the love in this? We are from the same source-spiritually and physicially.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually Singhstah 'Fundamentalist" nowaday means - 'One who follows Guru Ji's Rehat"

No it doesnt. please show me where in gurbani it states that having an opinion and twisting worldly facts or using biased sources as reasons for it is the right thing to do.

if not eating meat is part of Guru ji's rehat, then why are people like singstah creating threads like this? surely the fact that its part of Guru ji's rehat is justification enough, and doesnt need little 'pious' pets to try and give evidence for it. i think trying to justify Guru Ji with our own thoughts and ideas is beadbi - especially if the person doing it is a bit thick as they are trying to tarnish our Guru ji with their stupidity.

WE can argue scientificially all day whether meat is wrong or right. But the fact of the matter is humans are a love machine. There is no love in killing creating pain and taking advantage of a creatures consciousness in order to fulfill our personal desires.

Humans are suppose to be the creature that eradicates all negative karma. We are suppose to be the ultimate compassion showing machine. Humans have the highest potential to share and to be be compassionate. And the most loving creature out of all animalia kingdom. One of the first basic steps of showing more compassion. Is to respect the animals and its offspring. What a great relationship we could form with the animals, if they were not in fear of humans, Who have now been labelled. "top predator, top of the food chain etc" But if you look at a human, do we look like killing machines? pathetic flesh and bone creature, not designed for hate, and brutal force. But we can still do it? We should not cut our hair, but we can still do it. Humans are designed to be the ultimate selfless creatures, who shares their wealth, energy and spreads love and fights for justice, we are not destroyers. To destroy we need tools. To share and love we need nothing but ourselves. We do things that we shouldn't. In the name of this injustice love and selflessness is lost and we become like animals. Its no wonder why then we would think, its ok to eat meat.

Even taking plant life is making negative karma. Although there is less karma involved, as the affects aren't as adverse. Even breathing the air, we are killing the micro organisms, the fact we are on this Earth is a burden in it self. We have to sin. Because thats the beauty of it, only God is free from good and bad karma. Thats why he wants us to join him.

the animals are our cousins, how can we eat our own cousins? Tell me where is the love in this? We are from the same source-spiritually and physicially.

but what about the musis, hindustanis and BNP? how will we deal with them then? will it involve using this new weapon you mentioned, the 'love machine'? :|

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I think there are various different reasons for that. One being there are no consequences, which means no boundaries. Around 20 years ago people had to face consequences. With wanting to marry a non-Sikh, you were either disowned by your parents or you were forced to marry someone from a Sikh background. Now there are absolutely no consequences at all.   Much of it is to do with how the religions are practiced and preached. Muslims are constantly reminded of Hell, marrying non-Muslim means going to hell.  You see Sikhi isn't that different in that sense. Bani constantly reminds us of Narak and Dharam raj, and Guru Gobind Singh ji gave strict Hukkam of giving your daughters hand only to a Singh. But, the Sikhi which has been preached and practiced for long is a very wishy-washy Bollywood type of Sikhi.  Around 15 years ago, our community saw an explosion of love marriages, around this time very large numbers of Sikh kids started enrolling into further education, like uni etc   these things bring about cultural changes in immigrant communities, some positive, some negative.  With time, culture changes as well ..   In the old days after anand karaj the "reception party" was basically roti and then everyone went home. Some families used to have singers and dancers perform after the wedding in the house, men were allowed to sit and watch while women were strictly forbidden, so women would peak through the windows or from the roof tops. Years later it became acceptable for women to sit and watch the "entertainment". Eventually the entertainment became reception parties as we see in the west and people in Punjab started copying. Now people are having reception parties in nothing less than 4* venues, spending £100,000s,  we see brides openly drinking and getting drunk.  So you can see how culture changes ...  with this change peoples attitudes change.  Another interesting thing is here in the west the first South Asian community to push boundaries and make taboos acceptable are the Hindus!   then around 5 years later the Westernized, liberal kind of Sikhs copy the Hindus and then a few years later the rest of the community start following. Pakistanis normally catch up around 10 years later.  Its the order ... Homosexuality is now acceptable in the western Hindu community, so many gay Hindus are coming out and having gay mandir weddings and their families are supportive. I know a Gujju girl and her cousin is a lesbian and dating another Hindu lesbian, my friend sent me a photo of them! and both the families have accepted the couple. Currently the Sikh community, on this matter, is in the "debate phase"  give it another few years and it will be acceptable, and it will be the same Westernized, liberal, often successful and pagh wearing Sikhs that will be the first to make gay Sikh marriage acceptable, and then the rest of us will follow. Pakis will catch up around 10 years later.    Even in the paki community I've seen a lot of changes, some of the stuff that they do now wouldn't have been accepted 15 years ago or so. Apostasy among Muslims is on the rise, the women seem to be leading it!  
    • Parent 1. Obviously it depends on the content and the aim of the school. It would be good to have all aspects of Sikhi in one place which has authenticity. No too much pressure for them to learn and churn out material to sit exams. It would be more of quality rather than quantity . 2. Support level , to get a clear understanding what will be taught and the kids and parents expectations right from the beginning. 3. Yes Cost does matter. We have 100's of Gurudawara who should have a budget set aside to invest in the kids and our future generation. So ideas such as this can be researched and developed without thinking about funding. If the cost was reasonable I would pay plus as already mentioned if free its not taken seriously. 4. Self paced is good , but there needs to be a facility where questions can be answered. May be have one or 2 live sessions and the rest self paced.   Sangat 1. Yes there should be tiers , but I think most importantly the material should be authentic. As theres a lot of online material , which ones are good resources , average and bad . 2. May be set up some kind of certification structure for sikhi which over time is recognized and can be used by individuals to train/educate other members of the public. Like many certification courses , they cost but not too much ( starting form £10 plus) The task should be to get as many people doing the online courses as possible, then the price can be low and you will cover your costs. 3.It should be focused to all the public regardless of their background. Made available to businesses ,schools, colleges, universities as part of the establishments diversification program. You have organisations such as Basics of Sikhi , Rajoana TV , Sikh Network etc.. who are doing a brillant job of explaining about sikhi. Tap in to them , make it a collective journey as you may find , they may already have a structure , resources in place , they just need a proper online presence. Reach out to the Sangat who have gyan about Sikhi  via social media and Gurudawara , as there are many Scholars out their. Why is Basics of Sikhi successful , because they keep it simple , easy to understand and follow.  As a parent one of the biggest hurdles for kids is speaking punjabi. Having dialogue with their parents/grandparents . My younger one , hardly speaks punjabi , but what I have found is sikh stories helps a lot. May be have online live sessions where sangat speak punjabi , general punjabi so at least they can particpate in conversations with the elder generation.  
    • wjkk wjkf ji you are a daughter of Sri Guru Gobind singh ji. you are on a right track and doing good job please don't use the word Pappi for yourself! chardi kla!
    • Mediterranean or Greek Food - Veggie Gyros, Gemista, any food or snack with Hummus Italian - Pasta (non-egg), Italian authentic Thin crust pizza with olive oil and less cheese Mexican - Burritos South Indian - Iddli/Sambar. Dosa with their cocunut chutney  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use