Janic wrote: He should have written "he is omnivorous by his culture"
I do not have time to develop, but your arguments in favor of the VG do not convince me.
To convince ? To do what ? Personally whether people are Vg or omni, it does not make me hot or cold insofar as each respects the choices of the others. On the other hand, in a debate, the aim is to provide its arguments, not on behalf of a majority which would prevail over a minority, any for that matter, and not only food, nor pseudo scientific.
Similar to today, even better, in that the natural processes were better respected and therefore more robust. But if we take into account brutal mortalities by accident, predation, conflicts, this is not countable in real life expectancy. During the wars, the life expectancies of the combatants are more than reduced obviously, the same during natural disasters from which, currently, we would not escape either.'he writes: "IT IS MUCH MORE DANGEROUS FOR YOUR HEALTH TO TAKE OFF DAIRY PRODUCTS THAN CONSUME IT." and despite this supposed danger mankind has been without it for a long, long time.
With what life expectancy?
It is also proven that the consumption of milk provides the calcium necessary to still have sufficiently strong bones at 70, especially for women.
It is not proven, just claimed! Or rather claimed to be the main, if not the only viable source. Once again, all the other mammals which stopped consuming milk after the period of very early childhood, do not display decalcification characteristics whatever their age. Decalcifications are not, to my knowledge, the fact of non consumers of dairy, but organic dysfunctions which can be the lot of anyone and the consumption of too rich food, according to age, does not go in the direction of a better being in term of solidity.
Then, it is necessary to distinguish the publicity made by the professionals of the milk or the bidoche (and the “scientists” remunerated by these lobbies) who must perpetuate their business and the concrete reality, in all its complexity, which will give contradictory results like these studies cited. Studies on the effects of milk, as such (and what milk,), would be really valid only with an exclusive consumption of a product and for a sufficiently long time, several generations, to measure the real effects (as on fast reproducing lab animals); except that we are not mice and we do not have an exclusive diet, which distorts any possible conclusion.
It is therefore necessary to go beyond retorts and figures to see in this concrete world if, overall, it is better or less advantageous to consume this or that product and it sometimes takes decades, generations, to achieve it. Thus scientific research can help to see more clearly, but cannot replace experience.
Now, and this is new, we no longer take into account only health impacts, justified or not, but also, more generally, that of the environmental impact, its viability for a growing WORLD population and its needs, the ethical dimension also where the animal is no longer considered as a piece of furniture, but a sensitive being (this is a very big step in fact) and where excessive exploitation (the economy requires quantities, not quality) cannot last long without posing many problems, including economic repercussions. Ahmed is more qualified than I to speak about it.