Are green vegetables green?

[Ahmed]

Henry IV (and not VI, as I wrote a little quickly! ) was not a communist before the letter, rather a good communicator (as it looks today ...), it does not eat bread to evoke better days, especially without any commitment!

[chatelot16]

on the same surface you can grow more potato than kg of meat produced by a farm

but if we put cows in fields where there is only grass to graze and not suitable for growing potatoes we have at least milk or meat

animal husbandry is a means of cultivation like other, not the only not necessarily so bad

of course what is absurd is to feed the cow rich food that we could eat ourselves

should you become a vegetarian because killing animals is not beautiful? cats kill mice ... foxes kill chickens ... lions kill gazelle ... big fish kill little ones ... dolphins that we find very nice eat only by killing fish

if we want to defend animals must we kill all carnivores?

[Ahmed]

Of course, what is absurd is to feed the cows rich food that we could eat ourselves.

This is about what is happening and even worse, since subsidized crops are used, with the help of petroleum products, to produce necrofuels for our cars!
What is absurd becomes the norm with regard to the production of abstract value ...

That the carnivores are the predators of other animals does not engage in any way the moral responsibility (if one can say!) Of the first since it is in accordance with their nature and that no cruelty animates them (the lionesses can peacefully neighbor with gazelles when they are fed).

The responsibility of humans is quite different, by virtue of this humanity, which includes both the possibility of deliberate sadism and the imperative to deviate from it in order to fully realize our human condition. By not respecting the lives of beings we know to be sensitive, we despise ourselves, which is far from being without consequences.
Many of the acts of cruelty committed against animals are not linked to an individual perversity, their majority comes from the instrumentalization of the animal, reduced to the rank of simple raw material (and therefore treated as such), dedicated to value extractivism.

[sen-no-sen]

should you become a vegetarian because killing animals is not beautiful? cats kill mice ... foxes kill chickens ... lions kill gazelle ... big fish kill little ones ... dolphins that we find very nice eat only by killing fish

if we want to defend animals must we kill all carnivores?

Do lions, wolves, dolphins have other food alternatives than eating meat ???

[Janic]

chatelot hello

should you become a vegetarian because killing animals is not beautiful? cats kill mice ... foxes kill chickens ... lions kill gazelle ... big fish kill little ones ... dolphins that we find very nice eat only by killing fish

if we want to defend animals must we kill all carnivores?

Ahmed answered very well on an ethical or moral level as we wish.
but what you raise here does not imply any moral good or bad, but physiological adaptation corresponding to anatomical food families like herbivores with herbs and carnations with carnivores. Mother Nature is so made that each animal is naturally equipped to ensure its subsistence without resorting to artifices as humans have managed to do such as the club, the spear, the rifle, the fork, the knife, the cooking, etc. .. Placed under the same conditions as other animals, it would be unable to sustain itself with its small nails, its small distaffs and its small feet which move so slowly that it could not even manage to seize a prey.
Hence the reflection according to some, recognizing this reality, that he could have been a scavenger; but not being physically equipped to compete with other scavengers, he would only have had the bones to lick and yet he survived well without hunting or fishing.
So nothing to do with any morality. now humans have needed to survive sometimes in conditions unsuitable for their natural physiology such as to places that are too hot or too cold where survival is more important than respecting the digestive anatomy. once the habits are taken, the question no longer rests on whether it is justified or more where the various food cultures with their advantages or disadvantages in terms of individual and collective health. and again our human society was lucky not to become anthropophagous or our butcheries would present fresh fetus of the day, jelly brains, adolescent marbled head, lungs, thighs, bowels galore. Yeah, yum, yum!
Our era has added to physiologically unsuitable food other aggravating factors such as inactivity generating insufficient elimination, pollution, food poisons, food degradation by their mode of culture, etc ... hence all these so-called civilization diseases (cancer, heart disease, social alcoholism, etc.) which eliminate what, in other circumstances, would have been caused by starvation, various infections, etc.
however, our whole society has become artificial, animal husbandry, agriculture, but also clothing, shoes, cars, Mc Do etc and therefore we must do with its advantages as its disadvantages and therefore assume them.

[Ahmed]

Morality, which can only be imagined as human, ultimately results from our physical inferiority over other species: it is only thanks to the development of our brain (which would not have been useful in the presence of more direct assets) that our species has been able to thrive and acquire a developed self-awareness.

The decisive advantage of this feature lies in the adaptability provided by the variable tools and strategies which make it possible to survive even when conditions change.
Except in extreme cases, we are therefore not linked to a food behavior determined too strictly; obviously some physiological data make certain diets better suited than others and, as a rule, as you notice, Janic, it is the cultural aspects that dominate these behaviors.
It is obvious that there is no physiological obligation for us to be carnivorous from an individual point of view; it is even more unfortunate at the collective level, if one thinks of the consequences, both upstream and downstream, of the generalization (moreover impossible to continue very far!) of the consumption of animal products.

[sen-no-sen]

Morality, which can only be imagined as human, ultimately results from our physical inferiority over other species: it is only thanks to the development of our brain (which would not have been useful in the presence of more direct assets) that our species has been able to thrive and acquire a developed self-awareness.

Brain that results from a feedback between the biological structure that we are and the tools that we have developed ...

Many specialists agree that it is not really the consumption of meats as such which directly made our brain grow (by providing a large quantity of nutrients) but above all the technical which enabled the acquisition of this commodity ... The phenomenon of hominization would therefore result from the fact that Howard Bloom name it "Lucifer's principle" and which would be so poetically exposed in Genesis under the term of "original sin".

[Janic]

which would be so poetically exposed in Genesis under the term "original sin".

this formulation of original sin is not biblical in the sense of the genesis, but of "Catholic" origin (endorsed by Protestantisms in general) the story of Genesis in several layers which cover as much the claim of independence as the establishment of its own criteria of good or bad. This is quite the case with the food mode!

[Aumicron]

But greens and fruits don't look great either, because it takes a lot to make a meal

But why want to make a meal only of green vegetables and fruits? By adding a little animal protein (eggs, dairy products) and cereals and legumes it is quite easy to compose varied and balanced meals in all seasons.

[Janic]

Hello mb:
But why want to make a meal only of green vegetables and fruits? By adding a little animal protein (eggs, dairy products) and cereals and legumes it is quite easy to compose varied and balanced meals in all seasons.
It's a bit like asking a carnivore: why want to make a meal of meat only? This is because it is made up for that!
Physiologically the human is not made to consume eggs and dairy products, (one notices it moreover with the odor of the stools because a good intestinal transit with the adapted foods gives almost no odor) nor too many leafy vegetables.
but official dietetics is more oriented towards diversity and the food tradition than towards true food hygiene. Its new formulation, which has gone from all calories to all proteins, is moreover typical of it, but moves slowly there too because only a few years ago we would never have heard the formula 5 fruits and vegetables per day, campaigns anti smoking or alcoholism reduction tips.