Veganism May Shrink the Brain
Well, this explains a lot. (Just kidding.) There is a theory that eating meat is one reason why human beings developed our bigger brains. Now, credence might be added to that hypothesis with a study that shows non meat eating might actually shrink the brain. From the story: Scientists have discovered that going veggie could be bad for your brain-with those on a meat-free diet six times more likely to suffer brain shrinkage.
Although, as the story states, supplements are available, according to The Vegetarian Society, they have not been proved to be effective, which is why the Society recommends lacto/vegetarianism as the best way to not eat meat while maximizing health.
Vegans and vegetarians are the most likely to be deficient because the best sources of the vitamin are meat, particularly liver, milk and fish. Vitamin B12 deficiency can also cause anaemia and inflammation of the nervous system. Yeast extracts are one of the few vegetarian foods which provide good levels of the vitamin.
The link was discovered by Oxford University scientists who used memory tests, physical checks and brain scans to examine 107 people between the ages of 61 and 87.
When the volunteers were retested five years later the medics found those with the lowest levels of vitamin B12 were also the most likely to have brain shrinkage. It confirms earlier research showing a link between brain atrophy and low levels of B12.
This study would seem to validate that meat is a natural food for humans, and moreover, it is good for us.
Labels: Animal Rights. Vegeterianism.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 2:35 PM
20 Comments
20 Comments:
Which is why we need either in-vitro meat, plants genetically engineered to produce B12 or even humans genetically engineered to produce it themselves.
After all, what is natural is not always what is morally good.
0.o
Remake humans to suit the morality of a few, with God knows what results?
...
*puts away parody kit, because she just can't compete with this*
And what you find unpleasant is not always immoral or unnatural, Joshua.
Were you that shielded as a child? You didn't know where bologna came from? My parents used to make sure the one food that wasn't wasted was meat because, and I quote, "an animal died to give you that." Now THAT is meat-based morality.
Hey, I'm not a vegetarian nor a vegan. I've no moral problem with eating meat (though I do have an environmental problem with it). I do want animals to be treated humanely, but I certainly not a vegetarian - hey, I'd even eat human flesh if somebody offered it me, and it was well-cooked (after all, as you say, somebody died to provide it).
I just think that if people want to live a certain way, we should allow them - even if they have to remake biology to do so.
Nobody is free who is a slave to their body - Seneca.
Except we have no way to remake your own body-- only the bodies of those unfortunate enough to be derived from the same genetic source.
Human experimentation > eating meat.
Joshua: You should be careful quoting Seneca. Seneca the Younger was a stoic, and he valued using the human will to control our urges and impulses. I doubt he would approve remaking the human body so that you could surrender to your impulses and desires. Indeed, that would turn stoicism on its head.
foxfier, while germline genetic engineering is easier, somatic genetic engineering is by no means impossible.
And yes, Wesley, I'm aware that Seneca would likely not have approved of my interpretation of his statement. Nonetheless, it succinctly says what I wanted to say.
Joshua-
Let's just say I'm not worrying about Barclay's Protomorphosis Syndrome quite yet.
Still avoiding the whole human experimentation angle, and the "trying to physically remake things for your desire" thing.
Joshua: Fair enough. But I think others deserved the context of the quote. In fact, I think it is very interesting, the constrast of how he would look at it and how you do. It kind of encapsulates the controversy over transhumanism and its cousins, doesn't it?
It's interesting, Wesley. I think that the Stoic philosophy was quite immature. They still had a very dualistic, almost Cartesian, view of their own bodies. Transhumanists usually, with the aid of modern scientific understanding, know that the body produces the consciousness within it, and so modifications to the body are modifications to our self.
The naturalistic fallacy also presents itself in Stoicism - Marcus Aurelius nicely demonstrated this when he said "Nothing happens to anybody which he is not fitted by nature to bear". I doubt any transhumanist would agree with such a statement.
Transhumanism and Buddhism, on the other hand, seem to have quite a bit of overlap.
Saying that someone disagrees falls far short of showing that a statement is false.
You are the one who quoted a Stoic, thereby invoking his philosophy; later on saying, basically, that that's not what you meant is rather insufficient.
A point being missed. The amorality of eating what we are genetically engineered to eat is not to be ignored to appease a morality that Nature never asked for. If we remove ourselves from that natural path ,wouldn't we be giving up a natural position and creating a vacuum that nature rejects ??.
Thanks for gently jerking the discussion back on course, Donnie.
You're right, of course, and I've asked others of Joshua's viewpoint what happens to an ecosystem when the apex predator is removed (or removes themselves, as he's suggesting we should do) from the ecosystem.
We removed wolves from the equation in most parts of the country, and now that fewer folks hunt for sustenance we're seeing an explosion in the deer population, leading inevitably to starvation and disease.
"Morality" as such is a human perception, and Nature doesn't much care about our perceptions.
Joshua: Actually Buddhism is also the antithesis of transhumanism. True, both seek to avoid suffering. And both reject theism.
But transhumanism seeks to avoid suffering by embracing the physical as all that is real. In other words, transhumanism is distinctly and explicitly materialistic.
In contrast, Buddhism rejects materalism altogether. It considers the physical to be an illusion, as it seeks through meditative practices to overcome the "false" duality that is the cause of suffering. Buddhism also embraces reincarnation and karma, concepts utterly foreign to a strictly materialistic concept.
Transhumanists also seek to increase physical pleasures and satisfactions. In that sense it is hedonistic. Buddhism rejects self indulgence, urges practioners to seek enlightenment which is deemed above pleasure and pain. Buddhism's goal on this earth is non reaction.
So, the two actually are actually near mirror opposites.
I know that some transhumanists embrace the Buddhist label, but it is not actually Buddhist philosophy.
padraig, the majority of the animals we eat are not really part of any ecosystem. Most chickens are raised indoors, most livestock are reared on farmland with no predators and even much of the fish we eat is farmed.
That said, it is a valid concern. It wouldn't be very useful if a move to vegetarianism increased the suffering of animals.
Joshua, if you don't think livestock are part of our ecosystem, you've never biked past a pig farm.
Hmm, well it's true that farms impact the ecosystems around them, but almost always to their detriment (pollution, erosion, eutrophication, etc). I hardly think that removing farms would hurt the ecosystem.
Just like removing meat has no negative impact?
Joshua, ALL life impacts the ecosystem, and almost always to its detriment. Especially us mammals and our high-maintenance, warm-blooded ways. What we see as the "balance of nature" is actually a dynamic and often violent set of interspecies struggles. This species is up, that one's down, next year they reverse.
The misconception that many activists (environmental, AR, etc.) try to convey is that humans have somehow taken ourselves outside that system. Can't happen. We eat, we drink, we poop. Everything we do has consequences, oftentimes unintended, and that's why your statement that you "hardly think that removing farms would hurt the ecosystem" is oversimplistic and misleading. First off you're confusing supply with demand, and the argument goes downhill from there.
I see your point, but as far as ethical treatment of animals goes, I think that removing all meat production would result in a net decrease in the amount of animals that suffer. Sure, some animals may be affected by the corresponding increase in crops to offset the meat demand, but I contend it would be a net increase in animal welfare.
That said, I still continue to eat meat, thought at times reluctantly.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home