Man kills attacking leopard by ripping out its tongue

[Malar]

I don't gave the human a prefered position in my sentences, nor I count humans to an ecological intergral part like those animals are.

 

[ChrisReid]

I don't gave the human a prefered position in my sentences

Far from it, you clearly are trying to take an anti-human position. No neutral observer would suggest a simple human farmer was wrong to defend himself when attacked by a wild animal.

 

[Death]

Um, humans are animals, and are part of the ecology.

But then again, I doubt you'll let anything like fact get in the way.

Originally written by Robert Heinlein (by way of Lazarus Long):
There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who "love Nature" while deploring the "artificialities" with which "Man has spoiled 'Nature'". The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of "Nature" -- but beavers and their dams are. But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers' purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purposes of men) the "Naturist" reveals his hatred for his own race -- i.e., his own self-hatred.

In the case of "Naturists" such self-hatred is understandable; they are such a sorry lot. But hatred is too strong an emotion to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most they rate.

As for me, willy-nilly I am a man, not a beaver, and H. sapiens is the only race I have or can have. Fortunately for me, I like being part of a race made up of men and women -- it strikes me as a fine arrangement and perfectly "natural".

 

[Frosty]

I must be such a terrible antropocentric bigot!

I don't gave the human a prefered position in my sentences

Which is weird, since we're the greatest and noblest, most magnificent animals to have ever graced this world with our existence.

What a piece of work is a man: how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties. In form and moving how express and admirable. In action how like an angel. In apprehension how like a god! The beauty of the world, the paragon of animals.

 

[cff]

Bad grammar, but I meant it that the easiest way to nourish ourself optimally is to eat flesh. That's how we evolved at last. Mayhaps there will exist other ways in an idealistic future to gain such kind of proteins.

Simply not true. Humans started of as gatherers, not as Hunters. The switch occured once hunting was capable of providing more calories then gathering did (due to better techniques and changing environment). Similar hunting was abandoned once farming was 'invented'.
Besides: the easiest way to NOT nourish oneself optimally is to eat only flesh. You should only eat flesh at maximum 2 times a week for optimal nourishment.
Regarding the 'such kind of proteins': such thing doesn't exist. Each protein known, animal or plant is composed of a series of amino acids. There are 20 different ones that are IDENTICAL in plant or animal lifeforms. ALL proteins are decomposed into the individual amino acids and then rebuilt into human proteins. So there is no difference regarding the contents of animal or plant proteins. However there IS a difference regarding the ease of decomposing the proteins. It is easier/faster to decompose animal proteins. HOWEVER unless you are are doing pro sports this isn't an argument (and even then there are vegan ironmen...)
The real problem of a pure vegan nourishment (excluding even eggs and milk) are actually vitamins, in particular B12. It is not proven that it exists at all outside of animal sources, but it is vital for the brain to work. 'Unfortunately' the human body can store B12 for 10 years and more which makes studies in the field kinda hard as you have to find vegans that are doing it for 10+ years already without break. So my current advice would be against going pure plant. There are no problems with Ovo-Lacto-Vegetarians (thats the ones that eat eggs and milk) as far as is known...

Yes, some vegetables can have them also. Damn flesh-eating conflict. After my own opinions I must become a vegetarian but the personal habit stands against it - hm, I'm therefore hypocritical.

Try it. Maybe you'll find it easier to become a vegetarian that you'd think.

 

[Delance]

This talk about anthropocentrism usually sounds an awful lot like misanthropy.

Cff, that thing you just said goes against everything they ever tought me about nutrition.

 

[Malar]

Good points, even that from Heinlein.
To determine humans as the "noblest" entity on earth is a subjective matter on someone own.
And I appreciate your take about protein utilization of our organs, cff.

I end my part of discussion here, because it's too critical. I could come with various points to defend my credibility in this discussion, but I'm too tired.

One thing is to say: with our kind of nourishment, our dentures for example were degenerated after a long span of time and we are mostly dependented on our technology to survive. We need to be doctrinated during our infant lifetime, without - we wouldn't be capable to life.

My only point was, human existance is relative significant.
And yes, I never really contradict the case of the farmer's self-defend.

Yes mankind did much. He procreate himself on a great level, built big cities and changed the global climate, failed to comprehent matter though using nuclear weapons and so on. That's no point or provocation, only wellknown superficial facts, which should make everybody thoughtfully about claims of the own species for superiority and importantance.

Damn, now I'm posing like a hippie

 

[Dyret]

Good points, even that from Heinlein.

I think his was the best point in the whole damn thread!

 

[cff]

Cff, that thing you just said goes against everything they ever tought me about nutrition.

When? There were quite some changes in the recommendations in the last decade. I don't study medicine, but I consider myself VERY WELL informed in the topic due to personal reasons. And while I obviously could show you studies that say the opposite of about anything I said those are the vast minority. Is there anything in particular you doubt?

 

[Malar]

I think his was the best point in the whole damn thread!

Rather a perfect point to argue. Because when did beavers endanger the enviroment as the human being does. Indeed, the beaver does drain the rivers, but never did a beaver damaged it so drastically and irreparable. Its work is a harmonic consequence to the enviroment and there aren't such a big beaver population, because the natural circle was so perfectly balanced, that therefore there was everytime a predator. Species which corresponded altogether in a macrocosmic level of chemicology. As they haven't any human mind/ego and rationality and senses (attributes which define every human genetically), they were more than a driving force which adored the fruits of earth. While the human being, as primate offspring loses his symbiosis to "nature" (clichéd term, I admit), his evolution developed to a state to compensate his own rationality, depended on his senses of reality, which later then, as he reached the civilizatory state, turns into his intellectuality (first scientific approaches through religion and nowadays esoteric seeming knowledge (for example: astrology instead of astronomy). Values, which count only among humans, but also take a sideway effect to his surrounding and this is nowadays done in not so inconsiderable measures.

Indeed my execution of the counter-arguement isn't well, but there could be given better and more qualified which "beats" (theory can be only rejected through empyric facts, but not beaten with a contrary theory ) Mr Starship Trooper Heinlein's theory.

 

[Edfilho]

Even though I'm not in league with Malar and do agree with what Heinlein said (LAzarus is usually right!), I'm unconfortable with the effects of many choices we make.

Sure, a Dam is not intrinsecally evil, but cutting down entire forests to sell the wood is. killing animals for their ivory, or testicles (dolphins), horns, pelts is just evil.

It's not the fact that we have technology. I love technology. I just think we usually make a pretty fucked up use of it, many times.

The Kyoto thing is just sad. So the US think that making money at the short term is more important than trying to save the freaking atmosphere at the MEDIUM term (no more long term here, the world is already whacked).