Originally posted by Rabid Wolf
but it would be a trick the lion would have to use. hence "cheating". the food-chain is a very, very carefully balanced affair. if any lion could sucessfully kill any antillope, there wouldn't be any antillopes left. nature took care not to have the whole "health-range" of antilopes available to the lions.
irregardless of whether or not we are crown of evolution, we could easily make sure our survival without feeding upon virtually each and every animal out there.
(...)
and "inteligent mammals" was aimed more at the species as a whole, rather than individuals thereof. plus it prolly should have said something like "thinking mammals should see the lack of need to eat other mammals".
forgive my sh1337 inaptitude at phrasing.
We also use 'tricks'. They are completly different from any trick a lion might use, but one of the most important tricks we use is the concept of farming. Thus control our supply of food. Very important to us. Without farming, we'd just eat away everything and then wonder why there is nothing left to eat. Our high population justifies farming. You do not really believe nature would just supply us with all the resources we need, do ya?
And as for the lion, nature didn't take care of anything. The lion evolved to hunt, the antilope evolved to run away. A balance.
But this balance wasn't "created by nature" so these animals could survive; those animals that live in balance are simply those that did survive, while others didn't.
We aren't particularly intelligent I fear, we just have an intellect, and not much of it besides. Your rephrasing didn't really make it sound less insultive, as now you say we don't see sense. We all know telligence is a complicated thing, and while there's a goodly number of intelligent people around, reasonability is often considered a more rare and precious value. So you still call us inferior
I think it has been made clear that many people are indeed not convinced by the theory we do no need to eat meat, and if it is true, it's still not as obvious as you claim.
And you could live as a true veg if you wanted, but you obviously don't care that much.
...in the end it all comes down to the old "we don't need meat" and "it's obvious we're right" arguments from veg side, while the carni's say "we need meat" and "science proves we're right"
What is clear is that there is a huge number of vegs who seem to do (well?) without meat.
But it has already been pointed out humans can compensate many maladies in such a way that it isn't obvious something is wrong. See smokers. Everyone knows it's
not good, many suffer from the consequences, but at the same time some are as healthy as you can be and say "how is smoking unhealty? I feel great..."
So the argument of vegs are the living vegs which don't seem to suffer and die.
The contra-arguments were
1. the scientific knowledge we need certain substances which we cannot get from a veg diet, such as vitamin B12, Lysin etc.
2. certain illnesses linked to a veg diet.
Personally, I see a certain lack of response to '
our' arguments, 'cept in a very general way that boils down to "believe it or not"